An Evil Dragon Change Of Heart

[Bartmanhomer]

Is it possible that an evil Dragon become a good dragon? :confused:

[Zaq]

Yes.length

[zlefin]

dunno for sure.
the srd is listing dragons as Always alignment X, rather than Usually alignment X. Which generally means exceptions are really really one-in-a-million rare, and the answer should in trend be no; though you can always make totally special cases just because; I mean they made that succubus paladin after all.


helm of opposite alignment should in principle be able to affect them, if they fail the save.

[Thurbane]

Well, for one example, there's a Sanctified red Dragon (BoED, p.186); although that is from outside interference (the Sanctified template/Sanctify the Wicked spell).

http://archive.wizards.com/dnd/images/boed_gallery/75120.jpg

[Kish]

dunno for sure.
the srd is listing dragons as Always alignment X, rather than Usually alignment X. Which generally means exceptions are really really one-in-a-million rare
That's 3.0.

In 3.5, exceptions are stated as rare. Not one-in-a-million rare.

So yes, an evil dragon has moral choice just as an evil human or an evil gnome does.

[Bartmanhomer]

Ok. So anyway I just thought of an idea for a backstory of a redeemed Black Dragon. There was a male wyrmling black dragon named Ecplise. His family wanted to raised evil. So he became evil just like his family raised him. All that changed until he met an adult brass dragon named Beton who happen to be the cleric of Hlal. Ecplise got off the wrong foot at first trying to maintain his evil ways. Until Beton told him stories of Hlal bring happiness and laughter of all the dragons including evil dragons. Ecplise listen and find the story fascinating. Then he started to changed his evil ways into good. He then was converted to Hlal and was welcome to his church family. He left his real family because he didn't feel welcome knowing how toxic his family is. As he was matured he realized that a huge adventure that Ecplise wanted to explored hoping to spread his faith to dragon and non-dragons out there. So he was off on an adventure preaching his good faith.

[Thurbane]

Here's what the Monster Manual says about "always" alignments:


Alignment: This line in a monster entry gives the alignment that the creature is most likely to have. Every entry includes a qualifier that indicates how broadly that alignment applies to all monsters of that kind.
Always: The creature is born with the indicated alignment. The creature may have a hereditary predisposition to the alignment or come from a plane that predetermines it. It is possible for individuals to change alignment, but such individuals are either unique or rare exceptions.

...so no reason a Black Dragon couldn't drift towards a good alignment.

[Asmotherion]

Could you go the rest of your life with no internet and live in a cave as a hunter? More or less this analogy of a cultural impact for a red dragon to become good aligned. Can happen but it is dificult.

[Nifft]

Anyone can become anything, including good.

[Florian]

@Homer:

Nature, nurture, free will.

For black dragons, their actual nature is (Evil). They are born this way and they are nurtured this way.
Nature and nurture are already hard facts in D&D/PF, but free will is still a thing (as long as you actually possess that, which is not actually a given. In PF, undead do not...). What that means is, while yes, a black dragon turning to neutral or even good is possible, that change must have a really monumental reason behind it and the dragon itself must live with still being (Evil) by nature and accept the conflict of instinct vs. logic that is to come with that change.

[Inevitability]

When all else fails, throw a Helm of Opposite Alignment on it.

[ShurikVch]

Also, Archdragon template from the Dragon #321: Good variant is always NG, and description even explicitly mentioned possibility of Chromatic Dragon to become a Good Archdragon

[Telonius]

Right now I'm playing a Draconic Human (Cleric of Olidammara) who's taken on/rescued a juvenile Green Dragon. She's teaching him Olidammara's gospel of enlightened self-interest: if you set up a tavern, people will come in and give you the shiny gold pieces without you having to do much of anything. Fortunately Olidammara's philosophy fits in extremely well with something that's as naturally greedy as a Dragon. She's gradually shifting him from LE to something much more like LN (with the end game being CN).

