Chromatic dragons.... are they ALways evil?

[Joe dirt]

The question is are all chromatic dragon evil or could u raise them to be good? Nature vs nurture....

[bc56]

In my games, you could. You can also alter the alignment of "alignment creatures" such as by turning angels into erinyes.

However, it depends heavily on the setting and DM.

[Davrix]

It depends on the DM and party mindset of what should be and how is good and evil precised.

In our game we have a young blue dragon (Pretending to be an adult) who flew in challenged the party as the cities local heroes to a duel. We show up and he proposes us a deal. We can fight or we can let him address the local duke that he wishes to become the cities new protector. Being paid to keep the area safe and defend the city as needed. Long story short we let him slide for a bit, he convinces the council and they instate him as the new local garrison and paid a steepen. And honestly he does his job. He runs off bandits, he went to a nearby warring kingdom that had its eyes on our area and literally bullied them into thinking better of the idea. Recently helped lead the assault when the city was besieged by deep ones. Taken more then a few hits for us.

Now you might say well this is a pretty sweet good blue dragon. The catch is and something he has made NO secret about to us is that this is the long game. He will outlive all of us and the lords. The city will come to depend on him. His grace and protection. The locals will come to see him as their patron god, worship him and eventually even die for him as there glorious dragon god. Or at least that's how he tells it. He also has a very sever Egyptian god complex and its rather amusing. So yea I mean right now the party is still split on whether we try to kill him or let him be but it gives you an idea how a chromatic can be good and yet evil without really just stepping over to im the goodie goodie dragon now that's not like my kind at all. *Cough Driz Cough*

[Dr. Cliché]

Outside of stuff like demons, I'm really not fond of monsters that are 'born evil'. Hence, I'd definitely allow good chromatic dragons to exist.

Unfortunately, most would probably die fairly quickly - either killed by their siblings (who are prepared to kill/backstab even if the good dragon isn't) or by adventurers or metallic dragons who don't believe that they're actually good.

If you tried to raise a chromatic dragon good, I'd allow it. I might make it difficult, but I certainly wouldn't make it impossible.

[Unoriginal]

The question is are all chromatic dragon evil or could u raise them to be good? Nature vs nurture....

You could not RAISE them. You don't raise a dragon.

Now, a dragon could DECIDE to not be evil. A dragon is a living creature, not the embodiment of an alignment.

However, since they were created by the evil deity Tiamat, they will always have innate urges corresponding to their kind's typical evil behavior.

[Lombra]

It depens on how the DM wants to run his monsters. In a homebrew campaign anything could happen, if you want to play as close as possible to the D&D lore then I think it may be difficult (if not impossible, I'm not a lore expert).

[mephnick]

I like that some things are absolute in D&D, so in my games, yes they are always evil.

[Logosloki]

Default, yes. Outside of default it is up to you.

[Kane0]

By default yeah they're evil, but many DMs choose to run them otherwise in their campaigns and settings. Same goes for orcs and such.

[KorvinStarmast]

The question is are all chromatic dragon evil or could u raise them to be good? Nature vs nurture.... From page 86 in the Monster Manual, Under the general heading of Dragons:
The black, blue, green, red, and white dragons are selfish, evil, ,and feared by all. The brass, bronze, copper, gold, and silver dragons are noble, good, and highly respected by the wise.
Same page, under the heading Chromatic Dragons
The black, blue, green, red and white dragons represent the evil side of dragonkind. Aggressive, gluttonous, and vain, chromatic dragons are dark sages and powerful tyrants feared by all creatures -- including each other. Seems pretty clear that chromatic dragons are evil. With that said, you can choose to vary that alignment if you are the DM, and in the "nature-nurture" theme allow the players to raise an evil dragon from the egg to be good. That could make for an interesting story/adventure. (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/76787/can-a-black-dragon-hatchling-be-raised-to-be-good-or-is-it-inherently-evil/76790#76790) From page 7 of the MM
The alignment specified in a monster's stat block is the default. {snip} If you want a good aligned green dragon or an evil storm giant, there's nothing stopping you. What alignment do you want the dragon to be? Why? Answer that to your own satisfaction, and then press on.

