Challenging Dragonwrought Kobolds = True Dragons

[BeholderSlayer]

So, you think that, for example, the statements "It is warm outside" and "It is raining" disagree? Because one leads to the conclusion you may get wet while the other does not?

False analogy.

For just a minute, forget all you know about arithmetic. Mathematics is, of course, the easiest way to portray logical statements.

1 + 1 (Secondary source)
1 + 1 (Primary source)

These statements appear to agree. However, when we take them to their conclusions:

1 + 1 = 2 (secondary source)
1 + 1 = 3 (primary source)

These do not agree due to their conclusions.

Thus, based on the wording in the errata files, we defer to the primary source in all situations. In this case, 1 + 1 = 3.

Substitute for D&D:
True dragons are:
1. Dragons with 12 age categories (secondary source)
2. Dragons that advance through age categories (primary source)
These appear to agree. However, when you apply their logic:
1. Dragons with 12 age categories = DWK and universally accepted True Dragons are True Dragons (secondary source)
2. Dragons that advance through age categories = All creatures with dragon type are true dragons (primary source)
These disagree, and by the rules in the errata files we must defer to the primary source. However, the primary source gives examples of dragon typed creatures that are not true dragons, and by simple contradiction this is an invalid reading.

However, when you apply my definition of "advance," the primary source agrees with itself and there are no issues.

A supplemental rule in D&D is not typically made via an offhand statement through another topic. It generally addresses the topic directly. For example, when re-publishing creatures like the Mind Flayer, Githzerai, etc. from their MM to XPH versions the authors make the statement that they "should be adjusted from the version appearing in the Monster Manual as follows" for a campaign that has psionics. It is made clear that, "hey, this is different, you want to pay attention to this!"

now you are moving the goal posts. the two statements have no disagreement directly, you have to apply a 3rd set of rules to cause a conflict. B is a more specific statement of A.

I'm not applying a 3rd set of rules, I am following the statements to their logical conclusion. From a logical framework, technically, each of these is not a statement at all. They are instead logical prepositions: only one part of the whole statement. They mean nothing without at least one other logical preposition and a conclusion, a syllogism (which is fundamentally what we know as an actual statement). In order to form an entire statement, one must state premise (e.g. "dragons with 12 age categories") and then follow it to its logical conclusion. Then compare it to the entire statement when the other premise "dragons that advance through age categories" is followed to its logical conclusion.

[BeholderSlayer]

just my 2 cents.

Being two levels ahead of the wizard is somewhat a big deal in play, and in practice a wizard is only better than a sorcerer in versatility, not sheer power. In most campaigns you will hardly be able to tell the difference between the two unless you take a look at their sheet.

And in crazy enough play, the sorcerer could just PsyRef his spells known if he really had to, assuming prep time.

[EjoThims]

I'm not applying a 3rd set of rules, I am following the statements to their logical conclusion.

The logical conclusion you are applying involves applying other rules, not the two in question.

These rules, at their core, are the perfect example of how secondary sources enhance primary.

And by the way, it's not a false analogy, as that type of logic would indeed say that it was impossible to describe the same day with the statements in question. Which is ridiculous and false.

[BeholderSlayer]

I'm not applying a 3rd set of rules, I am following the statements to their logical conclusion.

The logical conclusion you are applying involves applying other rules, not the two in question.

These rules, at their core, are the perfect example of how secondary sources enhance primary.

And by the way, it's not a false analogy, as that type of logic would indeed say that it was impossible to describe the same day with the statements in question. Which is ridiculous and false.

The rules themselves are meaningless without other rules to which to apply them.

No, at their core, they are a perfect example of why primary sources trump secondary.

Yes, it was a false analogy.

See? I can play that game too. Provide evidence if you want to be taken seriously.

[BeholderSlayer]

@Beholderslayer, you seem to be confusing what primary sources are and what specific trumps general means.

Then explain your perspective. Just stating this generally without elaborating isn't constructive and won't be taken seriously. I have repeatedly given examples, quotes, etc. Just saying "that's not how it works" without explaining yourself makes you look lazy and foolish.

[Bauglir]

@Beholderslayer, you seem to be confusing what primary sources are and what specific trumps general means.

Then explain your perspective. Just stating this generally without elaborating isn't constructive and won't be taken seriously. I have repeatedly given examples, quotes, etc. Just saying "that's not how it works" without explaining yourself makes you look lazy and foolish.

