Posted By Temperance on 10/27/2008 5:21 PM
Yup.

We're trying to create a world where dragons are not color coded for your convenience.  Is that honestly a bad thing?

We're trying to free storytelling to make things more interesting.  Tell a story where a gold dragon has become a despot of an empire, and you must ally yourself with a wounded red dragon to bring down the gold dragon's corrupt government.

Or have all your metalic dragons good and chromatic dragons bad.  Either way it works.

The D&D world no longer needs to be so black and white.

Posted By mazra on 10/27/2008 6:09 PM
Hi Everyone,

When it comes to Dragons, I have a qualified appreciation for the direction Temperance and WotC is taking in this area. I really liked the idea of the Capricious Copper. A Dragon that would bargain with a party as much as eat them. Your choice! Like in any race a hero may fall, a once good Saruman can turn to evil. Why not a Gold or Silver Dragon that has become corrupt?

The one problem I do have is the overall tendacies need to be uniform, and aligned with literature and legend. The evil Gold Dragon MUST be an exception. The Gold and Silver as a race of Dragons are good, it is the rare one that falls to evil or neutral. Not unlike the rare Drzzt that turns from the evil Drow tendacies. I believe that it is a mistake if the general tendacies of races move away from the literature that both inspired D&D and is inspired by D&D. Otherwise the legends, the myths, the literature that inspired Dungeons and Dragons from the beginning, and the great literature like Dragonlance and the Forgotten Realms inspired by D&D will have little or no significance alienating the fans of these great works both old and new. There is no need to reinvent the wheel. But it is perfectly OK to paint it a different color.

Later,

Mazra

Posted By Gryfalia on 10/27/2008 7:12 PM

It's hard to describe how much I agree with this thought.  I like the idea that you can't just say 'Silver, it's good!'.

It doesn't work with elves, humans or gnomes, why should it be true of Dragons?

Posted By Almacov on 10/27/2008 5:48 PM
Maybe it would be more adolescent if it assumed all chromatics were irrevocably evil and metallics unendingly good.
Dragons are not divine beings in the default D&D universe. Their motives are not necessarily dictated by the colour of their hide.

Posted By DC on 10/27/2008 4:58 PM

So sorry guys, don't expect to see anything 'intelligent' coming from WotC anymore. 

Posted By Wraithborne on 10/27/2008 8:02 PM
Bah. I've killed Metallic Dragons in 1e, 2e and 3e....not really sure why this is a big deal. I ran a 2e Campaign for over a year where the main antagonist was a Bronze Dragon and over the years my groups have ran into several less than evil Chromatics. Alignment is a guideline not a straight jacket. I've re-read your quoted paragraph several times and still don't see where it says all dragons are evil. Good Dragons have always been represented as greedy and controlling. Nothing new there.

There is no original premise that a guy with a sword can kill a dragon. That argument is flawed at it base. The premise is that a group of 4-6 characters, some of whom can sling fireballs or call down the wrath of the Gods can cooperatively kill a dragon.

Posted By Vrecknidj on 10/27/2008 8:14 PM

Second, with 4e, there has been a "drop the old assumptions" axiom during the development of the game. Everything was open to change, according to the discussion at XP last year. A few people have not liked this. Some D&D purists might want 4e to be connected to 1e in certain ways (for example, keeping the distinctions of dragons the same as before). But, the breakdown of dragon types in 1e was arbitrary and so retaining it is also arbitrary.

Dave

Posted By DC on 10/27/2008 4:58 PM
I have noted several threads in which obviously adult D&D hobbyists are hoping they will see new figures based on the old Dragonlance novels, in which the authors attempted to create a reasonably realistic world in which the evil races of the most dominant creatures (dragons) are held in check by good, metallic dragons that have sympathy for the good races of elves, humans and dwarves, and fight the evil dragons to prevent the destruction of the good humanoid races.  But I am afraid these figures are a forlorne hope, because in the 'new' 4.0 setting, there is no such thing as a 'good dragon', as we see in the excerpt below of an interview with a D&D 4.0 game designer:

"Metallic dragons have traditionally been good-aligned. While flavorful and important to the “ecology” of dragons, the practical effect was to remove half of the available dragons in the Monster Manual as opponents. How often do PCs go up against good creatures? In 4th Edition dragons are more, well, dragonish. They are all ferocious and greedy creatures, with chromatic and metallic dragons distinguished more by personality than alignment. While chromatics tend to be destructive and cruel, metallics focus more on control and power. "

OMG, the adolescent boys (whom the WotC  overlords believe are  the major customers for their product) don't have enough dragons to slay!  No problem, let's  just flush all of the intelligent lore from best selling fantasy novels  that inspired the game down the toilet and just make it a  minature figure version of the standard, mindless, 'kill the monster' video games these same adolescents want to play.

