# Metallic Dragons:  Unaligned!?



## Zaran (May 20, 2009)

Why do the 4e developers refuse to add Good Aligned creatures in their monster manuals?  I can tell you why.    Because players aren't suppose to play evil characters so they shouldn't have to fight them.  I know that's their reasoning.

The thing is Metallic dragons have always been good aligned creatures in past editions.  There is no reason to change this.  Metallic dragons and other good aligned creatures should be added to the game to aid the players.   I was annoyed at this when they changed Angels.  I'm twice as annoyed now.   

WotC, stop changing what isn't broken!  I'm willing to bet you guys had some part in the rewriting star trek canon as well.  I hope the creators of DND haunt you with their Unaligned ghosts!


----------



## Hjorimir (May 20, 2009)

This is easy to fix in whatever campaign you're running. Just wave your hand and declare that metallic dragons are good. I don't see the real issue here.


----------



## webrunner (May 21, 2009)

There's no "Alignment: Any" any more in 4e.

If the alignment is good it means they're all good
If the alignment is evil it means they're all evil

However, "unaligned" in a monster entry does not necessarily mean "every metallic dragon is unaligned" it means "metallic dragons have no inherent alignment" - they could be good or evil or unaligned.

Making creatures inherently good severely limits what you can do with them a lot more then making them inherently bad, so they just say, well, they can be good, but not always.


----------



## chaotix42 (May 21, 2009)

I'm down with metallic dragons being unaligned. I like the idea that metallic dragons can do good in the world while still being greedy, selfish, slothful, eccentric, single-minded, or perhaps just bad tempered. 

Unaligned just makes it even easier for a DM to say this particular monster is an enemy or ally (beyond the simple fact that DMs can do anything already). Look at the alignment and flavor text and its easy to come up with ideas about how a group of PCs could both cooperate or come into conflict with a metallic dragon. This increases the monster's versatility in adventure design and makes them far more than an enemy - something far more dynamic. To make them Good would be just like making them Evil only placed at the opposite end of the specturm. Unaligned provides DMs with the maximum range of options when fitting metallic dragons into their adventures. For some reason a lot of people equate Unaligned with Enemy. Funny, that.


----------



## Regicide (May 21, 2009)

Zaran said:


> Why do the 4e developers refuse to add Good Aligned creatures in their monster manuals?




  Aren't gnomes in the MM?  Anyway, alignment has no meaning in 4E, ignore it.  No spells trigger off it, no penalty for changing it, no protection from it, no detecting it, no classes require it, not even paladin, no magic items I can think off that cause extra damage or require the wielder to be of an alignment, and of course if there was, then players would just change their alignment to match.

  I don't even bother including it on the character sheet.


----------



## Majushi (May 21, 2009)

Regicide said:


> Aren't gnomes in the MM? Anyway, alignment has no meaning in 4E, ignore it. No spells trigger off it, no penalty for changing it, no protection from it, no detecting it, no classes require it, not even paladin, no magic items I can think off that cause extra damage or require the wielder to be of an alignment, and of course if there was, then players would just change their alignment to match.
> 
> I don't even bother including it on the character sheet.




Actually, Clerics and Paladins are required to be an alignment that is compatible to their chosen Deity. (you can't be an evil servitor to a good god, but you can be unaligned...)

And Avengers must be the exact same alignment as their deity.


----------



## stonegod (May 22, 2009)

Majushi said:


> And Avengers must be the exact same alignment as their deity.



*Or* unaligned.


----------



## KarinsDad (May 22, 2009)

Got my book today. Thumbed through it. Saw the exact same thing. Thought the exact same thoughts. 

Fan boys can justify it anyway they want, but the BBEGs have taken over. 

It's one thing to change game mechanic sacred cows, but they keep insisting on changing game flavor staples of the game and that's just evil/wrong/bad/silly. YMMV.


----------



## 77IM (May 23, 2009)

First the unicorn, and now the gold dragon???

What will they come up with next, a good-aligned PC lich?

 -- 77IM


----------



## Bumbles (May 23, 2009)

webrunner said:


> There's no "Alignment: Any" any more in 4e.




The Dwarf, Elf, Human and probably several other entries say Any.



> Making creatures inherently good severely limits what you can do with them a lot more then making them inherently bad, so they just say, well, they can be good, but not always.




Now this is true, and I've had discussions over it long before 4E or even 3E.

A lot of folks will just have a hissy fit over something good doing something wrong.  It's supposed to be GOOD!   

Ah well, my only real concern would be...is the description of the dragon an acceptable one, in terms of its behavior?   Don't have the book yet, but I did look through it, and I don't recall anything wrong about it.



77IM said:


> What will they come up with next, a good-aligned PC lich?




I'm pretty sure somebody tried to do that with the Jedi.


----------



## Malacoda (May 23, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> Fan boys can justify it anyway they want, but the BBEGs have taken over.




Disagreeing = fanboyism. Handy.



> It's one thing to change game mechanic sacred cows, but they keep insisting on changing game flavor staples of the game and that's just evil/wrong/bad/silly. YMMV.




I long ago discarded the rigid alignment system for dragons, while also changing their naming scheme. Some have a general tendency towards good or evil (Fire dragons are often evil, sun dragons are often good, but neither is an absolute) and some had a tendency towards neutrality. So the new approach doesn't change much for me. It seems an odd thing to get worked up over to the point of calling it "silly."


----------



## Nifft (May 23, 2009)

In my 3.5e campaign world, most dragons were effectively Unaligned.

Now, a half-fiend shadow dragon spawned in the pits of Carceri? Evil.

But the others were generally happy just ruling people & owning lots of stuff, much like other strong, charismatic people & monsters.

Many dragons in my world acted as bankers (and slept in the "vault").

Cheers, -- N


----------



## The Human Target (May 23, 2009)

99.9999% of the time you don't need stats for totally good/helpful monsters. Just like you don't need stats the vast majority of the time for the random town blacksmith or a deer. 

Making metallic dragons less predictable and more adversarial makes them more useful. 

More useful= more fun. 

Flavor text sacred cows need(ed) to be examined and altered as necessary, just like mechanical ones.


----------



## Carnelianstar (May 23, 2009)

77IM said:


> First the unicorn, and now the gold dragon???
> 
> What will they come up with next, a good-aligned PC lich?
> 
> -- 77IM




Arcane Power, p.143, epic destinies - Archlich


----------



## Drkfathr1 (May 23, 2009)

Yep, nothing is good aligned now. Not even the stuff that fights evil. Like the Coatl. 

Although they seem to expect PC's to be of Lawful Good or Good alignment, but they want you to fight and kill everything and take its stuff. And they want you to play formerly evil races like Tieflings, Gnolls, and Minotaurs.

Wierd. Its like there are multiple design philosophies at war with one another from within WOTC. 

But I always make ALL of my dragons unaligned, even the Chromatics. 

Easy to handwave away alignments, but it is still kind of jarring to see the good alignment stripped away from everything. Besides, if alignment really doesn't matter anymore, then what's wrong with having a few creatures that are good?


----------



## Nail (May 23, 2009)

For plot reasons, the DM can make the DRAGON any alignment she wishes.  So claiming that leaving metallic dragons unaligned makes them "more useful" doesn't wash with me.

As a game designer, you'd like to make your product both accessible and acceptable to the most people possible.  It seems that by removing Good from the alignment descriptor of metallic dragons violates both of those product goals.


----------



## 77IM (May 23, 2009)

Carnelianstar said:


> Arcane Power, p.143, epic destinies - Archlich



I know.  It was a joke.

It's as if the only two alignments are "Player Characters" and "Dungeon Master."  So all the crazy creatures in the Monster Manual -- from the demon princes of the foulest abyss all the way down to the cute fluffy bunnies of the pleasant meadow -- have "*Alignment:* Dungeon Master," and could jump the PCs at any moment.  Meanwhile anything in the player books -- from the Gleaming Champion of Justice all the way down to the Viledark Gloomshadow Necromaster has "*Alignment:* Player Characters," and is totally fine and acceptable for members of an adventuring party.

It's like they don't think we're smart enough to figure out how to use good-aligned creatures as foes.  Magical domination, mistaken identity, corrupted virtue, insane ideologue, dramatic conflict of duty...

  -- 77IM


----------



## Nikosandros (May 23, 2009)

Majushi said:


> Actually, Clerics and Paladins are required to be an alignment that is compatible to their chosen Deity. (you can't be an evil servitor to a good god, but you can be unaligned...)
> 
> And Avengers must be the exact same alignment as their deity.



The alignment restriction for divine classes are meaningless. A character can change alignment without any penalties so, if you want, you can be a chaotic evil paladin of Bahamut.

I'm not really sure why alignment was left in the game... now that it's separated completely from game mechanics, they could have used something similar to the allegiances from d20 Modern.


----------



## KarinsDad (May 23, 2009)

The Human Target said:


> Making metallic dragons less predictable and more adversarial makes them more useful.
> 
> More useful= more fun.
> 
> Flavor text sacred cows need(ed) to be examined and altered as necessary, just like mechanical ones.




Needed?

Out of the two MMs, there is one Lawful Good creature and one Good creature (as far as I could find). Two. Total.

So by more useful = more fun, you are indicating that unless the creature can be considered an adversary of the PCs, it is not a fun creature. Slaughter and killing are the most fun ways to encounter NPCs, is that it? And that was needed in game design?


----------



## Errantocracy (May 23, 2009)

Zaran said:


> Why do the 4e developers refuse to add Good Aligned creatures in their monster manuals?  I can tell you why.




Actually, let me tell you why. Most, but not all, players tend to play good characters. Since the MM is meant to present monsters to the players to defeat (as opposed to allies) a good aligned monster is essentially a waste of paper for them. Now, there are some people that wish to play evil characters, or groups that wish to play evil parties, but there is no conceivable reason why evil characters cannot fight evil characters. In truth, there are occasions when good PCs might fight good creatures, but such a case would be rather exceptional, and creating monsters that can be used but very rarely for a majority of players seems a misuse of resources. Essentially, the inclusion of good-aligned "monsters" in the MM either forces a lower content of actually useful monsters, or else raises the cover price. Thus, the decision is one that benefits most players, while those who would prefer it the other way can easily change the alignment of creatures as they fit, rather than rail against the injustice being done to all because they find themselves in personal disagreement with the decision.



> So by more useful = more fun, you are indicating that unless the creature can be considered an adversary of the PCs, it is not a fun creature. Slaughter and killing are the most fun ways to encounter NPCs, is that it? And that was needed in game design?



I didn't see this when I first posted. The MM is a book of combat statistics. If you're not planning on fighting on killing something . . . why do you want its combat statistics?

It's a rhetorical question, although conceivably you might answer that by suggesting the creature's possible use as an ally. In this case, however, I think the stats presented in the MM are not very useful for dealing with creatures as allies, since they are written with combat encounters against the PCs in mind. For example, if the PCs wanted to ride a metallic dragon, it might be more useful to stat it as a mount than a monster.

I suppose my point is that the MM is a book full of things to fight and kill, and that's what it should be. It's called the *Monster's* Manual after all, not the Allied Creature's Manual. I'm not saying that information on riding Metallic Dragons into combat against Chromatic Dragons would not be nice, but maybe it would be more at home in the PHB3 (along with information on riding Chromatic Dragons, since there are going to be Gith . . .).


----------



## lukelightning (May 23, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> Slaughter and killing are the most fun ways to encounter NPCs, is that it?




Well, if you're not going to fight them, what's the point of including stats for good monsters? If they are just there as plot devices or NPCs, then the don't need stats; they can be interacted with via a skill challenge.


----------



## Errantocracy (May 23, 2009)

Nikosandros said:


> The alignment restriction for divine classes are meaningless. A character can change alignment without any penalties so, if you want, you can be a chaotic evil paladin of Bahamut.




Actually, you are required to match the alignment of the deity you worship. While becoming chaotic evil would not effect your status as a Paladin, it would mean you could no longer claim to worship Bahamut (or at least you could claim to, but such claims would be meaningless). Mechanically, this means you would no longer satisfy the prerequisites for any feat that requires worshiping Bahamut. That is RAW. At the DMs discretion, you may also be required to select a new deity to worship, since the text states that they are the source of your powers, but that is probably more optional.


----------



## chaotix42 (May 23, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> Fan boys can justify it anyway they want, but the BBEGs have taken over.




2 minute minor for instigating. 

 makes everything better.


----------



## Nikosandros (May 23, 2009)

Cyfer said:


> Mechanically, this means you would no longer satisfy the prerequisites for any feat that requires worshiping Bahamut.




Which is currently a grand total of 1 feat...


----------



## Drkfathr1 (May 23, 2009)

The notion that evil characters/creatures can't fight other evil creatures is totally incorrect. 

Just because they're evil they're automatically going to get along and work together? 

A party of evil PC's can have exactly the same adventures as a group of unaligned PC's (let's be honest here, few actually play good alignments). They just do things for different reasons. 

"What? The evil warlord is attacking towns along the border? He's stepping on our turf! We're going to rule this land someday!" 

"The dragon kidnapped the king's daughter? Hmmmm. We can eliminate a potential rival and get in good with the king..." 

If anything, evil will probably fight against other evil more than any other alignment.


----------



## 77IM (May 23, 2009)

Cyfer said:


> The MM is a book of combat statistics. If you're not planning on fighting on killing something . . . why do you want its combat statistics?



Already answered...



77IM said:


> It's like they don't think we're smart enough to figure out how to use good-aligned creatures as foes.  Magical domination, mistaken identity, corrupted virtue, insane ideologue, dramatic conflict of duty...




That was just off the top of my head.  There are plenty of other reasons.

"You must prove your strength before I will help you!"
"This is a sacred place.  I'm sorry, but if you don't turn back, I will be forced to attack you."
"Actually, my father was a red dragon, so while I inherited my mother's golden scales, I got his sense of unbridled arrogance and avarice.  My, those are some nice magic items you have there..."



I can understand making the copper, iron, etc. dragons unaligned.  I'll even concede angels (guys like the Angel of Death always struck me as morally ambiguous).  And in the mythology, unicorns are sometimes portrayed as savage and ferocious.  But the gold dragon (and later silver dragon) always stood out among the dragons precisely because they were good.  The game setting is more boring without that.

-- 77IM


----------



## pdboddy (May 23, 2009)

Nail said:


> For plot reasons, the DM can make the DRAGON any alignment she wishes.  So claiming that leaving metallic dragons unaligned makes them "more useful" doesn't wash with me.
> 
> As a game designer, you'd like to make your product both accessible and acceptable to the most people possible.  It seems that by removing Good from the alignment descriptor of metallic dragons violates both of those product goals.




I don't see how two pages in which there are only a few debaters on either side equals "accessible and acceptable to the most people possible".  So I don't see how making the metallic dragons unaligned violates your supposed goals of the Monster Manual 2.

Has anyone actually read the entries of the metallic dragons?

Seriously?

Try again.  The unaligned alignment fits with what the new imaginings of the metallics.  The silver dragons seem to be the nicest of the bunch.  The gold dragons "show little interest in the concerns of other creatures" and have goals of "influencing a society".  The copper dragon is "covetous by nature" and "seldom leaves a situation without gaining some benefit".  Adamantine dragons "assume leadership of any creatures in their territory".  Iron dragons "do not have allies so much as dupes".

Do they seem like the good guys, all shiny and ready to come to the world's aid?

Maybe, if it's in their interest.


----------



## Bumbles (May 24, 2009)

Drkfathr1 said:


> The notion that evil characters/creatures can't fight other evil creatures is totally incorrect.




If you're looking at the sentence I think you are, I believe that's a typo, as it's quite awkward if it were meant literally, but adding a "not" to it makes it flow quite readily.

But you'd have to ask Cyfer about it.



pdboddy said:


> Has anyone actually read the entries of the metallic dragons?
> 
> Seriously?




Yes, I did look at the description.  I didn't even look at the alignment entry when perusing the book, never really cared about that at all, as it's so preposterously easy to change anyway.


----------



## KarinsDad (May 24, 2009)

Cyfer said:


> Actually, let me tell you why. Most, but not all, players tend to play good characters. Since the MM is meant to present monsters to the players to defeat (as opposed to allies) a good aligned monster is essentially a waste of paper for them.




The good heroes with opposing goals to the good monsters has been a scenario staple of DND since its inception.

I remember a LOT of adventures with not only good PCs vs. good NPCs, but also good NPCs vs. good NPCs. Convincing the two good temples to not be at war (tricked into doing so by an evil cult) because it weakens the kingdom was an excellent set of adventures.

Just because someone is good does not mean that they see eye to eye with every other creature that is also good.

Non-good Angels? All of them? Come on. WotC designers should sit down and read Book of Exalted Deeds.


----------



## Flipguarder (May 24, 2009)

wow this is a simple topic that has been convoluted.

Unaligned means that they inherently have no alignment. This means that this species is not restricted to any alignment. 

What this reveals more than anything is that evil has more sway in its cosmology than good, due to all chromatic dragons being evil and all metallic dragons being unaligned.

It's not like you are restricted to use Wotc's alignments anyway. I would say they are the second most flexible stat for monsters behind only languages. They have very little bearing on combat.


----------



## Saeviomagy (May 24, 2009)

Did anyone else notice that in prior editions, all these dragons were listed as good, but seemed to act like total jerks in almost any published adventure? They were almost always used to manipulate or strong-arm the PCs. Or outright fight them on the flimsiest of grounds.

Unaligned seems like the alignment they should have always had.


----------



## Regicide (May 24, 2009)

pdboddy said:


> Try again.  The unaligned alignment fits with what the new imaginings of the metallics.  The silver dragons seem to be the nicest of the bunch.  The gold dragons "show little interest in the concerns of other creatures" and have goals of "influencing a society".  The copper dragon is "covetous by nature" and "seldom leaves a situation without gaining some benefit".  Adamantine dragons "assume leadership of any creatures in their territory".  Iron dragons "do not have allies so much as dupes".
> 
> Do they seem like the good guys, all shiny and ready to come to the world's aid?




  Um.  With the exception of the Iron Dragon those all sound pretty good.  In fact they sound more good than most characters with good alignment I've seen played.  Most powerful characters show little interest in low level creatures and are busy influencing society.  Characters by the very nature of the game seldom leave a situation without gaining some benefit.  Powerful characters usually assume leadership of situations and rarely let some low level NPC boss them around or act as anything other than a plot hook.


----------



## FadedC (May 24, 2009)

77IM said:


> First the unicorn, and now the gold dragon???
> 
> What will they come up with next, a good-aligned PC lich?
> 
> -- 77IM




While I know you were joking, it's worth noting that good-aligned PC liches have been around at least since 2nd edition, if not before that. The archlich goes way back. So if anything their inclusion is extremely faithful to previous editions, rather then moving away from them.


----------



## isd (May 24, 2009)

chaotix42 said:


> I'm down with metallic dragons being unaligned. I like the idea that metallic dragons can do good in the world while still being greedy, selfish, slothful, eccentric, single-minded, or perhaps just bad tempered.
> 
> Unaligned just makes it even easier for a DM to say this particular monster is an enemy or ally (beyond the simple fact that DMs can do anything already). Look at the alignment and flavor text and its easy to come up with ideas about how a group of PCs could both cooperate or come into conflict with a metallic dragon. This increases the monster's versatility in adventure design and makes them far more than an enemy - something far more dynamic. To make them Good would be just like making them Evil only placed at the opposite end of the specturm. Unaligned provides DMs with the maximum range of options when fitting metallic dragons into their adventures. For some reason a lot of people equate Unaligned with Enemy. Funny, that.




I apologize for all grammatical arrears.

I also like the idea of unaligned metallic dragons, but for different reasons. When a D&D Dragon acts there actions come off as very cat like to me. That Is to say that if I took a real world house cat gave it intelligence and made it bigger it would act exactly like a dragon. A metallic dragon is still a dragon in other words a big carnivore, so most small, medium and large creatures fit right into there prey range. Sense all PC's are in this range dragons will often see the players as food. Regardless of being good or evil everything needs to eat, and this is where I see the first cat like quality. Playing with one's food. 

For evil play which is often associated with chaotic alignments, a dragon could cause it's prey pain or scare it into a panic for fun. For unaligned play a dragon could have a conversation with it's prey or give it a chance to live if it could solve a riddle. The good alignments have a hard time applying to feeding dragons, because there's not much to eat. If your a good dragon you don't want to eat sentient beings because thats "evil", and you don't want to (but can) steal and eat heard animals. This leaves you with only a few options that won't fight back to the point that the risk is to high for the reward.

The second cat like trait is greed. No mater what alignment a dragon is they amass far more wealth then they need or could by normal means. For evil dragons this is easily explainable as theft. For good dragons the only explanations are payments and favors. A favor being ether something given to the dragon as a reward or as a gift. In the first case a dragon could steal or ransom ungodly wealth in a few months. In the second more honorable manner a dragon would have to spend several years collecting to have a decent hoard. In general dragons usually accumulate their hordes in an unaligned manner utilizing all these methods and others.

Other traits like pride and sloth can be found in all dragons. Metallic dragons don't go out of their way to help the "lesser races", and chromatic dragons usually only destroy those who stumble into their layers or look tasty. For being generally uninterested in others I'd say they are unaligned.

As for a cats vanity tell me you've never had a dragon lick it's claws clean instead of just taking a bath in a lake. Vanity for a dragon is having a bigger nicer and more lavishly decorated layer. nothing inherently evil about that but I don't see it as a good action ether.

Metallic dragons and chromatic dragons are separated by the frequency of evil and good actions. Chromatics generally like to see their food squirm more and they have a problem with delayed gratification. On the other hand metallics are calm and if it dose not cost them anything have no problem with someone else going first. It's the cruelty of chromatics that gets them labeled evil, but metallics just aren't like that. This makes metallics closer to being but not necessarily good.

As for equating unaligned with enemy, I thinks we do this because they are more dangerous. If a creature is good or evil I have some idea and sometimes a very good idea where they stand. With unaligned creatures I have far fewer clues and none of that information is as sturdy as it is with good or evil creatures.


----------



## KarinsDad (May 24, 2009)

Flipguarder said:


> Unaligned means that they inherently have no alignment.




Incorrect. Unaligned is for all intents and purposes the 3E Neutral. It is still in the Alignment section of the PHB. Unaligned creatures still have an alignment.



> If you’re unaligned, you don’t actively seek to harm others or wish them ill. But you also don’t go out of your way to put yourself at risk without some hope for reward. You support law and order when doing so benefits you. You value your own freedom, without worrying too much about protecting the freedom of others.




This is still a general description of how unaligned creatures think.



Flipguarder said:


> This means that this species is not restricted to any alignment.




No, that is what the alignment "Any" means.


----------



## isd (May 24, 2009)

77IM said:


> First the unicorn, and now the gold dragon???
> 
> What will they come up with next, a good-aligned PC lich?
> 
> -- 77IM




XD lol made my day right there.


----------



## ki11erDM (May 24, 2009)

Nail said:


> As a game designer, you'd like to make your product both accessible and acceptable to the most people possible. It seems that by removing Good from the alignment descriptor of metallic dragons violates both of those product goals.




This statement is statically incorrect.  Open your door, walk out on to your street, ask 20 people to describe what a dragon is to you.  Then come back and tell me 'the most people possible' think that half the dragons in the world are good.

