Having stats for every stage of growth encourages killing of dragon children?

[Domino Quartz]

In 629, the mother Black Dragon says "Humanoids. You think that just because we have stats for every stage of growth, it is perfectly acceptable to murder our children." How does that work? How does the fact of dragons having stats for every stage of growth encourage murder of their children? What does that mean? Please keep in mind that I have very little knowledge of D&D outside OotS.

[One Step Two]

In DnD for most monsters, there's only one set stat-block, giving their standard abilities for adulthood.

Dragons are one of the very few that have stats from Egg to Ancient.

The meaning of her rant was that, despite having stats or not, he was still a child, no matter how powerful he might be to others.

[DarkLadyNyara]

Okay, so I don't have a great deal of D&D knowledge myself. But here's what I suspect she means-

Having a system that says "okay, this is what you need to know to kill a juvenile or baby dragon" paints them as a valid target. Whereas if you look up "Elf" in the monster manual, there are no age categories. The assumption is that of course you'd only be fighting an adult. Elf (or human/halfling/dwarf) children aren't seen as an acceptable target. /2cents

[Bulldog Psion]

The reason for the age categories, of course, is so that dragons can be used as monsters/bosses at various levels. Adult dragons are so powerful they would seldom appear in games. The younger age categories enable actual game use of the creatures, while maintaining the idea that dragons are some of the most powerful beings in the game.

[BroomGuys]

The reason for the age categories, of course, is so that dragons can be used as monsters/bosses at various levels. Adult dragons are so powerful they would seldom appear in games. The younger age categories enable actual game use of the creatures, while maintaining the idea that dragons are some of the most powerful beings in the game.

Yes, this is basically it. Imagine the Oots as a group of players in the forest looking for the starmetal, and they encounter the ancient black dragon as the final boss. Probably a total party kill, even if V is not turned into a lizard at that point. A level-appropriate boss is a dragon that isn't so powerful, which in this system means a youth dragon. The system is basically set up so that dragons of all ages can be opponents in a D&D campaign, as I understand it, but that naturally begs the question of where a young dragon's parents are.

[Bulldog Psion]

Yes, this is basically it. Imagine the Oots as a group of players in the forest looking for the starmetal, and they encounter the ancient black dragon as the final boss. Probably a total party kill, even if V is not turned into a lizard at that point. A level-appropriate boss is a dragon that isn't so powerful, which in this system means a youth dragon. The system is basically set up so that dragons of all ages can be opponents in a D&D campaign, as I understand it, but that naturally begs the question of where a young dragon's parents are.

That's true, but only if we assume that dragon families and psychology are identical to humans. What if dragons view all other dragons as potential rivals, and therefore drive out their young as soon as they are capable of taking care of themselves? There needs to be some mechanism to keep these massive predators from overrunning the world, and their being flung out shortly after they grow enough to not be totally helpless would help to achieve that.

[hamishspence]

4E takes the approach that chromatic dragon parenting techniques vary a lot.

Younger ones tend to lay lots of eggs spread out over various locations, and abandon them- with the dragon being independent from hatching.

Older ones tend to lay a few eggs, and raise the offspring a long time.

3e Draconomicon may say something similar.

[factotum]

That's true, but only if we assume that dragon families and psychology are identical to humans.

Which they are, at least in the case of the one dragon family we've seen in the Stickverse. As for a mechanism that keeps dragon numbers down, they live a long time and breed very slowly--it doesn't need many to die via heroic action (or even in accidents--a black dragon could be killed by a massive landslide nearly as easily as a human) to keep the numbers down.

[ti'esar]

Debates about draconic child-raising habits miss the point: the basic point that the ABD is talking about (and Rich is criticizing) is that, since dragons of all ages - unlike humans or elves or even something like orcs - have D&D stats, and stats matter primarily for combat, there is an implication that young dragons are acceptable targets for PCs.

(Which I think was already said, but may have been missed judging by how quickly things got sidetracked).

[Domino Quartz]

Thanks for the replies. That answers my question, I think.

[Bulldog Psion]

Debates about draconic child-raising habits miss the point: the basic point that the ABD is talking about (and Rich is criticizing) is that, since dragons of all ages - unlike humans or elves or even something like orcs - have D&D stats, and stats matter primarily for combat, there is an implication that young dragons are acceptable targets for PCs.