[MaxWilson]

The question is are all chromatic dragon evil or could u raise them to be good? Nature vs nurture....

In my games, personality determines color. A black dragon could theoretically have a change of heart and become silver or gold, but if it's still black, it's still a venomous sadist, and therefore still Evil.

(But that doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't still come to the family reunions with its copper and silver siblings, or that those siblings are going to kill it to stop it from torturing humans for amusement, any more than a human would kill their own sibling to stop the sibling from torturing pigs. Deplore yes, murder no. At most they might try to take the humans away from the black, but knowing full well that the black is just going to get some more. Dragons before humans.)

[Naanomi]

In traditional DnD lore, the alignment of dragons is a pretty strong inherent instinct, but not a completely involitile one. There are Good chromatics and Evil metallics, but they are exceedingly rare exceptions, to the point where assumptions about a particular dragon’s alignment based on appearance is pretty accurate and warranted

[Christian]

Of course they're always evil. They're color-coded for our convenience. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0207.html)

[Anymage]

"Stock" D&D, treating an always (aligned) creature to adopt some other viewpoint is like trying to train a cat to fetch your slippers. Nature has the upper hand.

This is one of those points that's very likely to change once you hit the table, though, as different DMs will easily have different outlooks. Just like anything else with mook races; some people like moral complexity, some people like uncomplicated action, and there is no overarching consensus as to the "right" way to play.

[AureusFulgens]

In my games, personality determines color. A black dragon could theoretically have a change of heart and become silver or gold, but if it's still black, it's still a venomous sadist, and therefore still Evil.

(But that doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't still come to the family reunions with its copper and silver siblings, or that those siblings are going to kill it to stop it from torturing humans for amusement, any more than a human would kill their own sibling to stop the sibling from torturing pigs. Deplore yes, murder no. At most they might try to take the humans away from the black, but knowing full well that the black is just going to get some more. Dragons before humans.)

This is actually a really fascinating idea. Dragons are essentially immortal in my setting, so I'm imagining a dragon that's switched colors many times over its mind-bogglingly long existence - perhaps it came into existence as a noble gold dragon, reshaped into a bronze dragon as its attitudes became more militaristic, slowly became jaded and ultimately evil and became a tyrannical blue dragon, found an affinity for a more tricky way of operating and turned green, then regained its sense of morality and slowly morphed back into a playful but good copper dragon... with all of those transformations taking thousands of years to complete.


In traditional DnD lore, the alignment of dragons is a pretty strong inherent instinct, but not a completely involitile one. There are Good chromatics and Evil metallics, but they are exceedingly rare exceptions, to the point where assumptions about a particular dragon’s alignment based on appearance is pretty accurate and warranted

This is pretty much my understanding. There's some conflicting information, though. In Rise of Tiamat, for example, I think there's a gold dragon commenting that good humans are a beautiful thing because, unlike good dragons, they have the free will to choose to be good.

[Nifft]

In my games, personality determines color. A black dragon could theoretically have a change of heart and become silver or gold, but if it's still black, it's still a venomous sadist, and therefore still Evil.

(But that doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't still come to the family reunions with its copper and silver siblings, or that those siblings are going to kill it to stop it from torturing humans for amusement, any more than a human would kill their own sibling to stop the sibling from torturing pigs. Deplore yes, murder no. At most they might try to take the humans away from the black, but knowing full well that the black is just going to get some more. Dragons before humans.)

That's awesome.

So basically, for a dragon, one's sins are always worn on one's sleeve.

Presumably there's some kind of draconic Eldritch Mirror of Dori'in the Grey which allows an evil dragon to appear good, except in the mirror its true sins are visible.


I did a thing whereby a dragon's environment determined its color, so a dragon who settled down in a volcano would turn Red, but I severed color from alignment. In that game, Dragons were each individuals, and they could be good or evil or neither.

(In that world, only the chromatic dragons where native to Earth. The metallic dragons were dragons that had been exalted / blessed / turned semi-divine or the like, and were therefore ultra-rare, unless you were a Paladin looking for a steed or a draconic cohort.)