The stated goal of 4e is to bring as many new people to the game as possable and they are trying to remove what does not jazz with most people’s ideas of a fantasy world were heroes go off and kill dragons and maybe an orc or five without alienating their core players.  Something that is really hard to do.  And before you go all Dragonlance on me, like it or not Mr. Do’Urden and the other FR books are the engine of the new players train... and I honestly cannot think of any good dragons in any FR novel.  I am sure there must be some but heck if I can think of it.

What this DOES DO is ends any chance of Dragonlance being on the table for a 4e revival (at least in the near term).


----------



## Flipguarder (May 24, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> Incorrect. Unaligned is for all intents and purposes the 3E Neutral. It is still in the Alignment section of the PHB. Unaligned creatures still have an alignment.




You are comparing how it states the alignment of one being to how it describes an entire species.

You are right on your second point, which kinda really irritates me. There shouldn't be that many neutral things in the world imo. The MM is just packed with them. 

Zombies - unaligned
Otyugh - unaligned
Githyanki - evil
Githzerai - unaligned
Gibbering beasts - unaligned
Elementals - unaligned (this im ok with but...)
Archons - Chaotic evil
Cyclops - unaligned
Azer - unaligned
Minatours - any
Shadar-kai - unaligned

Does anybody else look at this list and see something wrong? Its like Wotc just decided that all but the most vile of codes to live by are evil. "Id like to eat everything that comes within 100 yards of me" = neutral.

It seems to me that a lot of the monsters are just too stupid to make an alignment choice. Such as Cyclops

And the playable races are "any", which makes sense and doesn't restrict players. But apparently Shadar-kai can't be evil or good. Githyanki are mostly evil, but Githzerai are unaligned, as are Azers. Oh except minatours, they can be any alignment too.

What the heck does having no alignment mean to wotc.


----------



## FadedC (May 24, 2009)

Flipguarder said:


> Zombies - unaligned
> Otyugh - unaligned
> Githyanki - evil
> Githzerai - unaligned
> ...




Well the only thing on that list that would really surprise me are the gibbering beasts (I always thought of eldritch terrors like that as innately evil). Zombies have always been neutral and eating anything that comes within 100 yards could describe a shark or any number of other animals that you'd be hard pressed to convince me are evil.


----------



## Bumbles (May 24, 2009)

ki11erDM said:


> and I honestly cannot think of any good dragons in any FR novel.  I am sure there must be some but heck if I can think of it.




There was a silver dragon playing in the clouds who was surprised to see a dwarf and a human in a magic chariot in The Halfling's Gem.

There's also the dragon who appeared in Pool of Radiance, but that was being mind-controlled so it may not count.

Now a lot of metallic dragons appeared in one of the FR comics...


----------



## Old Gumphrey (May 24, 2009)

ki11erDM said:


> What this DOES DO is ends any chance of Dragonlance being on the table for a 4e revival (at least in the near term).




Thank God.


----------



## 77IM (May 25, 2009)

ki11erDM said:


> This statement is statically incorrect.  Open your door, walk out on to your street, ask 20 people to describe what a dragon is to you.  Then come back and tell me 'the most people possible' think that half the dragons in the world are good.




No, 'the most people possible' (billions of them) think that _most_ of the dragons in the world are good.  Note the gold dragon's snub nose, whiskers, and sinuous shape.  He is not supposed to represent the western mythological ideal of dragons, but the eastern.

 -- 77IM


----------



## Nail (May 25, 2009)

77IM said:


> No, 'the most people possible' (billions of them) think that _most_ of the dragons in the world are good.  Note the gold dragon's snub nose, whiskers, and sinuous shape.  He is not supposed to represent the western mythological ideal of dragons, but the eastern.
> 
> -- 77IM



Agreed.

Taking my daughter's 3rd grade class as an example, "most people"  think *all* dragons are good...even those that eat people.

...especially those that eat people!


----------



## chaotix42 (May 25, 2009)

And by Good, don't you really mean _Awesome_?


----------



## Errantocracy (May 25, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> If you're looking at the sentence I think you are, I believe that's a typo, as it's quite awkward if it were meant literally, but adding a "not" to it makes it flow quite readily.
> 
> But you'd have to ask Cyfer about it.




Thanks; it was indeed a typo.



> That was just off the top of my head.  There are plenty of other reasons.
> 
> "You must prove your strength before I will help you!"
> "This is a sacred place.  I'm sorry, but if you don't turn back, I will be forced to attack you."
> "Actually, my father was a red dragon, so while I inherited my mother's golden scales, I got his sense of unbridled arrogance and avarice. My, those are some nice magic items you have there..."






> The good heroes with opposing goals to the good monsters has been a scenario staple of DND since its inception.




Actually, I made a point of addressing that issue (I think both quotes are aimed in the same direction). I do not disagree with either of these quotes. The problem is that those instances are generally exceptions, rather than common occurrences. For example, if we look at that list . . . the case of a strength challenge would probably get old quickly, if used to often, and is probably more common to unaligned. The second point is something that can be avoided by the PCs through roleplaying (potentially, and at the DMs discretion). The third is a case of an evil gold dragon, which I'm not sure has barring in this discussion. In any case, while I do agree that the first two points could very well be used to have good PCs fight good creatures, it would be something used . . . what, every three levels, at most? How soon before you run out of excuses for your PCs to be fighting creatures who are supposedly inherently virtuous? It hardly justifies the inclusion of twenty different stats for good dragons.


----------



## 77IM (May 25, 2009)

These sort of plots are indeed exceptions, but that's what makes them interesting.  And they are not possible if the monster isn't generally good.  For example, one of the reason fallen Jedi are so cool (and they are, even after it has become a cliche) is because Jedi are paragons of goodness.  In previous editions of D&D, this same trope could be applied to paladins, dragons, angels, and several other creatures.  Now, it's more like "WTF is this gold dragon attacking us for???  Is it a freaky mystery?  No, he probably just wants our treasure, or to manipulate our society somehow.  Par for the course."

I agree that most of the monsters in the Monster Manual should be evil or unaligned or any alignment.  But I think the game is more interesting if there are a handful of good creatures in there too, to use in exceptional circumstances.  If I were the designers I would have drawn the line at unicorns and silver and gold dragons (copper and lesser metals never seemed that "good" to me in previous editions).  That's like 10 stat blocks over the course of 2 books, so like less that 5% of the stat blocks going to seldom-used good creatures.

 -- 77IM


----------



## KarinsDad (May 25, 2009)

77IM said:


> These sort of plots are indeed exceptions, but that's what makes them interesting.  And they are not possible if the monster isn't generally good.  For example, one of the reason fallen Jedi are so cool (and they are, even after it has become a cliche) is because Jedi are paragons of goodness.  In previous editions of D&D, this same trope could be applied to paladins, dragons, angels, and several other creatures.




Precisely.

The reason for putting good monster stats in the monster manual is not because the PCs are going to necessarily fight a good Gold Dragon (although they could if they have opposing good goals), it's because they are going to fight the Gold Dragon that fell from grace.

The reason to have good monsters in the first place is to have variety. To have epic battles between good dragons and evil dragons.

An entire group of new future DND players are going to be taught that "No Bobby, Gold Dragons are not your ally".

It's just flavor change for the sake of flavor change. There's no good game mechanic reason for it.


----------



## cwhs01 (May 25, 2009)

Is there any advice in the dmg about using monsters out of the MM but changing alignment, ignoring alignment or playing monsters against alignment of the statblocks? 

If so, then this discussion looses (some of) its relevance. If there isn't any advice in the dmg about these things, then that would be more worthy of a few grumbling arguments.


----------



## FadedC (May 25, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> Precisely.
> 
> The reason for putting good monster stats in the monster manual is not because the PCs are going to necessarily fight a good Gold Dragon (although they could if they have opposing good goals), it's because they are going to fight the Gold Dragon that fell from grace.
> 
> ...




Well the difference is just that while before gold dragons were automatically your ally, now there is some chance they won't be. Based on their personalities they are still very likely to clash with evil dragons and are substantialy more likely to help the players then hurt them. Players just need to be much more on their toes when encountering them and not just think "oh it's a gold dragon, he's automatically my buddy."

If you read the draconomican it generally encourages all dragons (including the evil ones) to be played with complex motives and not just by alignment anyway. There are a number of scenarios in there where the friendly dragon patron is chromatic rather then metallic.


----------



## FadedC (May 25, 2009)

cwhs01 said:


> Is there any advice in the dmg about using monsters out of the MM but changing alignment, ignoring alignment or playing monsters against alignment of the statblocks?
> 
> If so, then this discussion looses (some of) its relevance. If there isn't any advice in the dmg about these things, then that would be more worthy of a few grumbling arguments.




According the the monster manual, the only thing monster alignment means is what alignment is most typically encontered. So yeah monsters are generally free to vary to whatever alignment they want.


----------



## Jhaelen (May 25, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> An entire group of new future DND players are going to be taught that "No Bobby, Gold Dragons are not your ally".



But that's not correct!
What they are really taught is:
"No Bobby, this particular Gold Dragon is not your ally."

Instead of having a silly all-or-nothing approach, you can now have all kinds of different gold dragon personalities. Some of them may be paragons of good and some of them may be paragons of evil. It opens up a lot more possibilities than it closes.

Also note, that metallic dragons (well, and chromatic dragons, too) could be of any alignment in the 3E Eberron setting.

And I can only repeat what I say in every thread on alignments:
4E would have been even better if they simply got rid of alignments entirely.

Take the Earthdawn/Shadowrun dragons for example: Each of them is unique. No stupid colouring scheme, no boring stereotypes. Each of them is an individual with a completely different set of goals and motivations. That's where D&D should be heading!


----------



## cwhs01 (May 25, 2009)

Some of this i agree with, some of it i don't.



Jhaelen said:


> Instead of having a silly all-or-nothing approach, you can now have all kinds of different gold dragon personalities. Some of them may be paragons of good and some of them may be paragons of evil. It opens up a lot more possibilities than it closes.




This is what 4e should do, but maybe fails by not being explicit enough. If the stats of red dragons indicate them as being Evil, then i think most DM's will use them as such, without contemplating alternatives and alternative uses of the monsters. Which is a shame imo.




Jhaelen said:


> And I can only repeat what I say in every thread on alignments:
> 4E would have been even better if they simply got rid of alignments entirely.




preach on



Jhaelen said:


> Take the Earthdawn/Shadowrun dragons for example: Each of them is unique. No stupid colouring scheme, no boring stereotypes. Each of them is an individual with a completely different set of goals and motivations. That's where D&D should be heading!




Tropes and cliches CAN be good, as well as playing to stereotypes. Shared expectations makes storytelling easier. Just make sure sometimes to turn things around, by ex. presenting the players with a greedy, scheeming bastard of gold dragon, or a tribe of noble (but savage) orcs.


----------



## Nahat Anoj (May 25, 2009)

I've never pitted the PCs against a metallic.  However, in earlier editions I've often thought that while metallics were benign to mortal races, they were benign in the same way that most humans are to, say, insects.  That is, metallics were willing to let mortals be for the most part, but the vast majority of them had no real qualms killing them.  Particularly if they were acting like pests (moving too close to the dragon's home, being too loud, etc.).   "Unaligned" is a much better descriptor for this behavior IMO, so I definitely approve.

I also do think having dragons default to unaligned makes them more likely to see actual use as enemies.  Sure, creative and clever DMs can invent reasons as to why generally good parties fight good dragons, and that's great for them.  Some may even be able to convincingly and compellingly pull off a "noble and grand disagreement."  But that's more work than I'm willing to do.


----------



## 77IM (May 25, 2009)

Jhaelen said:


> Instead of having a silly all-or-nothing approach



But there IS a silly all-or-nothing approach here:  ALL monsters are evil, or "unaligned/any" (i.e. potentially evil).



Jhaelen said:


> Some of them may be paragons of good and some of them may be paragons of evil. It opens up a lot more possibilities than it closes.



No, it doesn't, because every single other "unaligned/any" monsters already fulfills that plot niche ("some of them may be paragons of good and some of them may be paragons of evil").  Having a truly good, truly powerful creature actually would be some variety, and variety is what opens up possibilities.

In fact the only creatures I can think of that are Good with a capital G are the gods themselves, and celestial chargers.  "It's strange -- the celestial chargers were always benevolent, but now they are attacking travelers on the road!  We need someone to solve this mystery!"  It just doesn't have the same ring to it as when applied to gold dragons.

 -- 77IM


----------



## Errantocracy (May 25, 2009)

77IM said:


> These sort of plots are indeed exceptions, but that's what makes them interesting.  And they are not possible if the monster isn't generally good.  For example, one of the reason fallen Jedi are so cool (and they are, even after it has become a cliche) is because Jedi are paragons of goodness.  In previous editions of D&D, this same trope could be applied to paladins, dragons, angels, and several other creatures.  Now, it's more like "WTF is this gold dragon attacking us for???  Is it a freaky mystery?  No, he probably just wants our treasure, or to manipulate our society somehow.  Par for the course."
> 
> I agree that most of the monsters in the Monster Manual should be evil or unaligned or any alignment.  But I think the game is more interesting if there are a handful of good creatures in there too, to use in exceptional circumstances.  If I were the designers I would have drawn the line at unicorns and silver and gold dragons (copper and lesser metals never seemed that "good" to me in previous editions).  That's like 10 stat blocks over the course of 2 books, so like less that 5% of the stat blocks going to seldom-used good creatures.
> 
> -- 77IM




Hmm . . . part of my argument was centered on the number of good creatures that would be in the book if all Metallics were good, so only having two good dragons might well deal with that problem.

As for your main point . . . actually, I still think there's some mystery associated with a gold dragon attacking (because they are unaligned, and not evil), but I can agree, its certainly less than if their alignment was good.

I agree with part of your argument about "fallen" creatures - I think fallen Paladins and fallen Angels both were cool, although overused, and the loss of an association with good has lessened that somewhat. I say somewhat because a Paladin of Gruumsch is still certain to raise eyebrows, and you could still have an Angel of Bahamut who latter goes rogue.

On the other hand, even metallic dragons are generally self-absorbed and have motives often not understood by lesser beings; a "fallen" Gold Dragon is neither particularly cool nor particularly uncommon, I think. To be honest, I think dragons are just not particularly well suited to the good alignment, for the arguments I mentioned above. I also feel the same way about unicorns - they're certainly not evil, but they are not so much paragons of good as paragons of the natural world, which are two very different things.

Needless to say, none of this has much to do with my original argument. Still, maybe there is something here about how I see alignment, and maybe it is a point others disagree with. Unaligned seems like the "default" alignment choice - as in every creature in the real world would be unaligned. Thus it seems reasonable that many creatures might be unaligned. I also have no problem with races that evil in alignment - either because they are creatures of elemental evil, or because their culture, like that of the Drow or Orcs, is one that encourages violence, savagery, etc. Good-aligned creatures, though . . . a culture that promotes "goodness" seems somewhat redundant, since that is generally the goal of all cultures, though they have little success; worst, taken to extremes, this can breed fanaticism. That leaves only races of elemental good - angels of good dieties, etc. And it's not a list I would expect to be very long at all.


----------



## Victim (May 26, 2009)

cwhs01 said:


> Tropes and cliches CAN be good, as well as playing to stereotypes. Shared expectations makes storytelling easier. Just make sure sometimes to turn things around, by ex. presenting the players with a greedy, scheeming bastard of gold dragon, or a tribe of noble (but savage) orcs.




Well, how many gold dragons do the PCs run into that one behaving in an evil fashion is a deviation from an observed trend?


----------



## FadedC (May 26, 2009)

77IM said:


> In fact the only creatures I can think of that are Good with a capital G are the gods themselves, and celestial chargers. "It's strange -- the celestial chargers were always benevolent, but now they are attacking travelers on the road! We need someone to solve this mystery!" It just doesn't have the same ring to it as when applied to gold dragons.
> 
> -- 77IM




I'm still not sure why you can't have that with gold dragons now. They are as written mostly beneveloent and unlikely to attack travelers on the road. It would still be as much of a mystery weither good or unaligned is written in their alignment section.


----------



## Derren (May 26, 2009)

Why are the metallic dragons unaligned (and the chromatics still evil)? Thats easy to answer. Because WotC doesn't care about world design, versimilitude, tradition and stuff like that. If it appears in the game its there to be killed for xp and treasure. Thats all a monster is useful for.

And somehow WotC thinks that, while 4E is all about reflavoring (at least thats what advertised), the word "good" on the alignment line would prevent DMs from using those monsters.



Jhaelen said:


> And I can only repeat what I say in every thread on alignments:
> 4E would have been even better if they simply got rid of alignments entirely.




But it hasn't. And as alignment still exists I expect it to be used in a responsible way instead of screwing the alignment of traditional good creatures because of an "Everything exist only to be killed" philosophy.


----------



## cwhs01 (May 26, 2009)

Derren said:


> Why are the metallic dragons unaligned (and the chromatics still evil)? Thats easy to answer. Because WotC doesn't care about world design, versimilitude, tradition and stuff like that.




Not really true is it? they have changed a lot of things, mostly in order to make things more playable and increase their number of possible uses. A generally Unaligned race can function as both a villain or an ally. Why is that a bad thing?

World design - makes designing a world easier as you don't have to shoehorn races in or accept the world design as dictated by wotc.

verisimilitude - how does alignment help verisimilitude (V) in any way? loosening restrictions would actually increase Vmax in my book.

Tradition - why is tradition for traditions sake a good thing? it is a new edition after all, for both a new and an old audience.



Derren said:


> And somehow WotC thinks that, while 4E is all about reflavoring (at least thats what advertised), the word "good" on the alignment line would prevent DMs from using those monsters.




The alignment line in the statblock is mostly a guideline. A Good creature is mostly used as allies, evil critters as opponents and Unaligned can be whatever you need them for. IMO a gm would have most use for the evil and unaligned creatures. 



Derren said:


> But it hasn't. And as alignment still exists I expect it to be used in a responsible way instead of screwing the alignment of traditional good creatures because of an "Everything exist only to be killed" philosophy.





You only need statblocks when fighting monsters. This doesn't mean that you have to fight everything with a statblock.
 Wotc has eased up on the non-combat part of the rules (relative to 3e, not prior editions to 3e). The argument is that you don't really need a detailed ruleset for non-combat task resolution, but you do need it for combat resolution. Depending on the design goals of your game ofcourse. This does not mean that you can't do anything but kill stuff and take its loot. Ofcourse it doesn't and it isn't the design goal of 4e.


Oh and can you explain the use of the word "responsible" in the part i quoted? In what way have wotc behaved irresponsibly when deciding on alignments for their monsters?


----------



## Vicente (May 26, 2009)

Zaran said:


> Why do the 4e developers refuse to add Good Aligned creatures in their monster manuals?  I can tell you why.    Because players aren't suppose to play evil characters so they shouldn't have to fight them.  I know that's their reasoning.




The Deva Knight-Errant is Good aligned. Maybe there are more, but honestly, I never cared about that part of the stat block


----------



## KarinsDad (May 26, 2009)

Victim said:


> Well, how many gold dragons do the PCs run into that one behaving in an evil fashion is a deviation from an observed trend?




It would be a deviation from a Monster Knowledge Check. That is, if the designers hadn't screwed it up.


----------



## cwhs01 (May 26, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> It would be a deviation from a Monster Knowledge Check. That is, if the designers hadn't screwed it up.




Fair enough. Well except for the screwed it up part

 I guess a lot of this comes from the two schools of dnd, one arguing (and rightfully so), that the rules exist for a reason, should make sense and be internally consistent. 
The other group thinks rules are meant as guidelines, especially what is mostly fluff anyway, such as alignment and knowledge check tables.
Most people fall somewhere in the middle.

 My guess is that wotc actually suceeded in what they wanted to do (mostly), wrt critter statblocks. If you don't like the new paradigm and what they did with alignment doesn't mean they messed it up.


----------



## chaotix42 (May 26, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> It would be a deviation from a Monster Knowledge Check. That is, if the designers hadn't screwed it up.




A gold dragon behaving in an evil fashion is still a deviation from a Monster Knowledge Check. Gold dragons are Unaligned, remember?


----------



## Derren (May 26, 2009)

cwhs01 said:


> Not really true is it? they have changed a lot of things, mostly in order to make things more playable and increase their number of possible uses. A generally Unaligned race can function as both a villain or an ally. Why is that a bad thing?




A generally good race can also function as an ally or adversary.







> World design - makes designing a world easier as you don't have to shoehorn races in or accept the world design as dictated by wotc.




It is not good world design when everything is shoehorned into "justified to be killed".







> verisimilitude - how does alignment help verisimilitude (V) in any way? loosening restrictions would actually increase Vmax in my book.




Where are the good races in the world? You have inherently evil creatures like devils and chromatic dragons. So where are the inherently good ones? Its not very immersive when WotC presents a world where everything is out to get you and there is nothing to balance the inherently evil races.
If all (or nearly all) creatures were unalinged than it would be fine. But as soon as you have a lot of inherently evil creatures you should also have some inherently good ones.







> Tradition - why is tradition for traditions sake a good thing? it is a new edition after all, for both a new and an old audience.




Why is change for changes sake a good thing? It is still D&D after all.

Non of those three points seems to be a priority for WotC when creating new monsters. Instead its only about presenting the players with another combat encounter.
While in previous editions the monster manuals were a encyclopaedia of creatures living in the D&D world the 4E MM is just a big list of things to kill.


> The alignment line in the statblock is mostly a guideline. A Good creature is mostly used as allies, evil critters as opponents and Unaligned can be whatever you need them for. IMO a gm would have most use for the evil and unaligned creatures.




When its just a guideline there is no reason why the good alignment would prevent DMs from using those creatures. But also having good aligned creatures would make a more believable world than a world populated only by evil and unaligned ones.







> You only need statblocks when fighting monsters. This doesn't mean that you have to fight everything with a statblock.
> Wotc has eased up on the non-combat part of the rules (relative to 3e, not prior editions to 3e). The argument is that you don't really need a detailed ruleset for non-combat task resolution, but you do need it for combat resolution. Depending on the design goals of your game ofcourse. This does not mean that you can't do anything but kill stuff and take its loot. Ofcourse it doesn't and it isn't the design goal of 4e.




Then don't give metallic dragons a stat block then.
Problem is that as soon as WotC wants to give something a stat block it can't be good aligned. SO this policy forces WotC to either leave out iconic good creatures or make iconic good creatures unaligned. A loose/loose situation.
Sure, just because it has a statblock doesn't mean that the PCs have to kill it. But I ask you, what other reason is there to make metallic dragons unaligned if not to make it easier to find a reason to kill them?







> Oh and can you explain the use of the word "responsible" in the part i quoted? In what way have wotc behaved irresponsibly when deciding on alignments for their monsters?




Responsible as in thinking about what alignment a creature would have based in its place in the world and not "make it nongood so that the players can kill it".
Unaligned metallic dragons breaks the 4E lore about Bahamut and his relation to his children for example. And that just so that players can kill metallic dragons more easily. Thats using alignment irresponsibly.


----------



## Obryn (May 26, 2009)

Derren said:


> A generally good race can also function as an ally or adversary.



So can something unaligned.  Or something evil.  Seriously, there are generally two alignments in my game: "This thing is trying to kill you now for whatever reason," and "This thing is not trying to kill you for whatever reason."



> It is not good world design when everything is shoehorned into "justified to be killed".
> 
> Where are the good races in the world? You have inherently evil creatures like devils and chromatic dragons. So where are the inherently good ones? Its not very immersive when WotC presents a world where everything is out to get you and there is nothing to balance the inherently evil races.
> If all (or nearly all) creatures were unalinged than it would be fine. But as soon as you have a lot of inherently evil creatures you should also have some inherently good ones.