Which is true only if we assume a precise equivalence between the species. If a juvenile dragon is a ravening predator on sapient species, and an adult dragon is a ravening predator on sapient species, then the main difference is in size and power. In which case, yes, they are acceptable targets for PCs.

If a juvenile dragon is playing with blocks and making paper butterflies and going "goo goo," then I'll accept it as an innocuous noncombatant.

If it's a fire-breathing savage which has just dominated its first group of lizardfolk followers, devours the local terrified frogfolk and the occasional fisherman, and is proud and lethal as Lucifer, then I don't care if it's technically juvenile, it's still a legitimate combatant.

D&D clearly assumes the latter. It's fine if Mr. Burlew doesn't in his world, but to portray RAW D&D as encouraging PCs to kill "dragon children" in the sense of "cute harmwess wittle dwagons who wouldn't hurt a fwy" is completely off the mark, IMO.

Again, I'm not arguing against Mr. Burlew's ideas. I'm simply pointing out that the age category concept of dragons in D&D doesn't change their basic ferocity and peril. And that a juvenile elf is a good deal more harmless and helpless than a juvenile dragon, by RAW.

[ti'esar]

Which is true only if we assume a precise equivalence between the species. If a juvenile dragon is a ravening predator on sapient species, and an adult dragon is a ravening predator on sapient species, then the main difference is in size and power. In which case, yes, they are acceptable targets for PCs.

If a juvenile dragon is playing with blocks and making paper butterflies and going "goo goo," then I'll accept it as an innocuous noncombatant.

If it's a fire-breathing savage which has just dominated its first group of lizardfolk followers, devours the local terrified frogfolk and the occasional fisherman, and is proud and lethal as Lucifer, then I don't care if it's technically juvenile, it's still a legitimate combatant.

D&D clearly assumes the latter. It's fine if Mr. Burlew doesn't in his world, but to portray RAW D&D as encouraging PCs to kill "dragon children" in the sense of "cute harmwess wittle dwagons who wouldn't hurt a fwy" is completely off the mark, IMO.

Again, I'm not arguing against Mr. Burlew's ideas. I'm simply pointing out that the age category concept of dragons in D&D doesn't change their basic ferocity and peril. And that a juvenile elf is a good deal more harmless and helpless than a juvenile dragon, by RAW.

Like I said: missing the point. All I was saying is that RAW, for lack of a better term, encourages DMs to use young dragons as opponents for PCs to fight in a way that it does not do for young humans or young elves or young goblins or the children of most any other creature, regardless of the actual details of how those dragons are otherwise portrayed. This isn't the main argument that I would make when arguing against "killing dragons because they are dragons" (and it's probably not Rich's either, really) but then that's not what I was actually doing. I was trying to answer the OP's question about what, specifically, the ABD was talking about before the thread went down the rabbit hole of Another Morality Debate.

[The Giant]

I'm sure a storm giant toddler can level a village, but we'll never know because no one will ever publish combat stats for one. Because we all understand that no matter how potentially dangerous that 3-year-old storm giant could be, it's more than a little uncomfortable for a bunch of grown men and women to sit around a table and pretend to kill a child. The only difference between a baby giant and a hatchling dragon is the exact point you start to feel bad about it. Remember, there are also stats on baby gold dragons, so every argument about how dangerous they are and need to be fought to protect the town sort of goes out the window right there.

Basically, I've never argued that the baby dragons in RAW D&D are "harmwess widdle dwagons." I've argued that there should not be baby dragons in RAW D&D at all. There shouldn't be published newborn stats on anything that is sapient, period. It's creepy and weird and actually encourages exactly this sort of debate when I think we'd all be better off not spending our time debating under what circumstances it is or is not cool to murder alien babies.

At any rate, this isn't much of a fight worth having since even Wizards realized that it was sort of an uncomfortable idea. That's why in 4e they make a point of calling out that even the "young" dragons in the book are still mature specimens. And all they had to do was scale down the front-end difficulty so that they could start showing up around 5th level. It's a rare case of figuring out that they could sidestep the unfortunate implications without actually sacrificing any gameplay.

[hamishspence]

I'm sure a storm giant toddler can level a village, but we'll never know because no one will ever publish combat stats for one. Because we all understand that no matter how potentially dangerous that 3-year-old storm giant could be, it's more than a little uncomfortable for a bunch of grown men and women to sit around a table and pretend to kill a child.