Actually you've really just given one quote, plus the "primary trumps secondary" line in the errata. Then you've insisted that any sources that disagree with you are secondary, and that any interpretation of "primary trumps secondary" that disagrees with you is circular reasoning "in the context of this discussion" because the people putting forward that logic believed that DWKs are True Dragons before going through that reasoning (unless I misunderstand).

[BeholderSlayer]

@Beholderslayer, you seem to be confusing what primary sources are and what specific trumps general means.

Then explain your perspective. Just stating this generally without elaborating isn't constructive and won't be taken seriously. I have repeatedly given examples, quotes, etc. Just saying "that's not how it works" without explaining yourself makes you look lazy and foolish.

Actually you've really just given one quote, plus the "primary trumps secondary" line in the errata. Then you've insisted that any sources that disagree with you are secondary, and that any interpretation of "primary trumps secondary" that disagrees with you is circular reasoning "in the context of this discussion" because the people putting forward that logic believed that DWKs are True Dragons before going through that reasoning (unless I misunderstand).

Nobody has really given any opposing point of view of what "primary trumps secondary" means. TML tried to argue that it means the MM trumps the Draconomicon, but we all know what the result of that is: chaos.

Really though, it is spelled out in such simple terms that I don't see how it can be possibly misunderstood. It dictates that you consider the book and topic. That's exactly what it says, and that's exactly how I've applied it.

Other errata files state that any exceptions to the rule will be explicitly called out. This is never done in either DoK or DM, there is no explicitly called out statement that they are, in fact, augmenting the Draconomicon. Without explicitly calling it out, the information contained therein is overwritten by the information in the primary source, and is not pertinent. This is why when a new supplement augments another rule (such as Psionic Mind Flayers in the XPH) the authors specify that this ruleset should overwrite those in the primary source (Monster Manual) when used in a campaign.

Typically I call out "circular reasoning" when people have claimed that DWK are true dragons because "advancing" is "aging," or some similar statement (honestly, that last bit you wrote was a little hard to read, no offense). I hope that clears it up.

[Kuroimaken]

Really, based on the context of Dragons of Eberron, it is abundantly clear that you must be a True Dragon to take Loredrake. The words "lesser dragon(s)" are used exactly 3 times in the text, and one of them is in a situation where it refers to True Dragons less advanced in age than one of the most poweful dragons. The other two actually refer to lesser dragons, and then only discuss them as either: 1. roaming around Argonessen, or 2. serving as lackeys for a True Dragon.

In Dragons of Eberron, the word "dragon(s)" is equal and swappable for "true dragons" in all cases. By stating "All true dragons have the potential to use arcane magic," the authors were defining that, in fact, the word "dragon(s)" is referring to True Dragons only. This book treats the word "dragons" the same way that the Draconomicon does, that it is implied that the authors are talking about True Dragons unless specified.

Lesser dragons are not discussed at any length in Dragons of Eberron, and when they are mentioned they are treated as nonessential. The context of the book is entirely about True Dragons, and thus Sovereign Archetypes are only accessible by True Dragons. This position is further augmented when one considers, as evidence, the effects that a Sovereign Archetype has on the dragon that follows it (such as reduction of racial HD to d10).

How so? Adopting a Sovereign Archetype is directly related to their faith and desire to emulate one of the Sovereigns in life. It says so in the very book (quote already provided). Even if you consider Lesser Dragons as roaming around Argonessen and/or serving True Dragons, they can still satisfy the two base prerequisites for adopting an archetype. Namely, being Dragons and possessing spellcasting ability. (Not all of them, but still.) It is otherwise a matter of observing the tenets of a faith, not substantially different from being Exalted and taking a Vow of Poverty. That seems particularly in line with the Dragonwrought Kobold fluff - seeking out your inner dragon, trying to become more dragonesque etc..

[BeholderSlayer]

Really, based on the context of Dragons of Eberron, it is abundantly clear that you must be a True Dragon to take Loredrake. The words "lesser dragon(s)" are used exactly 3 times in the text, and one of them is in a situation where it refers to True Dragons less advanced in age than one of the most poweful dragons. The other two actually refer to lesser dragons, and then only discuss them as either: 1. roaming around Argonessen, or 2. serving as lackeys for a True Dragon.

