D&D General Why do we color-code Dragons?

[Tonguez]

Another is that swamps are stagnant. Swamp water moves slowly, if at all. That means that things accumulate in it. That's usually life... but it's generally not life that's good for humans. You get dirt in the water, and stagnant pools that are great for breeding mosquitos and other insects that spread disease. Compare to running river water, which is generally considered clean unless polluted by a major city or something.

I think swamps as sources of disease and decay is the main reason they get a bad rep and the rot aspect in particular gets the Black dragons association with acid (rapid decay) and thus death

 

[Staffan]

I think swamps as sources of disease and decay is the main reason they get a bad rep and the rot aspect in particular gets the Black dragons association with acid (rapid decay) and thus death

That's probably the major one, but the other three aspects play into the same thing.

 

[Clint_L]

Maybe we shouldn't color-code dragons any more than we color-code humans?

Well, they're fantasy creatures with specific abilities, so it's a useful way to know whether you are grabbing the stat blcok for one with lightning versus one with fire. Therefore, if the game didn't organize them by colour it would probably just organize them by breath weapon, which seems a bit like six of one, half a dozen of the other. Thus, I don't know if the analogy to colour-coding humans is particularly apt, in this case.

 

[Dire Bare]

4th Edition tried to remove the idea of monster species being locked into specific alignments, either through their stats or their in-game culture. WotC regressed back to the classic model for 5th Edition. I assume the 4E change was unpopular, but don't really know. I continue with it myself, that Red Dragon culture tends to produce aggressive dragons, but not necessarily evil dragons.

 

[Dire Bare]

In world the explanation is often The Chromatic Dragon Tiamat as mother of evil dragons.

In the game world lore of D&D, yes . . . but that's not why we have color-coded dragons in D&D. The D&D version of Tiamat came after Gygax color-coded the evil dragons in the chromatic colors and the goodly dragons in metallic colors.

In real-world mythology, Tiamat is not a five-headed dragon, and not even an evil goddess bent on destruction and tyrrany.

 

[Clint_L]

4th Edition tried to remove the idea of monster species being locked into specific alignments, either through their stats or their in-game culture. WotC regressed back to the classic model for 5th Edition. I assume the 4E change was unpopular, but don't really know. I continue with it myself, that Red Dragon culture tends to produce aggressive dragons, but not necessarily evil dragons.

The current MM includes this disclaimer:

The alignment specified in a monster’s stat block is a default suggestion of how to roleplay the monster, inspired by its traditional role in the game or real-world folklore. Change a monster’s alignment to suit your storytelling needs.

I don't bother with alignment, so I pick my dragons according to whatever miniature I really want to use. If that means a villainous gold dragon, then so be it!

 

[Voadam]

Eberron decouples dragon color from alignment. Golds and reds (in Eberron) are equally likely to be evil or good.

In d20 Modern the different color dragons are there but they all have the same basic stat block by age category, whites are as big and powerful as reds. They just differ by breath weapon and resistances according to their color.

 

[Dire Bare]

The current MM includes this disclaimer:


I don't bother with alignment, so I pick my dragons according to whatever miniature I really want to use. If that means a villainous gold dragon, then so be it!

Well, yeah . . . but the default is still the classic Red = Evil, Gold = Good, etc, etc. And if you read the new Book of Dragons that just came out . . . it really doubles down on describing each dragon species in classic form.

The MM gives that disclaimer, and it is an easy change as a DM . . . but I do prefer how it was handled in 4E, where it was stated explicitly that alignment does not match species.

 

[Voadam]

The MM gives that disclaimer, and it is an easy change as a DM . . . but I do prefer how it was handled in 4E, where it was stated explicitly that alignment does not match species.

My understanding of 4e dragons was that individuals varied, but Chromatics were still evil and metallics generally were not, though they shifted to more unaligned instead of baseline good.

Here is the text in the 4e MMI:

Dragons are diverse creatures, appearing in at least twenty-five varieties within five major families. All dragons share certain characteristics—notably the legged and winged shape of their reptilian bodies—but within each family there are even stronger similarities.
Chromatic dragons are the dragons detailed here. They are generally evil, greedy, and predatory, and they’re inclined to worship Tiamat, whom they regard as their progenitor and patron. This family includes red, blue, green, black, and white dragons. Each variety has its own breath weapon—a blast of elemental substance, from blazing fire to frigid cold—which it can expel from its mouth.
Catastrophic dragons are mighty embodiments of primordial forces. They are destructive, but not devoted to evil. The ground warps and explodes violently in their presence.Earthquake and typhoon dragons are two types of catastrophic dragons.
Metallic dragons are in some ways the opposite of the chromatic dragons. Many of them are devoted to Bahamut and share his ideals of nobility and virtue. Many others fail to live up to those lofty ideals and succumb to a selfishness and aggression that seems common among all of dragonkind. Metallic dragons, including gold, silver, copper, iron, and adamantine dragons, often guard valuable treasures or powerful magic items, even artifacts. They have breath weapons similar to those of chromatic dragons, but their effects are as much defensive as offensive.
Planar dragons are dragons infused with the nature of other planes of existence. Shadow dragons, Abyssal dragons, and fey dragons are all planar dragons.
Scourge dragons, sometimes called linnorms, embody the afflictions that plague living creatures, much as catastrophic dragons embody natural disasters. They are almost universally evil, even more so than the chromatics, and they revel in the raw physicality of melee combat. Because they lack wings and rear legs, some scholars insist that they’re not true dragons, but more closely related to drakes.

 

[Blue Orange]

Chinese Dragons also come in a variety of colours, though they tend to represent ideals rather than being coded in the manner of DnD dragons. The habitat associations arent there, nor the breath weapon or alignment.

Gold: The most revered color, linked to divine power, Earth element, imperial authority, wisdom, and wealth.
Red: Fire Element, a symbol of Warriors, good fortune, happiness, and power, making it a common sight during festivals and celebrations.
Green: Wood Element, representing growth, renewal, and health, often associated with nature and spring.
Blue: Water Element, represents the vastness of the sky and water, symbolizing power and the life-giving force of rain.
Black: Water Element, symbolizes the hidden realms of the earth or represent the balance between light and shadow.
White: Metal Element, representing purity or transformation, can also be seen as harbingers of death in some traditions.


Personally I think the DnD system of colour coded dragons is dumb so I dont use it

I think it's Pathfinder that incorporates the actual Chinese five-phase (Wu Xing) system, which really does have a natural rock-paper-scissors (-lizard-Spock) system that gives you a natural victor for any matchup.
There's a generating cycle: wood->fire->earth->metal->water->wood
And a controlling cycle: wood->earth->water->fire->metal->wood

So wood beats water and earth, but loses to metal and fire.