Since the release of Eberron, I've followed their example of dragons not having an inherent alignment. I'm currently reassessing if D&D's ancestral categories for dragons is cohesive with my desire for each dragon in my campaign to be or at least feel unique.
For once, we agree on almost everything you mentioned in the video. I have only to add that it depends on what game or edition you are playing. For example, in AD&D 2nd Edition, it was possible to have alignment different than those given, but it was very uncommon and had to be justified. In 3rd edition you had three "modifiers" to the alignment entry, which were "always" (for creatures literally born into that alignment or even "made" out of it), "mostly" (for creatures with strong cultural influences or very strong instinctual behavior), and "often" (for creatures with a most common alignment when compared to the others). For the first category, changing alignment would have been very hard, but the others had more flexibility. In Pathfinder 1e, alignment was just the most common for that kind of creatures and anything with 2 or less Int was almost always neutral. Having a good black dragon or an evil gold dragon was definetely possible in that game. It also depends on the setting you are playing in. An orc from Arda would always be evil, since all orcs are corrupted creatures forcefully bent into that alignment, but the orcs from Warcraft or other similar settings are quite more flexible in both cultural and personal behavior. A similar approach can be taken for dragons in those settings: Arda's dragons are corrupted and wicked creations of the evil god Melkor, so they have no choice about their alignment, but in other settings things may be different. On a personal note, in most of my personal settings, undead are created by the natural or artificial infusion of an evil spirit into a once living body or, for incorporeal ones, by corrupting the very soul of a once living material being. This means they are always evil and often chaotic, even the mindless ones, with the latter being more merciless and remorseless in their evildoing, like wickedly programmed drones.
When it comes to dragons, I believe in nurture over nature. So I firmly believe dragons in D&D can be raised to be good, evil or neutral. And playing a good character I'd have no more issue rehoming them into a better environment than I would rescuing a goblin or dark elf child from an abusive family. As to your point on the destruction of a culture, I kind of wonder...dragons tend to be very individualistic (despite each color sharing an alignment), with no dragon nations or cities or even villages, so I wonder if we're eradicating a culture, or just putting a stop to harmful individual family traditions? When does one become the other? You've made me think about that. Just as a fun bit of trivia, in Basic D&D white and blue dragons were Neutral.
From now on all dragons will be born grey in games I run. Only with age they will grow into color. As far as evil cultures go they should be or on case-by-case basis. I never liked the DND alignments because i like moral quandaries better when they are not gamified.
Since the release of Eberron, I've followed their example of dragons not having an inherent alignment. I'm currently reassessing if D&D's ancestral categories for dragons is cohesive with my desire for each dragon in my campaign to be or at least feel unique.
For once, we agree on almost everything you mentioned in the video.
I have only to add that it depends on what game or edition you are playing.
For example, in AD&D 2nd Edition, it was possible to have alignment different than those given, but it was very uncommon and had to be justified.
In 3rd edition you had three "modifiers" to the alignment entry, which were "always" (for creatures literally born into that alignment or even "made" out of it), "mostly" (for creatures with strong cultural influences or very strong instinctual behavior), and "often" (for creatures with a most common alignment when compared to the others). For the first category, changing alignment would have been very hard, but the others had more flexibility.
In Pathfinder 1e, alignment was just the most common for that kind of creatures and anything with 2 or less Int was almost always neutral. Having a good black dragon or an evil gold dragon was definetely possible in that game.
It also depends on the setting you are playing in. An orc from Arda would always be evil, since all orcs are corrupted creatures forcefully bent into that alignment, but the orcs from Warcraft or other similar settings are quite more flexible in both cultural and personal behavior. A similar approach can be taken for dragons in those settings: Arda's dragons are corrupted and wicked creations of the evil god Melkor, so they have no choice about their alignment, but in other settings things may be different.
On a personal note, in most of my personal settings, undead are created by the natural or artificial infusion of an evil spirit into a once living body or, for incorporeal ones, by corrupting the very soul of a once living material being. This means they are always evil and often chaotic, even the mindless ones, with the latter being more merciless and remorseless in their evildoing, like wickedly programmed drones.
When it comes to dragons, I believe in nurture over nature. So I firmly believe dragons in D&D can be raised to be good, evil or neutral. And playing a good character I'd have no more issue rehoming them into a better environment than I would rescuing a goblin or dark elf child from an abusive family.
As to your point on the destruction of a culture, I kind of wonder...dragons tend to be very individualistic (despite each color sharing an alignment), with no dragon nations or cities or even villages, so I wonder if we're eradicating a culture, or just putting a stop to harmful individual family traditions? When does one become the other? You've made me think about that.
Just as a fun bit of trivia, in Basic D&D white and blue dragons were Neutral.
From now on all dragons will be born grey in games I run. Only with age they will grow into color.
As far as evil cultures go they should be or on case-by-case basis.
I never liked the DND alignments because i like moral quandaries better when they are not gamified.
Before watching the video: alignment is boring. Dragons should be individuals, not mere animals of instincts