[ShurikVch]

Right now I'm playing a Draconic Human (Cleric of Olidammara) who's taken on/rescued a juvenile Green Dragon. She's teaching him Olidammara's gospel of enlightened self-interest: if you set up a tavern, people will come in and give you the shiny gold pieces without you having to do much of anything. Fortunately Olidammara's philosophy fits in extremely well with something that's as naturally greedy as a Dragon. She's gradually shifting him from LE to something much more like LN (with the end game being CN).This kinda reminded me a bit of Aja from the City of Delights - he's owner of "Aja Pelima, Magical Items Bought and Sold" magic shop, otherwise known as "Mad Aja's Magic for Fools & Simpletons."
He is actually a venerable red dragon Ajax Firestorm, here to track down a thief.

[Buufreak]

As I haven't seen it yet, obligatory mention of mind rape.

[Zanos]

So yes, an evil dragon has moral choice just as an evil human or an evil gnome does.
Not "just as" a normal sentient race has. The Evil dragon trying to be good is working against the god that governs it's species, the worlds perception of it, and it's own nature.

[Sword Magess]

It is, at least, in a better position than an outsider, who is literally made of that (or those) alignments.

[Elricaltovilla]

This makes me want to try a mid-high level adventure with a party that goes around slapping helms of opposite alignment on to evil creatures. It'd be an interesting change from the typical slay the evil monster run. I wonder what the ramifications might be.

[noob]

This makes me want to try a mid-high level adventure with a party that goes around slapping helms of opposite alignment on to evil creatures. It'd be an interesting change from the typical slay the evil monster run. I wonder what the ramifications might be.

The creation of a refugee town by the player to throw all the hideous monsters which have just been turned good (so that they do not suffer from discrimination from ordinary villagers as much)?
Would the player also start building redeemeries run by people converted to good?
Or will the player carelessly let the alignment turned creatures where they are wondering how the other monsters they know will react to their good phase?

[Elricaltovilla]

The creation of a refugee town by the player to throw all the hideous monsters which have just been turned good (so that they do not suffer from discrimination from ordinary villagers as much)?
Would the player also start building redeemeries run by people converted to good?
Or will the player carelessly let the alignment turned creatures where they are wondering how the other monsters they know will react to their good phase?

Another good question is whether or not going around forcibly altering a creature's alignment against their free will is an evil act somehow. Oh the moral conundrums!

[noob]

Another good question is whether or not going around forcibly altering a creature's alignment against their free will is an evil act somehow. Oh the moral conundrums!

It is evil.
It is not a problem however you just have to put a helm of alignment change on your head each time you get too much evil.

[Elricaltovilla]

It is evil.
It is not a problem however you just have to put a helm of alignment change on your head each time you get too much evil.

Magic! The solution to everything!

[AMFV]

Another good question is whether or not going around forcibly altering a creature's alignment against their free will is an evil act somehow. Oh the moral conundrums!

How could taking a powerful evil creature that is likely going to murder hundreds or even thousands in their lifetime and making it so that it won't do that evil? I mean you could theoretically beat the dragon to death without that being evil, why would making it good be any more evil than that?

[Telonius]

Not "just as" a normal sentient race has. The Evil dragon trying to be good is working against the god that governs it's species, the worlds perception of it, and it's own nature.

Io is the chief dragon deity, at least in 3.5; he's Neutral, not evil. There's a whole draconic pantheon that includes Good, Evil, and Neutral deities. Evil dragons are not [Evil]. If an individual chromatic dragon is Good-aligned they won't ping on a detect spell. Even something like a Half-Fiend has a much more direct link to an [Evil] ancestor. One of their parents is literally made of evil, they're listed as Always Evil - and they don't have the [Evil] descriptor. Their description says that a few of them "turn from" their fiendish heritage.

[Bartmanhomer]

Io is the chief dragon deity, at least in 3.5; he's Neutral, not evil. There's a whole draconic pantheon that includes Good, Evil, and Neutral deities. Evil dragons are not [Evil]. If an individual chromatic dragon is Good-aligned they won't ping on a detect spell. Even something like a Half-Fiend has a much more direct link to an [Evil] ancestor. One of their parents is literally made of evil, they're listed as Always Evil - and they don't have the [Evil] descriptor. Their description says that a few of them "turn from" their fiendish heritage.
May I also add that's there are only 3 evil dragon deities in the dragon pantheon. The three dragons are Tiamat, Falazure and Garyx.

[Elricaltovilla]

How could taking a powerful evil creature that is likely going to murder hundreds or even thousands in their lifetime and making it so that it won't do that evil? I mean you could theoretically beat the dragon to death without that being evil, why would making it good be any more evil than that?