In Dragons of Eberron, the word "dragon(s)" is equal and swappable for "true dragons" in all cases. By stating "All true dragons have the potential to use arcane magic," the authors were defining that, in fact, the word "dragon(s)" is referring to True Dragons only. This book treats the word "dragons" the same way that the Draconomicon does, that it is implied that the authors are talking about True Dragons unless specified.

Lesser dragons are not discussed at any length in Dragons of Eberron, and when they are mentioned they are treated as nonessential. The context of the book is entirely about True Dragons, and thus Sovereign Archetypes are only accessible by True Dragons. This position is further augmented when one considers, as evidence, the effects that a Sovereign Archetype has on the dragon that follows it (such as reduction of racial HD to d10).

How so? Adopting a Sovereign Archetype is directly related to their faith and desire to emulate one of the Sovereigns in life. It says so in the very book (quote already provided). Even if you consider Lesser Dragons as roaming around Argonessen and/or serving True Dragons, they can still satisfy the two base prerequisites for adopting an archetype. Namely, being Dragons and possessing spellcasting ability. (Not all of them, but still.) It is otherwise a matter of observing the tenets of a faith, not substantially different from being Exalted and taking a Vow of Poverty. That seems particularly in line with the Dragonwrought Kobold fluff - seeking out your inner dragon, trying to become more dragonesque etc..

Because it is implicit in the context of the book that unless specifically stated, the word "dragons" means "true dragons." When they speak of lesser dragons, they say lesser dragons. The fact that one out of the ~12 occurrences of "true dragon(s)" happens to be located in the Sovereign Archetypes section points even more in the direction that you must be a True Dragon. Lesser dragons are not even discussed, they are mentioned flippantly. Just like the Draconomicon, when the word "dragon" is used in Dragons of Eberron it is referring to True Dragons unless specifically stated.

Combine this with the context of reducing racial HD to d10s, and the various other changes of the various Sovereign Archetypes, it very, very, VERY strongly points toward my conclusion.

I'm not going to say that it is absolutely, rock solid conclusive. However, the preponderance of evidence is stacked in the favor of the conclusion, whereas there is no evidence for the contrary conclusion except that it isn't explicitly spelled out.

[Kuroimaken]

Really, based on the context of Dragons of Eberron, it is abundantly clear that you must be a True Dragon to take Loredrake. The words "lesser dragon(s)" are used exactly 3 times in the text, and one of them is in a situation where it refers to True Dragons less advanced in age than one of the most poweful dragons. The other two actually refer to lesser dragons, and then only discuss them as either: 1. roaming around Argonessen, or 2. serving as lackeys for a True Dragon.

In Dragons of Eberron, the word "dragon(s)" is equal and swappable for "true dragons" in all cases. By stating "All true dragons have the potential to use arcane magic," the authors were defining that, in fact, the word "dragon(s)" is referring to True Dragons only. This book treats the word "dragons" the same way that the Draconomicon does, that it is implied that the authors are talking about True Dragons unless specified.

Lesser dragons are not discussed at any length in Dragons of Eberron, and when they are mentioned they are treated as nonessential. The context of the book is entirely about True Dragons, and thus Sovereign Archetypes are only accessible by True Dragons. This position is further augmented when one considers, as evidence, the effects that a Sovereign Archetype has on the dragon that follows it (such as reduction of racial HD to d10).

How so? Adopting a Sovereign Archetype is directly related to their faith and desire to emulate one of the Sovereigns in life. It says so in the very book (quote already provided). Even if you consider Lesser Dragons as roaming around Argonessen and/or serving True Dragons, they can still satisfy the two base prerequisites for adopting an archetype. Namely, being Dragons and possessing spellcasting ability. (Not all of them, but still.) It is otherwise a matter of observing the tenets of a faith, not substantially different from being Exalted and taking a Vow of Poverty. That seems particularly in line with the Dragonwrought Kobold fluff - seeking out your inner dragon, trying to become more dragonesque etc..

Because it is implicit in the context of the book that unless specifically stated, the word "dragons" means "true dragons." When they speak of lesser dragons, they say lesser dragons. The fact that one out of the ~12 occurrences of "true dragon(s)" happens to be located in the Sovereign Archetypes section points even more in the direction that you must be a True Dragon. Lesser dragons are not even discussed, they are mentioned flippantly. Just like the Draconomicon, when the word "dragon" is used in Dragons of Eberron it is referring to True Dragons unless specifically stated.

