D&D 5E Is Neil Gaiman Wrong?

[Voadam]

From the Monster Manual (1977) intelligence of dragons:
Black: Average
Blue: Very
Brass: High
Bronze: Exceptional
Copper: High
Gold: Genius
Green: Average-Very
Red: Exceptional
Silver: Exceptional
White: Average

None are beasts (in terms of intelligence), and all dragons are at least human intelligence (average) and most are more intelligent than that.

You missed a bit on the low end white dragons there.

The entry for white dragons is actually: "INTELLIGENCE: Average (low)" Average is only 8-10 so low end of that would be 8. Low intelligence is 5-7 range.

0 Non-intelligent or not ratable
1 Animal intelligence
2-4 Semi-intelligent
5-7 Low intelligence
8-10 Average (human) intelligence
13-14 Highly intelligent
15-16 Exceptionally intelligent
17-18 Genius
19-20 Supra-genius
21+ Godlike intelligence
11-12 Very intelligent

In Moldvay Basic it called dragons intelligent but 90% to 50% of non-gold dragons could not talk at all (even in the Dragon language) and were just big intelligent flying predators with breath weapons.

TALKING: Dragons are intelligent, and some dragons can speak Dragon and Common. The percentage listed under Chance of Talking is the chance that a dragon will be able to talk.

Seeing most dragons as intelligent hissing and spitting dangerous beasts is not out of line with a Basic D&D background.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

Gnomes.

Tyrion Lannister sends memories to you.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Seeing most dragons as intelligent hissing and spitting dangerous beasts is not out of line with a Basic D&D background.

Just because the dragon isn't speaking doesn't mean it's a dumb beast. I assume that a beast doesn't normally surrender, right? (Moldvay B33). Have a great love of treasure? (Same). Capture men? (Same). And, even if they don't speak, "pause and listen to flattery[.]" (Same).

This is an argument that is far more stupid than any dragon. They are intelligent, vain creatures that accumulate treasure and take captives, among other things.

Even in Moldvay.

 

[Hoffmand]

Different people have different appetites for "awesome" (for lack of a better term). Not everyone likes super powered heroes, and even those of us that do don't necessarily like them all the time.

Nah. He didn’t have super powers. He was just that good with an axe

 

[DEFCON 1]

Um, with respect, dinosaurs went out 65 million years ago. Homo erectus became a thing about 2 million years ago. There's a 60+ million year gap, such that there's no real connection between those events.

Well, I'm still right, aren't I? Humans weren't a thing so long as the dinosaurs were around.

[In truth, I thought I remembered hearing that there were ancient proto-human species that existed during the time of the dinosaurs, when in truth as I've been checking the wikis it seems like it must have been "early mammals" that I read about instead. My bad.]

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Just thinking. I remember reading letters in The Forum in Dragon back at the tail end of the 1e era when it seemed like every one wanted dragons to be more and more powerful. I began to read articles where DM's described them as more of a thieves guild than a monster. Then 2e jacked them through the roof and later editions mostly kept that going.

I'm glad my current game still has a 6 HD 30 HP black dragon as a foe to kill with a treasure to loot. And no doubt when a group gets a 30 points in a face full of acid its no joke. Many cut and run at that point. And that 88 HP huge Ancient Red is going to require a different approach but dragons are there to be defeated.

And looted.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

To a Dragon humans are insignificant mosquitos. Mosquitos kill about a million humans every year.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Just thinking. I remember reading letters in The Forum....

Dear Dragon Forum,

I was just a freshman at a small, midwestern wizard's school in the Flaeness, and I never thought it could happen to me, but one day I met the most attractive red dragon ....

 

[QuentinGeorge]

If gargantuan dragons walked the earth, we humans would not be where we currently stand in terms of learning and technology. Our societies would have been molded around having to try and survive when these massive flying creatures existed.

I mean, when did "humans" start gaining traction as a species? Only after the dinosaurs went extinct. Those massive carnivorous creatures that could destroy our crops, break our homes, maul us indiscriminently and resist our weapons would not have allowed us to advance in the same way we did had we had to exist together this entire time.

I don't know about that. Humans came from Africa which has plenty of megafauna that can maul us, break our homes and destroy our crops and we seem to have done fine.

The world is infested with rats and mice despite them being very easy to kill.

 

[Reynard]

Of course, dragons are an amazingly versatile sort of creature, useful for filling all sort of niches in fiction and play. That's why D&D is rife with not only dragons, but drakes and wyverns and wyrms and all many of draconic creatures meant to recreate some mythical, cultural or fictional sort of dragon the traditional chromatics and metallics left out. There's no point in saying what "a dragon" should be like or do in D&D because there's no singular definition of a dragon in D&D -- any more than there is a singular sort of giant or walking dead or any number of traditional creature types.

I for one am a huge fan of including the dragon so big it can destroy a castle with a sweep of its tail. I just had to learn that the stats in the monster manual(s) are not for THAT dragon. That dragon needs something else entirely.