Fria Ligans forum

“Dragons are vicious, reptilian beasts mainly found in rugged mountainous areas, where they build their dens in deep caves or abandoned dwarven mines. They are ancient beings of power and magic who consider themselves the true masters of the world. Dragons are cunning and often frighteningly eloquent, notorious for deceiving their victims with fair words and treacherous lies. On the other hand, they are as vain as peacocks and themselves susceptible to silver-tongued flattery. Another weakness is their attraction to gold, which often causes conflicts with dwarves, humans, and others who share the draconic lust for treasure and glittering objects.”

I don’t like this. Why are all dragons like that?

I want to have friendly dragon NPCs, and also be able to connect dragons to characters like a mage that was taught draconic magic by a dragon that adopted them as a child

And have those dragons alongside evil ones. Not have all dragons be vicious and evil

Like how World of Warcraft has both good and evil dragons

Like how The Dragon Prince has good and evil dragons

Like how D&D has good an evil dragons

Like how Pathfinder2e has good and evil dragons

And good dragons existing alongside evil dragons makes evil dragons much more interesting villains

For example, Deathwing from WoW is a great villain. But he isnt “born evil”. He is a good villain cause he’s a tragic and complex one. His attempts to save and protect the world drove him insane, allowing elder gods to corrupt him. Not only this, but heroic and good dragons such as Alexstrayza helping to defeat Deathwing also made Deathwing a great villain.

Cause then the dragon has to have a reason for why they’re evil or a problem and not resort to the lazy “dragons are born evil” reason.

So why can’t us the players have dragons as mentors or supportive/quest giving NPCs? Why can’t I play a mage who was raised by a dragon and taught draconic magic?

And why can’t persuasion checks work with dragons? Persuasion checks not working with demons or animals sure

But there’s no reason why all dragons should be immune to persuasion.

Dragons are made only to be fought and not only is there nothing in the core rule book for using them as NPCs

But the game shoehorns players into fighting them by making them immune to persuasion checks

D&D, in addition to providing statblocks for combat, has guides for running dragons as NPCs and even gives dragons skills. In D&D, I can play as a wizard raised by a dragon and taught draconic magic, and have said dragon be kind and good hearted.

You can make them whatever you want in your home game but I think that's the core trope of this setting.

Ya know Dragonbane and all.

I like good dragons and socially manipulative dragons and good ones, but that doesn't have to be true of all games.

Not even all DnD settings have good dragons. Their are some thst only have evil dragons and some that have none at all.

You can make them whatever you want in your home game…

What if I’m a player and not the GM? GMs are likely to stick to the core setting and not be willing to change the lore

…but I think that's the core trope of this setting.

Ya know Dragonbane and all.

Its original name was Dragons and Demons but they made it dragonbane for whatever reason in the English. Personally, I think it’s a poor choice for a name and makes the system seem like it has a very specific niche

I like good dragons and socially manipulative dragons and good ones, but that doesn't have to be true of all games.

But the simple fact people want good dragons and that good dragons have existed for awhile in fantasy media, dragonbane should have done a better job of allowing good dragons and not making them all evil.

If you want more good dragons talk to your GM.

This is a game that's built in a base setting in which all dragons are evil.

Their are fantasy tropes with good dragons, but their are just as many where all dragons are terrible evil monsters.

I like dragons too. Not all game worlds have to reflect what i like.

Dragons in Dragonbane are technically neither good or evil, they are superior compared to humans, dwarves, etc (duh). and they see themselves as the true supreme masters of the world and also in many cases their interests clashes with the interests of the "lesser" (i.e. humans, dwarves, et c.).

So individual dragons could have an agenda that some heroes could see as "good" (or as "evil" for that matter) but there are no large groups/factions of good dragons and evil dragons.

Back in the day (the 80s) my group back then encountered a large number of dragons in the official adventure/campaign books (the writers back then seems to like to add dragons in their campaigns) and in surprisingly many of those "official" adventures, the players where able to talk and even persuade the dragon to gain information from them, or even to ally them in some cases, instead of just fight them. It all depended on what the PCs knew about this specific dragon or could find out while talking to it.

The rulebook do give the the description that they are not exactly nice, i wouldn't necessarily call them "Evil". The "In the Oldest Times" segment at the start of the rulebook describes them more as creatures of Order than Evil.

"The world was then ruled by dragons and demons. Yes, draconic serpents and demonic creatures were the princes and princesses of the oldest times. They were the primordial forces through which the world and its primeval matter was formed: the sky, the mountains, and the fiery oceans of magma and unthinking life. They were opposing principles that made the world complete. Law and order versus chaos and madness, the stable and fixed versus the wild and eternally fluid."