So you're arguing that something with Unaligned in the stat block can't be "Good" as it's colloquially described?

Curious position.



> Why is change for changes sake a good thing? *It is still D&D after all.*



I'll remember you said that.



> Non of those three points seems to be a priority for WotC when creating new monsters. Instead its only about presenting the players with another combat encounter.
> While in previous editions the monster manuals were a encyclopaedia of creatures living in the D&D world the 4E MM is just a big list of things to kill.



They're about presenting the player with another _encounter_, but it need not be combat.  There's pure roleplaying encounters, skill challenges, and hybrids.



> Then don't give metallic dragons a stat block then.
> Problem is that as soon as WotC wants to give something a stat block it can't be good aligned. SO this policy forces WotC to either leave out iconic good creatures or make iconic good creatures unaligned. A loose/loose situation.



I am still finding it hard to care.  Why can't an unaligned creature behave in a good fashion?



> Sure, just because it has a statblock doesn't mean that the PCs have to kill it. But I ask you, what other reason is there to make metallic dragons unaligned if not to make it easier to find a reason to kill them?



Because Unaligned represents complex motivations that can't be summed up in a single word on a stat block?

-O


----------



## cwhs01 (May 26, 2009)

Derren said:


> A generally good race can also function as an ally or adversary.
> It is not good world design when everything is shoehorned into "justified to be killed".




Just because it has a statblock doen't mean it has to be killed. Never did before, and doesn't now in 4e.




Derren said:


> Where are the good races in the world? You have inherently evil creatures like devils and chromatic dragons. So where are the inherently good ones?




This argument i can understand, especially if you think of the mm fluff as basis for an implied setting. It also gives another reason they should have ditched the alignment system.



Derren said:


> Why is change for changes sake a good thing? It is still D&D after all.




You kinda forgot to answer my question of why tradition is good. A valid argument to that would be along the lines of "if it ain't broke.. etc.". 
I would answer your question with "It's a new edition with new design goals, so change what needs changing regardless of tradition".



Derren said:


> While in previous editions the monster manuals were a encyclopaedia of creatures living in the D&D world the 4E MM is just a big list of things to kill.




New paradigm. Statblocks are only necessary when actually killing stuff, otherwise wing it (with an eye at the statblock if necessary). just because it has a statblock doesn't mean it must be killed (eg. Gnome entry in mm).



Derren said:


> Sure, just because it has a statblock doesn't mean that the PCs have to kill it. But I ask you, what other reason is there to make metallic dragons unaligned if not to make it easier to find a reason to kill them?




A statblock makes it possible to kill them, not unavoidable. It's as always up to the gm if he wants to present monsters as antagonists or allies. The Unaligned status gives more options.




Derren said:


> Unaligned metallic dragons breaks the 4E lore about Bahamut and his relation to his children for example. And that just so that players can kill metallic dragons more easily. Thats using alignment irresponsibly.




We are using the word "irresponsible" slightly differently.


----------



## KarinsDad (May 26, 2009)

Obryn said:


> So you're arguing that something with Unaligned in the stat block can't be "Good" as it's colloquially described?




No, he's arguing that the world setting is all about killing and not about any good vs. evil flavor.

The world feels like a big combat when only 2 creatures out of nearly a thousand presented in the game system are inherently good. Even the inherently "good humanoid" races like Dwarves and Elves are suddenly "Any".

This world, which was described pre-release as Points of Light in a dark world, has no Points of Light creatures. None. Going to the Dwarven stronghold goes to a place no better than a human village. It's no longer a bastion of good, it's a bastion of Any.

Every time we turn around, the world gets darker and more apocalyptic.

We might as well be playing Gamma World.

It's one thing to have a DND steampunk setting like Eberron. It's another to default the core game system more into a combat only and every creature is human behaviored system.

What medieval fantasy setting ever had non-good Unicorns as a default? Non-good Angels? Look up Unicorn on Wiki. You will not find this. Non-good dwarves were a part of mythology, but that's what Duegars should represent. Not normal Dwarves.

Sorry, but it's stupid. I cannot comprehend supporting this as a good idea. The only justification I am hearing is "because WotC did it this way".


Just to mix things up, the 5E version of DND will have all Good Demons. Doh!!!


----------



## Nail (May 26, 2009)

Obryn said:


> So can something unaligned.  Or something evil.  Seriously, there are generally two alignments in my game: "This thing is trying to kill you now for whatever reason," and "This thing is not trying to kill you for whatever reason."




But here's the problem: As a player in Obryn's game, you can't know which "_Obryn Alignment_" a creature falls into until you encounter it.  That's not very cool (IMO), as it takes away the player's ability to predict and plan and interact.

....

I'll bet - a beverage of your choice - that Obryn has a "World Document" of some kind that he can give to players.  Something that describes his world, some of the creatures or organizations or gods or terrains or rules within it.   Lots of DMs do this (myself included), so it's a pretty safe bet.

Now the "World Document" usually outlines the differences between Obryn's World and that of the Generic Setting of D&D.  Perhaps "*All Orcs have purple hair*" or "*Undead always ask for a napkin before they eat you*", or some such thing.  As a new player glances through the document, there's no mention of how orcs are brutish and that undead usually smell of rotting flesh.

_Why is that?  Why leave out those details?_

'Cuz it's assumed you knew that already!  When playing a fantasy game as well known as D&D, some knowledge of some of the common fantasy tropes is assumed.  That's really useful - its saves lots of time on the DM's part.

But NOW: If you have a Gold Dragon in your 4e setting, one of the primary stereotypes of "gold dragon-ness" has been muddled by WotC developers.  The players will have to ask: "Are gold dragons usually good in your campaign?"

....and maybe - and here's the worst part - they won't think to ask, as they'll assume the stereotype from previous editions.  I mean "aren't gold dragons supposed to be Good?"


----------



## Obryn (May 26, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> No, he's arguing that the world setting is all about killing and not about any good vs. evil flavor.



I fail to see how the Alignment line in the Monster Manual actually leads you to this conclusion.  I think you're missing a lot of logical steps, not all of them logical.



Nail said:


> But here's the problem: As a player in Obryn's game, you can't know which "_Obryn Alignment_" a creature falls into until you encounter it.  That's not very cool (IMO), as it takes away the player's ability to predict and plan and interact.



It doesn't, though.  That kind of planning isn't based on the alignment line in the Monster Manual and never really has been for my games.

During my 3e days, I ran a lot of Arcana Evolved.  There's zero alignment in the game, and it worked pretty well regardless.  It didn't hinder my players' planning, or their reactions to encounters at all.



> I'll bet - a beverage of your choice - that Obryn has a "World Document" of some kind that he can give to players.  Something that describes his world, some of the creatures or organizations or gods or terrains or rules within it.   Lots of DMs do this (myself included), so it's a pretty safe bet.



Nope, I don't right now.  I haven't needed it as of yet.  I can't remember needing one for any D&Dish game, recently.



> Now the "World Document" usually outlines the differences between Obryn's World and that of the Generic Setting of D&D.  Perhaps "*All Orcs have purple hair*" or "*Undead always ask for a napkin before they eat you*", or some such thing.  As a new player glances through the document, there's no mention of how orcs are brutish and that undead usually smell of rotting flesh.
> 
> _Why is that?  Why leave out those details?_
> 
> 'Cuz it's assumed you knew that already!  When playing a fantasy game as well known as D&D, some knowledge of some of the common fantasy tropes is assumed.  That's really useful - its saves lots of time on the DM's part.



I let my players know when the time is right, usually.  Again, going back to Arcana Evolved, I had to more or less instruct them on Chorrim and ... crud, the goat-headed dudes.  Those aren't in your typical D&D game, and it wasn't necessarily important for them to know that Chorrim are more or less militaristic, intelligent ogre-sized creatures bent on domination; or that the goat guys were generally nomadic raiders until it mattered.

In both cases, they worked just fine without an alignment.  Alignment is a crutch - motivation is what matters.



> But NOW: If you have a Gold Dragon in your 4e setting, one of the primary stereotypes of "gold dragon-ness" has been muddled by WotC developers.  The players will have to ask: "Are gold dragons usually good in your campaign?"
> 
> ....and maybe - and here's the worst part - they won't think to ask, as they'll assume the stereotype from previous editions.  I mean "aren't gold dragons supposed to be Good?"



If they wonder what alignment a gold dragon is, I'd tell them what I've always told them: "It depends on the dragon."  Then, they can always roll a monster knowledge check of some sort if they need to know more in general; or hunt for rumors if they need to know about one in particular.

I can't remember the last time I used a purely good or evil dragon in one of my games.  They're always detailed as a major NPC.

-O


----------



## KarinsDad (May 26, 2009)

Obryn said:


> I fail to see how the Alignment line in the Monster Manual actually leads you to this conclusion




What other conclusion can one make?

Because WotC suddenly discovered "People do not think of good creatures when they think of Unicorns"?

Talk about illogical.


The issue is one of throwing 30 year old flavor tropes that players are used to out the window for no good reason.

When someone says "Beholder" to a player, he doesn't think "Hydra". When someone says "Angel" to a player, he doesn't think "Unaligned".


Dwarves are basically good. Not anymore. Now they are just as broadbased as any human. Why? Because. Because why? Because we want PCs to fight Dwarves.

What other conclusion can one make? A typo???


----------



## 77IM (May 26, 2009)

Obryn said:


> Seriously, there are generally two alignments in my game: "This thing is trying to kill you now for whatever reason," and "This thing is not trying to kill you for whatever reason."



Haha, it's like my earlier suggestion that the only two alignments be "Player Characters" and "Dungeon Master."

"Wow, it's a _+5 player character avenger greatsword_!!!  Once per day, on a hit, it can deal +5d12 narrativist damage against a dungeon master-aligned creature!"

 -- 77IM


----------



## Obryn (May 26, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> What other conclusion can one make?



That it can be about potential conflict?

Conflict != Killing.  You said Killing, which I think is clearly a leap of King-Kongian proportions.



> The issue is one of throwing 30 year old flavor tropes that players are used to out the window for no good reason.



I would be happier without any alignment whatsoever, but this is far from the only flavor trope that's been changed in 4e.



> When someone says "Beholder" to a player, he doesn't think "Hydra". When someone says "Angel" to a player, he doesn't think "Unaligned".



No, but again I don't see why that matters.  It's one thing to know that a beholder is a floating ball with eyes.  It's another to say they're all evil and bent on domination.  One's a physical description, and the other is a lazy man's motivation.  Whether or not a beholder is "evil" is secondary to what that beholder is trying to accomplish.



> Dwarves are basically good. Not anymore. Now they are just as broadbased as any human. Why? Because. Because why? Because we want PCs to fight Dwarves.
> 
> What other conclusion can one make? A typo???



Why are you assuming a fight?  You're really focused that this is only for combat, rather than the much-broader conflict.  That's where you're making an unwarranted and illogical leap.

-O


----------



## Flipguarder (May 26, 2009)

Marvel Civil war. Good being killing other good beings. Alignment be damned.

Point being, they did not need to make metallic dragons unaligned simply for the purpose of "making attacking them make sense".

When I started playing in 3.5 the fact that there were good monsters in the MM bothered me for about 10 minutes, until I could come up with a slew of ideas for why they would need to be in combat.

I personally believe that the change from good to unaligned, and the lack of change from evil between dragons simply shows that evil is simply overall more of an influence in the 4e universe than it has been in the past. The only other possibility is that they forgot that good monsters make sense.


----------



## Bumbles (May 26, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> Even the inherently "good humanoid" races like Dwarves and Elves are suddenly "Any".




Funny how I think that change is a good one, as what it means to me is that I no longer have to swallow the image that Elves and Dwarves are inherently good, but can instead be good, evil, or just indifferent.


> This world, which was described pre-release as Points of Light in a dark world, has no Points of Light creatures. None. Going to the Dwarven stronghold goes to a place no better than a human village. It's no longer a bastion of good, it's a bastion of Any.




Only if you are unable to define a settlement independently of the statblock.

Which if you are, is missing the point of "any" being used.  It gives you freedom to have a stronghold of good dwarves.  Or evil ones.  Of course, you really had that freedom in the first place, but I kind of like it being explicitly given.

YMMV


----------



## Derren (May 26, 2009)

Obryn said:


> That it can be about potential conflict?
> 
> Conflict != Killing.  You said Killing, which I think is clearly a leap of King-Kongian proportions.




Hm, when people talk about out of combat skills, "conflict" suddenly does mean combat/killing......

Still, you can also have a conflict with good creatures, especially when the PCs are unaligned. But even if they are good, good creatures don't automatically agree with everything. And it can create a whole different type of conflict than normally when you know that simply hacking apart your opposition is not a very moral option.







> I would be happier without any alignment whatsoever, but this is far from the only flavor trope that's been changed in 4e.




No alignments would be fine too. But WotC left alignment in the game and so I expect it to be used. All of it, not only unaligned or worse so that players need less justification to kill things.







> No, but again I don't see why that matters.  It's one thing to know that a beholder is a floating ball with eyes.  It's another to say they're all evil and bent on domination.  One's a physical description, and the other is a lazy man's motivation.  Whether or not a beholder is "evil" is secondary to what that beholder is trying to accomplish.




See above. If everything would be unaligned or there was no alignment then it would be ok. But as soon as you have quite a few inherently evil creatures the world also needs some inherently good creatures to stay believable. 
Still, evil beholders are part of the D&D mythos as are good metallic dragons.


> Why are you assuming a fight?  You're really focused that this is only for combat, rather than the much-broader conflict.  That's where you're making an unwarranted and illogical leap.
> -O




Tell me one other reason why WotC makes so few good creatures. I can't think of any reason other "You generally don't fight good creatures".

Imo:

1. If you think the alignment entry is useless and a waste of space then there should be no problem with leaving metallic dragons good like they were (leaves previous edition fluff intact).

2. If you think alignment matters then WOtC just making unaligned or evil creatures makes a rather unbalanced and unbelievable world.


----------



## KarinsDad (May 26, 2009)

Obryn said:


> Why are you assuming a fight?  You're really focused that this is only for combat, rather than the much-broader conflict.  That's where you're making an unwarranted and illogical leap.




Ok, let's not assume a fight.

Let's assume roleplaying.

Previously, the Gold Dragon was a Paragon of Virtue.

A creature the PCs could find to assist or to guide.

Now, like the Unicorn, he is merely another NPC. Not really any different than many other dragons. Greedy. Conceited. Arrogant. Yawn.


I just do not understand the concept that watering down good races and making them pedestrian is a desirable roleplaying goal. Hence, the reason I was focusing on combat.

I cannot understand the rationale and nobody here has come up with a good reason beyond "WotC did it that way".


The Elves no longer come to the aid of the Dwarves because it is the right thing to do. What's in it for them?


The fantasy tropes were there for a reason. They give players a common and traditional understanding of DND and medieval (swords and sorcery) fantasy in general. Ripping them out is lame. Kind of like adding firearms to DND (that was a real winner and will show up in 4E eventually). Just because someone can think up an idea does not make it a good one.


----------



## Obryn (May 26, 2009)

Derren said:


> Hm, when people talk about out of combat skills, "conflict" suddenly does mean combat/killing......
> 
> Still, you can also have a conflict with good creatures, especially when the PCs are unaligned. But even if they are good, good creatures don't automatically agree with everything. And it can create a whole different type of conflict than normally when you know that simply hacking apart your opposition is not a very moral option.



You absolutely can, but I can have exactly those same conflicts with a creature I'm running as "Unaligned."



> No alignments would be fine too. But WotC left alignment in the game and so I expect it to be used. All of it, not only unaligned or worse so that players need less justification to kill things.



Alignment is about the worst possible justification for killing things imaginable, IMO.  It doesn't matter if something is evil, unaligned, etc.



> See above. If everything would be unaligned or there was no alignment then it would be ok. But as soon as you have quite a few inherently evil creatures the world also needs some inherently good creatures to stay believable.
> Still, evil beholders are part of the D&D mythos as are good metallic dragons.



Again, I don't necessarily know _why._  An unaligned creature can easily create a "point of light" or what-have-you.  So can an evil creature.  So can a good creature.  It's no different to me.



> Tell me one other reason why WotC makes so few good creatures. I can't think of any reason other "You generally don't fight good creatures".



How about this...

If something is Good, it implies a lot - namely, that it has some stake in fighting against Evil.  If something is unaligned, it _may_ have a stake in fighting against Evil, or it may not.  Regardless, the PCs can't just beat a gold dragon with an alignment stick and say, "Hey!  Go fix this problem!"

Yes, it's an oversimplification.  But so is all alignment, and I'm finding it hard to care even this much.



> Imo:
> 
> 1. If you think the alignment entry is useless and a waste of space then there should be no problem with leaving metallic dragons good like they were (leaves previous edition fluff intact).
> 
> 2. If you think alignment matters then WOtC just making unaligned or evil creatures makes a rather unbalanced and unbelievable world.



I would have been fine had they been Good.  I would have been fine had they been Evil.  In both cases, I wouldn't have spared much thought about it.  Having them unaligned is awesome because it means I don't even need to ignore it - it comes pre-ignored.

I honestly don't know why monster alignment is such a big deal because it doesn't seem to matter for adventures.

A good creature with motivations is defined by its motivations.  An evil creature with motivations is defined by its motivations.  If there's a rampaging monster bent on destruction, it doesn't matter what alignment it is.  If there's a monster in a dungeon waiting for its next round of adventurers, it doesn't matter what alignment it is.

-O


----------



## KarinsDad (May 26, 2009)

Obryn said:


> I honestly don't know why monster alignment is such a big deal because it doesn't seem to matter for adventures.




It's a big deal for some players.

Let me ask you a question.

What significant advantage did WotC gain by changing the alignments? What is the purpose of it? How was it broken and needed to be fixed previously?


----------



## Derren (May 26, 2009)

Obryn said:


> A good creature with motivations is defined by its motivations.  An evil creature with motivations is defined by its motivations.  If there's a rampaging monster bent on destruction, it doesn't matter what alignment it is.  If there's a monster in a dungeon waiting for its next round of adventurers, it doesn't matter what alignment it is.
> 
> -O




To use what some poster said on the WotC boards:
When you have good aligned creatures the exceptions who are evil (standard fantasy trope) are much more memorable. As karins Dad said, by being unaligned, golds are "Not really any different than many other dragons. Greedy. Conceited. Arrogant. Yawn."


----------



## Obryn (May 26, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> Ok, let's not assume a fight.
> 
> Let's assume roleplaying.
> 
> ...



Why isn't the gold dragon in your campaign a paragon of virtue?  Why can't the PCs assist or guide them?  Why can't it be a patron of noble deeds?  Why can't it be generous or humble?

"Unaligned" doesn't exclude any of those options.



> I cannot understand the rationale and nobody here has come up with a good reason beyond "WotC did it that way".



Because "Unaligned" doesn't presume how you should use a creature in your game.  An unaligned creature can be good, evil, or mixed.  It's a more interesting choice for roleplaying and motivation, imo.



> The Elves no longer come to the aid of the Dwarves because it is the right thing to do. What's in it for them?



Why can't they?

Unaligned isn't synonymous with 1e-3e's "Neutral."



> The fantasy tropes were there for a reason. They give players a common and traditional understanding of DND and medieval (swords and sorcery) fantasy in general. Ripping them out is lame. Kind of like adding firearms to DND (that was a real winner and will show up in 4E eventually). Just because someone can think up an idea does not make it a good one.



I would prefer that all creatures were unaligned or non-aligned, but I'm fine if creatures primarily come in the flavors of unaligned-evil-chaotic evil.

-O


----------



## FadedC (May 26, 2009)

Derren said:


> To use what some poster said on the WotC boards:
> When you have good aligned creatures the exceptions who are evil (standard fantasy trope) are much more memorable. As karins Dad said, by being unaligned, golds are "Not really any different than many other dragons. Greedy. Conceited. Arrogant. Yawn."




Gold dragons are honest and forthright, treat creatures as wards and students rather then slaves and pay fealty to Bahamut. I'm not sure what game your playing which that's not really any different then a red dragon.


----------



## Obryn (May 26, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> It's a big deal for some players.
> 
> Let me ask you a question.
> 
> What significant advantage did WotC gain by changing the alignments? What is the purpose of it? How was it broken and needed to be fixed previously?



I don't doubt it's a big deal for some players, but I still have no idea why that should be more important that other considerations.  Sometimes things change - gnomes were a big deal for some folks, too, but I don't think that's a pressing reason to leave them identical to their previous incarnations.

What advantages are there?  By changing most traditionally good creatures to Unaligned, WotC removed the possibility that players will try and shoehorn or coerce a creature's behaviors based on its alignment.

I can also look straight at a creature's motivations and give it whatever motivations I wish without the need to modify the Alignment line or pretend it's not there.

I don't think something needs to be broken in order for it to change.  I wouldn't have cared if metallic dragons were Good.  As it stands, I prefer that they are Unaligned, and it's emphatically *not* because WotC says it's better that way.



Derren said:


> To use what some poster said on the WotC boards:
> When you have good aligned creatures the exceptions who are evil (standard fantasy trope) are much more memorable. As karins Dad said, by being unaligned, golds are "Not really any different than many other dragons. Greedy. Conceited. Arrogant. Yawn."



Unaligned doesn't imply any of those, nor does it exclude lawful and/or good behaviors and goals.

It allows for them, sure, but it doesn't require them.

Unaligned <> Neutral

You can read it as, "No alignment specified" if you choose.

-O


----------



## Derren (May 26, 2009)

FadedC said:


> Gold dragons are honest and forthright, treat creatures as wards and students rather then slaves and pay fealty to Bahamut. I'm not sure what game your playing which that's not really any different then a red dragon.




Doesn't sound unaligned either.


----------



## Obryn (May 26, 2009)

Derren said:


> Doesn't sound unaligned either.



If you are judging how closely a creature's behavior hews to its alignment, there's no such thing as "Not acting unaligned enough."

-O


----------



## KarinsDad (May 26, 2009)

Obryn said:


> Unaligned <> Neutral
> 
> You can read it as, "No alignment specified" if you choose.




Not according to the rules:



> If you’re unaligned, you don’t actively seek to harm others or wish them ill. But you also don’t go out of your way to put yourself at risk without some hope for reward. You support law and order when doing so benefits you. You value your own freedom, without worrying too much about protecting the freedom of others.




This is a behavioral indicator not much different than true neutral:



> A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn’t feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she’s not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.





The phrase "no alignment" (both in the PHB and in the MM) when defining Unaligned means that the creature does not behave in the good or evil camp, not that they have no alignment whatsoever. They do. Unaligned as defined above.


----------



## Bumbles (May 26, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> The Elves no longer come to the aid of the Dwarves because it is the right thing to do. What's in it for them?




And that's a bad thing because???

Sheesh, the Elf/Dwarf conflict has been around for quite some time, you might even say it was part of the foundation of the D&D meta-setting given how prominent it was in Tolkien.



> The fantasy tropes were there for a reason. They give players a common and traditional understanding of DND and medieval (swords and sorcery) fantasy in general. Ripping them out is lame. Kind of like adding firearms to DND (that was a real winner and will show up in 4E eventually). Just because someone can think up an idea does not make it a good one.




If you don't want firearms in your games, don't have them.  Knocking those who do want to explore that trope is not going to anything except increase the hurt feelings.  For you, it may not be a good idea.  For others...well, it just might be something they like.

Go figure.


----------



## webrunner (May 26, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> The Dwarf, Elf, Human and probably several other entries say Any.




I didn't see those.. but they seem to have dropped this with MM2.  There's four pages of humans and every one that isn't evil is unaligned - including ones which presumably would be minor NPCs like Human Noble.


----------



## Obryn (May 26, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> The phrase "no alignment" (both in the PHB and in the MM) when defining Unaligned means that the creature does not behave in the good or evil camp, not that they have no alignment whatsoever. They do. Unaligned as defined above.



...or in the sidebar on p. 19, "Having no alignment; not taking a stand."

-O


----------



## Bumbles (May 26, 2009)

webrunner said:


> I didn't see those.. but they seem to have dropped this with MM2.  There's four pages of humans and every one that isn't evil is unaligned - including ones which presumably would be minor NPCs like Human Noble.




Then it's possible that unaligned is meant to serve the place of any in the new scheme of things.  Or something else.

Whatever, as I said in my first post, I'm more concerned with the description than the stat-block...and even then, that's subject to change.


----------



## Nail (May 26, 2009)

Obryn said:


> That kind of planning isn't based on the alignment line in the Monster Manual and never really has been for my games.



I think you're confounding your distaste for the alignment system (a personal perspective) with the fact that Gold Dragons in D&D have been (up until a few days ago) Lawful Good.

It's all cool and everything to not like alignments.  ....But that has nothing to do with how altering fundamanetal assumptions in the game propagates throughout the gaming comminuty.

Gold Dragons used to be Lawful Good.  Now they're not.  That cuts against some widely-held assumptions...and I can't agree that doing so is good for the game.


----------



## Obryn (May 26, 2009)

Nail said:


> Gold Dragons used to be Lawful Good.  Now they're not.  That cuts against some widely-held assumptions...and I can't agree that doing so is good for the game.



Well, I guess we're even because I can't see how it's _bad_ for the game. 

-O


----------



## Derren (May 26, 2009)

Obryn said:


> Well, I guess we're even because I can't see how it's _bad_ for the game.
> 
> -O




Except that it destroys much of fluff from previous editions (which is the main source of fluff for 4E)?

Lets turn it around. How it is good for the game?
When a change doesn't make something better, don't change it.


----------



## Usumcasane (May 26, 2009)

So if you are a long-time player with assumptions about D&D monsters, you can easily ignore the alignment in the MM, no?  If you are a brand new player, you don't have those assumptions to begin with, so nothings been ruined.

If you assign your monsters an ethos and place in your game world based on what the MM tells you it should be, I don't think you're using your imagination and creativity enough.


----------



## Derren (May 26, 2009)

Usumcasane said:


> So if you are a long-time player with assumptions about D&D monsters, you can easily ignore the alignment in the MM, no?  If you are a brand new player, you don't have those assumptions to begin with, so nothings been ruined.
> 
> If you assign your monsters an ethos and place in your game world based on what the MM tells you it should be, I don't think you're using your imagination and creativity enough.




And nothing has been gained either.
And when you not change monsters before placing them in your game you are uncreative?


----------



## KarinsDad (May 26, 2009)

Usumcasane said:


> If you assign your monsters an ethos and place in your game world based on what the MM tells you it should be, I don't think you're using your imagination and creativity enough.




So for people who for 30+ years (or even 3+ months) LIKED the flavor that was the default, you are telling us that we are not imaginative and creative enough?

Got it.


----------



## Obryn (May 26, 2009)

Derren said:


> Except that it destroys much of fluff from previous editions (which is the main source of fluff for 4E)?
> 
> Lets turn it around. How it is good for the game?
> When a change doesn't make something better, don't change it.



I think I listed a few ways in which I think it's better for the game upthread.



			
				me said:
			
		

> What advantages are there? By changing most traditionally good creatures to Unaligned, WotC removed the possibility that players will try and shoehorn or coerce a creature's behaviors based on its alignment.
> 
> I can also look straight at a creature's motivations and give it whatever motivations I wish without the need to modify the Alignment line or pretend it's not there.






			
				me said:
			
		

> If something is Good, it implies a lot - namely, that it has some stake in fighting against Evil. If something is unaligned, it may have a stake in fighting against Evil, or it may not. Regardless, the PCs can't just beat a gold dragon with an alignment stick and say, "Hey! Go fix this problem!"




-O


----------



## Usumcasane (May 26, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> So for people who for 30+ years (or even 3+ months) LIKED the flavor that was the default, you are telling us that we are not imaginative and creative enough?
> 
> Got it.




Nope.  I'm saying that if you can't revert back to that flavor because the new text says something else -- then you're uncreative.


----------



## Derren (May 26, 2009)

Usumcasane said:


> Nope.  I'm saying that if you can't revert back to that flavor because the new text says something else -- then you're uncreative.




Of course , you are equally uncreative when you are not able to change good dragons into unaligned ones if you want your players want to fight them more often.


----------



## Usumcasane (May 26, 2009)

Derren said:


> Of course , you are equally uncreative when you are not able to change good dragons into unaligned ones if you want your players want to fight them more often.




Naturally.  Now who is more likely to be uncreative (at least initially)? People playing for many years/editions or brand new DMs? Which alignment type helps the uncreative design better encounters but leaves those that are quite creative free to adapt the monsters as they need too?


----------



## Bumbles (May 26, 2009)

Derren said:


> Except that it destroys much of fluff from previous editions (which is the main source of fluff for 4E)?




Except a perusal of the full entry for the Gold Dragon in the MM2 will tell you that it doesn't destroy any of that fluff AFAICT, let alone much of it.  

At least, that's how I read it. How do you read it differently?  What do you find objectionable?


----------



## Bumbles (May 26, 2009)

Derren said:


> And when you not change monsters before placing them in your game you are uncreative?




I believe I'd prefer to say "noncreative" or even "less creative" .

Which isn't a bad thing.  Following a recipe isn't creative, but it can still make for some good soup.


----------



## GrayLinnorm (May 26, 2009)

Why are the chromatics still evil? I read some of the preview books and heard talk about PCs helping a green dragon; it sounds like they should have made all dragons unaligned (or any alignment).

And if they're going to make angels unaligned, then demons and devils should be too (and vampires).


----------



## Bumbles (May 26, 2009)

GrayLinnorm said:


> And if they're going to make angels unaligned, then demons and devils should be too (and vampires).




Not really.  Angels are agents of deities and as such, may be found on all sides of the fence.  Demons and devils are independent branches, they may serve deities, but they're generally out for themselves.  Sure, they could have chosen to make them more generic, but I can see why WOTC did not choose to go that route in all things.  But you can, as you can explore the concepts of demons, devils and vampires as not so bad guys, even if WOTC never goes there.


----------



## 77IM (May 26, 2009)

There are two arguments going on at once here.  Just to clarify,

1.  There's the question of whether the MM should include monsters of good alignment at all.

2.  There's the question of whether metallic dragons in particular should be good and have matching flavor text.


Personally, I think that:

1.  In 4e, individuals of a species can be any alignment.  A good individual of an evil species is a really interesting hero:  an outcast drow, a vampire that kills other vampires, or a demon struggling against his own infernal nature (IMHO the fact that tieflings are now unaligned makes them slightly less interesting as characters).  Likewise, an evil individual of a good species often makes a great villain.  For that to work, though, there need to be some good species!

2.  I remember reading the monster entries in my Red Box Basic Set when I was 10 and noticing the unusual progression of dragon alignments, and the idea that gold dragons were good has stuck with me.  Yet I don't care about most of the other monster changes in 4e.  Why is that?  Is it just me?  It makes me think that they missed the mark on this one -- that there is something about good dragons that people really like.

 -- 77IM


----------



## Nail (May 27, 2009)

77IM said:


> 1.  There's the question of whether the MM should include monsters of good alignment at all.



Has anyone argued that there shouldn't be?  I must have missed that. 



77IM said:


> 2.  There's the question of whether metallic dragons in particular should be good and have matching flavor text.



I think some have argued here that the flavor text is all you need - the alignment adds nothing.

I disagree with that, within the generic setting, at any rate.


----------



## KarinsDad (May 27, 2009)

Usumcasane said:


> Naturally.  Now who is more likely to be uncreative (at least initially)? People playing for many years/editions or brand new DMs? Which alignment type helps the uncreative design better encounters but leaves those that are quite creative free to adapt the monsters as they need too?




This is backwards logic.

The default should be the traditional approach and the MM should indicate that DMs should feel free to change that (like it does). Historic monsters should not change flavor-wise.

The default should not be a brand new approach that is there solely to remove the concept of good monsters from DND and allow new DMs to auto-set up encounters by having traditionally good monsters fight PCs because the designers want PCs to fight every monster.

Your rationale for why that is preferable is pretty darn weak.


----------



## 77IM (May 27, 2009)

Nail said:


> Has anyone argued that there shouldn't be?  I must have missed that.




These were all around page 1 or 2:



The Human Target said:


> 99.9999% of the time you don't need stats for totally good/helpful monsters. Just like you don't need stats the vast majority of the time for the random town blacksmith or a deer.






Cyfer said:


> Actually, let me tell you why. Most, but not all, players tend to play good characters. Since the MM is meant to present monsters to the players to defeat (as opposed to allies) a good aligned monster is essentially a waste of paper for them.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...






lukelightning said:


> Well, if you're not going to fight them, what's the point of including stats for good monsters? If they are just there as plot devices or NPCs, then the don't need stats; they can be interacted with via a skill challenge.




It's a valid approach to monster design but one that I think simplifies the game in a very unhelpful way.

 -- 77IM


----------



## FadedC (May 27, 2009)

Derren said:


> Doesn't sound unaligned either.




But that is the description of gold dragons. So we've established that your argument that they are not different from other dragons is incorrect. The only thing left over is why you feel that someone honest and forthright and respectful of those in their charge has to be a divine paragon of good?


----------



## FadedC (May 27, 2009)

77IM said:


> 1. In 4e, individuals of a species can be any alignment. A good individual of an evil species is a really interesting hero: an outcast drow, a vampire that kills other vampires, or a demon struggling against his own infernal nature (IMHO the fact that tieflings are now unaligned makes them slightly less interesting as characters). Likewise, an evil individual of a good species often makes a great villain. For that to work, though, there need to be some good species!
> -- 77IM




I don't completely disagree with you here, but these things can and often are taken a bit too far. I remember the days of planescape novels and games where in their desire to constantly create "interesting" characters it seemed like almost every angel you met was evil and if you wanted to find someone who was good you had better odds looking for a demon or devil.


----------



## Old Gumphrey (May 27, 2009)

Why don't you guys arguing against the change just take a sharpie, scribble out "unaligned", and write "good"?


----------



## Cam Banks (May 27, 2009)

Old Gumphrey said:


> Why don't you guys arguing against the change just take a sharpie, scribble out "unaligned", and write "good"?




I think because we'd rather people who like them being unaligned be the ones to attack the alignment line with a Sharpie. It makes just as much sense.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Mad Hamish (May 27, 2009)

77IM said:


> 1.  In 4e, individuals of a species can be any alignment.  A good individual of an evil species is a really interesting hero:  an outcast drow




All drow are outcast drow fighting against their evil society.


----------



## isd (May 27, 2009)

77IM said:


> No, 'the most people possible' (billions of them) think that _most_ of the dragons in the world are good.  Note the gold dragon's snub nose, whiskers, and sinuous shape.  He is not supposed to represent the western mythological ideal of dragons, but the eastern.
> 
> -- 77IM




Eastern dragons could be and often were evil. There are more good dragon myths in the far east, but there was never a lack of evil or neutral dragons. In fact if I'm not mistaken dragons were often embodiments of natural features, which are neutral in D&D. Taoism's concept of balance might be a good way of describing dragons.


----------



## cwhs01 (May 27, 2009)

Derren said:


> Except that it destroys much of fluff from previous editions (which is the main source of fluff for 4E)?




Change isn't necessarily the same as destroy. Wotc certainly tried to make sure that the new edition can be played without any knowledge of older editions (good), and that it isn't just a copy-paste edition (also good). Changes were made and presumably not just to piss of grognards. 

The old fluff still exists in the old rulebooks. So nothing was destroyed.



Derren said:


> Lets turn it around. How it is good for the game?
> When a change doesn't make something better, don't change it.




Why not? If the new thing is not objectively worse than what was, changing it with the reboot of the ruleset is okay.
 And the change in alignment is not objectively worse, or there wouldn't be any discussion.


----------



## KarinsDad (May 27, 2009)

cwhs01 said:


> Why not? If the new thing is not objectively worse than what was, changing it with the reboot of the ruleset is okay.
> And the change in alignment is not objectively worse, or there wouldn't be any discussion.




It is for some creatures.

For examples, Angels and Unicorns. If you ask 100 average people on the street if those are good, neutral, or evil, the vast majority will say good.

It flat out is objectively worse for these creatures because new people to the game will scratch their heads on it and wonder "WTF?".


----------



## keterys (May 27, 2009)

Discussions like this really make me wonder why they kept alignment in the system at all.


----------



## Piratecat (May 27, 2009)

keterys said:


> Discussions like this really make me wonder why they kept alignment in the system at all.



What would we talk about otherwise?


----------



## Usumcasane (May 27, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> This is backwards logic.
> 
> The default should be the traditional approach and the MM should indicate that DMs should feel free to change that (like it does). Historic monsters should not change flavor-wise.
> 
> ...




That's my justification.  The rationale for why it is that way?  Because the designers thought it would be better.

The default should not be the status quo.  It should be "what do we think will make the game better?"  The status quo already exists in multiple editions on people's bookshelves all over the world.  Instead, the designers thought "what will make this book a more useful tool for a majority of players and situations?"


----------



## Regicide (May 27, 2009)

Nail said:


> I think some have argued here that the flavor text is all you need - the alignment adds nothing.




  The alignment literally adds nothing.  You can't detect it, deal extra damage from it or protect from it.  The only line that matters is the experience point line.  Woo, that monsters is "neutral-enough for my next fricken level!"


----------



## KarinsDad (May 27, 2009)

Usumcasane said:


> It should be "what do we think will make the game better?"




This assumes that "better" = "easier justification for good PCs to fight all creatures" and not "better" = "common sense" (e.g. angels and unicorns).

Let me ask you a personal question. Does changing a Unicorn from good to unaligned REALLY make the game better?

Be totally truthful. Don't make the knee jerk response, but sit down and seriously think about it. Do you truly believe that unaligned Unicorns are better for the game than good Unicorns (with their rich history and flavor of virgin/virtuous girls riding them, etc.)? If so, why?


And this leads up to the following questions: Does having a total of two good/lawful good creatures out of nearly a thousand make for a rich varied set of creatures, or a restricted set of creatures? Is variety better for the game, or is a bunch of attackable "without any morality thought put into it" creatures better for the game? In other words, is it more fun to attack and kill any creatures the PCs want better than attacking and killing only creatures that are deserving of death?


----------



## Jhaelen (May 27, 2009)

Piratecat said:


> What would we talk about otherwise?



Dragon boobs!


----------



## keterys (May 27, 2009)

Hmm, backing away from previous editions of D&D and more modern references for a moment (such as Dragonlance), were unicorns actually good (in myth or supposed history, or whatever)? I mean, there's a pretty big difference between 'tamed by a virgin girl' and 'good'. People supposedly hunted them for their horns, to cure poison, and presumably untamed means "will stick things with their horn" along with "runs away from people".

Dragons are almost universally not good, as far as I can tell. Sometimes helpful, but with their own agenda at best (and cruising for snacks often enough too).

Fey creatures that dance and have fun with you were good in some editions of dnd, but weren't they pretty much stealers of kids, waylayer of travelers, kidnappers, killers, etc?

Looking for myths and legends about actually _good_ creatures are pretty few and far between. 

That said, I don't see that metallic dragons being unaligned changes anything about some campaign worlds. Dragonlance dragons are still Good and Evil. Except, y'know, all those ones on the other continent that aren't  And the, like, single unicorn in the world is good... but more because that's what it is, and less because it's a unicorn you'd fight.


----------



## Obryn (May 27, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> This assumes that "better" = "easier justification for good PCs to fight all creatures" and not "better" = "common sense" (e.g. angels and unicorns).



Again with the fighting.  You're stuck on the unaligned = easier to fight, rather than on unaligned = easier for conflict.



> Let me ask you a personal question. Does changing a Unicorn from good to unaligned REALLY make the game better?
> 
> Be totally truthful. Don't make the knee jerk response, but sit down and seriously think about it. Do you truly believe that unaligned Unicorns are better for the game than good Unicorns (with their rich history and flavor of virgin/virtuous girls riding them, etc.)? If so, why?



Yes, insofar as it could ever matter.  (Which, I might add, I doubt.)

I love the concept of alien and inhuman, amoral Fey.  It has a great place in folklore, and has a place in D&D now that one has been made for it.  Unicorns, being fey creatures, fit right in.



> And this leads up to the following questions: Does having a total of two good/lawful good creatures out of nearly a thousand make for a rich varied set of creatures, or a restricted set of creatures? Is variety better for the game, or is a bunch of attackable "without any morality thought put into it" creatures better for the game? In other words, is it more fun to attack and kill any creatures the PCs want better than attacking and killing only creatures that are deserving of death?



Why can't you use Unaligned creatures in the same ways as Good creatures?

Why can't you make any creature you wish Good-aligned when it's necessary for the game?

Why should PCs feel perfectly swell about randomly killing Unaligned creatures?  What is it that makes them more combat-ready than a Good creature would be?  Did PCs randomly slaughter Neutral monsters in 1e-3e?

-O


----------



## chaotix42 (May 27, 2009)

When I think of unicorns I think of solitary, reclusive creatures that avoid contact with most humanoids. That sounds like Unaligned to me. 

As for angels being Unaligned, that's because they can serve any god, good or evil. Perhaps angels who have long-served good gods are Good, and the same for evil gods. For whatever reason, angels are now Unaligned so that they can serve any god. If angels were Good then they'd only serve Good gods, unless you changed their alignment. As Unaligned they are at their most flexible story-wise, much like the new metallic dragons.


----------



## 77IM (May 27, 2009)

Another thing Wizards could have done would be to bury the alignment in the flavor text where it belongs.

For example, suppose gold dragon didn't have that silly "*Alignment* Unaligned" entry.  Instead, one of the monster lore DCs would say something like, "Most gold dragons are unaligned, but some genuinely care about lesser races, becoming exemplars of good or lawful good."  A species like hobgoblin might say, "Hobgoblins on the whole are evil, power-hungry, and cruel, although some members of their society may be considered unaligned."  A creature like mind flayers might say, "By their very nature, mind flayers are inherently evil; exceptions are exceedingly rare."

By keeping the alignment in the flavor text, it would present it in context of the creature's behavior and could give a more elaborate alignment breakdown, which is way more useful than a silly one-word alignment entry which can only serve to pigeonhole monsters.

 -- 77IM


----------



## Bumbles (May 27, 2009)

chaotix42 said:


> As for angels being Unaligned, that's because they can serve any god, good or evil. Perhaps angels who have long-served good gods are Good, and the same for evil gods. For whatever reason, angels are now Unaligned so that they can serve any god.




Angels in my Monster Manual 4e say Any, not Unaligned.  This actually makes the reason quite abundantly clear.   Sure, it may fool some folks who are only familiar with certain conceptualizations of Angels, but aside from a few, most can grasp the point with a little explanation.  Those who can't?  Might be the ones who can't accept fictitious deities existing in the game without objection, so it's no real surprise.


----------



## FadedC (May 27, 2009)

77IM said:


> For example, suppose gold dragon didn't have that silly "*Alignment* Unaligned" entry. Instead, one of the monster lore DCs would say something like, "Most gold dragons are unaligned, but some genuinely care about lesser races, becoming exemplars of good or lawful good." A species like hobgoblin might say, "Hobgoblins on the whole are evil, power-hungry, and cruel, although some members of their society may be considered unaligned." A creature like mind flayers might say, "By their very nature, mind flayers are inherently evil; exceptions are exceedingly rare."




Well I'm not sure genuinely caring about lesser races is mutually exclusive to unaligned. I've known a ton of people in the real world who genuinely love and protect animals who I would still classify as unaligned.

But I do agree that I'd like to see more flavor text about creatures in general. That's one thing I've been disapointed about in both monster manuals.


----------



## KarinsDad (May 27, 2009)

keterys said:


> Hmm, backing away from previous editions of D&D and more modern references for a moment (such as Dragonlance), were unicorns actually good (in myth or supposed history, or whatever)? I mean, there's a pretty big difference between 'tamed by a virgin girl' and 'good'. People supposedly hunted them for their horns, to cure poison, and presumably untamed means "will stick things with their horn" along with "runs away from people".




From Wiki:

"In even the earliest references he is fierce yet good"



keterys said:


> Dragons are almost universally not good, as far as I can tell. Sometimes helpful, but with their own agenda at best (and cruising for snacks often enough too).




Again, from Wiki:

"Chinese dragons (simplified Chinese: 龙; traditional Chinese: 龍; pinyin: lóng), and Oriental dragons generally, can take on human form and *are usually seen as benevolent*, whereas European dragons are usually malevolent though there are exceptions (one exception being Y Ddraig Goch, the Red Dragon of Wales)."



keterys said:


> Fey creatures that dance and have fun with you were good in some editions of dnd, but weren't they pretty much stealers of kids, waylayer of travelers, kidnappers, killers, etc?




Fairies in general across cultures were a description of anything that was unseen, but active. Trolls, changelings, demons, pagan gods, fallen angels, even Wizards.

But even there, the Seelie court (including hobgoblins) was considered benevolent and the Unseelie court was considered malevolent.


The fact is that early versions of DND drew on real world mythological creatures to some extent which had both good and evil and that is being thrown out now. Gary would roll over in his grave. Culture be damned.


----------



## chaotix42 (May 27, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> Angels in my Monster Manual 4e say Any, not Unaligned.  This actually makes the reason quite abundantly clear.   Sure, it may fool some folks who are only familiar with certain conceptualizations of Angels, but aside from a few, most can grasp the point with a little explanation.  Those who can't?  Might be the ones who can't accept fictitious deities existing in the game without objection, so it's no real surprise.




Oh, even better.   Haven't actually checked out the Angel entry in a while.


----------



## 77IM (May 27, 2009)

FadedC said:


> Well I'm not sure genuinely caring about lesser races is mutually exclusive to unaligned. I've known a ton of people in the real world who genuinely love and protect animals who I would still classify as unaligned.




It was just an example.  Try this instead: "Most gold dragons are unaligned, but some are genuinely benevolent and noble, becoming exemplars of good or lawful good.  Few ever resort to the overtly evil ways of their chromatic kin."

The point was that it allows both sides of this debate to win:
 * Those who feel that unaligned creatures are more useful because they have more reasons to be antagonists can throw unaligned gold dragons at the party over some conflict of interest
 * While those who feel that the tradition of good gold dragons should not be abandoned have that precedent set as well

 -- 77IM


----------



## Nail (May 27, 2009)

Nail said:


> Has anyone argued that there shouldn't be?  I must have missed that.






77IM said:


> These were all around page 1 or 2: <snipped some people saying that Good monsters shouldn't be written out in the MM>
> 
> It's a valid approach to monster design but one that I think simplifies the game in a very unhelpful way.



Ah!  Thanks!

I agree: including Good monsters in the MM makes the game better.