So sorry guys, don't expect to see anything 'intelligent' coming from WotC anymore. 

Posted By wicked cool on 10/28/2008 8:33 AM
Why cant tradition be broken?

Posted By DC on 10/28/2008 5:03 AM
Sure, the quoted paragraph says that.  The complaint was that previously only half of the dragons could be OPPONENTS (key word - it means dragons you can kill), because the other half were good, and good players do not kill fellow good creatures.  So by WotC's own reckoning, if you were killing metallic dragons in the previous editions you were not playing the game correctly, but don't despair, because now you can kill all the dragons you want, and still be a 'good' hero!

Of course, you would not have been able to kill a single dragon if the GM was really doing his job and giving your dragon opponent the natural instinct of self preservation.  Much like the owner of a hunting ranch offering his clients a tame lion in a corral to shoot, your GMs gave you dragons that didn't care if they lived, so fought to the death instead of realistically fleeing if they were outclassed, and later killing its antagonists when it had all the advantages.  But as many people have assured me now, "D&D isn't supposed to be realistic at all".  And you know, they're right?    But this doesn't mean it isn't possible to make a realistic RPG in a world inhabited by sentient dragons and other fantastic creatures, it just means the D&D designers CHOOSE NOT TO do it.  You can even use their figures!

I even suspect a lot of local players often break rules they don't like, just as you seem to have admitted doing. 

Posted By Wraithborne on 10/28/2008 11:37 AM

Break the rules?!? Are you (*^&*&%^& kidding me?
Maybe you should read rule 0. Have you ever even taken a glance at the rules of the game you so vehemently bash?

Fleeing is not always possible. A measly 5th level wizard can fly faster (and with vastly superior maneuverability) than a dragon. There are lots of magic items that allow other characters to do so as well.

Thanks for enlightening me on the definition of opponent. Go back to your regularly scheduled waterboarding please.

Posted By Wraithborne on 10/28/2008 11:37 AM


Break the rules?!? Are you (*^&*&%^& kidding me?
Maybe you should read rule 0. Have you ever even taken a glance at the rules of the game you so vehemently bash?

Fleeing is not always possible. A measly 5th level wizard can fly faster (and with vastly superior maneuverability) than a dragon. There are lots of magic items that allow other characters to do so as well.

Thanks for enlightening me on the definition of opponent. Go back to your regularly scheduled waterboarding please.

Aaah, well OF COURSE the wizards and heroes should be able to fly with no realistic means of propulsion

stupider

this is a game designed for 10 year olds to play

Posted By DC on 10/28/2008 3:46 PM
Aaah, well OF COURSE the wizards and heroes should be able to fly with no realistic means of propulsion so they can kill those cowardly dragons that try to fly away. After all, superman and the mighty morphin power rangers can do that.

Now it makes perfect sense.   Thank you for showing me that just when I thought D&D couldn't get any stupider and more childish, you have shown  me that it can.

I can't think of any quality fantasy novel with such ridiculous notions. Usually a wizard has to enlist the help of a dragon if he wishes to fly somewhere, as we see in the books of best selling fantasy authors like Terry Brooks and Terry Goodkind.

But then, quality fantasy is written for adults, and this is a game designed for 10 year olds to play who won't be happy if they cannot outfly and kill their dragon like marvel superheroes.

Posted By Ghendar on 10/28/2008 6:10 AM
I actually don't mind getting rid of the color distinctions. A good red dragon, an evil silver dragon, makes no difference to me as long as there are both good and evil dragons.

My issues with 4e and WotC are pretty much explained in Dave's quote below.