[Regitnui]

Eberron has loose alignment for anything capable of making moral choices, except exemplars. So there are good Blue and Black dragons in that particular setting. On the other hand, that doesn't change them enough that their MM entry is gone; a Good green would still be fascinated by people and their interactions, a Good red still craves adulation and prestige. Imagine if Smaug had won kingship of the dwarves instead of killing them. That's a Good red.

[MaxWilson]

This is actually a really fascinating idea. Dragons are essentially immortal in my setting, so I'm imagining a dragon that's switched colors many times over its mind-bogglingly long existence - perhaps it came into existence as a noble gold dragon, reshaped into a bronze dragon as its attitudes became more militaristic, slowly became jaded and ultimately evil and became a tyrannical blue dragon, found an affinity for a more tricky way of operating and turned green, then regained its sense of morality and slowly morphed back into a playful but good copper dragon... with all of those transformations taking thousands of years to complete.

Oh, wow, that would be a trip.

One of my motivations for defining color this way is to simplify dragon ecology. If there's only one dragon species, it's a lot easier to find a mate, which means I don't need to create dense ecologies of every kind of dragon (red and yellow and green and brown and scarlet and black and ochre and peach and...). I just need to ensure that the game world has enough dragons, period.


That's awesome.

So basically, for a dragon, one's sins are always worn on one's sleeve.

Presumably there's some kind of draconic Eldritch Mirror of Dori'in the Grey which allows an evil dragon to appear good, except in the mirror its true sins are visible.

Well, I don't know that a red dragon would consider its personality a "sin", but certainly if you want to fool or manipulate humans (because you're a tricksy green dragon and toying with your food amuses you) you probably want to disguise yourself with illusions, which could be a dragon variant of Disguise Self or Seeming.

[Falcon X]

Traditionally it is a nature thing. However, nurture could help them defy nature.

There are examples in D&D lore, and the 3.5 Draconomicon, of red Dragons coming out of their egg and performing overtly evil actions by the end of the day.

However, 5e is looser on this. For example, I’m Out if the Abyss, you have a possible chance to hatch a red dragon and bond with it.
This does go against prior editions precedence, but I like it.

[Nifft]

One of my motivations for defining color this way is to simplify dragon ecology. If there's only one dragon species, it's a lot easier to find a mate, which means I don't need to create dense ecologies of every kind of dragon (red and yellow and green and brown and scarlet and black and ochre and peach and...). I just need to ensure that the game world has enough dragons, period. Perhaps for a dragon, a long-distance relationship means your special someone is on another plane (or planet).


There are examples in D&D lore, and the 3.5 Draconomicon, of red Dragons coming out of their egg and performing overtly evil actions by the end of the day. Dragon-Mom is partially to blame for deliberately leaving out developmentally appropriate toys & games like Hasbro's "Murder Five Paladins In A Box".

[hamishspence]

However, 5e is looser on this. For example, I’m Out if the Abyss, you have a possible chance to hatch a red dragon and bond with it.
This does go against prior editions precedence, but I like it.

Actually, pretty much every edition before 5e also had the general idea of "dragons can change alignment, especially if they're raised from hatching by someone with a different alignment".

[Finback]

In addition to what everyone said, YOU are the DM, so you can decide if you want to change it up. If you want to work out how, I'd recommend looking at Planescape. This was a setting where you could find angels selling weapons to devils and demons for the Blood War, a demon and a devil who're protesting against the Blood War and became friends*, and anything else you can imagine.

If you want to have a black dragon who can't be bothered by evil because there is so much READING to be done, do it. Have the party set out to conquer the monster, only to find out the monster's only real crimes have been pilfering libraries, and importing banned books because have you seen the *spine* on this? It's a 1st edition Volo! It took me twenty years to get this here! And you have no idea how hard it is to keep an underwater lair dry for scrolls, honestly, you'd think I was underpaying those labourers. Maybe your blue dragon is sick and tired of the ongoing wars disturbing its hunting in the desert - it wasn't interested in humans at all, aside from stealing the occasional camel or streer, but damned if it isn't going to take over the government in a coup and get things sorted out, so it can get back to eating and being cranky at other rival dragons. It might be evil itself, but what its actions were inadvertently good through selfishness?

