Just for curiosity. Why there is no Neutral Good or Neutral Evil dragon?

[Shin Okada]

All the dragons in MM are either Lawful or Chaotic. Are there Neutral Evil or Neutral Good dragons in any other books? Or are there any historical reasons for not having such things? I have almost skipped AD&D so not so familiar with the history of 9 alignment system.

 

[CRGreathouse]

All the dragons in MM are either Lawful or Chaotic. Are there Neutral Evil or Neutral Good dragons in any other books? Or are there any historical reasons for not having such things? I have almost skipped AD&D so not so familiar with the history of 9 alignment system.

Jade Dragons and Hungry Ghosts has a NG dragon (jade) and a NE dragon (thuông-luông).

The Slayer's Guide to Dragons has sea, web, and rock dragons, which may be NG, or NE.

Creatures of Rokugan has the NE Orochi.

The Creature Collection II has the NE slarecian dragon.

The Creature Catalog's adamantite dragon is NG.

The MM2 has NG felldrakes and corpse tearers (NE).

 

[Hriston]

All the dragons in MM are either Lawful or Chaotic. Are there Neutral Evil or Neutral Good dragons in any other books? Or are there any historical reasons for not having such things? I have almost skipped AD&D so not so familiar with the history of 9 alignment system.

I'm not sure which edition this thread was referring to, but as for historical reasons, I would have to point to the first edition Monster Manual. Although it was the first release for AD&D, it seems to have been written with something like the five-alignment system found in the Holmes Basic edition in mind. None of the creatures in that book have their alignments given as Neutral good or Neutral evil. The closest it gets is in some entries which give an alignment of Neutral (good) or Neutral (evil), which I read as basically saying Neutral with good or evil tendencies. The Cloud Giant, for example, is Neutral (good 50%, evil 50%) and the text later refers to "evil cloud giants". Notable exceptions are the Larva, whose alignment is given simply as Evil, and the Su-monster, whose alignment is given as Chaotic. All other creatures have one of the five alignments presented in Holmes. The twelve dragons that appeared must have retained their alignments into later editions, even though the nine-alignment system had been introduced.

 

[Shin Okada]

I'm not sure which edition this thread was referring to, but as for historical reasons, I would have to point to the first edition Monster Manual. Although it was the first release for AD&D, it seems to have been written with something like the five-alignment system found in the Holmes Basic edition in mind. None of the creatures in that book have their alignments given as Neutral good or Neutral evil. The closest it gets is in some entries which give an alignment of Neutral (good) or Neutral (evil), which I read as basically saying Neutral with good or evil tendencies. The Cloud Giant, for example, is Neutral (good 50%, evil 50%) and the text later refers to "evil cloud giants". Notable exceptions are the Larva, whose alignment is given simply as Evil, and the Su-monster, whose alignment is given as Chaotic. All other creatures have one of the five alignments presented in Holmes. The twelve dragons that appeared must have retained their alignments into later editions, even though the nine-alignment system had been introduced.

Wow! I was not expecting to see a reply to such an old thread. Thank you very much!

So, the alignment of the 10 traditional true dragons are the remnant of 5 alignment system.

 

[Hriston]

I believe so, yes. Five-point alignment was introduced by Gary Gygax in The Strategic Review #6, in February, 1976, the year before the Monster Manual and the Holmes Basic Set were released.

I noticed your thread in the "Similar Threads" box at the bottom of the page and thought it looked interesting. When I saw that the historical aspect hadn't been addressed at the time I figured I'd put my two cents in. I hope I've cleared up some of the mystery.

 

[pemerton]

Five-point alignment was introduced by Gary Gygax in The Strategic Review #6, in February, 1976, the year before the Monster Manual and the Holmes Basic Set were released.

In that article, though, Gygax has all evil dragons but white dragons on the chaotic side, with black the closest to the middle. White dragons straddle the centre line between law and chaos.

Whereas by the time of the AD&D MM, whites and blacks were firmly CE, and blues and greens LE.

There are some other oddities in the Strategic Review article too: for instance, vampires are presented as paradigmatic LE (but CE in the MM), while Efreet are presented as CE (but LE in the MM). And ents (treants) and unicorns are presented as strongly lawful (and weakly good), whereas they become CG in the MM.

 

[Hriston]

In that article, though, Gygax has all evil dragons but white dragons on the chaotic side, with black the closest to the middle. White dragons straddle the centre line between law and chaos.

Whereas by the time of the AD&D MM, whites and blacks were firmly CE, and blues and greens LE.

There are some other oddities in the Strategic Review article too: for instance, vampires are presented as paradigmatic LE (but CE in the MM), while Efreet are presented as CE (but LE in the MM). And ents (treants) and unicorns are presented as strongly lawful (and weakly good), whereas they become CG in the MM.

Good point. I'd noticed also, for example, that Orcs are designated as CE in the article and became LE in the MM. I think many of these designations may be a hold-over from the three-point system, e.g. it sounds like all dragons (except maybe the white) are still chaotic in the article. Its notable, I suppose, that even though the white dragon straddled the line between law and chaos on the chart, in the MM it was firmly CE because apparently NE didn't yet exist.

 

[Voadam]

A couple more that have been filled in now.

Legends and Lairs Draconic Lore has the NE Bile Wyrm, Diamondback Dragon, Dragon Shark, Null Dragon, and Vermin Dragon. It also has the NG Reef Dragon.

Monster Manual III has Ambush Drakes, Dracotaurs and Dragon Eels that are usually NE.

In Monster Manual IV there are the Spawn of Tiamat part dragons that include the NE Greenspawn Leaper.

The Monster Encyclopaedia 2 Dark Bestiary has the NE dragonlike Aitvaras, and the NE Armoredon, Ashen Dragon, Darkstone Dragon, Eerie Dragon, and Dragon Dog.

In Creature Collection III the Fleshwrack and Icewrack Dragons are NE.

In the Revised Creature Collection the Seawrack and Woodwrack Dragons are always NE.

In Strange Lands Lost Tribes of the Scarred Lands there are NE Dustwrack Dragons, Dragavial, and Dragon Snake.

Tome of Horrors Revised has four elemental dragons that can be any evil.

Tome of Horrors III, however, has Wrath Dragons who can be any good. It has NE splinter drkes who look like dragons but are actually plants. It has an actual NE dragon as well, the Psiwyrm.

EN Critters 1 has the NE Jungle Drake.

E.N. Critters 3 has an NE Arctic Sea Dragon and Halsingdrek.

The Pathfinder Midgard Bestiary has the NE Cave Dragon and Coral Drake.

Monsters and Treasure of Aihrde for Castles and Crusades has the NG Tagean Dragon and the NE Unk Dragon.

 

[Voadam]

AD&D 2e had a few as well.

NE: Albino Wyrm Dragon-Kin, Amphi, Brown Wyvern Drake, Corpse Tearer Linnorm, Crimson, Fire Drake Athasian, Flame Linnorm, Frost Linnorm, Mole Dragon, Purple, Orange (Sodium), Sea, Shadowdrake, Typhoon Oriental (Tun Mi Lung), and Vishap.

NG: Adamantite, Electrum, and Tungsten Ferrous.

 

[Voadam]

The Pathfinder PRD includes the monsters from the 4 bestiaries and has some.

B2 has the NE Sea Drake.

B3 has the NE Desert and River Drake.

B4 has the NE Void Dragon, Lava Drake, and Mist Drake.