While the 3.5 MM didn't publish a full statblock for them- it did provide rules for "downsizing" a giant's statblock all the way down to very young and 2 sizes smaller than an adult.

[The Giant]

While the 3.5 MM didn't publish a full statblock for them- it did provide rules for "downsizing" a giant's statblock all the way down to very young and 2 sizes smaller than an adult.

Did it really? Ugh. That's just awful. Who thought that was a good idea?

Doesn't really change the substance of my point, though.

[johnbragg]

While the 3.5 MM didn't publish a full statblock for them- it did provide rules for "downsizing" a giant's statblock all the way down to very young and 2 sizes smaller than an adult.

Were those giant-specific, or were those the generic "recipe for homebrewing a Large-instead-of-Humongous REmorhaz" or whatever?

BEcause I remember rules for scaling monsters up and down in size. You want a man-sized Purple Worm? An ogre-sized Rust Monster? OGre-sized elephant? We've got rules for that.

That's not quite the same thing, even if you _could_ use it to stat-block Storm Giant toddlers.

[hamishspence]

Giant-specific (in this case)- separate from the "monster-scaling" rules.

Interestingly, those Giant Ages rules never made it into the SRD.

[Everyl]

There was a saying I used to hear in my college gaming club: "If it has stats, you can kill it." It was usually invoked in reference to gods, eldritch horrors, and other entities that you generally don't want your players to kill, and basically meant, "If you don't want your players to be able to kill something, don't give it stats. If it has stats, they'll find a way to kill it." This generally applied to powerful creatures, but it basically applies to things like babies, as well: if you don't want players killing sentient babies, don't give stats to sentient babies. From a game design perspective, it doesn't sound that complicated, and I'm glad they've apparently fixed it in 4e. I hope that change carries over to later editions, as well.

[Kish]

Did it really? Ugh. That's just awful. Who thought that was a good idea?

Probably the same person who decided all giant types should be described as evil antagonists, instead of nearly half of them being nonevil-by-default characters who might inspire more complex interactions.

[Gwenovier]

Personally, at my table, I tend to avoid children existing in my games at all. Rather, it's not that they don't exist, but that I as the DM just never mention them in scenes. That means if a child ever comes up in play, it's one that a player has specifically sought out, and it's never a combatant. So if a character kills a child of any race, I don't feel bad asking that player to leave the table, or at the very least 'remove' that character from play. As far as dragon specifics, I always treat any dragon encountered in my games as a mature creature. Even if I use the stats for a much younger dragon, I state that (for the purposes of my worlds) statted dragons begin at maturity.

The only time I've ever really dealt with this issue was in a game where I was playing and not running. We were all playing a group of goblins sent to raid a nearby town. We came upon an outlying farm and killed the farmer and farmhands (which was the actual combat encounter). Afterwards, it was discovered that the farmer's wife and several children were in the house. Several of the party voted for just leaving them there and continuing to the town. It was pointed out by other players (and the DM, no less) that this was out of character for chaotic evil goblins. In the end, one of the party torched the farmhouse while the rest of us (players, not characters) argued. One of the players (her first, and last gaming experience) left the table in tears and the game pretty much dissolved after that. There was no reason for there to be kids in the farmhouse other than "realism". And sometimes, realism just needs to take a back seat to player comfort and stability. Note:I'm not making a statement on morality (such would be against the forum rules anyway), but just on good DMing as a whole. Just because the book IMPLIES something doesn't mean you should let your players use it, or use it in the way the book states. The BoVD has rules for drugs and addiction, but I'll NEVER let a player use those rules. And any player that takes issue with that (or any player who argues with me about never finding baby dragons) is free to not play at my table.

[allenw]

Probably the same person who decided all giant types should be described as evil antagonists, instead of nearly half of them being nonevil-by-default characters who might inspire more complex interactions.

Are you referring to 4E? The poster's statement was about the 3.5 MM, in which about half of the giants are indeed nonevil-by-default.

[Kish]

I was, and yes, I misread that. Thanks.

(Still could be the same person, but that's kind of a stretch. )

[Xelbiuj]

I don't see the taboo tbqh. I get that it's not necessarily a critique about the internal pragmatism in the fantasy world but one of why we would create and run fantasies that lead to "child killing"

Personally I think it's no different than Aliens, no creature quite (justifiably) provokes the phrase, "kill it, kill it with fire!" like a facehugger - a baby alien.