If it fits your narrative/story arc you want the players to follow, *do it*. Breaking the tropes of fantasy *is* a trope of fantasy. The dragon was the one rescuing the princess. The gnome wizard was secretly the BBEG. The rogue was actually returning the goods that someone else had stolen.

Dragons are too intelligent to simply be locked down into nice, neat little boxes.

[Finback]

also, the converse.

Who says a metallic dragon is doing what's good for *humanoids*? Literally burning down an entire mountainside to rid it of settlers, to prevent the impact on the food sources it uses, is totally something a gold dragon might do. It might seem evil to the oh-my-gods-I'm-on-fire dwarves, elves and humans running down the mountainside, but to the dragon? This is necessary for the good of all dragons.

[NorthernPhoenix]

also, the converse.

Who says a metallic dragon is doing what's good for *humanoids*? Literally burning down an entire mountainside to rid it of settlers, to prevent the impact on the food sources it uses, is totally something a gold dragon might do. It might seem evil to the oh-my-gods-I'm-on-fire dwarves, elves and humans running down the mountainside, but to the dragon? This is necessary for the good of all dragons.

Ehh... Gold Dragons can be evil even in canon, as explained above, but they can't do all that and still be good. Non-deviant Gold Dragons operate on a higher moral level and generally won't do something as selfish as that.

[Dr. Cliché]

Ehh... Gold Dragons can be evil even in canon, as explained above, but they can't do all that and still be good. Non-deviant Gold Dragons operate on a higher moral level and generally won't do something as selfish as that.

Although this also means that they may well commit terrible acts because they genuinely believe that they're for the greater good.

[NorthernPhoenix]

Although this also means that they may well commit terrible acts because they genuinely believe that they're for the greater good.

Given their perpetual non-interference and titanic power in most DnD canon, their greatest sin is probably being so concerned with the morality of the means that they lose sight of creating good outcomes. This might even put them at odds with more intervention silver dragons, who not only love humans, but probably would go all operation human freedom on a orc or hobgoblin kingdom...

When discussing how dragons choose to act, for good or bad, I personally imagine them as nations unto themselves, with concerns at that level.

[Unoriginal]

Although this also means that they may well commit terrible acts because they genuinely believe that they're for the greater good.

Not really, no.

Gold Dragons are fairly smart and wise. If they do something evil, it's to do evil. They're not going to fall for a "for the greater good" empty rhetoric.

Not that being good exclude cold pragmatism, of course. As demonstrated in the books, you can be lawful good and consider that lying to a spy to make them go on what is essentialy a suicide mission unaware of the risk is the best option, but you still think it's a terrible thing.

[Dr. Cliché]

Gold Dragons are fairly smart and wise. If they do something evil, it's to do evil.

That's circular reasoning.


They're not going to fall for a "for the greater good" empty rhetoric.

That doesn't even make sense.

You're saying that the gold dragon is using 'empty rhetoric' to try and convince himself. :smallconfused:

[Unoriginal]

That's circular reasoning

It's not.

The point is that a Gold Dragon would know that what they do is evil or not, so if he does something evil it would be to purposedly do something evil, not because they think the're doing good.



That doesn't even make sense.

You're saying that the gold dragon is using 'empty rhetoric' to try and convince himself. :smallconfused:

Like anyone who believes into that kind of "greater good" stuff, yes.

They have to fool themselves into believing it. Or be fooled by others.

A Gold Dragon would see through this bs.

[hamishspence]

They have to fool themselves into believing it. Or be fooled by others.

A Gold Dragon would see through this bs.



Going by the Dracorage D&D novel series - even gold dragons can become tyrannical while still believing they are "the good guy".

4e Draconomicon II had something similar - with a silver dragon.

There's even gods with immense Int and Wis that have done "For the greater good" immoral deeds - and gotten called on it by their own followers.

No amount of Int and Wis makes a character "immune to their own BS".