When you "drop the old assumptions" you free yourself up to change whatever you want. Sadly, that philosophy has resulted in a whole new game but with the same name. I know us grognards get taken to task when we say stuff like "it's not D&D anymore" but I honestly feel that way. It's D&D in name only. WotC is systematically removing those elements that have defined D&D, made it the number 1 selling and most popular RPG and set it apart from other RPGs. That saddens me, because I think it would have been possible to remain within the 3.5 framework, fix the issues and still produce a game that was profitable and fun.
They chose a different path and a fundamenatally different design philosophy. That still irks me because it has resulted in the creation of a game that I don't like and won't support.

Posted By Pale Rider on 10/28/2008 4:17 PM

For the record 3E 5th level wizards can fly like the dickens.

4E 5th level wizards can't fly (but they can at 16th level!)

Really I think you've just 'sarcasmed' your way into a corner.  It's OK, lots of 10 year olds do it.

Posted By DC on 10/28/2008 4:32 PM

Agreed.  Every civilization, including fantasy ones, need to have a sense of history.  Tolkien went to considerable effort to give his middle earth a long a rich history.  "D&D World" ONCE had  a history, based on popular fantasy novels written at the time D&D was born, but it would seem the new waves of youngsters hired to write/develop D&D  want to throw out everything that came before and make up something completely new, all because of massive egos.

  For example, I  suppose this is why we see wave after wave of  new anthropomorhic mini-dragons/reptiloids when it would have been perfectly fine to just use the earliest ones instead of inventing new ones.  But it is a moneymaking scheme as well.  They are trying to popularize 'dragonborn' reptilians now, and not surprisingly, every figure is rare and very expensive.  So in order to have some of these figures in their game, people are paying 8 - 10 dollars for a five cent piece of plastic.

History is hardly taught in schools anymore, so young people today have little respect and regard for it.  So I suppose 'D&D fantasy history' should not have any more respect and regard for young people than real history, even if they think they are fans of the game.

Posted By DC on 10/28/2008 4:32 PM

...but it would seem the new waves of youngsters hired to write/develop D&D  want to throw out everything that came before and make up something completely new, all because of massive egos.  ... But it is a moneymaking scheme as well.�

They are trying to popularize 'dragonborn' reptilians now, and not surprisingly, every figure is rare and very expensive.  So in order to have some of these figures in their game, people are paying 8 - 10 dollars for a five cent piece of plastic.  

History is hardly taught in schools anymore, so young people today have little respect and regard for it.  So I suppose 'D&D fantasy history' should not have any more respect and regard for young people than real history, even if they think they are fans of the game.

Posted By DC on 10/28/2008 4:43 PM
Isn't that what really matters when you're always picked last for 'dodgeball'  in the real world?�

Posted By mazra on 10/28/2008 3:51 PM
Hi Wraith, Vreck, Lord Rock and others,

Since I was very young, before D&D. (Yes, I am that old.) I was fascinated with the tales of King Arthur. Later I read Lord of the Rings and this became, and still is, my all time favorite fictional book. Then I discovered D&D, 1st edition. And these wonderful tales and stories began to come alive in my living room and in the living room of my friends. We learned that some creatures were good and others evil. It was the way of things.

As I have posted before, I have no problem with EXCEPTIONS. I have a problem when EXCEPTIONS become the NORM. That is the "BIG DEAL." Gold Dragon were not "ARBITRARILY good. They were good because Gold Dragons of Chinese mythos and legend were good. Most of the monsters in 1st Edition were rooted in legend or myth or works of fiction. I believe it is a great mistake for D&D to venture far from these roots. I really enjoy the exceptions. That is great! But I believe WotC has taken it too far. And this will alienate many to the game both new and old.

Later,

Mazra

Posted By DC on 10/28/2008 5:02 PM
Few people are also aware that the fire spewing, winged, yahweh-dragon of the hebrews was once presented with an offering 32 Midianite virgins to suplement his daily ration of unbemished lambs and calves (and liqour too, which may be why the Bible says he could spew fire from his mouth.  In fact most people have forgotten that Yahweh was originally a benificent storm controlling dragon, no different than the dragons of the Chinese. �

Posted By Corim Danex on 10/28/2008 4:55 PM
I would be shocked if you were half as athletic as I am.  And I am not even as up to speed athletically as I was for many years.  You really do have a penchant for stereotyping and prejudice that makes you come across as much more foolish than any of the assaulting comments you throw about carelessly.