Does Anyone Else Find It A Tad Bit Ridiculous That...


log in or register to remove this ad


Really? Did they abolish that or something? I could have sworn I remember reading that it was set in stone that color determined alignment for dragons.
 

I think he was making a joke :P

And who says it has to be about color? Polar bears are white, because of where they live. White dragons are white, because of where they live. It's genetics.

As for good or evil... some creatures are nice (like domestic dogs), creatures aren't (like rhinos).
 

No not color, but rather grouping.

For example:

Metallic dragons are 'always' good (as in 99 out of a 100 metallic dragons are good)

Chromatic dragons are 'always' evil (these are the nlack, blue, green, red, and white (and purple, yellow and orange) dragons)

Gem dragons are 'always' neutral (interesting to not that the obsidian dragon is NE)

Color isn't really an issue, as emerald dragons (a gem dragon) are green, song dragons are silver, but are not always good, and so on. Color is not an indicator, species is.

And besides, you should not draw paralels between mythic creatures such as dragons and humans.

Later,
 



Yeah, I just think it's supporting an archetype. It's awfully limited when you want to create a normal, common dragon that happens to be, say, of green color and plain skin and people remind you of a rule you don't agree with anyway. Then you have to make it a unique dragon and that's annoying at times. Just my opinion.
 

Well, always doesn't always mean always... If you get my drift. I actually have a Red Dragon Paladin in my campaign... And psychopatic brass running around... There is always a few dragons going against their nature... :D
 

You should feel free to exercise your option to House Rule on draconic alignment, making sure to provide your players with an update that they can't assume a dragon is going to confirm to the traditional D&D alignment/type model.

- Devon
 

Remove ads

Top