Thoughts On 3e/4e Dragons, Fluffwise?

[Oooohaloophole]

No this thread isnt for Discussing Rules , its simply for Thinking about the change in fluff between Dragons. Il post My own thoughts later but for Now What do you think?

Edit: I realized That was a Stupid Move so here is what I think.
Ive read Both 4e draconomicons and Monster manuals as well as 3e draconomicon and monster manual as well as Wizards Presents Worlds and Monsters.


Chromatics: Nothing much here, there the same EVIL dragon you shall splash into your campiain

Metalics: OH DEAR LORD WHAT A STUPID MOVE!

I understand that the base idea was to destroy the alighnment wheel but instead this was just a way to make metalics killable. They are changed from "Good Defenders of Justice, and Great Dues EX Machinas" To "Douchbags who dont realy do any good, dont realy support bahamut and act stupid and Irrational". This feels kinda deprresing, the same character I would be saying "Thank goodness your Here" in 3e you would be killing in 4e.

[Mando Knight]

I understand that the base idea was to destroy the alighnment wheel but instead this was just a way to make metalics killable. They are changed from "Good Defenders of Justice, and Great Dues EX Machinas" To "Douchbags who dont realy do any good, dont realy support bahamut and act stupid and Irrational". This feels kinda deprresing, the same character I would be saying "Thank goodness your Here" in 3e you would be killing in 4e.

That isn't exactly true. 4e Metallics are Unaligned as a whole because, unlike Chromatics, staying Good when you have so many vices and sufficient power to indulge in them is hard. The alignment given is for the race as a whole: Metallic dragons in 4e run the gamut of nearly-divine paragons of justice to corrupted foes that have given into their lust for power and greed for the shiny (note that Angels are also Unaligned in 4e, due to there being Good ones for Pelor and Evil ones for Tiamat, etc.). It allows the DM to make the Metallics a touch more complex and dangerous than before.

[Oooohaloophole]

That isn't exactly true. 4e Metallics are Unaligned as a whole because, unlike Chromatics, staying Good when you have so many vices and sufficient power to indulge in them is hard. The alignment given is for the race as a whole: Metallic dragons in 4e run the gamut of nearly-divine paragons of justice to corrupted foes that have given into their lust for power and greed for the shiny (note that Angels are also Unaligned in 4e, due to there being Good ones for Pelor and Evil ones for Tiamat, etc.). It allows the DM to make the Metallics a touch more complex and dangerous than before.

I meant that the 3e Dragon was fine. Corrupting the 3e dragon is just an Excuse to kill it. I dont understand how you could be a Great defender While doing more harm then good. Im not a 3E IS THE BEST! NO QUESTIONS ASKED! Person but I realy liked the 3e dragons. Making ALL the dragons into Greedy gold grabbers actualy TAKES AWAY roleplaying parts. In 3e If im fighting a Metalic I have to restrian myself cause I dont want to harm the good Gold Dragon. In 4e I can just go ballistic because All Dragons are somewhat douchey.

[Kylarra]

So basically you're the kind of person that kills solely based on alignments and metathinking rather than in response to what the monster or character in question has actually done?

[Oooohaloophole]

So basically you're the kind of person that kills solely based on alignments and metathinking rather than in response to what the monster or character in question has actually done?

No, What is restrianing me in 4e from killing a Metal Dragon (Lets think that The Alignments dont exist)?

What Restrains me in 3e From Killing a Metal Dragon?

Im Saying that in 4e The Restriant is loosened alot solely for the perpose of making All dragons Killable.

[Artanis]

I meant that the 3e Dragon was fine. Corrupting the 3e dragon is just an Excuse to kill it. I dont understand how you could be a Great defender While doing more harm then good. Im not a 3E IS THE BEST! NO QUESTIONS ASKED! Person but I realy liked the 3e dragons. Making ALL the dragons into Greedy gold grabbers actualy TAKES AWAY roleplaying parts. In 3e If im fighting a Metalic I have to restrian myself cause I dont want to harm the good Gold Dragon. In 4e I can just go ballistic because All Dragons are somewhat douchey.

Unless, you know, the DM makes them not be *******s. Fluff is always mutable, and the DM has the option to do whatever he wants with it.

[Oooohaloophole]

Unless, you know, the DM makes them not be *******s. The DM does have that option you know.

I know Fluff Can Be Any fluff But What if its my first Dnd game? This is ADVERTISING Metal Dragons as creatures you can kill.

[Kylarra]

No, What is restrianing me in 4e from killing a Metal Dragon (Lets think that The Alignments dont exist)?

What Restrains me in 3e From Killing a Metal Dragon?

Im Saying that in 4e The Restriant is loosened alot solely for the perpose of making All dragons Killable.

1. Not being an amoral murderer?
2. See 1.

[Sleepingbear]

1. Not being an amoral murderer?
2. See 1.

Hey! We're playing D&D here!