----------



## Nail (May 27, 2009)

Regicide said:


> The alignment literally adds nothing.  You can't detect it, deal extra damage from it or protect from it.  The only line that matters is the experience point line.  Woo, that monsters is "neutral-enough for my next fricken level!"



<chuckle>  Excellent.  Quotable, even!


----------



## Usumcasane (May 27, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> This assumes that "better" = "easier justification for good PCs to fight all creatures" and not "better" = "common sense" (e.g. angels and unicorns).
> 
> Let me ask you a personal question. Does changing a Unicorn from good to unaligned REALLY make the game better?
> 
> Be totally truthful. Don't make the knee jerk response, but sit down and seriously think about it. Do you truly believe that unaligned Unicorns are better for the game than good Unicorns (with their rich history and flavor of virgin/virtuous girls riding them, etc.)? If so, why?




Honestly I don't care what alignment it says they are.  I think it is better for the game in that it is a step in the direction of jettisoning the whole stupid alignment system.  

But I think it is better for DMs because they can open the MM up and say, "hey, I think a Unicorn would be fun in this fight".  And when his players say, "no way, unicorns are good", he can point those that can't roll with the story at the monster's entry.  For those that need rules justification over DM discretion.  He doesn't have to use the Unicorn as a monster, but since it is in the book with a full block of combat stats, he can without creating a justification for why a Good creature is attacking them.  

Yes, you can create such a reason, but not every DM wants to.  



KarinsDad said:


> And this leads up to the following questions: Does having a total of two good/lawful good creatures out of nearly a thousand make for a rich varied set of creatures, or a restricted set of creatures? Is variety better for the game, or is a bunch of attackable "without any morality thought put into it" creatures better for the game? In other words, is it more fun to attack and kill any creatures the PCs want better than attacking and killing only creatures that are deserving of death?




And see, that is the problem with an alignment system right there.  Deserving of death and motivation is determined by what word is written down, rather than complex personality traits and outlooks.  There are a number of us that see Unaligned as an opportunity to go beyond black and white alignment into something more nuanced and real.  And then there are others so ingrained with the alignment system that they can only see it as the new Neutral.  And to those, it will indeed look like everything is Neutral or Evil (and in fact, most things in nature are neutral, humans included).  Nothing said will convince these folks that Unaligned actually allows for a richer tapestry of creatures than the more rigid Good alignments.

And yes, I'm saying most Evil monsters should be listed as Unaligned too.  Even in the context of an alignment system.  It is individual PCs and NPCs that have alignments -- not species.  Red Dragon's aren't evil -- Fenril the Red Drake is Evil (or preferably, selfishly and sadistically unaligned).


----------



## KarinsDad (May 27, 2009)

Usumcasane said:


> Unaligned actually allows for a richer tapestry of creatures than the more rigid Good alignments.




Unaligned in 4E boils down to "doesn't give a crap about anyone else". It is a self centered alignment.



> If you’re unaligned, you don’t actively seek to harm others or wish them ill. But you also don’t go out of your way to put yourself at risk without some hope for reward. You support law and order when doing so benefits you. You value your own freedom, without worrying too much about protecting the freedom of others.




That is not richer. Not even close. That's pedestrian. That's not rich flavor, it's boring when none of the races strive for betterment and all are either self centered or evil.

Why should PCs strive for betterment if none of the races they encounter are that way?



Usumcasane said:


> It is individual PCs and NPCs that have alignments -- not species.




This is where we have our main difference of opinion.

In mythology, it was indeed entire species that were of a given set of core beliefs (or alignment or morality). In fact, it is counterintuitive that cultural beliefs or genetics in a race would NOT result in nearly an entire race being good.

In 4E now, creatures default to the less desirable moralities of humans.

Some bad. Some in between.

To me, this waters down DND to an enormous extent. Every race is now a target and no race is an inspiration. Many races are morally the equivalent of humans. Where is the fantasy in that?


Neither of us will convince the other. It is interesting that many of the supporters of the new model are anti-alignment as well. I wonder if that is a trend within 4E designers as well.


----------



## keterys (May 27, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> From Wiki:
> 
> "In even the earliest references he is fierce yet good"




Much like?
'The warlike fierceness of the unicorn is referred to when Ephraim and Manasseh are described as being like the horns of unicorns. [Deu 33:17]; The terrifying destruction of Idumea is completed when God sends unicorns and wild bulls to attack the people. [Isa 34:8 see also Psa. 92:10 & Psa 22:21]'
'If, however, the girl was merely pretending to be a virgin, the unicorn would tear her apart.'



> Again, from Wiki: "Chinese dragons (simplified Chinese: 龙; traditional Chinese: 龍; pinyin: lóng), and Oriental dragons generally, can take on human form and *are usually seen as benevolent*, whereas European dragons are usually malevolent though there are exceptions (one exception being Y Ddraig Goch, the Red Dragon of Wales)."




I tend to think of D&D as a western game, not an eastern one. There are exceptions, of course, but that was an oversight on my part. At least gold dragons were actually modeled after eastern dragons, unlike the rest.



> But even there, the Seelie court (including hobgoblins) was considered benevolent and the Unseelie court was considered malevolent.




The Seelie Court is known as the good court because its pranks are _not_ of the murderous variety. They're not good. Just not evil.



> The fact is that early versions of DND drew on real world mythological creatures to some extent which had both good and evil and that is being thrown out now. Gary would roll over in his grave. Culture be damned.




I have to admit, Gary rolling in his grave is almost the Hitler of D&D debates. He separated from the process and disagreed with most changes that happened after he left, decades before now, but somehow he'll care more about things like this? It's a disservice to his memory and a gross assumption to invoke him when something bothers you.

Personally, I'm not really sure I agree with making, say, gold dragons not good... but I also didn't agree with leaving alignment in the system at all, so I can ignore that line on dragons like I do on everything else. If it's Eberron, the gold dragon can be evil and the red dragon can be good, and if it's Dragonlance they can be the reverse, and hopefully at the end of the day it matters more about the intentions, motivations, and actions rather than a word in a monster manual.


----------



## KarinsDad (May 27, 2009)

keterys said:


> 'If, however, the girl was merely pretending to be a virgin, the unicorn would tear her apart.'




Much like Good and Lawful Good adventurers. Trespass into lair, murder inhabitants, steal loot (it's just more morally justifiable in 4E). Evil is in the eye of the beholder.

The pretending girl broke the Unicorn's law and he carried out sentence. That does not make him evil or even unaligned.

It's interesting how DND players (and people in general) think that killing a human is evil, but killing monsters is ok (or even good). That's human-centric thinking. As the Klingon said in Star Trek VI, "Inalienable Human Rights, if you could only hear yourselves".

Part of the fantasy in the game is lost if all races think like humans.



keterys said:


> The Seelie Court is known as the good court because its pranks are _not_ of the murderous variety. They're not good. Just not evil.




Source?

This disagrees with everything I've ever read on them. They could do pranks on people that bothered them, but they were not known to be good because they didn't kill. They actually helped people in need and opposed the Unseelie Court.


----------



## Derren (May 27, 2009)

Yep, its really interesting that those who defend unaligned good dragons and the general lack of good creatures are those who wish alignment would be gone entirely.

When you don't care about alignment, why are you defending WotCs decision to change?


----------



## Dire Bare (May 27, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> It's just flavor change for the sake of flavor change. There's no good game mechanic reason for it.




The "change for change's sake" claim is so tired.  And dead wrong.

One of the main reasons for this flavor change was given by the OP, the very first post of the thread!  You just don't like it, and don't agree with it.  Which is fine.  But just because you and a small handful of others have chosen this issue to soapbox on, hardly makes it "change for change's sake".


----------



## keterys (May 27, 2009)

Derren said:


> Yep, its really interesting that those who defend unaligned good dragons and the general lack of good creatures are those who wish alignment would be gone entirely.
> 
> When you don't care about alignment, why are you defending WotCs decision to change?




I'm actually not defending the change. I'm devil's advocating against the more contentious position.

People are up in arms because of something that doesn't seem to affect the game, from where I sit. Kobolds are evil, but Meepo can still be adopted by PCs. Red Dragons are evil, but a player in one of my games still has one as a follower and a different party still made a deal with one, when it helped them complete their mission. Did the 'evil' tags somehow make it easier for these actions to happen? Might the evil tag have hindered those actions in some games? What does alignment actually offer to the game? I'm pretty sure I've played D&D variants that didn't have alignment and things worked fine. I'm pretty sure I've played D&D while ignoring alignment and things worked fine.

If WotC marketing has determined that it's not worthwhile to publish creatures that have the 'Good' tag, in terms of usefulness to players, and removing the 'Good' tag helps, then fine, whatever lets them sleep at night. There will still be some dragons (and fey, etc) that want to talk to the PCs, and there will still be some that want to eat them. And sometimes it'll be the same ones.


----------



## Derren (May 27, 2009)

keterys said:


> If WotC marketing has determined that it's not worthwhile to publish creatures that have the 'Good' tag, in terms of usefulness to players, and removing the 'Good' tag helps, then fine, whatever lets them sleep at night. There will still be some dragons (and fey, etc) that want to talk to the PCs, and there will still be some that want to eat them. And sometimes it'll be the same ones.




And what impression does that give to new players, many of them with WoW and other MMORPG experience? That everything that moves is a potential enemy and that if its not a player race its a mob which can be killed for XP?

I don't think that this is a good way to foster role playing.


----------



## Dire Bare (May 27, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> For examples, Angels and Unicorns. If you ask 100 average people on the street if those are good, neutral, or evil, the vast majority will say good.




It is certainly true that unicorns are typically seen as "good" creatures.  But in the long history of D&D monster stats, we've had more examples of neutral or evil unicorn variants than than the single example of the "base" unicorn stats.

WotC simply decided, "Why make unicorns inherently good, when we'll eventually turn around and publish the black unicorn and blood unicorn (etc) stats?  Let's just make them more neutral to begin with, than specific examples of unicorns can be good and have a thing for virgins, and others can be unaligned or neutral."

Same could be said of dragons, couatl and many other traditionally good creatures.  WotC did a lot of research into HOW most people actually played D&D.  And they found that most players did not need stats for good aligned opponents, but plenty of evil and neutral exceptions and variants were created so players could fight metallic dragons and unicorns.

The keywords here is "most people" and not "all players".  Obviously there are those who disagree with WotC's new game design and resent the various changes to the implied "core" D&D setting . . . but WotC is banking on those folks being in the minority and that the changes will appeal to the majority and help reel in new players.  They could be wrong, of course, but WotC didn't make these choices in a vacuum, they did a lot of research.  And while we certainly have some folks loudly proclaiming sacrilige, we seem to have just as many (if not more) that either don't care about the changes or actually like them.  I'm in that group.


----------



## Piratecat (May 27, 2009)

Derren said:


> Yep, its really interesting that those who defend unaligned good dragons and the general lack of good creatures are those who wish alignment would be gone entirely.



Not everyone. I really like alignment (preferring the pre-4e system that included LE and CG), and I _vastly_ prefer unaligned metallic dragons and unicorns. Metallic dragons are far more interesting to me, and offer more plot hooks, than they ever have previously.


----------



## Dire Bare (May 27, 2009)

keterys said:


> Hmm, backing away from previous editions of D&D and more modern references for a moment (such as Dragonlance), were unicorns actually good (in myth or supposed history, or whatever)? I mean, there's a pretty big difference between 'tamed by a virgin girl' and 'good'. People supposedly hunted them for their horns, to cure poison, and presumably untamed means "will stick things with their horn" along with "runs away from people".
> 
> Dragons are almost universally not good, as far as I can tell. Sometimes helpful, but with their own agenda at best (and cruising for snacks often enough too).
> 
> ...




I think you are dead on here.  WotC is, in many instances, hewing closer to a more mythic interpretation of monsters than a pop-culture interpretation.



KarinsDad said:


> For examples, Angels and Unicorns. If you ask 100 average people on the street if those are good, neutral, or evil, the vast majority will say good.




In mainstream culture, angels are good.  They were pretty pastel robes, have beautiful white wings, play harps, and watch over us all.  Go back to the Bible and other early Judeo-Christian sources.  Angles served God, but they did some nasty things in his name.  Biblical angels always came across to me as amoral servants of a deity that was sometimes benevolent and sometimes quite vengeful.  If you check out some books on "angelology" (and not the fru-fru new agey kind) you get this impression even more so when looking at Jewish, Muslim, and going farther back Zoroastrian interpretations of the servants of God.

The new D&D angels, which can be of any alignment and can serve any god, and often have themes around a particular purpose, hew more closely to the actual mythology of angels than the Aasimon (Devas, Planetars, Solars), Archons, and Asuras of previous editions did.


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (May 27, 2009)

I don't have keterys' obvious disdain for alignments, but I find it hard to get worked up about alignment entries too. If the DM wants a monster to be Good, it's Good.


----------



## NilesB (May 28, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> "Chinese dragons (simplified Chinese: 龙; traditional Chinese: 龍; pinyin: lóng), and Oriental dragons generally, can take on human form and *are usually seen as benevolent*




And are as much Dragons in the sense that D&D uses the term as the Navaho and the Iroquois are natives of the Republic of India.

Dragons are defined and ruled by the sin of Avarice, it doesn't make sense to claim that they should be genetically saintly.


----------



## Piratecat (May 28, 2009)

Dire Bare said:


> Go back to the Bible and other early Judeo-Christian sources.  Angels served God, but they did some nasty things in his name.  Biblical angels always came across to me as amoral servants of a deity that was sometimes benevolent and sometimes quite vengeful.



Not to sidetrack us onto a religious track, but this Straight Dope article is a tremendous source for inspiration and history on angels and divine servants.


----------



## RedBeardJim (May 28, 2009)

Dire Bare said:


> In mainstream culture, angels are good.  They were pretty pastel robes, have beautiful white wings, play harps, and watch over us all.  Go back to the Bible and other early Judeo-Christian sources.  Angles served God, but they did some nasty things in his name.  Biblical angels always came across to me as amoral servants of a deity that was sometimes benevolent and sometimes quite vengeful.




Yeah, there was a reason the first thing the angel said to the shepherds was "Do not be afraid." 

As far as dragons go, why would a creature that lives for hundreds, nay thousands of years, growing into a power that rivals the mightiest gods and demons, have motivations that bear any resemblance to the "good" and "evil" of ephemeral prey animals? I'd be happy if the chromatic dragons were presented as unaligned, too.


----------



## keterys (May 28, 2009)

Derren said:


> And what impression does that give to new players, many of them with WoW and other MMORPG experience? That everything that moves is a potential enemy and that if its not a player race its a mob which can be killed for XP?
> 
> I don't think that this is a good way to foster role playing.




I'm pretty sure if it _is_ a player race, it's as much capable of being an enemy as anything else.

Is it so bad a thing to have to choose your friends and enemies based on their actions, rather than a word? Are non-D&D sytems horrible, because their dragons are not color coded for your convenience?


----------



## Bumbles (May 28, 2009)

keterys said:


> Is it so bad a thing to have to choose your friends and enemies based on their actions, rather than a word?




Yes.  In fact, I hate not being able to speak in a secret language with others of my own kind!


----------



## Zaran (May 28, 2009)

Derren said:


> I don't think that this is a good way to foster role playing.




I've been rather quiet since starting this thread but this statement right here strikes true to me.     I feel that there is quite a bit lacking in 4e when it comes to fostering roleplaying.    The game is so mechanics driven that even interactions outside of combat have been turned into skill challenges.

The alignments might just be one word but they are supposed to give some guideline to GMs when they are creating their story.  I want to put emphasis on the word "story" because that's what a roleplaying game was designed for: To make a story that unfolds as the players roleplay their characters through.

To me, the monsters manuals shouldn't just be a list of monsters that would be used in a conflict, violent or non.  It should be a catelog of non-player cast-members for the story.   I find the fact that I need my third edition monster manuals and DMG to get useful background information extremely annoying.   There should be good aligned monsters because the player characters are not going to be alone in the fight against evil and they should have stats as well because there will be times when the players will get to fight along side those monsters.  When the first MM came out, I told my friends that the Metallic Dragons were left out because they were good creatures and not necessarily needed in the first round when they can put more monsters that can be fought into the game.  Imagine my disappointment when they are put in and were made to be "adversaries" to quote the podcast that they just issued.   Can I take a marker and scratch out the word and put in "Good"?  Sure.  But that doesn't change that fact that new dnd players will never know that gold dragons used to be one of the good guys and are now just greedy dragons that like to take control of weaker races.

I understand that there are many people out there that think this is just a silly arguement over something that doesn't matter in the game.   Personally, I think that the things that don't matter in combat or the skill challenges make the game a roleplaying game and not just an analog instance multiplayer game.   I also think that having threads like this does little .  People, including the developers, have their minds set and aren't going to back down or change the game just because I feel like the game has moved away from story creation to dungeon simulation.   I guess I made this thread because I wanted to protest the fact that something of the game that wasn't broken was altered for no reason other than so players can have "conflict" with a creature without having to be evil PCs.

By the way,  while i won't mark out the word Unaligned in my book, the gold dragons in my game will be Good creatures.  The same goes for unicorns and probably even angels, since i kind of think that devils and demons would take the roles of fallen angels and minions of evil gods.   Not that anyone besides my own player group cares.


----------



## FadedC (May 28, 2009)

77IM said:


> It was just an example. Try this instead: "Most gold dragons are unaligned, but some are genuinely benevolent and noble, becoming exemplars of good or lawful good. Few ever resort to the overtly evil ways of their chromatic kin."
> 
> The point was that it allows both sides of this debate to win:
> * Those who feel that unaligned creatures are more useful because they have more reasons to be antagonists can throw unaligned gold dragons at the party over some conflict of interest
> ...




Agreed, I wouldn't mind seeing more things like that. Although they do say in MM 1 that many metallic dragons are devoted to Bahamut and share his ideals of nobility and virtue. That pretty much accounts to the same thing as saying many are good.


----------



## Piratecat (May 28, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> Yes.  In fact, I hate not being able to speak in a secret language with others of my own kind!



Ah, alignment languages, infamous and unlamented.

77IM nailed it for me. I'd love to see brief flavor text discussing alignment tendencies. Seems like the best of both worlds.


----------



## Regicide (May 28, 2009)

Zaran said:


> I've been rather quiet since starting this thread but this statement right here strikes true to me.     I feel that there is quite a bit lacking in 4e when it comes to fostering roleplaying.




  5E won't have alignment, it'll have faction.


----------



## Dire Bare (May 28, 2009)

Piratecat said:


> Not to sidetrack us onto a religious track, but this Straight Dope article is a tremendous source for inspiration and history on angels and divine servants.




Thanks for the link PirateCat!  That was a nice summary of the evolution of angels in Western mythology.  The book the author credits is in a box somewhere in my garage, I want to go find it now!

After reading that, it just firms up my belief that while WotC might be straying from "classic" D&D canon in a few areas, altogether they are bringing the game closer to mythic sources.  I dig it!


----------



## Bumbles (May 28, 2009)

Zaran said:


> I've been rather quiet since starting this thread but this statement right here strikes true to me.     I feel that there is quite a bit lacking in 4e when it comes to fostering roleplaying.    The game is so mechanics driven that even interactions outside of combat have been turned into skill challenges.




See, I think rather the opposite.  Skill challenges are a mechanic that fosters role-playing by giving the DM some way to set up parameters for non-combat interaction instead of just declaring things by fiat.

That means the player has an incentive to do things besides hit stuff with his sword.  And as the DM I can encourage that, since I can point out that they do have those skills when appropriate.

Obviously if you've primarily dealt with things as a DM in a more open manner, then these kinds of rules may seem more limiting to you, but to me, who has had DM's who really can't grasp that sort of thing without a system...well, it's a plus.  As a player, I know I get damned tired of DM's who just declare that the NPC doesn't believe your story or who don't let things happen...and while having this system won't change that, it will let me as the player know pretty quickly that I should either A) have a conversation with the DM or B) Walk away from the table.  And as the DM, well, I know I can just say "Oh, so you're doing a check for X?  Roll a die."  and even if I haven't planned it, I can decide something happens, good or bad.   Yay for not having to always think on my feet.



> I guess I made this thread because I wanted to protest the fact that something of the game that wasn't broken was altered for no reason other than so players can have "conflict" with a creature without having to be evil PCs.




Yeah, but I don't think it was changed enough to matter, as the Dragons themselves are pretty much behaving as they always have.  So it's a non-event.



> By the way, while i won't mark out the word Unaligned in my book, the gold dragons in my game will be Good creatures. The same goes for unicorns and probably even angels, since i kind of think that devils and demons would take the roles of fallen angels and minions of evil gods. Not that anyone besides my own player group cares.




And in my game, Dragons can be agents of the mechanical systems that keep the world from breaking down, unicorns can be non-existent except when somebody is looking for one and I'm feeling nice, devils and demons can be remnants of the viral infection that caused the collapse of the main planetary system, or just rogue programs out for fun, and angels can be tools of the remaining system elements that are worshipped as Gods.


----------



## Derren (May 28, 2009)

I just remembered something when I browsed this board.

WOtC practically admitted that their solo monster design was rather bad and that they fixed that with MM2. Now of course they need non good metallic dragons as otherwise they would have no dragon monster the players can fight which uses the improved solo design.

So even more evidence for their "We need things to kill, not things to talk with" policy.
And then people wonder why so many people regard D&D, and especially 4E, as a simple hack&slash game....


----------



## Piratecat (May 28, 2009)

Derren said:


> I just remembered something when I browsed this board.
> 
> WOtC practically admitted that their solo monster design was rather bad and that they fixed that with MM2. Now of course they need non good metallic dragons as otherwise they would have no dragon monster the players can fight which uses the improved solo design.



Nope. As they discussed on the podcast that the MM1 hydra design was bad, they stated that the MM1 dragons were actually pretty good and (unlike the hydra) did enough damage to be a fun threat. 

So the "evidence" actually contradicts your theory. I'm not sure why evidence is important, though; people seem fairly entrenched on this subject, and whether the prevalence of unaligned monsters is a good thing seems to be largely a matter of opinion.


----------



## Flipguarder (May 28, 2009)

Derren said:


> Now of course they need non good metallic dragons as otherwise they would have no dragon monster the players can fight which uses the improved solo design.
> So even more evidence for their "We need things to kill, not things to talk with" policy.
> And then people wonder why so many people regard D&D, and especially 4E, as a simple hack&slash game....




This isn't a fair argument. You decide why Wotc does something and then complain about that motivation by tieing it to another possible idea.

I think it would be ignorant for us to believe that Wotc simply forgot why they put good monsters in the past editions and reverted to "people only want to kill things" ideology. I think that in their cosmology inherent good is simply hard to come by.


----------



## Derren (May 28, 2009)

Flipguarder said:


> I think that in their cosmology inherent good is simply hard to come by.




Not so hard that celestial chargers could not be good.
Now why are celestial chargers more good than gold dragons?
Oh wait, they are mounts. Guess its acceptable to not kill them then....


----------



## chaotix42 (May 28, 2009)

Derren said:


> Not so hard that celestial chargers could not be good.
> Now why are celestial chargers more good than gold dragons?
> Oh wait, they are mounts. Guess its acceptable to not kill them then....




Could it be that celestial chargers are beings created/bred by servants of celestial beings, ie gods of good? I haven't ever read their fluff. Perhaps "astral chargers" would be unaligned, and "infernal chargers" evil? The name "celestial charger" seems to imply a good nature. The only thing that might imply gold dragons as being good is fluff from previous editions. 