Because Free WillTM is usually the reason given. It's not really "good" because you are violating the free will of the evil dragon that wants to kill thousands of innocent people.

Not that I agree with this idea necessarily, just that it's the argument that is usually offered.

[Telonius]

Because Free WillTM is usually the reason given. It's not really "good" because you are violating the free will of the evil dragon that wants to kill thousands of innocent people.

Not that I agree with this idea necessarily, just that it's the argument that is usually offered.

A bit more nuanced version of that argument is that it's a matter of methods, not of results. There are lots of ways to prevent someone from killing thousands of people. If you go straight from "ask nicely," to "take a sapient being and treat their free decisions as having the same moral value as a turnip's," you've skipped a few possible steps in between.

[noob]

A bit more nuanced version of that argument is that it's a matter of methods, not of results. There are lots of ways to prevent someone from killing thousands of people. If you go straight from "ask nicely," to "take a sapient being and treat their free decisions as having the same moral value as a turnip's," you've skipped a few possible steps in between.

So if you ask nicely then threaten to turn into a turnip then turn into a good aligned telepathic turnip the opponent is it less evil than doing the same thing with murder or is it as much evil and wrong?

[AMFV]

A bit more nuanced version of that argument is that it's a matter of methods, not of results. There are lots of ways to prevent someone from killing thousands of people. If you go straight from "ask nicely," to "take a sapient being and treat their free decisions as having the same moral value as a turnip's," you've skipped a few possible steps in between.

And if you go right to murdering the thing you're probably also "skipping a few steps". I just find it hard to argue that instant magical rehabilitation (or one that takes a few years) is going to be any more evil than actively murdering something. In both situations their free will no longer applies, in both situations you are permanently doing something to them. Just in one case you're allowing them to remain alive.

[Quertus]

How could taking a powerful evil creature that is likely going to murder hundreds or even thousands in their lifetime and making it so that it won't do that evil? I mean you could theoretically beat the dragon to death without that being evil, why would making it good be any more evil than that?


Because Free WillTM is usually the reason given. It's not really "good" because you are violating the free will of the evil dragon that wants to kill thousands of innocent people.

Not that I agree with this idea necessarily, just that it's the argument that is usually offered.

Evil is all about taking the expedient route to the "greater good".

That having been said, "Free Will" seems more of a Law vs Chaos thing, IMO.


And if you go right to murdering the thing you're probably also "skipping a few steps". I just find it hard to argue that instant magical rehabilitation (or one that takes a few years) is going to be any more evil than actively murdering something. In both situations their free will no longer applies, in both situations you are permanently doing something to them. Just in one case you're allowing them to remain alive.

And in the other case, you're allowing them to remain themselves. Different beings will place different value on those two, but "Mindrape / Obliviate is murder" is a common battlecry.

[ezekielraiden]

Is it possible that an evil Dragon become a good dragon? :confused:

It depends on the setting, but it's at least theoretically possible just about anywhere.

In Eberron, for example, there is no strict link between a dragon's color and alignment. In the Forgotten Realms, there sort of is such a strict link, in that it's assumed to be present, but it's still possible for a good dragon to turn evil under bad circumstances, and possible for an evil dragon to seek to change itself.

Generally, you'll want to talk to your DM, as this kind of thing can sometimes have world-affecting consequences.

[Florian]

@AMFV:

It´s actually quite amusing ho that kind of argument is nearly always the same:
- A can potentially do (harm B)
- I can do C to stop A from (harm B)
- Preventing A from (harm B) makes C a legitimate and morally acceptable choice, because B > C

Now, the funny thing is, C will always be a concrete act(ion), while B will always stay speculative.

Or can you guarantee that the Black Dragon over there is not just lazy and prefers lifestock over humanoids, but will definitely go out and kill/eat humanoids, possibly going so far that you can product whom, where and when with 100% accuracy by something like divination?

[Andor13]

There is also the consideration that a helm of opposite alignment is a curse effect. (It is still a curse right?)

So cursing is generally morally dubious, and there are potential downstream problems when Dunklzakitlaxxth the Devourer of Ophanages is accidentally uncursed in the middle of a town. But on the whole it's probably a morally superior option to killing him and making him into boots and a matching handbag.