[Regitnui]

They have to fool themselves into believing it. Or be fooled by others.

A Gold Dragon would see through this bs.

Emphasis mine.

Of course they fool themselves into believing in their own bs. It's their bs. What you're proposing is that a gold dragon can look at their own actions from an external viewpoint while being entirely removed from whatever influenced their worldview. So, in other words, you're saying gold dragons are capable of metagaming themselves when there is no game.

[Unoriginal]

Emphasis mine.

Of course they fool themselves into believing in their own bs. It's their bs. What you're proposing is that a gold dragon can look at their own actions from an external viewpoint while being entirely removed from whatever influenced their worldview. So, in other words, you're saying gold dragons are capable of metagaming themselves when there is no game.

It's called self-awareness.


My point is that if a Gold Dragon committed an evil action, it wouldn't be because of some bs reasons, it'd be a voluntarily evil.

[hamishspence]

If gods can lie to themselves, then surely dragons can.

[MaxWilson]

Perhaps for a dragon, a long-distance relationship means your special someone is on another plane (or planet).

I considered that but it was still too messy, with implications for plane-shifting and dragon-moots that didn't appeal to me. (Do amethyst dragons just drop by Starvald Demelain once a century at the amethyst dragon moot hoping another amethyst will show up? How about steel dragons and the other fifty bajillion types of dragons? Do dragons always have to wait until they're old enough to plane shift before going to Starvald Demelain or do they have special ways in?) I expect you could make it work if you wanted to but I just wasn't buying it.

Plus, I had a Big Bad (in the TVTropes sense, not the disposable-villain-of-the-week sense that BBEG means on these forums) who was an ancient red dragon named Falgoth, and I liked the idea of his grandson Ferrovankoth (adult red dragon dragon sorcerer 9 and potential PC antagonist) being his favorite grandson because they are both reds.


Dragon-Mom is partially to blame for deliberately leaving out developmentally appropriate toys & games like Hasbro's "Murder Five Paladins In A Box".

Dragon-Mom warns her kids that "if you don't study harder you're going to grow up to be a white!"

[Regitnui]

It's called self-awareness.


My point is that if a Gold Dragon committed an evil action, it wouldn't be because of some bs reasons, it'd be a voluntarily evil.

Dragons aren't exemplars. They're perfectly capable of failing or falling their alignment. A gold dragon is as able to walk down the metaphorical road of good intentions as a human. Except the gold dragon carves a wider road over centuries. They do a lot more damage than a human.

[Nifft]

Emphasis mine.

Of course they fool themselves into believing in their own bs. It's their bs. What you're proposing is that a gold dragon can look at their own actions from an external viewpoint while being entirely removed from whatever influenced their worldview. So, in other words, you're saying gold dragons are capable of metagaming themselves when there is no game.

Yeah, it's quite reasonable to assume that a smart person is vulnerable to the BS of an equally smart person.

Everyone is capable of self-delusion.

[Afrodactyl]

I always see the alignments in the MM as a guideline, and how things of that type are "generally aligned". So dragons of a particular colour are typically of a certain alignment, but each individual has its own alignment determined by its actions and upbringing.

I've used many a green dragon as a good NPC.

[Willie the Duck]

This is one of those points that's very likely to change once you hit the table, though, as different DMs will easily have different outlooks. Just like anything else with mook races; some people like moral complexity, some people like uncomplicated action, and there is no overarching consensus as to the "right" way to play.

This is my general position. The official 5e books might have a specific answer to the question, but an individual DM is going to have other ideas. And that's not a bad thing.


It's called self-awareness.
My point is that if a Gold Dragon committed an evil action, it wouldn't be because of some bs reasons, it'd be a voluntarily evil.

If gods can lie to themselves, then surely dragons can.

You're both right. Gold Dragons and D&D Gods (or Gawds, if you prefer) are, like superheroes in comic books, very depending on the writer (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DependingOnTheWriter)-type characters with regard to morality/ethics (among many things). Even within editions, both TSR and WotC writing staffs have treated LG as both epitomes of virtue, and also lawful stupid crusader tyrants. Given that no two authors/writers can even agree what alignment is supposed to represent, or whether LG or CG is the better good (gawd-forbid anyone suggest NG), this is hardly surprising.

