No Gray Dragons?


Lost Omens Campaign Setting General Discussion


I was just doing some prep and looking through an old copy of the ROTRL I have and I noticed the side bar talking about Gray Dragons, the surviving brood of a weak and cursed platinum dragon that Dahak messed up. Just checked the wiki and searched the forums here to find anything else about them and I can't find anything. Does that mean these creatures are retconned? That would be a big shame because I love me some dragons and I really liked what they typed up for them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aunders wrote:
I was just doing some prep and looking through an old copy of the ROTRL I have and I noticed the side bar talking about Gray Dragons, the surviving brood of a weak and cursed platinum dragon that Dahak messed up. Just checked the wiki and searched the forums here to find anything else about them and I can't find anything. Does that mean these creatures are retconned? That would be a big shame because I love me some dragons and I really liked what they typed up for them.

They probably weren't retconned - that would imply that someone gave them any thought after that initial sidebar. Until someone writes about them again, or JJ pipes in about them being non-canon, I would consider them canon.

A lack of further writing about a thing shouldn't be assumed to mean that thing doesn't exist - just that they haven't written any more about that thing.

If I had to guess, I would say that they simply haven't had a good reason to use them in APs, and that bestiary page space was better used for varieties of dragon that are a bit more distinctive (remember that an idea doesn't just have to be good, it has to be better than the other ideas that want page space).


That's a really good point. It's a shame in my personal opinion only because I like the idea of withered degenerate dragons vying for the strength that their chromatic and metallic kin have -- it would make for a decent villain of lower level.

Dark Archive

Lot of dragons stuff from dragons revisited is non canon. Like sin and virtue dragons, "yellow" dragons and thaumaturgic dragons have never been mentioned again. Why this is the case, I don't know, but considering for over ten years they have made new dragons without ever referring to them its safe to say they aren't ever gonna show up again

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A lot of what we did in the first year of building up Golarion in those pre-Pathfinder RPG days was us testing things out. Not everything we tried out ended up being stuff we wanted to keep. The variant dragons in that article are an excellent example of something we abandoned to take things in a different direction, with things like primal, outer, and planar dragons instead. Keeping each family of true dragons to 5 representatives was always the intent (even though at the tail end of the edition we broke our own unwritten rule by doing extra planar dragons).

Going forward into 2nd, we'll be keeping the same categories. Sin dragons and virtue dragons and the like aren't elements we'll be going back to.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Awww no Lust Dragons?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Awww no Lust Dragons?

Nope. That's actually one of several good reasons why we abandoned the concept, to be honest.


James Jacobs wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Awww no Lust Dragons?
Nope. That's actually one of several good reasons why we abandoned the concept, to be honest.

How interesting! I may keep the concept purely for a homebrew addition to my current RotRL campaign I've got going on which has a follower of Apsu in it, but I'm glad to hear officially that it's now non-cannon

Scarab Sages

James Jacobs wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Awww no Lust Dragons?
Nope. That's actually one of several good reasons why we abandoned the concept, to be honest.

OK, now I'm curious. *leaves to read RotR*

Dark Archive

NECR0G1ANT wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Awww no Lust Dragons?
Nope. That's actually one of several good reasons why we abandoned the concept, to be honest.
OK, now I'm curious. *leaves to read RotR*

That one was in Dragons Revisited.

Thaumaturgic dragons were seven dragons based on thassilonian magic schools

(there was also a virtue and a sin dragon with idea that they compose all virtues and sins at same time)

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Lost Omens Campaign Setting / General Discussion / No Gray Dragons? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion