Exactly why there was no reason to change it in the first place. The original 1e gold dragons served a Lawful Good god and if they, as a group, aren't aligned with Good I think of any other creature that should be. So far I've seen no artistic/conceptual justification for this change, just seems to be what Derren says.
MM II Identity Parade
- Thread starter Phaezen
- Start date
Exactly why there was no reason to change it in the first place. The original 1e gold dragons served a Lawful Good god and if they, as a group, aren't aligned with Good I think of any other creature that should be. So far I've seen no artistic/conceptual justification for this change, just seems to be what Derren says.
Hellzon
First Post
About those "good" dragons.
Brass dragons are supposedly chaotic good (neutral).
"Good" seems to have been very flexible when the writers wanted it to be. 4E Good actually means that, at the cost of shunting a lot of formerly "good" creatures down to Unaligned.
Oh hey. Coppers are listed as CG.
The others were decent dudes, though.
AD&D2 Monstrous Manual said:
Brass dragons are supposedly chaotic good (neutral).
"Good" seems to have been very flexible when the writers wanted it to be. 4E Good actually means that, at the cost of shunting a lot of formerly "good" creatures down to Unaligned.Same book said:
Oh hey. Coppers are listed as CG.
The others were decent dudes, though.
Last edited:
About those "good" dragons.
Brass dragons are supposedly chaotic good (neutral).
Oh hey. Coppers are listed as CG.
Most of that is more "highly annoying" than "not good"
Even good people can be a jerk sometimes and a evil guy can pet a puppy and not kick it once in a while.
Not any longer and for imo no good reason. As it was said/implied, as easy as it is to make a unaligned creature good it is to make a good creature unaligned (or evil). So why destroy fluff, tradition and versimilitude for that?
Last edited:
Hellzon
First Post
Being buried up to your neck in sand in a hot desert until you talk is "highly annoying"? Hokay, bowing out now.
Klaus
First Post
There was an opportunity to pay homage to the old D&D cartoon and have the gold be the only true "good" dragon (and therefore a "point of light" creature), but alas.
As for why have stats for a creature not supposed to be killed, a "Good" gold dragon could be (off the top of my head):
- magically controlled;
- duped into thinking the PCs are Evil;
- protecting its secret nest/hoard/shrine;
- honorbound to defend the evil Scion of Arkhosia.
Not to mention that if your PCs fight alongside it against a red dragon and its army of hobgoblins, you'll need stats for it. And then there's always the "Tarnished Gold Dragon" angle, with an Unaligned or even Evil dragon.
As for why have stats for a creature not supposed to be killed, a "Good" gold dragon could be (off the top of my head):
- magically controlled;
- duped into thinking the PCs are Evil;
- protecting its secret nest/hoard/shrine;
- honorbound to defend the evil Scion of Arkhosia.
Not to mention that if your PCs fight alongside it against a red dragon and its army of hobgoblins, you'll need stats for it. And then there's always the "Tarnished Gold Dragon" angle, with an Unaligned or even Evil dragon.
I wouldn't mind all metallic dragons being unaligned if they did the same for chromatic. Without the chromatics being unaligned, it sticks out like a sore thumb, and it's not just bad fluff, but overall bad game design.
chaotix42
First Post
Agreed. In a system with alignments I'm probably going to make my monsters be whatever alignment I need them to be. If there was no alignment then they would just "be," which works fine too.
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
I am starting to wonder why they kept alignment around. I mean, if you never actually meet anything that's good, and no PC can ever be evil, then certainly it's only "us" and "everyone else." We shoot blue lazers, they shoot red, let's fight!