[SirGraystone]

Dragon are long lived, very powerful creatures, good or evil they have a different view of the world then humans.Even a good dragon may not care if bandits have killed someone, human are all short lived creature that would soon dies of old age anyway. Of course a red dragon will kill adventurers entering his lair, they are like rats that infested his home to steal his gold.

If you have a red dragon in your region, send him a steady quantity of sheep to keep him feed, give him tribute in gold and gems to keep him happy, and he'll have no reason to burn your town.

[A Fat Dragon]

My stance on this, is a bit of Nature Vs. Nurture, but a mix of other things as well.

You have a Red Dragon for say. He’s raised by his draconic parents, who were raised by their parents who were raised by their parents... well, you get the story.

The Dragon will most likely attaining the same, or a very similar alignment as their parents, who raised him. The original chromatic dragons were created by Tiamat, for evil purposes, so this lineage and this “call” to evilness has thrived with them since forever.

Now, say that the same Red Dragon is instead raised by good, long-lived adventurers. Well, the Dragon still has this strange feeling of wanting to do evil acts sometimes, but it will be shaped by the hand of the creatures who raise it. In this case, it will be good, or perhaps neutral if the call of evil is strong enough. If the Adventurers are bad in their raising of the dragon, then he may end up evil simply through heritage, or he may just end up having a free spirit, and remaining neutral.

Though Chromatic Dragons have an innate call to evil, like Tieflings, they can be Good, but it takes a lot of will-power in part by the creatures raising the dragon, and the dragon himself.

As we have already agreed upon (I believe) alignment is not set in stone. It is fluid and always changing, sometimes more than others. And considering the fact that Dragons are still slightly primal creatures, they can have both stronger and looser morals than a humanoid. It all depends on the environnent of the world around them when they’re being raised, as from a Developmental Psychological standpoint, the most critical time in a young creature’s life is its earliest years. In those years, the mind is vulnerable, chaotic, and able to be easily molded/shaped (feels bad to say a thing like this, but it is kind of true). I would believe that these facts also apply to a young dragon, perhaps more than a human.

However, one thing that might be a reason why Chromatic Dragons are so evil, is because they lack a uniform sense of empathy. Humans mostly do good because they have a sense of empathy for other humans. Chromatic Dragons I would assume lack this, and would have little or no remorse if they accidentally did something wrong, at least in the eyes of those around them. What they find fun and pleasing, they will probably do. That being said, this sense of what they find fun can be shaped by experience, develop, and being raised in a certain manner.

So, all-in-all, I think Chromatic Dragons can be good, though finding a wild one that is good is probably very rare, and raising one to be good would be a bit of a hassle, but far from impossible.

[Angelalex242]

By RAW. yes. Chromatic Dragon have Tiamat in their heads to keep them doing evil. Conversely, Good Dragons have Bahamut in their heads keeping them on the straight and narrow.

The Gold Dragon isn't going to roast dwarves off his mountain, he's going to go down and diplomacy them. And he's got a much bigger mods than the dwarves do, so he wins and the dwarves leave.

[KorvinStarmast]

Change Shape. The dragon magically polymorphs into a humanoid or beast that has a challenge rating no higher than its own, or back into its true form. It reverts to its true form if it dies. Any equipment it is wearing or carrying is absorbed or borne by the new form (the dragon’s choice). In a new form, the dragon retains its alignment, hit points, Hit Dice, ability to speak, proficiencies, Legendary Resistance, lair actions, and Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores, as well as this action. Its statistics and capabilities are otherwise replaced by those of the new form, except any class features or legendary actions of that form. The Gold dragon can approach those dwarves and make persuasion checks out the ying yang. The dwarves won't know it was a dragon who talked them out of doing whatever it was that they were up to. :smallbiggrin:
Ancient:
STR DEX CON INT WIS CHA
30 (+10) 14 (+2) 29 (+9) 18 (+4) 17 (+3) 28 (+9)
Saving Throws Dex +9, Con +16, Wis +10, Cha +16
Skills Insight +10, Perception +17, Persuasion +16, Stealth +9