Combine this with the context of reducing racial HD to d10s, and the various other changes of the various Sovereign Archetypes, it very, very, VERY strongly points toward my conclusion.

I'm not going to say that it is absolutely, rock solid conclusive. However, the preponderance of evidence is stacked in the favor of the conclusion, whereas there is no evidence for the contrary conclusion except that it isn't explicitly spelled out.

Actually, what you claim is "stacked very heavily" is a single mention of True Dragon in the entire entry and the insistence that context dictates so (which I honestly find a bit lacking as evidence by itself. Rules are supposed to be workable in a vaccuum, because fluff is mutable after all). Reducing racial HD to d10s could apply to any creature of the dragon type, which normally uses d12s. Also note that there is specific exception to dragons without cleric/domain access which could easily be extended to spellcasting-capable Lesser Dragons.

[Bauglir]

Besides, we don't need to go any further than the Draconomicon to say DWK's are True Dragons.  They are Dragons and thus MUST be Lesser or True Dragons.  They have Age categories and therefore CANNOT be Lesser.  Ergo, they are True Dragons.

This is ignoring the context, and is circular reasoning. Context is just as important as the words.

How can this be circular reasoning?  I do not begin with my conclusion nor does my conclusion use itself as a premise.

It is possible that one of my premise are false, but this is most definitely not circular reasoning.  Perhaps another layout is in order.

1. Dragonwrought Kobolds are Dragons (undeniably true as the feat directly states this)
2. All Dragons are True or Lesser Dragons (Draconomicon directly states this)
3. Kobolds (Dragonwrought or not) have 12 Age Categories (Races of the Dragon Table 3-2 states this)
4. Dragons that do not advance through Age Categories are Lesser Dragons (Draconomicon states this)

So, once again, the exact meaning of the word "advance" in this situation is the hangup.  Truthfully, this means that it is RAW that Dragonwrought Kobolds both are an are not True Dragons.  Yes,that is an impossibility, but it is what we are left with after all rules have been taken into account.

I meant this, mostly, as an example of something that got dismissed as circular reasoning. Sorry for the confusing sentence structure. I type stream-of-consciousness way too much, I should work on that.

It seems to me that the rules are inherently contradictory, and while your stance is a reasonable resolution that avoids breaking the game (and thus probably ought to be applied in most games), I don't think it's the only possible RAW conclusion, because I don't buy the extent to which you say secondary text is being overwritten  by primary here; there's no disagreement between the age categories thing, for instance. It's just X is within Y and X is within Z, where Z is a subset of Y. X is within Z leads to contradictions, but that's a flaw with other rules, not with stating that X is within Z.

Also, it seems to me that the reliance upon "context" is an argument ripe for moving the goalposts, because you can claim that any particular quote is "taken out of context". You can't really insist upon both quotes AND context as a basis for an argument for that reason. And context is a good deal more subjective than exact quotes; I don't get the same impression of the context of Sovereign Archetypes as you do, for instance. And while I agree that utterly dismissing context is stupid, it can't be the basis of a nitpicky argument about definition precision, precisely because context is imprecise.

[archangel.arcanis]

Your primary argument is that the primary source is the one that must be used. What about specific trumps general? As the 12 age categories is the exact same rule only that it is more specific.

never mind Bauglir made my point. I'll just leave the above in because it wasn't addressed.

edit: I wanted to add that I don't really care about if DWK are or aren't true dragons, but just wanted to chime in on it since it seemed like Beholder was changing the rules of the argument every time someone had a way to prove him wrong.
Disclaimer: While the archetypes are probably a bit much, I have played a DWK that had access to epic feats. They aren't all that great since you still can't meet the other requirements for most of them. I think there were only 3 that were of any interest to me: 30 extra hp at low levels, fast healing, and small DR.

[JaronK]

One thing is clear: whoever wrote Races of the Dragon obviously didn't know what the definition of true dragons was.

I strongly disagree.  I think it's very clearly intended by the authors of that book that DW Kobolds be True Dragons.  They introduced fluff to support it (Kobolds formed from the blood of the first True Dragons, plus the constant references to how much kobolds wanted to be counted as proper dragons).  They gave Kobolds age categories like True Dragons, despite having no other reason to do so... along with that rule that they don't suffer age penalties, and even a statement that assumes you become a chromatic or metallic dragon.  That last is important, because Draconomicon itself talks about how Chromatics and Metallics are True Dragons, and it seems RoD really worked to make Kobolds count as such (it's in the table with age categories).  They seem to have gone out of their way to make certain that Kobolds would be able to be True Dragons with the Dragonwrought feat.