It should be noted that even in the older editions of the swedish Dragonbane, Dragons were portrayed as egotistical creatures. While most would rather burn the local towns down, add treasure to their hoards and eat any pesky adventurer that came their way, they could also be nice and benevolent. But only if THEY wanted to be nice, or could benefit from it, and even "Good" dragons could get angry if you questioned them or would be condescending to the mortal kin they are supposed to "protect and help". They are beings who are at the top of the food chain, and the only ones who could possibly come close are Demons (which they likely would never admit), everyone else is beaneath them, either prey, pawns or at best a pet you could tend too until you get bored.

The rulebook do give the the description that they are not exactly nice, i wouldn't necessarily call them "Evil". The "In the Oldest Times" segment at the start of the rulebook describes them more as creatures of Order than Evil.

"The world was then ruled by dragons and demons. Yes, draconic serpents and demonic creatures were the princes and princesses of the oldest times. They were the primordial forces through which the world and its primeval matter was formed: the sky, the mountains, and the fiery oceans of magma and unthinking life. They were opposing principles that made the world complete. Law and order versus chaos and madness, the stable and fixed versus the wild and eternally fluid."

It should be noted that even in the older editions of the swedish Dragonbane, Dragons were portrayed as egotistical creatures. While most would rather burn the local towns down, add treasure to their hoards and eat any pesky adventurer that came their way, they could also be nice and benevolent. But only if THEY wanted to be nice, or could benefit from it, and even "Good" dragons could get angry if you questioned them or would be condescending to the mortal kin they are supposed to "protect and help". They are beings who are at the top of the food chain, and the only ones who could possibly come close are Demons (which they likely would never admit), everyone else is beaneath them, either prey, pawns or at best a pet you could tend too until you get bored.

I don’t mind arrogant dragons at all. In fact in dnd, as GM I like to have good aligned dragons like silver or brass ones unintentionally belittle adventurers due to their arrogance. Being arrogant and thinking highly of yourself is, believe it or not, not an inherently evil thing. You might be an arrogant prick at times, doesn’t mean you’ll burn down villages.

I actually haven't read the Bestiary myself yet, but my understanding is that the texts presented there are to read as if discovered in-game - as mood texts, if you will. That means that the information in the Bestiary is what you might find out if talking to well-read people in the Dragonbane world - not necessarily the objective and whole truth. A rule of thumb should probably ALWAYS be that the actual truth is more nuanced and complicated than what is revealed in the Bestiary texts.

Normal humans, elves, mallards and dwarves in the Dragonbane world experience dragons as terrible creatures at odds with their civilizations - as simply evil. Texts written by them about dragons will reflect this.

But Dragonbane lore also clearly states that dragons play a huge, mysterious and complex role in the creation and balance of the world that is greater than most intelligent kin can comprehend. It is up to each GM (and possibly future published adventures and campaign modules) to put flesh on those bones and reveal more of the history and nuance.

Personally, I love it when there is ambiguity if the ancient, immensely powerful beings really are cruel, or if it is us that are just incapable of comprehending their worldview. Plus, it can lead to some fun scenarios.

Let's say that a party needs to resolve a problem, like say finding a long lost ruin from an ancient empire. The only one who would know where it is a dragon. And looking up said dragon they learn that several centuries ago they were a fire breathing tyrant, who claimed a large swath of land and was vicious and cruel, until a band of heroes managed to severely wound the dragon and forcing it to flee, where none saw it again.

Until it was seen about a century ago where it made its lair in a mountain near a port town, well known for its wealthy trade. But getting to the town, there is a bit of a different picture being painted. When the dragon arrived, people were terrified and opted to try and appease it with a generous amount of gold and treasure from their trade, placing it outside its lair and left before it could grab it. Despite that, the dragon never approached the town. They have seen it flying past a few times, but it leaves them alone.
Except one time when the town was about to be attacked by a fleet of pirates, where the dragon flew out, incinerated the fleet, then went back into its lair, not once stopping by the town to demand tribute or demand they submit to it.

Sense then, the town regularly and willingly gives tribute to the dragon, and the town's opinion of the beast is positive, sense after that, no one dares to try and rob the town out of fear of the dragon retaliating. But despite all of this, no one has actually approached the dragon to talk to it, because despite appearing benevolent, it is still a dragon, and no one wanna risk angering it, especially sense the dragon has made no attempt to communicate despite for how long it's been around here.

So this puts the party in a pickle. Has the dragon become benevolent after its defeat, willing to aid the town when in need of its own accord? Is it just making the people assume it is nice, so that they willingly will add to its hoard, rather than face another confrontation that humiliated it when it tried to just grab treasure and rampage? Or does it not care about the town folk at all, and just grab the treasure given to it because they are dumb enough to just give it to them and just want to be left alone, and only attacked the fleets for some other reason? They would need to consider how to approach it based on this, as this is not "typical dragon behavior" that their myths and legends would suggest.

I was told the designers of dragonbane or even the creator himself would reply if make an account on this website and make a post