A Dragon Ally?

Historically, blue dragons are evil and being "friends" with someone usually means forcing him to do stuff or him forcing you to do stuff, depending on the pecking order. However, my understanding of your post is that the PCs befriended him, which suggests that this is not an evil dragon. So... what's his persnality like, apart from being clostrophobic and sex-confused? Is he prone to eating any creature he meets? Is double-crossing his middle-name? Or does he like chillin' with the boys over a bear and telling jokes about red dragons having small tails and such?

Assuming he's the kind of creature that can have friends, then i'd allow him to stick with the party.

I find that two suggestions from above stand out: the first one is to stat him out as a PC. I.e. inspire yourself from the MM blue dragon entry, but ditch it in favor of something similar to the PCs' power level (or slightly inferior to their level). You'll then essentially be adding a NPC to the party. Just don't have him steal the show if you do. And have him act intelligently since dragons are intelligent creatures: no need for him to destroy things or breath on the PCs by accident. This is one of the game's most sublime creature, have it act as such.

The second suggestion is called for if they decide to ride the dragon in combat. In such a case, you can still keep the same stats that you prepared, but you need to consult the mounted combat section in the DMG to see how it works.

In any event, if the PCs like the dragon and vice versa, it is possible for him at some point to even give his life to save theirs. If he comes down heroicly, they'll remember him for sure.

Remember that including the dragon in the party is a minor mechanics challenge for you; however, it is probably a great and wonderful moment for the players. In an old campaign i ran 15-20 years ago, the players managed to subdue a chimera and keep it in their dungeon, feeding it and taking it out to hunt and stuff. They still talk about that now. Don't ruin this great accomplishment for the players.

Have fun,

Sky
 

log in or register to remove this ad

One thought... avoid using racial slurs... using Indian in this way slanders them as a group. I'd suggest you avoid language like this in case a person of native american descent happens to read this and gets upset.

That's a racial slur? I thought it more referred to some of the Native American gifts, where the people would give things, only to take them back at some point, hence the name Indian Giver. My father used to say it all the time, and it never came across as racist or hateful, nor was an explanation used for why it was stopped.

I was thinking that the dragon really doesn't have the capacity at the moment to be evil, given that it was sealed away at a very young age. It hasn't had the cultural influence needed to make it evil.
 

Saying you got gyped doesn't come across as racist either, at least when I've heard it used, but it is a reference to gypsys as a group and generalizes them also.

Maybe slur is too harsh a word... probably more like unfair stereotype. Only reason I bring it up is a good friend is native and takes offence to it. Makes it seem like all natives will give you something than try to take it back...

Edit: BTW sorry to sidetrack the thread. For the record I think it is a cool NPC also & you didn't make a mistake in allowing the PC's to defeat it without killing it, IMO.
 
Last edited:

I was thinking that the dragon really doesn't have the capacity at the moment to be evil, given that it was sealed away at a very young age. It hasn't had the cultural influence needed to make it evil.

Cool. You appear to have made this creature into what could become a memorable NPC already with its few particular personality traits. Have fun with the rest!

Sky
 

Saying you got gyped doesn't come across as racist either, at least when I've heard it used, but it is a reference to gypsys as a group and generalizes them also.

Maybe slur is too harsh a word... probably more like unfair stereotype. Only reason I bring it up is a good friend is native and takes offence to it. Makes it seem like all natives will give you something than try to take it back...


Hhhhm...the gyped thing I don't know, because the reference is so far removed from the original that I don't think it should offend anyway.

The Indian Giver thing, though, makes more sense, since it's not as widespread. In defference I'll not use it again.
 

Historically, blue dragons are evil and being "friends" with someone usually means forcing him to do stuff or him forcing you to do stuff, depending on the pecking order. However, my understanding of your post is that the PCs befriended him, which suggests that this is not an evil dragon. So... what's his persnality like, apart from being clostrophobic and sex-confused? Is he prone to eating any creature he meets? Is double-crossing his middle-name? Or does he like chillin' with the boys over a bear and telling jokes about red dragons having small tails and such?

Part of it is that he doesn't even know what to think of himself. He's been kept as sort of a "guard pet" by a cult for awhile, and never really enjoyed it. He only understands draconic, and the guards were careful not to use it around him. So he's been in an information vacuum, and has been abused since he was a baby, and didn't really have the sense to see it for the monstrous injustice that it is. So he's really quite unaware of what he, and has never even seen himself in a mirror or water or anything, so he doesn't even know what he looks like!

It's a long stretch, I know, but some things are just too cool to pass up on...
 

Also, not all creatures succumb to their races preclivity towards an alignment. (Drizzt is an example that comes to mind... I know not everyone is a fan). Perhaps the PC's could work to reform the dragon, being that they're intelligent creatures, I'd think that it's a possibility. Maybe they'd even have further skill challenges down the road to keep it on the good path? Diplomacy to keep it from eating the militia who fire first at the traditionally evil creature?
 

Also, not all creatures succumb to their races preclivity towards an alignment. (Drizzt is an example that comes to mind... I know not everyone is a fan). Perhaps the PC's could work to reform the dragon, being that they're intelligent creatures, I'd think that it's a possibility. Maybe they'd even have further skill challenges down the road to keep it on the good path? Diplomacy to keep it from eating the militia who fire first at the traditionally evil creature?

Ooh, me like! Good idea!
 

Hhhhm...the gyped thing I don't know, because the reference is so far removed from the original that I don't think it should offend anyway.

Pardon the thread jack, but it's a topic worth talking about.

Just to drive home the point, while you might not find gyped offensive, I am going to go out on a limb and say you don't live somewhere that has an active romani population. So while it doesn't seem offensive, yeah, it is.

Now on the subject of the phrase Indian Giver, it is potentially in reference to White European/Americans who would give land or make treaties and then renege on them. This doesn't change the phrase's unflattering impression though or the fact it uses the word Indian which is in and of itself inherently complicated.

Sorry, just issues I feel passionate about and when I see the opportunity to get a conversation going I need to pursue it.

So back on topic, it sounds like you're really ramping up your campaign for the end game. Now that I've got some more frame of reference for the draconic situation, perhaps you don't need to do anything? For major battles though, I'd find ways to take the dragon out of the fight as it were. Perhaps it needs to battle a horde of flying demons or distract a horde of demonic minions while the PCs handle more important tasks.

Remember, the PCs are the stars of the show - if you include the dragon in a lot of your fights as an NPC, it might steal some of the PC's thunder.
 

Now on the subject of the phrase Indian Giver, it is potentially in reference to White European/Americans who would give land or make treaties and then renege on them. This doesn't change the phrase's unflattering impression though or the fact it uses the word Indian which is in and of itself inherently complicated.

It's my understanding that it is referring more to a misunderstanding between the Indians and the early American settlers. In a nutshell, the Indians didn't have any concept of ownership of land; they thought the settlers were paying just to use it for a little while, "renting" it in a sense. The settlers, of course, were under the impression that they were outright buying the land, so when the Indians wanted to return they interpreted that as the Indians reneging on the deal.

Thus I don't really see the term Indian giver as a racial stereotype so much as an unfortunate miscommunication in early American (the country, not the continent) history.
 

Remove ads

Top