They just had no idea that Dragons of Eberron was making the status of "True Dragon" an actually powerful thing, instead of just a title you could boast about.

But I have no idea why people are quoting the Monster Manual's definition... considering it's obviously a description, not a definition.  It says itself that it's only talking about "known true dragons" implying other things could be a true dragon too, but it's just not something commonly known about.  Its own definition doesn't even fit for White Dragons, which are in the exact same book.  Clearly, it's saying "common True Dragons are generally like this" not "this is an exhaustive definition of True Dragons."  

And I've yet to see anyone on the "DW Kobolds aren't True Dragons" side of the fence come up with a definition for True Dragon that's both created from actual rules quotes and doesn't cause rules contradictions (such as making listed True Dragons not count as True, or causing Kobolds to be both lesser and true).

But coming up with such a definition that includes DW Kobolds as True Dragons is trivially easy.  Just take the definition from Dragon Magic, combine it with the Dragons of Kyrnn definition, throw in the Draconomicon one (reading "advance" as "to pass through") and call it a day.  Nice and easy, no contradictions anywhere, no ignoring of sources (at least, no ignoring of sources that actually try to give a definition of all True Dragons that actually fits with all True Dragons).

We just combine these quotes:

"True dragons are those creatures that become more powerful as they grow older." (Draco 4, note that section has already made it clear that we're talking about dragon type creatures)

"Other creatures of the dragon type that do not advance through age categories are referred to as lesser dragons" (Draco 4)

"a true dragon (that is, a dragon with twelve age categories, such as a red dragon)" (Dragon Magic 87)

"a true dragon (a creature of the dragon type that possesses an age category)"  (DoK, Draconic Vampirism feat)

Put these together and we get

True Dragons:  A creature of the dragon type with twelve age categories.  Also, it must become more powerful as it gets older.

Lesser Dragons:  A dragon that does not advance through age categories.

This is a nice summation of the rules as written.  It actually fits for all True Dragons (and DW Kobolds, of course, unless you want to make them both lesser and true, which makes no sense at all).  And you don't get this whole "Kobolds are true dragons for the Draconic Vampirism feat and for Dragonpacts, but not in all other cases" nonsense.

JaronK

[BeholderSlayer]

Your primary argument is that the primary source is the one that must be used. What about specific trumps general? As the 12 age categories is the exact same rule only that it is more specific.

That depends, it is more AND less specific. It is more specific in that it states how many categories. It is less specific in that it does not use the creature-advancement specific term of "advance."

For the best definition (this is just a comment, not an agument) I would say that it would be nice to combine the two like this: "True dragons are creatures of the dragon type that advance hit dice through 12 age categories."

But really, leaving out the "12" results in the same thing.

In a situation where you have to choose between the specific number of categories and a workable primary source-only definition, I would choose the primary source every time.

edit: I wanted to add that I don't really care about if DWK are or aren't true dragons, but just wanted to chime in on it since it seemed like Beholder was changing the rules of the argument every time someone had a way to prove him wrong.

It may seem that way, but I never actually changed the rules of the argument at all. It is true that sometimes I happened upon various things that augment my argument, so the stream of consciousness may have been a little erratic, but in essence the "rules" never changed. It is more true that every time somebody came up with something I eventually had ideas that showed they were wrong. That's the point of discussing this really, I wouldn't have bothered posting it if I couldn't come up with reasons that foreseeable arguments against me were debatable.

How exactly did I change the goalposts?

[Kajhera]

So, JaronK, half-dragon kobold druids of 15th level are true dragons as well?

Though, actually, you can skip the druid 15. If gaining mental ability scores is getting more powerful, it's irrelevant whether or not they lose any others.

[Vistella]

[spoiler]Sorry if this has been said already; I only read the first few pages.

I'm a little unclear as to why dragonwrought kobold stuff should be so repugnant an idea.  People on both sides of the argument all seem to assume that this is an exploit of a rules hole, and I'm honestly not sure why. I don't think it unreasonable to think that the designers meant for DW kobolds could use dragon only material.