Adult:
STR DEX CON INT WIS CHA
27 (+8) 14 (+2) 25 (+7) 16 (+3) 15 (+2) 24 (+7)
Saving Throws Dex +8, Con +13, Wis +8, Cha +13
Skills Insight +8, Perception +14, Persuasion +13, Stealth +8

[danpit2991]

i seem to remember (its been a long long time) that in one of the dragonlance books a i think it was a blue dragon somehow became good and morphed into a bronze i think its foggy and i cant remember

[Envyus]

The main reason given in most D&D material for why a Dragon is very unlikely to change alignment can be summed up in how they are born.

They are born able and intelligent rather then helpless like most other species. A Red Dragon on the day it hatches is smarter and stronger then the average human. The Dragon's sense of superiority and greed for treasure is innate to them. (Even the Good Dragons have the sense of superiority and greed for treasure.) The fact that they are born intelligent and with most of the skills they will need in life means they will likely never change from their outlook and inborn instincts.

[Ogre Mage]

It becomes the Drizzt Do'urden of dragons, lol.

That said, Drizzt was very rare for a reason.

[Asmotherion]

I suppose your question is pun-intended for the Adventure League specifically, so, short answear, yes, always.

A Chromatic Dragon has an Innate Nature to view Humanoids as little more than animals, fit to fullfill one or more of those broad categories: slaves, livestock(not necesserally food-wise) or pray. The highest esteem a humanoid may earn from a Chromatic Dragon is that of a Useful Servant at best. A particularly strong humanoid who works with the Dragon will be viewed as a colegue, but will be treated with a lot of mistrust, and belittling, since a Chromatic is unable to process the idea of respecting a Humanoid. They view themselves as the rightful rulers, and the top of the food chain at the same time.


If not:
As a DM you can change this to however you deem fit in your world; however this is the general approach.

[Azedenkae]

In my game all chromatic dragons are born with a propensity towards evil, versus the metallic dragon's goodness. It's not so much because they were 'born that way', although I guess in a way it is, but more so because of the constant influence of their respective creators, Tiamat and Bahamut. I suppose I can see one of my dragons going for the alt alignment, but it would be a major process.

[Nifft]

It becomes the Drizzt Do'urden of dragons, lol.

That said, Drizzt was very rare for a reason.

Drizzt was so common, the Ranger class mechanics changed from 1e to 2e so that the multitudes of fanboys could emulate that archetype.

In 1e, a Ranger was a tough wilderness "special ops" type of Fighter, and Drow were these weird elves who resisted magic and had ambidexterity, which nobody else got.

In 2e and onward, a Ranger either automatically got, or had the choice to get, some kind of ambidexterity. This was specifically because there were so many requests to be able to play Drizzt-type characters.


Drizzt would be best described as medium: neither rare nor well-done.

[Zilong]

While it's certainly easier to emulate Drizzt now, that does not make him or his like common, as far as the Forgotten Realms is concerned. We, as players and DM's, can create however many spinoffs and clones as we like. Drizzt himself is a unusual character in his setting. What we make are basically fanfics of Drizzt. Even if we took all those clones and somehow forced them into the canon of the FR, I'd wager they'd still be insignificant compared to the number of evil Drow in the world, so they would still be seen as rare occurrences.

As for the actual topic: I'm one of those DMs who regularly ignores the alignment of creatures from the books. Part of that is because i run a homebrew setting so little of that applies anyway. Even if i were to run an actual FR game i doubt I'd always adhere to the suggested alignments. I just don't find that sort locked in view to be very interesting. So no, my chromatic dragons are not always evil nor are the metallic dragons always good.

[KorvinStarmast]

Drizzt would be best described as annoying fixed that for you. :smallsmile: That said, I read the first series that began with Crystal Shard, then I read the first trilogy where he's living in the underdark. I enjoyed them, but in time got tired of that particular pulpy thing.

I tipped my cap to RAS for having written a D&D fantasy book that hit the NYT best seller list. Good for him.