Now, a "celestial gold dragon" should probably be good.


----------



## Flipguarder (May 28, 2009)

Whatever. Obviously you've made your decision about their motivation.


----------



## Nail (May 28, 2009)

Piratecat said:


> I'm not sure why evidence is important, though; people seem fairly entrenched on this subject, and whether the prevalence of unaligned monsters is a good thing seems to be largely a matter of opinion.



Dn't get too jaded, PC!   

 I - for one - might be changing my P.O.V. due to the discussion in this thread.


----------



## Obryn (May 28, 2009)

keterys said:


> People are up in arms because of something that doesn't seem to affect the game, from where I sit. Kobolds are evil, but Meepo can still be adopted by PCs. Red Dragons are evil, but a player in one of my games still has one as a follower and a different party still made a deal with one, when it helped them complete their mission. Did the 'evil' tags somehow make it easier for these actions to happen? Might the evil tag have hindered those actions in some games? What does alignment actually offer to the game? I'm pretty sure I've played D&D variants that didn't have alignment and things worked fine. I'm pretty sure I've played D&D while ignoring alignment and things worked fine.



This is pretty much where I sit.  Even if I liked the alignment system, it wouldn't bother me.  I just don't see where it makes a difference - especially when we're talking about dragons, who (in modern D&D) are usually more like powerful NPCs than randomly-encountered monsters.

-O


----------



## Obryn (May 28, 2009)

Derren said:


> Not so hard that celestial chargers could not be good.
> Now why are celestial chargers more good than gold dragons?
> Oh wait, they are mounts. Guess its acceptable to not kill them then....



I'm confused.  What horse do you have in this race, again?

I mean really, Derren, you made it pretty clear that you don't like anything about 4e, aren't playing it, and won't play it - so what does a dragon's alignment in 4e matter to you, anyway?

Each edition of D&D is a different game.  Why are you concerned about a game you're not playing?

-O


----------



## Derren (May 28, 2009)

chaotix42 said:


> Could it be that celestial chargers are beings created/bred by servants of celestial beings, ie gods of good? I haven't ever read their fluff. Perhaps "astral chargers" would be unaligned, and "infernal chargers" evil? The name "celestial charger" seems to imply a good nature. The only thing that might imply gold dragons as being good is fluff from previous editions.
> 
> Now, a "celestial gold dragon" should probably be good.




They still have good celestials?



Obryn said:


> I'm confused.  What horse do you have in this race, again?
> 
> I mean really, Derren, you made it pretty clear that you don't like anything about 4e, aren't playing it, and won't play it - so what does a dragon's alignment in 4e matter to you, anyway?
> 
> ...




Dodging again, eh?

My horse is that I want to like teh actual edition of D&D, but whenever I reach a point where I say "OK, I can cope with 4E" and "Maybe I can work with what they did" WotC makes another, in my mind, completely stupid decision. This time its unaligned gold dragons (which is just the latest example of 4Es practice of not having creatures PCs are not justified to kill).


----------



## chaotix42 (May 28, 2009)

Derren said:


> They still have good celestials?




Dodging again, eh? 

Angels have Any as an alignment. You can consider good gods celestial too.


----------



## Nail (May 28, 2009)

<chuckle>


----------



## chaotix42 (May 28, 2009)

<chortle>


----------



## Piratecat (May 28, 2009)

Derren said:


> Dodging again, eh?



This sort of personal taunt is what gets threads closed or people threadbanned. Avoid them.


----------



## Obryn (May 28, 2009)

Derren said:


> My horse is that I want to like teh actual edition of D&D, but whenever I reach a point where I say "OK, I can cope with 4E" and "Maybe I can work with what they did" WotC makes another, in my mind, completely stupid decision.



So what you're saying is that you can cope with everything about 4e - the mechanics, the powers, the classes and so on, and apparently many other things... but you can't change a word in a stat block which has absolutely zero game effects for the benefit of your campaign?



> This time its unaligned gold dragons (which is just the latest example of 4Es practice of not having creatures PCs are not justified to kill).



But here's the thing - _none_ of this stuff about "only here for PCs to kill" is inherent to the system.  Nothing kept me from using dragons however I pleased in 3e, regardless of their alignments, and nothing will now.  It's a campaign-based decision, made by each individual DM.  Certainly if, as a DM, you present gold dragons as just another bag of XP, they will be.  But, as a DM, if you present a gold dragon as a complex NPC who could be friend or foe, they _aren't_ just there to kill.

And since when is it morally okay and justifiable to randomly slaughter Unaligned or Neutral, non-aggressive creatures, anyway?  How does making them Unaligned make them more slaughter-ready?

I simply don't understand where you're coming from here.

-O


----------



## Derren (May 28, 2009)

Obryn said:


> So what you're saying is that you can cope with everything about 4e - the mechanics, the powers, the classes and so on, and apparently many other things... but you can't change a word in a stat block which has absolutely zero game effects for the benefit of your campaign?




As I said times and again, its not only about just metallic dragons being unaligned. This is just the latest examples of 4Es design decision of not having good creatures because they are not easily killable. And that is the decision I don't want to cope with.







> But here's the thing - _none_ of this stuff about "only here for PCs to kill" is inherent to the system.  Nothing kept me from using dragons however I pleased in 3e, regardless of their alignments, and nothing will now.  It's a campaign-based decision, made by each individual DM.  Certainly if, as a DM, you present gold dragons as just another bag of XP, they will be.  But, as a DM, if you present a gold dragon as a complex NPC who could be friend or foe, they _aren't_ just there to kill.
> 
> And since when is it morally okay and justifiable to randomly slaughter Unaligned or Neutral, non-aggressive creatures, anyway?  How does making them Unaligned make them more slaughter-ready?
> 
> ...




See above. Its not only about the metallic dragons. They are just the most prominent example of a in my eyes bad bad design decision which makes 4E less of a role playing game and more of a tactical skirmish game. And not surprisingly I don't like that.


----------



## ferratus (May 28, 2009)

Wow, nine pages on alignment.   So given how it largely just wastes all of our time in pointless squabbles, and restricts creativity, why haven't we gotten rid of it yet?   We've been talking about doing it for 20 years.


----------



## Bumbles (May 28, 2009)

ferratus said:


> We've been talking about doing it for 20 years.




30.  Maybe 35 by now.  That means Diamonds and Pearls, or Coral and Jade.


----------



## KarinsDad (May 28, 2009)

Obryn said:


> So what you're saying is that you can cope with everything about 4e - the mechanics, the powers, the classes and so on, and apparently many other things... but you can't change a word in a stat block which has absolutely zero game effects for the benefit of your campaign?




He didn't say that. He said it was one of many bad (in his opinion) WotC decisions that he had to adapt to.



Obryn said:


> I simply don't understand where you're coming from here.




It's a gaming community cultural thing.

Most of the earlier editions made a lot of crunch changes and only a few fluff changes.

This edition has made more fluff changes. For all intents and purposes now, good monsters straight out of the MM no longer exist (and yes it can easily be changed by a DM, but that's not the point). The only reasonable explanation for it is that WotC does not to default situations where the good PCs feel morally obligated to NOT attack the monster. This puts a very human-centric philosophy on monsters. Evil monsters. Check. Neutral monsters. Check. Good monsters. Well if the DM goes out of his way to create them, but WotC is not explicitly supplying those. There are no good species anymore (which is a fantasy staple, not a real world staple).

Effectively, this removes yet another underpinning of alignment out of the game system. Morals (i.e. alignment) used to be a reason to not just attack an NPC. It no longer is with regard to most other race creatures. This weakens alignment as a DM and player tool and lends credence to an even more xenophobic and murderous gaming atmosphere than previously.

Our entire gaming culture will now evolve into that being the status quo. Alignment doesn't mean anything. Not really. Just trespass, kill, and steal.

Some people are ok with that. Some people are not.

Some people see it as just more baby steps into a more wanton destruction MMORPG-like environment, some people do not.

It's as if some of the WotC designers were a bunch of players who always played Chaotic Neutral, and only wanted hack and slash, and didn't want to be held down by alignment constraints, and now they can partially enforce that within the game system.


----------



## Obryn (May 28, 2009)

Derren said:


> As I said times and again, its not only about just metallic dragons being unaligned. This is just the latest examples of 4Es design decision of not having good creatures because they are not easily killable. And that is the decision I don't want to cope with.



How is this a system issue and not a campaign issue?  Seriously.  If you, as a DM, are using the Monster Manual as a big list of things to kill, that's a personal campaign decision, not a pre-made system decision.

And, once again, *conflict <> killing*.  You keep conflating the two, even though there's a clear distinction.  I will agree that it's easier to have _conflicts_ with Unaligned creatures than with Good creatures, if you are strict about NPC alignments and don't feel that you, as a DM, have the freedom to change them for some reason.  But not all encounters end in fights.

I can't help but think that all of this "More stuff to kill" philosophy you're bringing into this discussion is because it's maybe how you run your game?  Is that your DMing style?  It's not how I run my game, and it's not how any DM I know runs his games.



> See above. Its not only about the metallic dragons. They are just the most prominent example of a in my eyes bad bad design decision which makes 4E less of a role playing game and more of a tactical skirmish game. And not surprisingly I don't like that.



This thread _is_ mostly about metallic dragons, though.  It's what most of the conversation has been about.

So - I'll ask again, what is it about Unaligned creatures that makes them more slaughter-ready than Good creatures?  In your mind, will PCs go around randomly slaying Unaligned dragons just for kicks, as if they were the equivalent of rampaging orcs?

-O


----------



## Obryn (May 28, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> This edition has made more fluff changes. For all intents and purposes now, good monsters straight out of the MM no longer exist (and yes it can easily be changed by a DM, but that's not the point). *The only reasonable explanation for it is that WotC does not to default situations where the good PCs feel morally obligated to NOT attack the monster.* This puts a very human-centric philosophy on monsters. Evil monsters. Check. Neutral monsters. Check. Good monsters. Well if the DM goes out of his way to create them, but WotC is not explicitly supplying those. There are no good species anymore (which is a fantasy staple, not a real world staple).



I've disagreed on this point before and will continue to do so.  I am completely befuddled why you and Derren are confounding the definitions of Conflict and Killing repeatedly.  If the only way to resolve conflict in your campaign is through combat, I don't know that we have anything to talk about on this issue.



> Effectively, this removes yet another underpinning of alignment out of the game system. Morals (i.e. alignment) used to be a reason to not just attack an NPC. It no longer is with regard to most other race creatures. This weakens alignment as a DM and player tool and lends credence to an even more xenophobic and murderous gaming atmosphere than previously.
> 
> Our entire gaming culture will now evolve into that being the status quo. Alignment doesn't mean anything. Not really. Just trespass, kill, and steal.
> 
> ...



I disagree with your basic premise that alignment-less games lead to rampant looting and slaughter.  I think this may be an issue for you that is outside the game, rather than inside it.  I can say from personal experience that all games I've run without alignment (including WFRP, CoC, Arcana Evolved, and so on) have not devolved into trespass/kill/steal territory, and I'd be willing to bet that they generally don't.  In fact, I'd say that my Arcana Evolved game was far more ethical-conflict-driven than any other game I've run.



> It's as if some of the WotC designers were a bunch of players who always played Chaotic Neutral, and only wanted hack and slash, and didn't want to be held down by alignment constraints, and now they can partially enforce that within the game system.



If this is the conclusion you've reached, I don't know that we are capable of communicating with each other on a productive level about this issue.

-O


----------



## Nail (May 28, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> Most of the earlier editions made a lot of crunch changes and only a few fluff changes.
> 
> This edition has made more fluff changes.



Huh.

That's a very interesting assertion. Uhmm....are you sure?  Just thinking back to some of the supported settings, I think a see a pattern of large fluff changes between all editions.  ...I think.  Any more insight here?


----------



## Derren (May 28, 2009)

Obryn said:


> I've disagreed on this point before and will continue to do so.  I am completely befuddled why you and Derren are confounding the definitions of Conflict and Killing repeatedly.  If the only way to resolve conflict in your campaign is through combat, I don't know that we have anything to talk about on this issue.




Lovely....
Is there any specific reason why you, over two posts by now, accuse me and now KarinsDad of such a playtyle?
I would request that you stop trying to make people who don't agree with you look like hack & slash gamers.

I already explained my reasons.
1. I just apply what I "learned" in other discussions (When talking about Out of Combat abilities, suddenly most 4E defenders say that such abilities are not needed as they have nothing to do with conflict resolution. Only combats abilities do)

2. You can have plenty of non violent conflict with good creatures. That certainly was not the reasons to change the metallic dragon alignment. The designers said it themselves. They did this so that metallic dragons can be adversaries. And in 4E that means in most cases combat enemies.







> I disagree with your basic premise that alignment-less games lead to rampant looting and slaughter.  I think this may be an issue for you that is outside the game, rather than inside it.  I can say from personal experience that all games I've run without alignment (including WFRP, CoC, Arcana Evolved, and so on) have not devolved into trespass/kill/steal territory, and I'd be willing to bet that they generally don't.  In fact, I'd say that my Arcana Evolved game was far more ethical-conflict-driven than any other game I've run.
> 
> 
> If this is the conclusion you've reached, I don't know that we are capable of communicating with each other on a productive level about this issue.
> ...




And you do it again...
You can't really compare the games you listed with D&D though. 4E is not an alignment free game. It does have alignment and that the designers change those alignments and not copy them shows that they pay attention to this mechanic. 
So what does it ,in a 4E sense, mean when you demote a monster from being good  to being unaligned? To me this change can only mean that it becomes more acceptable to kill this creature. No longer do you need to have qualms about killing metallic dragons because they are on your side. They are not any more. Instead they are no better than all other unaligned creatures in the MMs and get the same treatment. And most of the time, as they are not humanoid, that means killing.

I have the impression that you want to make this look like its my problem that I can't simply houserule it. That is wrong. I can houserule it like everything else. I just not want to have to do it. And I don't see this as a single issue, but as a symptom of a bigger problem. The problem that there are nearly no good creatures in 4E at all. That simply creates a, in my opinion, boring and strange world when everything which moves is either selfish or completely evil and nothing out there is by default an ally. Again I can change that, but what about all the new players? They get the impression that everything in the MM is supposed to be an enemy and WotC seem to want exactly that. Now what should I do when some of those players come to my table? I don't want to have to re-educate them that not everything in the Monster Manual is a enemy unless proven otherwise and that there are a slew of creatures which will aid them in their quest, or oppose them because of good reasons.
And finally, I want my players to be astonished when they meet an evil member of a good aligned species and wonder how that happened, the same way they would wonder when they would find a good aligned beholder. I do not want them to just shrug and roll for initative. But that's exactly what new players are taught to do with this design decision of not having good monsters.


----------



## Flipguarder (May 28, 2009)

1. Why is everyone deciding that the change from good to unaligned for metallic dragons was done to justify attacking them? The only evidence for that is your inability to think of another reason why they would do so.

2. Could it be that they changed some alignments in the MM to more reflect the idea that their built-in cosmology is a points-of-light universe? That evil is simply more prevalent in the world than good?


----------



## Derren (May 28, 2009)

Flipguarder said:


> 1. Why is everyone deciding that the change from good to unaligned for metallic dragons was done to justify attacking them? The only evidence for that is your inability to think of another reason why they would do so.
> 
> 2. Could it be that they changed some alignments in the MM to more reflect the idea that their built-in cosmology is a points-of-light universe? That evil is simply more prevalent in the world than good?




Listen to the podcast. WotC wants metallic dragons as adversaries.


----------



## Obryn (May 28, 2009)

Derren said:


> Lovely....
> Is there any specific reason why you, over two posts by now, accuse me and now KarinsDad of such a playtyle?
> I would request that you stop trying to make people who don't agree with you look like hack & slash gamers.



No, I'm not - I'm just honestly confused why you would assert that 4e only lends itself to a hack & slash playstyle.  You and KarinsDad are very focused on fighting this, and killing that, that I assumed you're speaking from personal game experience with players and characters who randomly slaughter Neutral or Unaligned creatures.

I'm sorry if this is not the case, so I'll ask that you stop characterizing a game you don't care for as a tactical skirmish game.



> I already explained my reasons.
> 1. I just apply what I "learned" in other discussions (When talking about Out of Combat abilities, suddenly most 4E defenders say that such abilities are not needed as they have nothing to do with conflict resolution. Only combats abilities do)
> 
> 2. You can have plenty of non violent conflict with good creatures. That certainly was not the reasons to change the metallic dragon alignment. The designers said it themselves. They did this so that metallic dragons can be adversaries. *And in 4E that means in most cases combat enemies.*



Why does it mean it in 4e?

And I don't disagree that you can have non-violent conflict with good creatures.  Would it be fair to say that you can have more non-violent conflict with Unaligned characters?



> And you do it again...
> You can't really compare the games you listed with D&D though. 4E is not an alignment free game. It does have alignment and that the designers change those alignments and not copy them shows that they pay attention to this mechanic.
> So what does it ,in a 4E sense, mean when you demote a monster from being good  to being unaligned? To me this change can only mean that it becomes more acceptable to kill this creature. No longer do you need to have qualms about killing metallic dragons because they are on your side. They are not any more. Instead they are no better than all other unaligned creatures in the MMs and get the same treatment. And most of the time, as they are not humanoid, that means killing.



You're making this leap, still.

I'll ask it this way...

Do you believe that making a creature unaligned necessarily means it's meant for wanton killing, without qualms?  Is it your opinion that all Unaligned creatures can be slaughtered without qualms?



> I have the impression that you want to make this look like its my problem that I can't simply houserule it. That is wrong. I can houserule it like everything else. I just not want to have to do it. And I don't see this is single issue, but as a symptom of a bigger problem. The problem that there are nearly no good creatures in 4E at all. That simply creates a, in my opinion, boring and strange world when everything which moves is either selfish or completely evil and nothing out there is by default an ally. Again I can change that, but what about all the new players? They get the impression that everything in the MM is supposed to be an enemy and WotC seem to want exactly that. Now what should I do when some of those players come to my table? I don't want to have to re-educate them that not everything in the Monster Manual is a enemy unless proven otherwise and that there are a slew of creatures which will aid them in their quest, or oppose them because of good reasons.
> 
> And finally, I want my players to be astonished when they meet a evil member of a good aligned species and wonder how that happened, the same way they would wonder when they would find a good aligned beholder. I do not want them to just shrug and roll for XP. But that's exactly what new players are taught with this design decision of not having good monsters.



Again, I think this is a campaign issue.  I don't think it's WotC's responsibility to ensure that a new player coming to your table as a player has had the same gaming experiences as you have.  You'd have similar issues from someone who's only played RC (Blue dragons are Neutral) or only Dark Sun (all dragons are evil sorcerers).

Also, you're providing a hypothetical scenario, and honestly I don't see that it will necessarily happen.  It's kind of a slippery slope argument, but there's no evidence to back this up, so far.

-O


----------



## Derren (May 28, 2009)

Obryn said:


> Why does it mean it in 4e?
> 
> And I don't disagree that you can have non-violent conflict with good creatures.  Would it be fair to say that you can have more non-violent conflict with Unaligned characters?




Of course it is possible. But when it is only about nonviolent conflict there wouldn't have been a need to make them unaligned.

And considering that 4E removed many out of combat abilities, the official stance on stat blocks is "only combat abilities are needed" and how many people seem to think that "You don''t need monsters you don't fight" it is pretty clear to me that a change of alignment away from good to unaligned is to promote violent conflict.







> You're making this leap, still.
> 
> I'll ask it this way...
> 
> Do you believe that making a creature unaligned necessarily means it's meant for wanton killing, without qualms?  Is it your opinion that all Unaligned creatures can be slaughtered without qualms?




Unless the DM presents any good reason no to then yes, that seems to be the case in 4E. And don't you agree that a change from good to unaligned makes it easier for PCs to attack those creatures unless the DM gives them a reason not to?







> Again, I think this is a campaign issue.  I don't think it's WotC's responsibility to ensure that a new player coming to your table as a player has had the same gaming experiences as you have.  You'd have similar issues from someone who's only played RC (Blue dragons are Neutral) or only Dark Sun (all dragons are evil sorcerers).
> 
> Also, you're providing a hypothetical scenario, and honestly I don't see that it will necessarily happen.  It's kind of a slippery slope argument, but there's no evidence to back this up, so far.
> 
> -O




Thats not really compareable. Dark Sun (and likely RC although I don't know what that means) are campaign settings with specific rules. But here we are talking about default D&D and so no matter what campaign setting is played new players will assume that every non-PC race is by default an enemy to be killed unless the DM gives them a reason not to do that.

You might not think that the scenario I outlined will happen, but I do. Maybe not to me, but I will. And I am not very thrilled about this new way of role playing WotC apparently wants to promote with their "No good" policy.


----------



## Dire Bare (May 28, 2009)

Nail said:


> Huh.
> 
> That's a very interesting assertion. Uhmm....are you sure?  Just thinking back to some of the supported settings, I think a see a pattern of large fluff changes between all editions.  ...I think.  Any more insight here?




While I disagree with KarinsDad on the main topic at hand, I'm going to have to give him this one.

For the standard D&D core setting, very little fluff changed between editions 1, 2, and 3.  "Classic" D&D (BECMI and/or Rules Cyclopedia) started with different fluff, so doesn't really figure in.  Individual campaign settings, primarly Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms had their RSEs (Realms-Shattering Events) to account for changes to how the spellcasting mechanics worked, but most of the other underlying "assumptions" of the settings were maintained.

For the 4th Edition, WotC has changed a great deal of fluff for the default setting.  Some folks feel this is a bad thing, others good, some don't care.  But WotC redesigned both the mechanics and the fluff of the game for 4e.  Personally, I think most of these changes are minor and easily overcome if you don't care for them, but YMMV.


----------



## KarinsDad (May 28, 2009)

Nail said:


> Huh.
> 
> That's a very interesting assertion. Uhmm....are you sure?  Just thinking back to some of the supported settings, I think a see a pattern of large fluff changes between all editions.  ...I think.  Any more insight here?




Examples?

Halfings went from short and pudgey in 2E to slim and taller in 3E. I cannot think of another one off the top of my head.

Other examples?

In 4E, Halfings have a freaking speed of 6 which is not just crunch, but also fluff. "Lookout, you cannot run away from those little dudes, they are track stars".


----------



## Lord Pendragon (May 28, 2009)

Piratecat said:


> Not to sidetrack us onto a religious track, but this Straight Dope article is a tremendous source for inspiration and history on angels and divine servants.



Thanks for the link!  I'm a sucker for angelic lore. 

I will say that one section of the article had me dying of laughter.  While discussing the angel Metatron:







> The meaning of the name Metatron is unclear. Immature elements on the Straight Dope Science Advisory Board say it sounds like the name of a Transformer.


----------



## Obryn (May 29, 2009)

Derren said:


> Of course it is possible. But when it is only about nonviolent conflict there wouldn't have been a need to make them unaligned.



Need, no, but maybe preference?  Why does change have to have a need?



> And considering that 4E removed many out of combat abilities, the official stance on stat blocks is "only combat abilities are needed" and how many people seem to think that "You don''t need monsters you don't fight" it is pretty clear to me that a change of alignment away from good to unaligned is to promote violent conflict.



And I disagree that this is clear.  Apparently, I'm not the only one.  It is possible to disagree with your premises, your logic, and/or your conclusion.  You're excluding a great deal of middle here.



> Unless the DM presents any good reason no to then yes, that seems to be the case in 4E. And don't you agree that a change from good to unaligned makes it easier for PCs to attack those creatures unless the DM gives them a reason not to?



