Chaotic Neutral Copper Dragon?

[shilsen]

I've always been doing that, which is one of the reasons I like Eberron. It took a whole lot of things I do and made them design assumptions.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

I always liked the idea of good vs. evil when it came to dragons in particular. I always assumed dragons were immortal, spawned upon the creation of the universe, and embodying the primal conflict between evil and good which was part and parcel of my vision of a D&D universe. I also like the idea of dragons "turning" to another alignment for one reason or another - a red dragon "converted" to good by powerful celestial forces, a gold dragon whose zeal for good twists into evil itself, etc. Good plot hooks, in other words. Anyway, if I recall correctly, weren't copper dragons always described as being a touch on the neutral and selfish side since as far back as the 1e MM?

 

[frankthedm]

Big problem was several good dragons and other good monsters have attacks and abilities that are just way too lethal for their CR if they are going to follow up with a CDG. Brass's area Sleep, Silver's area paralysis

 

[WyzardWhately]

I've never really thrown enough Dragons around to warrant meddling much with their stats. I try to keep them so rare that they're exceptional anyway. Still, I would have done it in a heartbeat if I thought it was warranted, so I don't mind WotC doing it. It is, again, a rule that's childishly simple to hack any way the DM prefers it. It's the rules that are *hard* to change that can even potentially annoy me.

I've had Devils that made it all the way up to neutral, and a few other anomalies. In one of the games I played in, we had good-aligned Illithids (we used a helm of opposite alignment. It was pretty traumatic for them.)

 

[delericho]

This isn't a rules change. In the MM, it states that there are exceptions even to alignments listed as "Always..."

Still, it was a good thing when Eberron spelled it out, and it's a good thing that 4e seems to be going to same way.

(Still, if they're going to remove mechanical effects from alignment, I would just drop it entirely. But that's just me.)

 

[Klaus]

Well, its nice to see the rules finally go here, but how many of you are like me and been having Dragons, and all monster types, running the full range of alignment for most of your DMing career?

Always been by the book.

Otherwise I might as well have only one type of (fire-breathing, classical) dragon, and give it any alignment.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I rarely change creature alignments for things like dragons and outsiders. For example, I've been running Planescape since the first boxed set came out and I've had one Good tiefling NPC in that time. I can't think of a fiend or celestial I've changed. I believe I've always used dragons' listed alignment.

I just think there's something primal about these forces, and I don't want to use alternate alignments for anything like a "gotcha" or just another surprise twist (I have plenty of those). I like to keep the players guessing, but not about whether or not the dragon they're going to attack is actually good. Just doesn't do it for me.

That isn't to say I'm against the idea. I just think it should be really really rare, and I reinforce this rarity through play. I plan to use one Evil celestial before this campaign ends in a very specific way. I think the fact that I've never done it before to this group of players will really make this guy look even more evil and he'll be a great antagonist.

 

[delericho]

I rarely change creature alignments for things like dragons and outsiders.

That isn't to say I'm against the idea. I just think it should be really really rare, and I reinforce this rarity through play. I plan to use one Evil celestial before this campaign ends in a very specific way.

IMC, the outsiders are the literal embodiments of their alignments. As such, a demon who ceases to be Chaotic Evil ceases to be a demon and becomes something else. Likewise, there are no non-Good celestials, as such.

I don't apply the same to dragons.

Plus, of course, that's purely IMC, and has no real relevance to the RAW.

 

[Jhaelen]

I've been doing it 'by the book':

Always XY: Alignment is 'XY' - for these creatures it typically makes no sense to change the alignment, because it's part of their nature (e.g. there are no chaotic neutral devils - if it isn't lawful evil it is no devil!)

Usually XY: I typically choose an alignment up to one step away from 'XY' (reasoning: while there may be deviations from the norm among this kind of creature, there's a solid reason for the 'mainstream' alignment, so you'll probably never encounter a specimen with a diametrically opposed alignment)

Often XY: I pick any alignment (while a (slight) minority may have alignment XY, there's enough variance among the species that there's a good chance for meeting an individual with any alignment)

 

[Rykion]

Always by the book. As has been pointed out, the book lets you change monsters' alignments. The stated alignment simply represents the majority for that monster type, or the most frequent alignment when "often" is used as a describer.