[Kylarra]

Hey! We're playing D&D here!

Well yes, the average party is a bunch of amoral violent murderous hobos with shinies, but that's not the point.

[Artanis]

I know Fluff Can Be Any fluff But What if its my first Dnd game? This is ADVERTISING Metal Dragons as creatures you can kill.

And what's wrong with that? What's wrong with giving the option of having a certain dragon as an enemy?

[jmbrown]

I meant that the 3e Dragon was fine. Corrupting the 3e dragon is just an Excuse to kill it. I dont understand how you could be a Great defender While doing more harm then good. Im not a 3E IS THE BEST! NO QUESTIONS ASKED! Person but I realy liked the 3e dragons. Making ALL the dragons into Greedy gold grabbers actualy TAKES AWAY roleplaying parts. In 3e If im fighting a Metalic I have to restrian myself cause I dont want to harm the good Gold Dragon. In 4e I can just go ballistic because All Dragons are somewhat douchey.

Dragons have always been douchebags, even metallic ones, in every edition.

In every edition dragons were described as chauvinistic, greedy, arrogant, and bull-headed. Council of Wyrms, a 2E campaign setting taking place on a dragon populated isle, is basically an entire world revolving around a dragon ruled democracy where nothing gets accomplished. All dragons can form "Dragon Heart" style bonds with demihumans, but even good dragons are incredibly wary, blocking off their own thoughts while reading those of their subjects and just being distrustful in general.

The important thing to understand in 4E is that dragons are not humans. They don't share human thoughts of morality and compassion and their culture is completely alien compared to humans. For example, a gold dragon may believe that justice and the good of all free creatures must be upheld; this can make him extremely judgemental and merciless to those he deems are unfit to serve his lofty beliefs. Because dragons often lack human compassion, they care little for the plight of the common man. After all, he practically lives forever and can crush armies with his breath alone. If enforcing martial rule and capital punishment maintains the greatest good and keeps people in line, isn't that maintaining the highest ideals justice and goodness in of itself? If showing mercy to a hardened criminal leads to more violence against the innocent, then isn't mercy indirectly evil and should be "killed" (as my favorite faction from Planescape would put it)?

This is how the dragon thinks. He's lethargic, judgemental, aloof, and apathetic. He has centuries to formulate plans during which time he neglects the world around him. He doesn't care about the individual (unless the individual is himself) because most people die in the same span of time a dragon would take a ciesta ontop his mountain of treasure. He couldn't care less about the plight of mankind because empires rise and fall in the time it takes him to shake the crud from his scales. He may strive to perform good acts, protects those he deems weak, and battle evil dragons but the ultimate fact is that "good" dragons can be just as burdensome and domineering as evil dragons. The very fact that their definition of what is good totally eclipses the human concept justifies this.

So yes, metallic dragons in 4E are douchebags. They're bigger than you, badder than you, and they don't care about you unless you interest them. They may willingly help an army defend against a demonic invasion or fight evil dragons to protect a fledgeling kingdom but they couldn't care less if the resulting battle ends up with the village in flames. The big, bad evil guy was defeated and he's waaaay more important than the plight of the poor commoners that were crushed in the ensuing fight.

A dragon's alignment, however, doesn't mean players have to actively seek their destruction. Just because something isn't good doesn't mean the party is justified for killing it. Just because something is good doesn't mean the party isn't justified for killing it. Good people can make mistakes and be forceful. Shoot, we've had topics discussing why Lawful Good and Chaotic Good alignments are most likely to be at each others throats than good vs. evil. Just because 4E says dragons, even metallic ones, are hateful doesn't mean all of them are.

On a final note, the unaligned alignment encompasses people who care little for moral absolutes or don't feel compelled to conform to societies standards. Most people in the world are unaligned by default. I definitely consider myself unaligned if game logic applied to the real world. I'm not 100% going to act in accord to how I want society to perceive me and I'm wasting time typing a long internet rant when there's community service to be done so I can't admit that I'm devoted to the cause of good. I break the law when I know no harm will come to me or others (running a red light at 2AM in the morning), I can be cruel to people I don't like, and I donate what money or time I have to good causes but only when I'm not inconvenienced by it.

A metallic dragon, like myself, is neither devoted to society or the cause of good or evil. He's capable of good things just as he's capable of evil things, but he doesn't personally devote his existence to one absolute over the other. Don't think of metallic dragons as being against every living creature, think of them as being nigh-immortal overlords who put the majority before the individual.

[Oooohaloophole]

1. Not being an amoral murderer?
2. See 1. Nope Not anymore, Now they Hurt people so you can go All bruce lee on thier asses.

This is what I meen, Advertising meens that this will be the fluff that will forever be imprinted into your brain if your reading for the first time.