Compare that to Terry Goodkind's books: I read the first one, and was unable to find enough interest to pick up the second one for a quarter at a garage sale. A decade or so later, my son read the first 3 ... and then just couldn't take it anymore.

[NorthernPhoenix]

Besides, even if dragon alignment was 100% nurture, you'd still see 90%+ of them be their standard alignment because of the culture they're raised in.

[UnwiseAlistair]

This absolutely isn’t canon but it’s a homebrew idea I read a while ago that could be relevant here, and one I enjoy and use in my games.
The reason chromatic dragons are evil and metallic dragons are good is because their scales change color to match their alignment. It’s possible to redeem a red dragon and next time he sheds, the scales underneath will be golden. Just as no one is pure good or pure evil, no dragon is purely one color. A white dragon might have a few silver scales portraying the soft side she never wants anyone to see and the noble copper dragon that protects the town may have a few black scales showing his selfish nature.
Dragons often try to hide the scales that are a color they don’t like because they often represent a part of the dragon that the dragon is not proud of.

[Regitnui]

This absolutely isn’t canon but it’s a homebrew idea I read a while ago that could be relevant here, and one I enjoy and use in my games.
The reason chromatic dragons are evil and metallic dragons are good is because their scales change color to match their alignment. It’s possible to redeem a red dragon and next time he sheds, the scales underneath will be golden. Just as no one is pure good or pure evil, no dragon is purely one color. A white dragon might have a few silver scales portraying the soft side she never wants anyone to see and the noble copper dragon that protects the town may have a few black scales showing his selfish nature.
Dragons often try to hide the scales that are a color they don’t like because they often represent a part of the dragon that the dragon is not proud of.

Can I borrow this idea? I always like the idea of Metallic dragons shining because they're good, and an Evil Gold would look dull enough to be called a Yellow Dragon instead.

[UnwiseAlistair]

Can I borrow this idea? I always like the idea of Metallic dragons shining because they're good, and an Evil Gold would look dull enough to be called a Yellow Dragon instead.

Go right ahead, I don’t own this idea by any means

[GlenSmash!]

In my games, personality determines color. A black dragon could theoretically have a change of heart and become silver or gold, but if it's still black, it's still a venomous sadist, and therefore still Evil.

(But that doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't still come to the family reunions with its copper and silver siblings, or that those siblings are going to kill it to stop it from torturing humans for amusement, any more than a human would kill their own sibling to stop the sibling from torturing pigs. Deplore yes, murder no. At most they might try to take the humans away from the black, but knowing full well that the black is just going to get some more. Dragons before humans.)

It's similar in my games. A dragon is born "colorless" and as its personality develops so does it's color. It may then seek out a foster parent of sorts of the same color to mentor it into adulthood, or just strike out on it's own.

[Seppo87]

In my opinion, no

I like to think of dragons as being the paragons of certain traits, supernatural incarnations of their own mystical, primeval nature.

The red dragon is the epitome of arrogance. It's not his choice, he was born arrogant, is fueled by arrogance, it comes natural to him and on top of that he loves being arrogant.

The red dragon can concieve different behaviors but will be utterly unwilling to ever change.

[Joe dirt]

Interesting thoughts, my personal opinion for those interested is that most dragons would be evil if left to their own devices because they all think of themselves as special and above mortals. Just like we think of ourselves as superior to cows or ants. Dragons are the embodiment of power and as we all know absolute power corrupts absolutely. This would be true even of metallic dragons at best those dragons might not even consider the humans in their daily life just as we humans barely consider the opinions of cattle when we eat a burger.

However just like everything in life there may be exceptions... perhaps a hatching was born with a birth defect or smaller than the other in the brood.to the point that it may have been threatened with infanticide. Its place in the world may make it feel inferior enough to question its existence

or if it was raised from birth by someone that could live long enough to teach it to resist the urge to feel superior, I am thinking of perhaps a kindly elf maybe... these are intelligent creatures after all and my reasoning is this if it has intelligence then it has the ability to learn beyond its base nature given the right circumstances.