I'll ask again - in your games, do your PCs normally go around slaughtering non-aggressive Neutral monsters without a reason to do so?



> Thats not really compareable. Dark Sun (and likely RC although I don't know what that means) are campaign settings with specific rules. But here we are talking about default D&D and so no matter what campaign setting is played new players will assume that every non-PC race is by default an enemy to be killed unless the DM gives them a reason not to do that.



(1) RC = Rules Cyclopedia.  BECMI D&D, if you will.

(2) In any RPG you've ever played, has there _ever_ been an assumption that every non-PC race is something that just exists to be killed?  I've certainly never played in one.  Since you're not projecting from playing in some bizarre combat-centric game yourself, you're again putting something on the game system that is not there.

Again, if you can't discuss 4e as an RPG rather than the bizarre combat tactical hackfest you want it to be, I don't know that we have any common ground to discuss this.

-O


----------



## Mad Hamish (May 29, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> Examples?
> 
> Halfings went from short and pudgey in 2E to slim and taller in 3E. I cannot think of another one off the top of my head.
> 
> ...




iirc Halflings (and dwarves and gnomes) had move 30 in 1st and 2nd ed.
So if that's a fluff change for 4th ed it's a fluff change in 3rd as well.

(and I'd consider the removal of level restrictions in 3rd ed and multiclassing changes to be the mother of all fluff changes in the campaign worlds)


----------



## KarinsDad (May 29, 2009)

Mad Hamish said:


> iirc Halflings (and dwarves and gnomes) had move 30 in 1st and 2nd ed.
> So if that's a fluff change for 4th ed it's a fluff change in 3rd as well.




The point was not that the Halfling's move had changed. It was how much it changed. It went beyond just an adjustment and into the realm of this is a different type of creature. Fast.

Yes, in 2E movement was 6 for the small races and 12 for the medium.

In 3E, that went to 20 for the small races and 30 for the medium. Yes it was a change, but small races were still considerably slower than medium races. They still felt like small races.

In 4E, every PC race except Dwarves/Gnomes (speed 5) and Elves (speed 7) are now the same speed 6.

Halflings which are a small race are now as fast as the medium races. So, they don't feel as much like a small race. Yup, they have weapon restrictions, but it is still a flavor thing as much as a crunch thing.



Mad Hamish said:


> (and I'd consider the removal of level restrictions in 3rd ed and multiclassing changes to be the mother of all fluff changes in the campaign worlds)




I agree with the multiclassing changes. Any race can be any class was a new fluff/crunch change of 3E. Level restrictions? Bah. Very few people paid attention to those anyway.

But 4E is replete with fluff changes (although some people might see some of these as crunch, I see them as fluff, or fluff and crunch). As examples:

Eladrin were celestials in 3E. Now, they are Elves.
Succubus were demons in 3E. Now, they are Devils.
There are virtually no monsters that default to good.
The entire extraplanar cosmos has changed.
Healing is not limited to magic.
The points of light default.
No long duration spells (like buffing for the day, etc.).
Implements for spell casting.
An increase in the focus of required treasure (this could be mitigated with spells in 3E).
Per day abilities for martial classes (which seems nonsensical).
Martial PCs have spells (that's what powers really are, e.g. Fighters can do damage when missing).
Dragonborn, Eladrin and Tieflings as core races (Who had these races as PCs in most of their games pre-4E? Some, maybe. Total flavor change in the game).
Warlocks and Warlords as core classes.
No real companions or pets.
No real summoned creatures.
Semi-wonky illusions (take Phantom Legion, a 22nd level set of illusory guys that can be destroyed by a single foe walking through them)
No (real) flying Wizards.
The total revamp of the Forgotten Realms (have you even looked at the map, there is no detail in it, just a bunch of holes in the world, and the changes go drastically beyond what the Time of Troubles did).
Alignment is totally watered down and does not integrate with spells.
Many spells are rituals and cannot be cast in combat.
Some PCs can teleport right and left at first level.
Conditions right and left in combat.
Gain a new utility spell every 5 levels (nearly all magic is attack spells, combat is rarely about neat ways to cast non-offensive spells).

None of these are really a response to the in game problems encountered in DND, so they are fluff changes as much as they are crunch changes and often even moreso.

The entire model changed. Not just a little here and there like 1E to 2E or 2E to 3E, but the entire game is different. It's doesn't feel as much like Sword and Sorcery anymore (earlier editions even talked about being Sword and Sorcery). It's more like low powered superheroes when Fighters can buff their allies, martial Warlords can heal and PCs can heal themselves.


Now, this isn't a gripe about 4E. I play 4E and enjoy it. But, it is pulling the default flavor of DND into a totally different feeling game system. All previous versions of DND, regardless of rules changes, felt like DND. 4E does not. It feels like DND as much as GURP or HARP or Fantasy Hero does. YMMV.


----------



## CovertOps (May 29, 2009)

Having finally read this entire thread it seems the entire argument is between a black and white point of view and one that includes shades of grey.  

Derren and KarensDad seem to basically be saying that "Unaligned" is within itself a moral code and anyone who is "Unaligned" acts in EXACTLY the same manner as any other creature that is "Unaligned".  If you start with this premise then the only way you can have a "Good" Gold Dragon is to change it's alignment.  

If on the other hand you believe as Obryn does that within "Unaligned" you can run the entire gamut from con artists to Mother Teresa and still be "Unaligned" and reserve "Good" for the truly good beings and "Evil" for only the most despicable acts then you can wonder why Dragons weren't "Unaligned" from the very beginning.  This however still leaves me wondering why the chromatic dragons got to stay "Evil".

Frankly there is no resolution between these two world views and neither side is going to convince the other.

WotC would like to see any side of any issue as being supported by their system.  To this end they have specifically excluded almost any but the most basic information about cultures of creatures in the MM's and all (as far as I know) out of combat statistics for everyone ON PURPOSE.  This is done for campaign building purposes.  In my world I can have evil Gold Dragons that can't talk and are basically just big lizards if I want.  Someone else could have them as paragons of virtue that can cast spells and speak with the "lesser" races and maybe even polymorph into them.  No matter what choice you make there are no game mechanics to get in your way as the DM.  This is a Win/Win for WotC.  This kind of issue is exactly the kind of thing where WotC does NOT want to take either side.  They want to say "We support both of your play styles".


----------



## Mistwell (May 29, 2009)

CovertOps said:


> Having finally read this entire thread it seems the entire argument is between a black and white point of view and one that includes shades of grey.
> 
> Derren and KarensDad seem to basically be saying that "Unaligned" is within itself a moral code and anyone who is "Unaligned" acts in EXACTLY the same manner as any other creature that is "Unaligned".  If you start with this premise then the only way you can have a "Good" Gold Dragon is to change it's alignment.
> 
> ...




I find that to be pretty good analysis, but would like the parties mentioned to speak up and either agree or disagree with your characterization of their positions.


----------



## Regicide (May 29, 2009)

Derren said:


> And considering that 4E removed many out of combat abilities, the official stance on stat blocks is "only combat abilities are needed" and how many people seem to think that "You don''t need monsters you don't fight" it is pretty clear to me that a change of alignment away from good to unaligned is to promote violent conflict.




  The fanboys argued that the only thing relevant for the MM was combat blocks and the removal of out of combat options didn't hurt anything.  Now they try to argue that just because there is no support for out of combat play doesn't mean it's combat focused.    We play 4E for one reason, to roll some d20s and hack creatures apart.  When we want to play a role-playing game, we go elsewhere, to systems that actually support it.


----------



## chaotix42 (May 29, 2009)

I like that word, fanboy. Can I use it when addressing people too?


----------



## KarinsDad (May 29, 2009)

Regicide said:


> We play 4E for one reason, to roll some d20s and hack creatures apart.




Heh

I find this amusing. For 30 some years, I've played DND to have my PC (if I'm not DM) a) explore, b) loot, c) get more powerful, so that I could a) explore, b) loot, c) get more powerful. Getting powerful enough to tell Kings to bite me and eventually creating my citadel of power is cool. And of course, hacking creatures apart is the primary and most enjoyable method of doing that. For me. Both hacking monsters and roleplaying has been the glue to accomplish a, b, and c, but roleplaying often takes a backseat to hacking monsters since more XP and treasure tends to be derived from hacking monsters (and because it's more fun). So yeah, it wasn't just 4E that had these tendencies for me. 4E just has fewer ways to protect my citadel of power. 

It will be interesting to see how many people disagree with you.


----------



## cwhs01 (May 29, 2009)

Regicide said:


> The fanboys argued that the only thing relevant for the MM was combat blocks and the removal of out of combat options didn't hurt anything.  Now they try to argue that just because there is no support for out of combat play doesn't mean it's combat focused.




Heh, well namecalling has allways been a staple in a calm and reasoned debate

I don't think anyone has claimed what you say. What has been said is that non-combat activities are possible and feasible even with a ruleset that is mostly focuses on combat. Just like becmi, 1e, 2e and 3e. All but 3e certainly focused mostly on combat, and people have used them just fine for things other than combat. 
Why fear that this will suddenly change?




Regicide said:


> We play 4E for one reason, to roll some d20s and hack creatures apart.  When we want to play a role-playing game, we go elsewhere, to systems that actually support it.




IMO you don't really need rules for non-combat activities besides what is in the 4e phb, and the advice in the dmg. You can use more complex rulesets if you want to, but i disagree that more rules allways leads to more roleplaying.


----------



## Bumbles (May 29, 2009)

Obryn said:


> (2) In any RPG you've ever played, has there _ever_ been an assumption that every non-PC race is something that just exists to be killed?




Warhammer 40K's RPG perhaps?  I know I've played in individual games where every non-PC existed to be killed, but that's system independent.


----------



## CovertOps (May 29, 2009)

Mistwell said:


> I find that to be pretty good analysis, but would like the parties mentioned to speak up and either agree or disagree with your characterization of their positions.




I would be curious to know if you felt my analysis was biased towards one side or the other or if I managed to keep my position out of my comments.  Note: I do agree with one side on this, but have not voiced it yet.


----------



## KarinsDad (May 29, 2009)

CovertOps said:


> I would be curious to know if you felt my analysis was biased towards one side or the other or if I managed to keep my position out of my comments.  Note: I do agree with one side on this, but have not voiced it yet.




I thought the statement:



> acts in EXACTLY the same manner as any other creature that is "Unaligned".




was misleading. No creature acts in exactly the same manner. Alignment does not do that. It gives tendencies, not "exactly the same".


----------



## Bumbles (May 29, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> None of these are really a response to the in game problems encountered in DND, so they are fluff changes as much as they are crunch changes and often even moreso.




None?  I'd probably put a good number of them as a response to in-game issues, or even non-existant changes, and some have even been rendered null and void by later books.

So um..yeah, my mileage varied quite a lot.  I'm not even sure if I'm even using the same form of transport.

But since I don't want to argue minutiae, I'll just leave it at that rather than try to refute anything.


----------



## CovertOps (May 29, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> I thought the statement:
> <snip>
> was misleading. No creature acts in exactly the same manner. Alignment does not do that. It gives tendencies, not "exactly the same".




Someone up thread (I admit I don't know who it was and I'm not going looking for it) on your side of the argument made the claim that by making Dragons "Unaligned" that they were now "Exactly like any other humanoid" or something very close to that.  You are correct however that the claim can be somewhat misleading.

That said I'd still like to hear your response as to the accuracy of my analysis of your position.


----------



## Nail (May 29, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> Examples?
> 
> Halfings went from short and pudgey in 2E to slim and taller in 3E. I cannot think of another one off the top of my head.
> 
> ...



There's no doubt there are crunch changes between editions.  So pointing out halflings now move 6 (which I think is no end of silly), isn't proving much.

The big fluff things (that I can IIRC right now) between 2e and 3e don't strike me as much different than 3e to 4e.  But perhaps I've forgotten some.


----------



## KarinsDad (May 29, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> None?  I'd probably put a good number of them as a response to in-game issues, or even non-existant changes, and some have even been rendered null and void by later books.
> 
> So um..yeah, my mileage varied quite a lot.  I'm not even sure if I'm even using the same form of transport.
> 
> But since I don't want to argue minutiae, I'll just leave it at that rather than try to refute anything.




Uh huh. A good number??? I disagree, but won't say how I disagree because that's minutiae. Whatever dude.

Yup, changing Eladrins to Elves fixed a big hole. As did forcing Wizards to use implements. Adding brand new races and classes to the core books filled many holes (especially because all players WILL play with all of the new splat books). Adding Spellscar and combining two worlds into FR and killing off the gods. Changing the entire Cosmos. And darn those Wizards for flying for hours at a time. Fighters cannot do that. Unfair! We don't want the entire party flying up to the Dragon's lair at the top of the volcano anymore and avoiding the plethora of encounters in the tunneled maze below. That was a real problem for DMs!

Sorry, but when you purposely won't support your POV, it sounds like you are talking out of your hat. Disagreeing just to disagree.


----------



## Obryn (May 29, 2009)

CovertOps said:


> If on the other hand you believe as Obryn does that within "Unaligned" you can run the entire gamut from con artists to Mother Teresa and still be "Unaligned" and reserve "Good" for the truly good beings and "Evil" for only the most despicable acts then you can wonder why Dragons weren't "Unaligned" from the very beginning.  This however still leaves me wondering why the chromatic dragons got to stay "Evil".



That's part of it.  Frankly, it wouldn't bother me if metallic dragons were still Good-aligned because I don't care very much.  Insofar as I _do_ care about alignment - which, as I've said, isn't much - I think Unaligned is a very good catch-all category which leaves a creature's motivations wide open for DM use.

Mostly, though, I am disagreeing with the position that Unaligned = Exists to be Killed and Looted.  That seems to me like a peculiarly argumentative stance, which displays the prejudices of the speaker more than anything else, because I've never before seen an argument that slaughtering Neutral monsters is a good and productive endeavor for adventurers.  

And, for what it's worth, I have absolutely no issues with folks who are unhappy with the change for other reasons.

At any rate, this'll probably be my last post on the topic - I had an epiphany about what I'm arguing about, and with whom I'm arguing, so I think I'm going to wash my hands of it and try and pretend it never happened. 

-O


----------



## Dire Bare (May 29, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> Uh huh. A good number??? I disagree, but won't say how I disagree because that's minutiae. Whatever dude.
> 
> Yup, changing Eladrins to Elves fixed a big hole. As did forcing Wizards to use implements. Adding brand new races and classes to the core books filled many holes (especially because all players WILL play with all of the new splat books). Adding Spellscar and combining two worlds into FR and killing off the gods. Changing the entire Cosmos. And darn those Wizards for flying for hours at a time. Fighters cannot do that. Unfair! We don't want the entire party flying up to the Dragon's lair at the top of the volcano anymore and avoiding the plethora of encounters in the tunneled maze below. That was a real problem for DMs!
> 
> Sorry, but when you purposely won't support your POV, it sounds like you are talking out of your hat. Disagreeing just to disagree.




I think what Bumbles is trying to say, is that you are bringing up minutiae in your arguments as if these minor, unimportant changes somehow are quite major and game-changing.  Or at least, that's what I'm seeing in many of your arguments.

There's no doubt that 4e changed a lot of mechanics and a lot of fluff, but you are going overboard in your crusade.

I'd imagine that Bumbles, Obryn, and others have realized the futility of continuing the discussion.  I'm getting pretty close myself.  Doesn't mean anyone is simply being disagreeable for the sake of contention.


----------



## Mistwell (May 29, 2009)

CovertOps said:


> I would be curious to know if you felt my analysis was biased towards one side or the other or if I managed to keep my position out of my comments.  Note: I do agree with one side on this, but have not voiced it yet.




I didn't see any bias.


----------



## Umbran (May 29, 2009)

Regicide said:


> The fanboys ...





... post has just earned someone a threadban.  I would strongly suggest nobody else engage in such rhetoric.  

We are getting beyond edition-wars, folks.  If you don't like an edition that badly that all you can do is trash people, don't go into threads that discuss that edition.


----------



## 77IM (May 29, 2009)

Some of the reasoning on this thread sounds suspiciously like the Oberoni fallacy ("It's not broken, because you can fix it with house rules;" the fact that it needs to be fixed implies that it is, in fact, broken).

Obviously, in my campaign I can say that gold dragons are lawful good, telepathic, breathe corrosive gas, and are purple.  I can even say that there are no gold dragons, or I could say that all dragons are gold, and that they run a passenger service and are happy to ferry PCs from town to town.  In my game, I can say that eating the heart of a gold dragon earns you tremendous XP, enough to gain 5 levels.  Or I can say that all gold dragons have a gaze attack:   Death Glare (minor action; at-will) Close blast 5; +Level+3 vs. Fortitude; target dies instantly.

So, saying I can just change the gold dragon's alignment in my campaign is kind of moot.  The questing is whether it is better for the game for the MM entry to say "Unaligned" or "Lawful Good" or some other thing (like, if a monster stat block can list multiple languages, multiple skills, etc., why not multiple alignments?).  It should be valid to (intelligently) criticize WotC's design decisions even if they are easy to change with house rules.

 -- 77IM


----------



## Mistwell (May 29, 2009)

77IM said:


> So, saying I can just change the gold dragon's alignment in my campaign is kind of moot.  The questing is whether it is better for the game for the MM entry to say "Unaligned" or "Lawful Good" or some other thing (like, if a monster stat block can list multiple languages, multiple skills, etc., why not multiple alignments?).  It should be valid to (intelligently) criticize WotC's design decisions even if they are easy to change with house rules.
> 
> -- 77IM




If unaligned can meant that the alignment of that species varies wildly from individual to individual and group to group, then is it really a house rule if the gold dragon your party meets behaves as a lawful good creature?


----------



## 77IM (May 29, 2009)

No.  But if gold dragons are typically lawful good or if most gold dragons are lawful good, that would be a house rule.

Since the Alignment entry == the alignment of a typical creature or of most of that type of creature, I think that's what's under debate here, not the alignment of any specific individual gold dragon.  (In fact, the alignment entry has no bearing at all on the alignment of of any specific individual creature since both the DMG and the MM mention that exceptions can exist.)

 -- 77IM


----------



## Mistwell (May 29, 2009)

77IM said:


> No.  But if gold dragons are typically lawful good or if most gold dragons are lawful good, that would be a house rule.
> 
> Since the Alignment entry == the alignment of a typical creature or of most of that type of creature, I think that's what's under debate here, not the alignment of any specific individual gold dragon.  (In fact, the alignment entry has no bearing at all on the alignment of of any specific individual creature since both the DMG and the MM mention that exceptions can exist.)
> 
> -- 77IM




Why would it matter what "most" gold dragons are? Wouldn't it only matter for the ones the party interacts with or at least hears about?


----------



## IanB (May 29, 2009)

77IM said:


> Some of the reasoning on this thread sounds suspiciously like the Oberoni fallacy ("It's not broken, because you can fix it with house rules;" the fact that it needs to be fixed implies that it is, in fact, broken).




Except you can't really apply that fallacy to the discussion, because the alignment issue is not a mechanical issue. Whether or not it is broken is entirely subjective; there are no rules issues raised by this change, only flavor ones.

In fact I would question why this thread even appears in this particular forum, given that, but it would appear that in my fairly long absence from reading EN World there have been some changes to the 'what goes where' rules and/or practices.


----------



## KarinsDad (May 29, 2009)

Dire Bare said:


> I think what Bumbles is trying to say, is that you are bringing up minutiae in your arguments as if these minor, unimportant changes somehow are quite major and game-changing.  Or at least, that's what I'm seeing in many of your arguments.




Well, since he did not say that, that's a pretty big leap.

And I haven't read a single person who is a big FR fan who thought that there were not a LOT of fluff changes to that setting. Entire countries and gods and organizations got wiped out. If those are unimportant and minutiae to you, fine. They might not be to other people.

The fact of the matter is that WotC appears to be going for a new and possibly younger crowd. I have no issue with that. It's smart business. I just understand it for what it is and do not claim that "It's still DND and it feels like DND".

No, it doesn't. Not even close. Each earlier edition made changes, but none of them to the extent that the game felt drastically different like this edition. I have over 30 entrenched years of picking my spells and having them actually do something other than just damage foes and do a few conditions, and where Fighters were extremely easy to play and mostly only did damage or possibly a grapple. I have come to grips with the fact that the game is totally different and don't have an issue. One of my players has not. It bothers him a lot. And, it probably bothers some other people.

The pre-release claim "It's still DND" is far from the truth for some people.

If it feels like DND to you and these changes are not game-changing for you, that's fine. I cannot argue how you feel. I cannot really understand how the fluff and crunch changes actually make DND feel the same to someone and are not game-changing, but meh.


----------



## Obryn (May 29, 2009)

77IM said:


> So, saying I can just change the gold dragon's alignment in my campaign is kind of moot.  The questing is whether it is better for the game for the MM entry to say "Unaligned" or "Lawful Good" or some other thing (like, if a monster stat block can list multiple languages, multiple skills, etc., why not multiple alignments?).  It should be valid to (intelligently) criticize WotC's design decisions even if they are easy to change with house rules.



I don't know that it's totally applicable here.  In 1e, 2e, and 3e you'd definitely have a point.  Alignment in those games is definitely a statistic of sorts with many mechanical effects.  In 4e, I don't know that it's reasonable to call the alignment line in a stat block a "rule" to enough of a degree that changing it would be a "house-rule."

In 4e, alignment has about the same mechanical effect as hair color.   As such, I don't think changing a creature's alignment is even a house-rule.  Nobody is going to cast a Circle of Protection from Good and hit them with an Anarchic weapon, and expect them to work.

So, in other words, I see where you're coming from, but I think "Just change it!" is a much fairer criticism than it would have been in previous editions. 

-O


----------



## 77IM (May 29, 2009)

Mistwell said:


> Why would it matter what "most" gold dragons are? Wouldn't it only matter for the ones the party interacts with or at least hears about?




Well then, why bother having an Alignment entry on the stat block at all?  (If you answer, "No good reason, they should remove it," then I agree.  But WotC didn't do that, either.)

To answer the question, it matters because it sets player expectations.  This can help tremendously with the plot.  For example, a horrific demon is expected to be evil; players expect to interact with it in a certain way.  A generally good creature elicits a different set of expectations and behaviors -- which the DM can reinforce or subvert, depending on the sort of plot you need.  But this option is not available if there are no generally good creatures.



IanB said:


> Except you can't really apply that fallacy to the discussion, because the alignment issue is not a mechanical issue. Whether or not it is broken is entirely subjective; there are no rules issues raised by this change, only flavor ones.




You are right that flavor issues are entirely subjective.  But that's true of, well, every flavor issue.  Does that mean we can't ever criticize WotC's flavor design decisions???

That's why I think it qualifies for the fallacy -- it asserts that because the DM's setting flavor automatically overrides the designer's setting flavor, that the criticism against the designer's flavor is invalid.

 -- 77IM


----------



## Obryn (May 29, 2009)

77IM said:


> You are right that flavor issues are entirely subjective.  But that's true of, well, every flavor issue.  Does that mean we can't ever criticize WotC's flavor design decisions???



Absolutely, but it should be treated as a discussion on flavor, not a discussion on rules, IMHO.

-O


----------



## Bumbles (May 29, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> Uh huh. A good number??? I disagree, but won't say how I disagree because that's minutiae. Whatever dude.