I meant that they DO NOT MAKE ANY SENSE! Why do we do good things? Because it makes us feel better or that because we have a big sense of Honour. In 4e (Lets not even compare anymore) if I killed an entire village as a result of a fight that not Chivalareos or Noble. Whats Compelling me to fight this red Dragon? Because it serves Tiamat? I dont follow Bahamuts teachings very well so it doesnt make much sense.

I think that the Metalics have been simply reduced to Brutes. I read the 3e Draconomicon Entries For each dragon of every age group, there they sound Like Nice REAL Heroes not simply mindless murderers.

You know this is very rude of Me. Everybody Has thier own opinion. i want to hear what YOU think.

[Kylarra]

This is what I meen, Advertising meens that this will be the fluff that will forever be imprinted into your brain if your reading for the first time.

That just brings us back to my first point, this will only be an issue if...

[you]'re the kind of person that kills solely based on alignments and metathinking rather than in response to what the monster or character in question has actually done[.]

[Sleepingbear]

This is what I meen, Advertising meens that this will be the fluff that will forever be imprinted into your brain if your reading for the first time.

Your logic does not follow. Nor does your alteration of someone elses statement make sense.

[Artanis]

This is what I meen, Advertising meens that this will be the fluff that will forever be imprinted into your brain if your reading for the first time.

Yes, we've well established what the fluff is and the fact that it's what players are exposed to. You have yet to give a particularly good reason for why it's a bad thing to make players occasionally have to refrain from being greedy, murderous psychopaths.

[jmbrown]

This is what I meen, Advertising meens that this will be the fluff that will forever be imprinted into your brain if your reading for the first time.

I meant that they DO NOT MAKE ANY SENSE! Why do we do good things? Because it makes us feel better or that because we have a big sense of Honour. In 4e (Lets not even compare anymore) if I killed an entire village as a result of a fight that not Chivalareos or Noble. Whats Compelling me to fight this red Dragon? Because it serves Tiamat? I dont follow Bahamuts teachings very well so it doesnt make much sense.

I think that the Metalics have been simply reduced to Brutes. I read the 3e Draconomicon Entries For each dragon of every age group, there they sound Like Nice REAL Heroes not simply mindless murderers.

You know this is very rude of Me. Everybody Has thier own opinion. i want to hear what YOU think.

Again, you're applying human morality to a dragon.

Ask yourself why you would even want to kill a dragon? Murder in itself is an evil act. The-red-dragon-who-lives-in-a-hill isn't bothering anyone. He snatches a couple of cows each month, maybe destroys a thatched hut, but hasn't caused any major damage or killed anyone. He ignores civilization, lets travelers pass unmolested, and minds his own business.

Would you still claim it heroic to storm his front door and demand his head? Evil aligned or not, seeking the blood of an innocent isn't a good or heroic act.

[Artanis]

Come to think of it, killing things for no reason other than that they showed up on Detect Evil is the sort of thing that got in trouble. And we all know what a paragon of all that is right and good in the world she was.

[Oooohaloophole]

You know this is very rude of Me. Everybody Has thier own opinion. i want to hear what YOU think.

OK OK I GET IT! WE THINK DIFFERENTLY! SAY YOUR OWN OPINIONS OR IDEAS ABOUT DRAGONS!

[jmbrown]

OK OK I GET IT! WE THINK DIFFERENTLY! SAY YOUR OWN OPINIONS OR IDEAS ABOUT DRAGONS!

Okay.

Dragons are older than humans, know more than humans, and are more powerful than humans. They perceive themselves as the only force strong enough to keep the universe in motion. They place the majority before the individual and personal relationships are strained. Dragons are aloof, dwelling on their thoughts and plans for decades before they come to fruition while the world around them ages and crumbles.

A dragon has more to worry about than a single pissant village raided by gnolls or a clan of giants preparing to attack some miniscule nation way out in the boonies. This makes them seem cruel and hateful, but you would be too if you were so far removed from reality.

[Yakk]

There are fewer things in 4e that are 'intrinsically good'.

Metallic dragons, for example, might be reasonably good -- but also have a greedy streak that they have serious trouble overcoming.

Some have -- and they are good. Others haven't. Some have completely given into it -- and those are evil.

You cannot tell, in 4e, if a creature is good by looking at it, barring a god.

You can sometimes tell, in 4e, that a creature is evil.

In 4e, the PCs are not presumed to be lesser helpers to greater forces. The primal spirits are mostly unaligned. The good gods are, like the evil gods, barred from directly influencing this world by ancient treaty. There aren't entire species of Dragons that have near godly power and are universally good.

There is just the PCs. If they want to push back the darkness, it isn't because the forces of light haven't bothered to push back the darkness, it is because all of the forces of light are desperately fighting a holding action in order to hold onto what territory they control.

