D&D 5E Do you like or dislike Song & Steeal Dragons being demoted to Folklore?

Do you like or dislike Song & Steeal Dragons being demoted to Folklore?

  • I hate or Dislike the removal of Steel and Song Dragons as type of Dragon

    Votes: 18 22.8%
  • I like or love the removal of Steel and Song Dragons as a type of Dragon

    Votes: 9 11.4%
  • Neutral as a Gem Dragon

    Votes: 52 65.8%

Ath-kethin

Elder Thing
No, the Gods do exist AL Qadim were very much real, it's just they didn't materialize in the material plane.

I got to say, not a fan of all the Antitheism being pushed into every setting.

Not every setting has to be atheistic, it's a huge retcon in FR, you have Eberron and Darksun for deities are folklore or don't exist or are gone.

The Gods are a huge part of the Forgotten Realms setting.

You don't have to homogenize every setting, destroying what is special about them.

Heck I don't care what you do in your home game version of FR, but don't wreck the official lore of the Forgotten Realms.
Al-Qadim gods didn't even get game statistics until a Hackmaster(!) supplement in 2003. I like it that way.

Gods should be more than just big monsters, and giving them game statistics makes them just big monsters. And if I want my players to be fighting gods, I'll use various innumerable Cthulhu Mythos supplements.

Following the same model, Eberron's gods are religions - again, not big monsters. It's a take I totally dig, and one I heartily endorse. To each their own, but for my part I think the societies and viewpoints of any setting are far more interesting when things need to be taken on/handled by faith. There's no valor in a character who follows the path of righteousness just because some giant toddler will literally come beat her up if she doesn't.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Azuresun

Adventurer
Al-Qadim gods didn't even get game statistics until a Hackmaster(!) supplement in 2003. I like it that way.

Gods should be more than just big monsters, and giving them game statistics makes them just big monsters. And if I want my players to be fighting gods, I'll use various innumerable Cthulhu Mythos supplements.

Following the same model, Eberron's gods are religions - again, not big monsters. It's a take I totally dig, and one I heartily endorse. To each their own, but for my part I think the societies and viewpoints of any setting are far more interesting when things need to be taken on/handled by faith. There's no valor in a character who follows the path of righteousness just because some giant toddler will literally come beat her up if she doesn't.

Bit of an excluded middle there.
 


Quickleaf

Legend
I dislike the retcon because it detracts from D&D's lore without adding anything. I'm flabbergasted how something like hoard thieves (or whatever those parasites are called) could take priority over things like steel & song dragons. The "some metallic dragons prefer to live in humanoid form" is a one-liner suitable on a personality trait table – not even worth a sidebar.

Retcons are fine (IMHO) when they add something to the game.

For instance, they could have said "Steel dragons is a catch-all for spellcasting metallic dragons who rebelled against Bahamut's rule and the Council of Wyrm's mandate that dragon not interfere with mortal politics, preferring to live in humanoid form. The term harkens to the Song of Steel and Talon describing how Bahamut formed the Council of Wyrms. Amiable meddlers, these dragons pose as sages, scholars, and mages, and seek to shape the course of human kingdoms."

That kind of retcon would have been more palatable to me, and changed my opinion to be neutral to mildly positive. Yeah, it would seem like an unnecessary change but the lore would be so interesting that the positives would outweigh the negatives.

This isn't just theory craft.

I used a steel dragon in my old AD&D Planescape campaign who masqueraded as a gnomish antiquities dealer, showing up in various cities to barter and swap lore with the PCs. He ended up publishing one PC's book on languages. There was always some hint at his draconic nature, like steel-grey eyes, a scale pattern to his doublet, a scarf seeming to be made of steel mesh, oddities so ancient they far eclipsed the gnomish lifespan, instantly recognizing the various types of steel (cold, Baatorian green, Abyssal bloodiron, etc), a coiled dragon ring, off-handedly referencing some event with firsthand intimacy that occurred ages ago, etc.

Part of the story arc was the PCs were trying to shift a town that was slipping across the Outlands (and towards the Abyss) back into Arcadia. One of the sub-quests to achieve this goal involved enticing lawful merchants to resume trading activity with the town. The PCs decided to convince their "gnomish" friend to do business with the town, and that's when his backstory was revealed about having a disagreement with his draconic brethren that led to him traveling the planes, studying humanoid cultures in hopes of creating a utopia to prove his jaded brethren wrong. The PCs ended up debating philosophy with two elder dragons to convince them how this town would be one form of utopia once it transitioned back to Arcadia. It was a lot of fun playing with the "we know he's a dragon, but no one is coming out and saying it." And the dragon sibling "politics" was a hoot.
 

HammerMan

Legend
Sometimes I wish Ed would sue WotC for voiding the contract and take FR back, they aren't being good Stewards of the setting. They learn NOTHING from the back lash to the Spellplague.
is this just "If I could change reality" type wish or is there some legal issue with the deal?

FTR I would LOVE for the realms to be taken from WotC I just doubt it can...
 


jgsugden

Legend
Apologies, but I have not seen the sidebar.

Is it told from the perspective of a character, as in some Dragon Historian providing his insight, or is it stated as absolute fact?

Either way - in my games, whether set in the FR, Greyhawk, Eberron or my home brew substantially diverge from the lore of the books. This ain't nothing.
 

Urriak Uruk

Gaming is fun, and fun is for everyone
I dislike the retcon because it detracts from D&D's lore without adding anything. I'm flabbergasted how something like hoard thieves (or whatever those parasites are called) could take priority over things like steel & song dragons. The "some metallic dragons prefer to live in humanoid form" is a one-liner suitable on a personality trait table – not even worth a sidebar.

Well, I've actually listed to a Lore Your Should Know with Chris Perkins, and I remember him saying how he personally believed (at that time) previous editions went hog-wild with too many dragon types. I remember him even saying that he thought gem dragons were excessive, as he didn't like the idea that every alignment had to have its own dragon type.

So there was probably some internal tension at the D&D Team as to how many dragons should be statted before it started to look redundant and bloated. And although Song/Steel dragons may feel unique from a lore perspective, I don't see why they would be so special from a statistics perspective, so I'm not really surprised they didn't make it.
 

Well, I've actually listed to a Lore Your Should Know with Chris Perkins, and I remember him saying how he personally believed (at that time) previous editions went hog-wild with too many dragon types. I remember him even saying that he thought gem dragons were excessive, as he didn't like the idea that every alignment had to have its own dragon type.

So there was probably some internal tension at the D&D Team as to how many dragons should be statted before it started to look redundant and bloated. And although Song/Steel dragons may feel unique from a lore perspective, I don't see why they would be so special from a statistics perspective, so I'm not really surprised they didn't make it.

Lore reason are reason enough, period. And they could have done like DotMM and made them a template.
 


Remove ads

Top