Being Friends With A Family Of Gold Dragon

[Bartmanhomer]

Imagine the NPC hired the Adventure Party (Ranger, Paladin, Bard and Psion) to kill a dangerous dragon for destroying their village. The NPC explain the dragon was a gold dragon who slaughter and destroyed the village. The party was very sceptical about a gold dragon destroy a village and kill people. So they were investigating to hear the gold dragon story. So they went to the gold dragon home and talk to a family of gold dragons. They talk to the parents and offspring of the gold dragon family. The younger offspring the male wyrmling explain there was a bunch of villagers attack his family because they hate gold dragons. So, in other words, the villagers were the bad guys, not the dragons. The father (the male adult dragon) wanted to make peace with the villagers but the villagers weren't buying the Gold Dragon father Sense Motive. So, in conclusion, they befriended the family of Gold Dragons. The party returned to the village and told the NPC that the Gold Dragons told them everything and they wanted peace with the village. Also, they don't want to be part of innocent creature bloodshed. So what do you think of the situation? I'm sure you have a similar situation like this before.

[Buufreak]

I think it is canon that all dragons don't do the family thing. Blood ties to them are primarily superficial at best, and in most situations when a dragon hatches it is either to an empty cave, or in certain cases the egg was given to well known academies.

In short, the situation doesn't sound plausible to begin with.

[Bartmanhomer]

I think it is canon that all dragons don't do the family thing. Blood ties to them are primarily superficial at best, and in most situations when a dragon hatches it is either to an empty cave, or in certain cases the egg was given to well known academies.

In short, the situation doesn't sound plausible to begin with.

You're right about that not all dragons have families.

[Crake]

I think it is canon that all dragons don't do the family thing. Blood ties to them are primarily superficial at best, and in most situations when a dragon hatches it is either to an empty cave, or in certain cases the egg was given to well known academies.

In short, the situation doesn't sound plausible to begin with.

While that's the case for some dragons, most actually DO have a family structure. According to the draconomicon, it's not until the young adult age category (51+ years of age) that most dragons sever their ties with their nestmates, though some leave as early as the young age category (16+ years of age).

Gold dragons are among the kinds of dragons that readily accept a family structure, so that's not the issue with the scenario. The issue is a gold dragon going out and destroying a village. That's 100% something a gold dragon would never do, unless somehow the village was strong enough to pose an actual threat to the dragon family (most likely not the case), and the villagers were entirely unreasonable.

Basically, this sounds like the plot to a saturday morning cartoon, rather than an actual scenario.

[ngilop]

I am going to be direct opposition to buufreak.

It does not matter one bit what any rulebook says. The 'cannon' in D&D exists at the table level and the DM sets the backing lore.

If the DM has set up that dragon have family units.. then they do.

likewise, if the DM sets up that goblins are good and that gnomes are evil then that is how the 'cannon' is about those two races. It doesn't matter what any book says. Let alone some anonymous dude on the internet (that includes as well).

all that matter is what is established at that particular table.

[Bartmanhomer]

While that's the case for some dragons, most actually DO have a family structure. According to the draconomicon, it's not until the young adult age category (51+ years of age) that most dragons sever their ties with their nestmates, though some leave as early as the young age category (16+ years of age).

Gold dragons are among the kinds of dragons that readily accept a family structure, so that's not the issue with the scenario. The issue is a gold dragon going out and destroying a village. That's 100% something a gold dragon would never do, unless somehow the village was strong enough to pose an actual threat to the dragon family (most likely not the case), and the villagers were entirely unreasonable.

Basically, this sounds like the plot to a saturday morning cartoon, rather than an actual scenario.

Wait this happens in cartoons? :eek:

[Buufreak]

If the DM has set up that dragon have family units.. then they do.


And that's fine and dandy for you and your table. But when you come to a forum and ask for other people's opinions on a situation, it is best for said opinions to be based on supportable information rather than whimsy.

We are all playing a common game here. Otherwise, what the hell would we even be discussing? The idea that not a single word out of any text is foolish at best.

Also. Canon. Canon is the word I used, as in canonical. A cannon is the big boom boom thing they put on pirate ships.

[ngilop]

Oh sorry I included an extra N in a word. I humbly prostrate before you and beg forgiveness.

Contrary to what you say though.. it is not my table.

It is very clear that bartmanhomer is asking because this happened at HIS table. So, one would extrapolate that indeed the DM set this as their canon (Note the single 'N'). So again, that is why I directly opposed your argument of 'D&D canon says this' Because really the only canon or set in stone rule for any RPG, not just D&D, is the table ultimately sets the rules up for themselves and the DM/GM sets up the backing lore.

Going with more examples.

Rulebook says dragon are smart and color coded for your convenience. DM says "Dragons can be any sort of alignment, and they are more force of nature than super genius greedy lizard"

Example the 2nd
Rulebook says Humanty is the dominant race in the milky way galaxy due to finding martian technology caches, the GM says "Humanity only found 1, and therefore the Madreliri are the dominant race."

[Crake]

It is very clear that bartmanhomer is aksign because this happened at HIS table.

Historically speaking, bartmanhomer's threads are all entirely hypothetical, so I really doubt this is a situation that actually occured at his table, and that's why people seem okay with actually picking at the scenario itself, because in a discussion about hypotheticals, it's perfectly fine to say "This hypothetical scenario is unreasonable".

[Bartmanhomer]

Historically speaking, bartmanhomer's threads are all entirely hypothetical, so I really doubt this is a situation that actually occurred at his table, and that's why people seem okay with actually picking at the scenario itself, because in a discussion about hypotheticals, it's perfectly fine to say "This hypothetical scenario is unreasonable".

Most of my threads are hypothetical. (Not all.)