That is the default setting assumption in 4e. That the PCs are actually important, even as level 1 characters, because all the side of light has is isolated points.

And imagine an ancient gold dragon that is "good". Constantly having to resist the pull of greed, trying to resist the path of Tiamat. Possibly spends most of its life meditating in order to prevent going down the wrong path. Has to resist giving into its base impulses at every turn: it never knows if its actions are really good or not. . .

And meanwhile, all of these mortals are hanging around, and keep trying to take it's little cache of shiny toys. . .

[nightwyrm]

The weakest dragon has a life expectancy about 20x that of a normal human, more intelligent and has enough firepower and wealth to rival a small city. Expecting it to behave in a way that would conform to a human-centric alignment system is like expecting a person to conform to an alignment system based on the behaviour of a bunch of field mice.

[taltamir]

The weakest dragon has a life expectancy about 20x that of a normal human, more intelligent and has enough firepower and wealth to rival a small city. Expecting it to behave in a way that would conform to a human-centric alignment system is like expecting a person to conform to an alignment system based on the behaviour of a bunch of field mice.

the alignment system is not human centric, it is an absolute force literally greater than the gods which grants its worshipers spells and clerical domains.
It is also absolute, and it is detectable (you can have alignment detecting spells cast on you so that you know your own alignment... and remember, you may voluntarily shut down your own SR and fail saves...

Dragons as a whole don't make any sense... my biggest issues are that they are color coded for your convenience, that there are countless different variants, that they breed with anything (but each other), and that they somehow survive (you need an estimated minimum of 5000 individuals for long term survival or you species will become sterile from inbreeding after some generations).

[Kylarra]

Morality, on the other hand, in this case is human-centric.

[Yakk]

talta, you are getting your 3e fluff on your 4e fluff. :-)

"Good" doesn't grant spells in 4e.

[nightwyrm]

Morality, on the other hand, in this case is human-centric.

That's what I mean. Although I find it odd to try to divorce morality from a system meant to describe it.

In any case, I find that many interpretation of the alignment system to be quite...well, if not human-centric, then it's PC-centric. Wiping out a village of warlike orcs down to the babies is good, wiping out a village of warlike elves down to the babies is bad.

Which is why I abolish alignment in my game. Thankfully, 4e made it so much easier. Everyone has their own POVs, their own goals and agendas. But this is becoming an alignment derail, so I'll stop.

[Theodoric]

I kind of like the new metallic dragons. They behave more like dragons. More thoughtful, yes, less self-centered, with 'higher' longerlasting goals than chromatics; but still dragons, with huge hoards and a justified superiority complex. And ofcourse, plenty of them still are benevolent; though that may even be a bad thing, as it's hard to convince dragons (being big damn firebreathing lizards who clearly are superior you), especially the ones that think everyone should follow their leadership, that they're doing something wrong or wrongly, albeit with the right intention. It makes them a bit more believable if they are actually (possibly) somewhat flawed.

[Satyr]

I never understood the need for six kinds of good dragons. One form of good dragons are exceptional, and look like a good idea, a break of the usual evil high end monsters. Six different versions of them are run of the mill repetitions and suck the interesting uniqueness out of the concept.
What would be even better where a complete lack of colour-bound alignment at all, treating dragons as sentient individuals who have something like a choice about their behaviour, and are not show-horned into a standard fantasy racism clishé.

[taltamir]

I kind of like the new metallic dragons. They behave more like dragons. More thoughtful, yes, less self-centered, with 'higher' longerlasting goals than chromatics; but still dragons, with huge hoards and a justified superiority complex. And ofcourse, plenty of them still are benevolent; though that may even be a bad thing, as it's hard to convince dragons (being big damn firebreathing lizards who clearly are superior you), especially the ones that think everyone should follow their leadership, that they're doing something wrong or wrongly, albeit with the right intention. It makes them a bit more believable if they are actually (possibly) somewhat flawed.

just have sex with them... the slew of half dragons around show dragons will sleep with anything. And who doesn't want dragon babies?

I never understood the need for six kinds of good dragons. One form of good dragons are exceptional, and look like a good idea, a break of the usual evil high end monsters. Six different versions of them are run of the mill repetitions and suck the interesting uniqueness out of the concept.
What would be even better where a complete lack of colour-bound alignment at all, treating dragons as sentient individuals who have something like a choice about their behaviour, and are not show-horned into a standard fantasy racism clishé.

I agree, dragons should all be one species, with no alignment restriction.
You could still go with multi colored if you said that it was like "hair color" and "eye color" in humans. maybe even include a random element for their breath weapon chosen based on their personality and magic training in puberty.

talta, you are getting your 3e fluff on your 4e fluff. :-)

"Good" doesn't grant spells in 4e.

oops :)
so what is it good for?

[Inyssius Tor]

so what is it good for?

... you can't think of any answers to that question yourself?