Let's look at the costs/benefits of getting loredrake/draconic rite:
Costs-
You have to be a kobold.  This is a race with such heavy stat penalties that it should have a -1 LA.  And don't tell me that -4 str, -2 wis is meaningless to a charisma based caster.  That's -1 to will saves(possibly the most important save), and a base starting strength of FOUR. That's a 13 pound light load carrying limit. 

You have to NOT be a race with a bonus feat, which leads nicely into....

You have to spend a feat, two feats actually, if you're doing greater draconic rite, and frankly, those two feats are pretty much crap if you don't allow the benefits people actually take them for.

You have to be a sorcerer.  Now, sorcerer isn't bad at all... but it's tier 2 for a reason.  Not only are you a spontaneous caster, with the corresponding decrease in flexibility, but your spell progression is naturally one level behind all the other full casters.

it may seem minor, but you're sacrificing 4 hitpoints.  That's almost 2 whole levels of HD for a sorcerer.

even more minor 1100gp in gems

Benefits:
3 extra levels of sorcerer for the purpose of spells/day and spells known.
Immune to sleep/paralysis
Darkvision
+2 bonus to some skill
ability to use a level 1 spell 3/day as a SLA

The broad strokes: You have to pick a crap race with potentially (depending on your DM) horrendous stat drawbacks, and sacrifice(effectively) 3 feats and ~2HD worth of HP to pull 2 caster levels of progression ahead of a wizard.  You're still a spontaneous caster, with the limitations that go along with that, so the wizard will still outperform you given prep time.  Frankly, I don't see any reason for them to have printed the dragonwrought feat if they didn't have some dragon only tricks in mind.

just my 2 cents.[/spoiler]

you forgot the +3 int, wis and cha

[BeholderSlayer]

First of all, it's pretty clear you either haven't read any of the thread at all, or are purposefully ignoring the contents therein. All of this stuff was covered on pages 1 or 2.

I strongly disagree.  I think it's very clearly intended by the authors of that book that DW Kobolds be True Dragons.  They introduced fluff to support it (Kobolds formed from the blood of the first True Dragons, plus the constant references to how much kobolds wanted to be counted as proper dragons).  They gave Kobolds age categories like True Dragons, despite having no other reason to do so... along with that rule that they don't suffer age penalties, and even a statement that assumes you become a chromatic or metallic dragon.  That last is important, because Draconomicon itself talks about how Chromatics and Metallics are True Dragons, and it seems RoD really worked to make Kobolds count as such (it's in the table with age categories).  They seem to have gone out of their way to make certain that Kobolds would be able to be True Dragons with the Dragonwrought feat.

If it was intended they would have said "you are a true dragon" in the feat.  Age categories can just be fluff (oh, and all creatures have age categories). Giving them 12 age categories? Fluff.

They just had no idea that Dragons of Eberron was making the status of "True Dragon" an actually powerful thing, instead of just a title you could boast about

Ok.

But I have no idea why people are quoting the Monster Manual's definition... considering it's obviously a description, not a definition.  It says itself that it's only talking about "known true dragons" implying other things could be a true dragon too, but it's just not something commonly known about.  Its own definition doesn't even fit for White Dragons, which are in the exact same book.  Clearly, it's saying "common True Dragons are generally like this" not "this is an exhaustive definition of True Dragons."  

Nobody is using the monster manual definition for True Dragons. Not...one...single....person.

And I've yet to see anyone on the "DW Kobolds aren't True Dragons" side of the fence come up with a definition for True Dragon that's both created from actual rules quotes and doesn't cause rules contradictions (such as making listed True Dragons not count as True, or causing Kobolds to be both lesser and true).

It's in the OP.
True dragons are those dragons that advance through age categories.
i.e. True dragons are creatures of the dragon type that advance (gain hit dice) through age categories.

Advance, as in, the "Advancement" line of the MM. The part where it has age categories in the dragon section, and the definition of "Advancement" at the beginning where it talks about getting tougher, or whatever. Dragons are shown to advance through age categories. Kobolds (including dragonwrought kobolds) advance by character class, not age categories.

Not advance as in "get older." It's really simple, and pretty much posted two or three times on every page.

But coming up with such a definition that includes DW Kobolds as True Dragons is trivially easy.  Just take the definition from Dragon Magic, combine it with the Dragons of Kyrnn definition, throw in the Draconomicon one (reading "advance" as "to pass through") and call it a day.  Nice and easy, no contradictions anywhere, no ignoring of sources (at least, no ignoring of sources that actually try to give a definition of all True Dragons that actually fits with all True Dragons).

