Forum

The descriptions of dragons in Dragobane harkens back to the old writings in the earliest versions of the game. Big, scaly, tresure loving, cunning, ruthless. That sort of thing. I always think of Smaug when I read the old texts. But the most famous of the dragons in the old lore of Drakar och Demoner is Blatifagus, a decrepit dragon with his tail end chopped off, with a penchant for playing chess. So there is precedent for dragons with more style and substance.

And as has been said earlier in the thread, dragons are not evil per se. Not even demons are evil, really. They have descriptors that are commonly associated with "evil", but "Good vs Evil" is something that Free League wants to step away from in their games, instead leaning towards giving adversaries motives that might be beneficial for the PCs or detrimental to the PCs health. Dragons and demons are creatures of myth and magic and we mortals do not really understand them. What we see as wanton destruction might have a greater purpose, even if we ants are trampled under the dragon's metaphorical boots.

I'd say that for any dragon to be a centerpiece of an adventure, it surely would be best for that dragon to be fleshed out, given some more tangible goals that interface with the adventure and the player characters' goals. And not always evil, just ... unfathomable. Scheming over centuries. Having plans that make no sense to us, that play out over one hundred years.

A dragon might have need of assistance against a demon and thus will lend aid to the PCs, requesting only a favour in return. Or it might be a guardian of an ancient library of magic tomes, which it will only share with those who brings it a new tome for the collection. Or it might be a gold-hungry hoarder squatting in a dwarven city out of spite, longing for the olden times.

It's very much up to the Gamemaster to decide. And for the adventure writers to experiment with, of course.

If you feel so strongly about it, then maybe this is not the game for you? Just because you can do stuff like that in other fantasy ttrpgs dos'nt that mean that that applies to every fantasy ttrpgs that just happens to have dragons. There is clearly better options for you if you want games that allows you to interact with dragons. (Could recomnend Ryuutama for instance).

And while i know "dragon magic" was a thing in older edditions, dragonbane have never been a high fantasy setting akin to pathfinder or dnd, but had more of a sword and sorcery theme. The characters you play are much more average people who for one reason or another picked up a weapon and said "you know what? Being an adventurer would be neat!", rather than the more fantastical options that say parhfinder allows.

• Nope, they are written as very eloquent and prone to flattery, not evil as such - this opens up for interactons with players

• See above, and there are examples in the campaign regarding giants being possible to persuade...

"If dragons aren’t all evil then why describe them as such?
The way dragons are written in core rules makes it more likely for GMs to run dragons as 2 dimensional who’s only purpose is to be slain "

• Nope, they are written as very eloquent and prone to flattery, not evil as such - this opens up for interactons with players

"Or why dragons (or giants for that matter) can’t be persuaded "

• See above, and there are examples in the campaign regarding giants being possible to persuade...

So, as you see, not at all "fucking stupid"!

Well, Magnus Seter wrote the Bestiary book?

PS just talk with your GM that you would like dragons to be as you prefer them. I am sure you will work it out to fit your game. No rules set can cover everything a player can think of. I might prefer dragons to be horrendeus monsters, that only attacks and attacks and burns the world relentless - no fairy tale dragons for me. Why is that not the only way to depict dragons in Dragonbane?

The descriptions of dragons in Dragobane harkens back to the old writings in the earliest versions of the game. Big, scaly, tresure loving, cunning, ruthless. That sort of thing. I always think of Smaug when I read the old texts. But the most famous of the dragons in the old lore of Drakar och Demoner is Blatifagus, a decrepit dragon with his tail end chopped off, with a penchant for playing chess. So there is precedent for dragons with more style and substance.

And as has been said earlier in the thread, dragons are not evil per se. Not even demons are evil, really. They have descriptors that are commonly associated with "evil", but "Good vs Evil" is something that Free League wants to step away from in their games, instead leaning towards giving adversaries motives that might be beneficial for the PCs or detrimental to the PCs health. Dragons and demons are creatures of myth and magic and we mortals do not really understand them. What we see as wanton destruction might have a greater purpose, even if we ants are trampled under the dragon's metaphorical boots.

I'd say that for any dragon to be a centerpiece of an adventure, it surely would be best for that dragon to be fleshed out, given some more tangible goals that interface with the adventure and the player characters' goals. And not always evil, just ... unfathomable. Scheming over centuries. Having plans that make no sense to us, that play out over one hundred years.

A dragon might have need of assistance against a demon and thus will lend aid to the PCs, requesting only a favour in return. Or it might be a guardian of an ancient library of magic tomes, which it will only share with those who brings it a new tome for the collection. Or it might be a gold-hungry hoarder squatting in a dwarven city out of spite, longing for the olden times.

It's very much up to the Gamemaster to decide. And for the adventure writers to experiment with, of course.