[Killer Angel]

Having a system that says "okay, this is what you need to know to kill a juvenile or baby dragon" paints them as a valid target.

There are stats even for gods, if this means something.

I'm glad the Lady of Pain isn't statted.

[War-Wren]

Personally I think it's no different than Aliens, no creature quite (justifiably) provokes the phrase, "kill it, kill it with fire!" like a facehugger - a baby alien.

Nope. Facehuggers implant an egg/embryo into a host, which then grows into the Alien.

The facehugger dies after it's done that. The facehugger is fully grown and has one purpose in its brief existence - implant a victim to continue the Alien race. The chest-burster however... that's a baby Alien, but should still be killed with fire

[Storm_Of_Snow]

Various editions have had some stats for other races (1st edition gave HD for orc children and mothers if the players ran into their camp, for example). And to address the Giant's specific point, I think it also mentioned using the stats for ogres for young giants in similar circumstances. But I don't think there were ever any official stats for handling humanoid children, only in specific modules based around settlements.

Part of the problem I think is that if the Dragon's a big enough threat that PCs are getting involved (especially if they're called in to sort it out, and let's not forget that the YBD was a serious danger to the Order), then it's probably mature, likely to be within it's territory, and the PCs will look to find it's nest. Given that, there's a chance that there's babies in the nest, and they will be in the line of fire at some point, whether accidentally, or getting involved actively, so they will need some stats to handle those situations. But most of the problem is that the rules pretty much say you have to kill something to get the most experience from it, and most players also tend towards "slaughter everything, then hoover up anything that looks valuable". All justified with "they're monsters, they're a threat to whoever".

Are there other ways to deal with them? Yes, even if the dragon wouldn't acceed or stick to them. Do most players use them? No.

I've kind of been looking at extending the dragon species for a potential 1st edition campaign into what I'm terming gem and stone types - gems being lawful versions of the chromatic dragons and stones being chaotic metallic (the biggest problem's actually going to be to get enough in the campaign world that there's obviously a difference, but not too many that they're clashing with each other or the rest of the world).

I wonder if something like that might shake up a few people's views when the firebreathing "CE-Red" dragon actually turns out to be a LG Ruby one.

And it might actually be worse that various editions basically put a price on dragon's eggs and other young creatures. And if you get into creating magic items and alchemy, well, someone's going to go and attempt to procure a red dragon's gall bladder or whatever.

[DarkLadyNyara]

There are stats even for gods, if this means something.

Given some (most) of the gamers I know? Yeah... stats = valid target definitely still applies.

[The Giant]

Given that, there's a chance that there's babies in the nest, and they will be in the line of fire at some point, whether accidentally, or getting involved actively, so they will need some stats to handle those situations.

Here are the stats you actually need for a hatchling dragon:

Movement: Gets away if you let it.
Saving Throws: Miraculously survives all accidents.
Armor Class: You hit.
Hit Points: Congratulations, Baby-Killer.
Special Qualities: I hope you can live with yourself.

Coincidentally, these are the same exact stats for every other species of baby.

[Arcite]

How does that work? How does the fact of dragons having stats for every stage of growth encourage murder of their children? What does that mean? Please keep in mind that I have very little knowledge of D&D outside OotS.

This reminds me of something I read about Gary Gygax. I don't have a source, but supposedly he said he did not want to give stats for angels, because if there were stats then players would want or be able to fight and kill angels. And he found the idea of killing angels awful. So he did not want to give stats.

Considering how according to the talk, the Deities & Demigods book got treated like a Monster Manual, this sounds like what would happen. Although the descriptions were certainly written with combat in mind, like the deities were to be fought.

I do not know how true this is. Because in Monster Manual 2, stats for Devas, Planeteers, and Solars sure enough appeared. But I think it shows the thinking of how having stats for young dragons implies that those stats are there to be used (in combat).

[Coat]

Here are the stats you actually need for a hatchling dragon:

Movement: Gets away if you let it.
Saving Throws: Miraculously survives all accidents.
Armor Class: You hit.
Hit Points: Congratulations, Baby-Killer.
Special Qualities: I hope you can live with yourself.

Coincidentally, these are the same exact stats for every other species of baby.

You missed one.

Alignment: TBD.