Or, you could have a nice, clean definition from one primary source and call it a day. Oh, and it doesn't include DWK, sorry.

We just combine these quotes:

"True dragons are those creatures that become more powerful as they grow older." (Draco 4, note that section has already made it clear that we're talking about dragon type creatures)

"Other creatures of the dragon type that do not advance through age categories are referred to as lesser dragons" (Draco 4)

"a true dragon (that is, a dragon with twelve age categories, such as a red dragon)" (Dragon Magic 87)

"a true dragon (a creature of the dragon type that possesses an age category)"  (DoK, Draconic Vampirism feat)

Put these together and we get

True Dragons:  A creature of the dragon type with twelve age categories.  Also, it must become more powerful as it gets older.

Lesser Dragons:  A dragon that does not advance through age categories.

This is unnecessary and fairly messy.

This is a nice summation of the rules as written.  It actually fits for all True Dragons (and DW Kobolds, of course, unless you want to make them both lesser and true, which makes no sense at all).  And you don't get this whole "Kobolds are true dragons for the Draconic Vampirism feat and for Dragonpacts, but not in all other cases" nonsense.

JaronK

You wouldn't have that scenario, because when you determine whether a dragon is a true dragon for both purposes you look at the primary source, the Draconomicon.

[archangel.arcanis]

The movement of the goal posts is in allowing and disallowing sources based on a single line in the errata (something I've never seen before, not that I'm doubting it is there though), along with declaring statements contradictory due to a poorly worded 3rd rule that requires them, and as Bauglir said your requiring quotes and then saying anything that goes against your point as out of context. I don't even think you were intentionally doing it and you may have even not been, that is why I said it seemed that way. I haven't read deeply enough into this long thread to come to a firm conclusion on that.

It doesn't help that the rules in general are contradictory in several facets of the game.

[The_Mad_Linguist]

Question: do you assert that "[members of] X advance through Y" means "X gains hit dice due to Y" in all cases?

No more than you can prove it don't. Plus you are missing an entire point.

You can prove 101% that advance doesn't mean advance by HD within a "advance X though Y" comment. But!
Other creatures of the dragon type that do not advance through age categories are referred to as lesser dragons (which should not be taken to mean that they are necessarily less formidable than true dragons). The meaning of the entire line is to draw attention to some forum of age progression that if lack, means you are a lesser dragon. Try to invalidate the exact word all you want, the sentence is there, it has a purpose. In fact there are many sentences and many pages that are being ignored.

So you tell me what could it mean by not advance though age categories? Let's hear your reason it should mean something else.

Simple.  If a creature of the dragon type does not have age categories listed, AND do not get stronger as they age then they are a lesser dragon.  They are not advancing through age categories in the same way someone who isn't a member of the military isn't advancing through the ranks.  Every single use I've found of "advance through" in any sourcebook anywhere uses it in the Oxford manner.  
In fact, I will assert that there is book that uses "advance through" in the manner which you describe it.  I'll even go so far as to say that if you find two sources that use it in that manner, I'll concede the argument.


But that doesn't matter.

Technically speaking, draconomicon doesn't actually say that dragons must be either true dragons or lesser.  It says that "those creatures which grow more powerful as they get older" are "true dragons".
  
It also says that of the creatures which are not true dragons, those that "do not advance through age categories" are "lesser dragons"

So really the meaning of "advance" is a red herring here.  It never applies, since dragonwrought kobolds are a kind of dragon that "grow(s) more powerful as they get older".  Which makes them a true dragon by definition.  

Now, a half-dragon kobold wouldn't be considered to grow more powerful as it got older, since a net penalty to stats is bad.  That makes it not a true dragon.  Since a half-dragon kobold is of the dragon type, and doesn't advance through hit dice, it'd be a lesser dragon.

[BeholderSlayer]

Simple.  If a creature of the dragon type does not have age categories listed, then they are a lesser dragon.  They are not advancing through age categories in the same way someone who isn't a member of the military isn't advancing through the ranks.  Every single use I've found of "advance through" in any sourcebook anywhere uses it in the Oxford manner.  

This is patently false. Both of your quotes from CM use it in the same manner that I speak of (although one was "advance in" and the other was "advance through").