A good number referring to a number higher than a few, less than all.  I didn't bother to count them since I figured an approximation would be enough.  Think somewhere over 1/8 and less than 1/2 if you need somewhere to go.

And yes, it would be arguing over minutiae, and likely to be fruitless.  What I really intended to do was to express how different our perspectives are, which would not, IMO, be served by arguing with you on the specifics.



> Yup, changing Eladrins to Elves fixed a big hole. As did forcing Wizards to use implements. Adding brand new races and classes to the core books filled many holes (especially because all players WILL play with all of the new splat books). Adding Spellscar and combining two worlds into FR and killing off the gods. Changing the entire Cosmos. And darn those Wizards for flying for hours at a time. Fighters cannot do that. Unfair! We don't want the entire party flying up to the Dragon's lair at the top of the volcano anymore and avoiding the plethora of encounters in the tunneled maze below. That was a real problem for DMs!




Of course, it's possible none of those are the ones I thought of, so what's the point of your trying to defend yourself?  I might agree with some of you on some of them for all you know.  



> Sorry, but when you purposely won't support your POV, it sounds like you are talking out of your hat. Disagreeing just to disagree.




I'm sorry it sounds that way, but to me, what I'm trying to say is that my perspective on many of your examples is so completely divergent from yours that it may not be possible to come to an agreement other than each thinking of things differently.

I have my reasons.  I do not think I will be able to persuade you.  Rather than try to engage what I feel would be a fruitless argument, I'm bypassing it.



Dire Bare said:


> I think what Bumbles is trying to say, is that you are bringing up minutiae in your arguments as if these minor, unimportant changes somehow are quite major and game-changing.  Or at least, that's what I'm seeing in many of your arguments.




Not quite.  What I'm saying is that I can see I'm coming from a totally different perspective, that many of the examples cited, I just don't see.

If anything, I'm casting everybody's arguments in that light, rather than singling out any one in particular.



KarinsDad said:


> Well, since he did not say that, that's a pretty big leap.




Really?  I thought I did say something like that.  Let me check...

_So um..yeah, my mileage varied quite a lot. I'm not even sure if I'm even using the same form of transport.
_

Yes, I did.  DB was a little off, but not so big a leap that it was completely wrong.



> If it feels like DND to you and these changes are not game-changing for you, that's fine. I cannot argue how you feel. I cannot really understand how the fluff and crunch changes actually make DND feel the same to someone and are not game-changing, but meh.




And I cannot argue how you feel.  Hence my declining to do so.  Nor at this point, do I believe how I can help with your understanding.  Especially not with arguing over what I'd see as minutiae.   Which believe it or not, does not include everything you said, so citing individual examples as if they proved anything, really does not.


----------



## Mistwell (May 29, 2009)

77IM said:


> Well then, why bother having an Alignment entry on the stat block at all?  (If you answer, "No good reason, they should remove it," then I agree.  But WotC didn't do that, either.)




That would be my answer.  There's no good reason really.  I think it was something to vaguely please folks who really like alignment.  



> To answer the question, it matters because it sets player expectations.




In my opinion, players should not be reading the MM and getting expectations from it.  It's not really a book intended for them, and it's metagaming to be gaining character expectations based on the player reading it.



> This can help tremendously with the plot.  For example, a horrific demon is expected to be evil; players expect to interact with it in a certain way.  A generally good creature elicits a different set of expectations and behaviors -- which the DM can reinforce or subvert, depending on the sort of plot you need.  But this option is not available if there are no generally good creatures.




The expectation comes from the description of looks and deeds, not the alignment listed.  If the DM tells me a horrible demon-looking thing with a whip is charging at me, I expect it will be evil.  I didn't get that expectation from an alignment entry.  I get it because it looks like a demon trying to kill me.


----------



## Dire Bare (May 30, 2009)

77IM said:


> Some of the reasoning on this thread sounds suspiciously like the Oberoni fallacy ("It's not broken, because you can fix it with house rules;" the fact that it needs to be fixed implies that it is, in fact, broken).
> 
> Obviously, in my campaign I can say that gold dragons are lawful good, telepathic, breathe corrosive gas, and are purple.  I can even say that there are no gold dragons, or I could say that all dragons are gold, and that they run a passenger service and are happy to ferry PCs from town to town.  In my game, I can say that eating the heart of a gold dragon earns you tremendous XP, enough to gain 5 levels.  Or I can say that all gold dragons have a gaze attack:   Death Glare (minor action; at-will) Close blast 5; +Level+3 vs. Fortitude; target dies instantly.
> 
> So, saying I can just change the gold dragon's alignment in my campaign is kind of moot.  The questing is whether it is better for the game for the MM entry to say "Unaligned" or "Lawful Good" or some other thing (like, if a monster stat block can list multiple languages, multiple skills, etc., why not multiple alignments?).  It should be valid to (intelligently) criticize WotC's design decisions even if they are easy to change with house rules.




Not quite.  One side of our discussion here states, "The change in gold dragon's alignment from good to unaligned is either a good change or an unimportant one."  The opposing argument is that this change is a bad change.  The suggestion to simply change the alignment to what you want could apply to both sides . . . except that the alignment IS currently unaligned.  If WotC had made a different choice then we'd have a slightly different argument.


----------



## Dire Bare (May 30, 2009)

77IM said:


> To answer the question, it matters because it sets player expectations.  This can help tremendously with the plot.  For example, a horrific demon is expected to be evil; players expect to interact with it in a certain way.  A generally good creature elicits a different set of expectations and behaviors -- which the DM can reinforce or subvert, depending on the sort of plot you need.  But this option is not available if there are no generally good creatures.




While I am fine with the new alignment of gold dragons being unaligned, I actually do agree with what you state here.

In prior editions, D&D fans "knew" that gold dragons were good.  So, unless your DM stated otherwise, it was safe to assume the horrifying gargantuan lizard-like creature with golden scales wasn't going to hurt you . . . unless perhaps you pissed it off.

In 4th edition, fans "know" that gold dragons tend to be nicer and safer than red dragons, but could hardly be considered "good" as a race.  Which means when you encounter one, you better be more careful and cognizant of the situation.

Which, in my opinion, is a fantastic change!!!  This isn't the first time this change has appeared in D&D, but now it is a part of the default setting rather than an alternate one like Eberron.  Love it!


----------



## Bumbles (May 30, 2009)

Mistwell said:


> The expectation comes from the description of looks and deeds, not the alignment listed.  If the DM tells me a horrible demon-looking thing with a whip is charging at me, I expect it will be evil.  I didn't get that expectation from an alignment entry.  I get it because it looks like a demon trying to kill me.




And then the artificer appears to yell at you for attacking his dungeon exploration model nine!


----------



## Char_Aznable (May 30, 2009)

I don't understand what all the hubbub is all about; every dragon I've used in D&D4 so far has been altered. Quite frankly, the unaligned entry makes sense to me, since I'd imagine a lot of dragons are more interested in the higher affairs of other dragons than with the world around them. Then again, I do tend to use dragons sparingly.


----------



## Stogoe (May 30, 2009)

keterys said:


> There will still be some dragons (and fey, etc) that want to talk to the PCs, and there will still be some that want to eat them. And sometimes it'll be the same ones.



What the change from All Good to Unaligned does, in essence, is it makes you deal with antagonists as individuals.  Your enemies are forced to have a motivation beyond "Well, this Evil moustache they slapped on me is rather fun to twirl around my finger, I have to admit."  Tearing out "Color Coded for Your Convenience" makes the game more nuanced, and leads to better storytelling as a whole.

The Monster Manual is not a Bestiary of things that exist in the Points of Light setting.  It is a repository of Combat Encounters.  This fact is constantly and belligerently ignored by the "They Changed It Now It's Dumb" contingent.


----------



## Stogoe (May 30, 2009)

Obryn said:


> I've never before seen an argument that slaughtering Neutral monsters is a good and productive endeavor for adventurers.



What about Zapp Brannigan?  
"What makes a         good man go neutral? Lust for gold? Power?
        Or were you just born with a heart full of         neutrality?"


----------



## korjik (May 31, 2009)

Stogoe said:


> What the change from All Good to Unaligned does, in essence, is it makes you deal with antagonists as individuals.



How? Most players expect backstabbing, treachery, and other nastiness from pretty much anything they come across. If you add the fact that the rules set means that the creatures in the encounter _are not good_, they could be less concerned about morality.

You can also use good creatures as a way to make the players squirm. Finding out that the dragon you are sent to kill is an unambigously good metallic dragon makes the players really reconsider what they are doing. 


> Your enemies are forced to have a motivation beyond "Well, this Evil moustache they slapped on me is rather fun to twirl around my finger, I have to admit." Tearing out "Color Coded for Your Convenience" makes the game more nuanced, and leads to better storytelling as a whole.



I give _Orcs_ more motivation than that. Pretty irrelevant tho, since most players generally completely miss or misinterpret nuance. Knowing some monsters are supposed to be good creates a passive background to the game without DM effort. Without that inherent background, there is no reason to even try to think about wether you should just kill everything.


> The Monster Manual is not a Bestiary of things that exist in the Points of Light setting. It is a repository of Combat Encounters. This fact is constantly and belligerently ignored by the "They Changed It Now It's Dumb" contingent.




Funny, I thought it was a book of stats for monsters. You know, a _manual_ for the _monsters_ in Dungeons and Dragons. I didnt know that you were just supposed to only use the encounters in the MM. I thought that the rules for making combat encounters were in the DMG.


----------



## GenghisDon (May 31, 2009)

I can't say it bothers me. I have never been a big fan of the colour coded dragons, the metalic ones even less so. While I can't say I love them(adamantine dragon? why?), they are more useful to me untied to any particular moral code. Stat wise, they seem better done than the MM1 dragons, but i won't really know untill my players fight a few.


----------



## Zaran (May 31, 2009)

The funny thing is ... I don't really care about adding Adamantine and Iron dragons to the Metallics.  they make more sense than Brass and Bronze alloyed dragons.   It just bothers me that they decided that we didn't need good monsters and changed them all to creatures that don't take a stand on issues of good and evil.  Also "Unaligned" doesn't mean "Any".  

I would have been ok with it if the alignment entry said "Tends towards Lawful Good although Good and Unaligned are possible."   I honestly think that they shouldn't have cut out all the background story that the prior editions had.   Their philosophy should have been "if it makes the book longer but more expensive , so be it."  It's information that I , as a GM, appreciates when i'm creating my campaigns.


----------



## Bumbles (May 31, 2009)

Zaran said:


> Also "Unaligned" doesn't mean "Any".




I am not entirely sure of this.  Certain creatures, like Angels, are Any in the MM1, but Unaligned in the MM2. Makes me wonder.



> It's information that I , as a GM, appreciates when i'm creating my campaigns.




It's often information that I completely ignore and find somewhat distasteful to see included.  

But then, I felt the same way when seeing the description of Elven "aging" in 2e.  Blech!  No, I will not borrow that Tolkienism.


----------



## Stogoe (Jun 2, 2009)

korjik said:


> Funny, I thought it was a book of stats for monsters. You know, a _manual_ for the _monsters_ in Dungeons and Dragons. I didnt know that you were just supposed to only use the encounters in the MM. I thought that the rules for making combat encounters were in the DMG.



You're deliberately misunderstanding.  It's a book of stats for combat encounters.  *Stats don't exist in the game world.*  The Monster Manual isn't a book of "and this exists, and this exists, and this exists and it lives over there in that cave."  It is not a coherent or complete list of creatures that exist in the world.  It's a list of possibilities for a DM to run combat encounters.

If a silver dragon shows up in your campaign and your party parlays with it and they never roll initiative or draw swords, you will never need to crack open a monster manual for that silver dragon.  The dragon exists in your campaign, and yet you do not need the combat statistics in any way.  It might as well have not had stats at all.


----------



## Flipguarder (Jun 2, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> I am not entirely sure of this(unaligned =/= any). Certain creatures, like Angels, are Any in the MM1, but Unaligned in the MM2. Makes me wonder.



This right here kinda of screws the whole discussion we've been having up to now IMHO.

Unless its errata'ed one way or another I choose to believe that unaligned is a nuetral-ish form of any if that makes any sense.

It just makes sense for too many things.


----------



## Robert_Goodfellow (Jun 2, 2009)

Unaligned != Any.  WotC is king of the Keyword game.  Any would mean, like PC races, they are completely flexible from individual to individual.  Were as unaligned means they behave as suggested in the "Unaligned" description in the player's handbook.  Groups can be "Any" but individuals have to be something.

Alignments in general have little to no purpose in comparison to ages past.  As such that means that most of the previous flavor is right out the window.  The problem is... WotC has done NOTHING to replace that gap.  And the little flavor it has created is disjointed at best.

I agree with K-Dad that if it wasn't broken why fix it?  I also agree that if you're going to create the mythical divide between all dragons (Io split into Bahamut and Tiamat) then why not follow that theology through?

By removing the paragraphs of description on creature's nature and behavior and reducing everything down to one or two sentences of description the alignment becomes ever more important to people new to Roleplaying and DnD.  Unaligned can be very engrossing and nuanced if given the time, effort and breadth to be so.  But when since monster details are pretty much non-existent it's another random thing to fight.

And considering that 99% of the stats presented in the MM are combat oriented it is absurd to think that anyone will not assume a conflict normally leads to a fight.

When I looked at a unicorn, demon, devil, dragon or kobold in the previous editions I didn't just see an enemy to encounter.  I saw an actual creature.  A member of a fantasy world that could be intrinsically added to the storyline of our game.  Now I'm not given that kind of assistance.

When you look at the books as published you cannot discuss those books inherent value (or lack there of) while arguing any house changes.  You have to keep the confinements of the arguement to the information as presented.  And the information that is presented has be altered in a number of ways that serve no diagetic benefit (or even purpose).

I will also argue that working a Lawful Good antagonist into a story with mostly good party members is a feat of epic proportions that is not only entertaining but unforgettable.  When I was a sophmore in high school I played under a DM that forever tainted my trust in Solars, solely because once the story was all said and done I realized that the moral dilemma presented wouldn't have allowed the epitome of Lawful Good to do anything other than what it did.  And in turn we had to stop it... for the lesser good.

I agree that the alignment system is antiquated in its own way. In fact, in more character based storytelling it drives me crazy.  But it was perfectly integrated into the world of the game.  Everyday people knew that there were forces of Law, Chaos, Good and Evil.  There were entire planes dedicated to them for (insert diety name)'s sake.

Now they say that their new DnD is pillars of light in the darkness.  Show me one.  Anyone one printed in a core book.  I want to know what it is that the PCs have to live up to.  What is that keeps their hopes alive at night, cause a votive to their god isn't going to do it forever.  What creature will they see in the wilderness that makes them want to keep fighting for good?


----------



## Stogoe (Jun 3, 2009)

Robert_Goodfellow said:


> I agree with K-Dad that if it wasn't broken why fix it?



It was broken.  Your nostalgia just doesn't let you recognize that fact.



> Now they say that their new DnD is pillars of light in the darkness.  Show me one.  Anyone one printed in a core book.  I want to know what it is that the PCs have to live up to.  What is that keeps their hopes alive at night, cause a votive to their god isn't going to do it forever.  What creature will they see in the wilderness that makes them want to keep fighting for good?



You!  You yourself are the candle in the darkness!  That's the whole point!  If there's an elder paragon of good next door, why in the hells would you go out and save the world yourself?


----------



## Piratecat (Jun 3, 2009)

Stogoe said:


> It was broken.  Your nostalgia just doesn't let you recognize that fact.



No, I disagree with this, and I'm on the "I like unaligned metallic dragon" side of the fence. They weren't broken earlier, they just weren't particularly useful or fun for me as a DM. That's why I'm glad they changed the alignment; it's taken a perfectly serviceable but not particularly flexible NPC and plot device, and changed it into something that can easily be NPC, plot device, antagonist or rival. For my campaign, that means better plot hooks and more fun for me.


----------



## stonegod (Jun 3, 2009)

Since Eberron came out, I've been pretty much ignoring alignment on everything, especially dragons. This change reflects the way I've been using the metallics; their refusal to do the same w/ chromatics gets a shrug from me. I just need dragons of all stripes.


----------



## Dire Bare (Jun 3, 2009)

Robert_Goodfellow said:


> Now they say that their new DnD is pillars of light in the darkness.  Show me one.  Anyone one printed in a core book.  I want to know what it is that the PCs have to live up to.  What is that keeps their hopes alive at night, cause a votive to their god isn't going to do it forever.  What creature will they see in the wilderness that makes them want to keep fighting for good?




Ah, you don't quite have it right here.  It's not "pillars" of light, as in examples of purest goodness to aspire too . . . it's "points" of light, the small little areas of goodly (and normal) folk fighting back against the overwhelming darkness.

The town detailed in the DMG is a point of light.  The towns detailed in WotC published adventures, both the retail adventures and Dungeon Magazine adventures, are points of light.  You and your fellow adventurer's need to protect these endangered places from evil lest they disappear from the world!


----------



## Derren (Jun 3, 2009)

Piratecat said:


> No, I disagree with this, and I'm on the "I like unaligned metallic dragon" side of the fence. They weren't broken earlier, they just weren't particularly useful or fun for me as a DM. That's why I'm glad they changed the alignment; it's taken a perfectly serviceable but not particularly flexible NPC and plot device, and changed it into something that can easily be NPC, plot device, antagonist or rival. For my campaign, that means better plot hooks and more fun for me.




How exactly do unaligned metallic dragons make your game better? Isn't a normally good aligned dragon becoming an antagonist  a better plot hook than having a unaligned dragon becoming one?
From a unaligned dragon this is nothing special, yet when a good aligned does that it hints at a bigger mystery.


----------



## 77IM (Jun 3, 2009)

Derren said:


> How exactly do unaligned metallic dragons make your game better? Isn't a normally good aligned dragon becoming an antagonist  a better plot hook than having a unaligned dragon becoming one?
> From a unaligned dragon this is nothing special, yet when a good aligned does that it hints at a bigger mystery.




Thank you!  That is what I have been trying to say all along, although you put it more succinctly.  From another perspective:  The Alignment is only a suggestion; the DM can make a creature any alignment he wants.  So the argument that Unaligned makes them more useful as antagonists is false, since the DM still decides the alignment of each individual NPC.


I think the main problem WotC is trying to avoid with powerful good creatures is with DMs using them as Deus Ex Machina or with PCs thinking "hey, we'll just get the gold dragon to squash this necromancer."  That's a legitimate world-design problem, but I think there are better solutions than just "oh, we won't have any good-aligned creatures."

 -- 77IM


----------



## Daniel D. Fox (Jun 3, 2009)

Unaligned means they can be any alignment.


----------



## Zaran (Jun 3, 2009)

> Unaligned means they can be any alignment.




No it does not.   Unaligned means exactly that.  They are not aligned with good nor evil.   If they wanted the creature to be any alignment they would put "Any" there.


----------



## Dire Bare (Jun 3, 2009)

Derren said:


> How exactly do unaligned metallic dragons make your game better? Isn't a normally good aligned dragon becoming an antagonist  a better plot hook than having a unaligned dragon becoming one?
> From a unaligned dragon this is nothing special, yet when a good aligned does that it hints at a bigger mystery.




How exactly do good-aligned metallic dragons make your game better?

There have been examples given in this thread already on "how exactly" does unaligned metallics make the game better.  Just as there have been examples put forth showing how good metallics can be "better".  Seems a wash to me.

You prefer good-aligned metallics, I prefer unaligned metallics.  I don't reject that part of your opinion.  I disagree with it, but as long as we're both having fun in our games I really don't care.

What I have issue with, and I think I'm not alone, is the idea that the change from good-aligned to unaligned has somehow lessened the game.  It has certainly changed the background assumptions of the core setting . . . but has hardly weakened it.

I think I'm done in this thread.  While there has been some good discussion of alignment, we're mostly at the point with one side repeating, "I'm okay with the change, but whatever floats your boat" and the other side repeating, "THIS IS WRONG!  DESTROYS THE SETTING OF D&D!  ACK!  STURM!  DRANG!"  (sorry about the bias that just popped up there, but . . .)


----------



## 77IM (Jun 3, 2009)

Moniker said:


> Unaligned means they can be any alignment.




So does Lawful Good, Good, Evil, Chaotic Evil, and Any.

 -- 77IM


----------



## Flipguarder (Jun 4, 2009)

Zaran said:


> No it does not.   Unaligned means exactly that.  They are not aligned with good nor evil.   If they wanted the creature to be any alignment they would put "Any" there.



I honestly want to know your understanding of the difference of between the angels in MM1 and MM2 because the angels in the former are "any" while in the latter they are "unaligned".


----------



## keterys (Jun 4, 2009)

I want to know what it is about crossbows that makes the Dwarven Bolter Unaligned instead of Any 

My theory is that it depends on the designer or editor more than it depends on an actual alignment concept.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 4, 2009)

keterys said:


> I want to know what it is about crossbows that makes the Dwarven Bolter Unaligned instead of Any
> 
> My theory is that it depends on the designer or editor more than it depends on an actual alignment concept.



Seems plausible.


----------



## Derren (Jun 4, 2009)

Dire Bare said:


> How exactly do good-aligned metallic dragons make your game better?
> 
> There have been examples given in this thread already on "how exactly" does unaligned metallics make the game better.  Just as there have been examples put forth showing how good metallics can be "better".  Seems a wash to me.
> 
> ...




Good aligned dragons, or generally good aligned creatures, allows me to give the PCs allies they can turn to, gives them a different kind of adventure in the case that the goals of a good aligned creature runs against their own goals as now the PCs have to decide how to oppose this creature (moral dilemma) and good aligned creatures invoke more mystery when one of them turns bad.

When I have just unaligned creatures than, when one of it opposes the PCs, its very easy for the PCs to simply decide to kill it. No dilemma at all or even just a break from the usual modus operandi. It is also no surprise when this creature opposes/attacks the PC as it is just another monster to kill like half of the MM.
And finally, having no good monsters fosters the believe in new players/DMs that everything in the MM is just there to be fought.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 4, 2009)

Derren said:


> When I have just unaligned creatures than, when one of it opposes the PCs, its very easy for the PCs to simply decide to kill it. No dilemma at all or even just a break from the usual modus operandi.  It is also no surprise when this creature opposes/attacks the PC as it is just another monster to kill like half of the MM.  And finally, having no good monsters fosters the believe in new players/DMs that everything in the MM is just there to be fought.



Have you noticed yet that you're saying the same three things over and over again?

And have you noticed that you haven't provided anything other than your say-so as far as evidence?  Or even any logical connections?  You're going straight from "Gold Dragons are unaligned" to "Adventurers will wantonly slaughter Gold Dragons" and skipping every point in the middle.  Namely - whether or not routine and regular slaying of Unaligned or Neutral creatures actually occurs in anyone's games.

So let me ask again - *Is it normal in your games for PCs to wantonly slaughter non-aggressive Neutral-aligned creatures?*

_If it is not normal_, why should you expect that it will occur in other peoples' games?

_If it is normal_, can you accept that you're maybe running different sort of game than others might be, wherein Neutral creatures aren't just slaughter-bait?

-O


----------



## Zaran (Jun 5, 2009)

I've given a reason why their should be good aligned monsters in the monster manuals already.  So the GM can create a world and not just conflicts with monsters that are out to get the PCs.  And while you might not need their stats , you would need their capabilities and power level so you can make reasonable choices on how to use them.  Also, there is no reason why good creatures can't fight along side the PCs as NPCs.  I've come to the conclusion that this isn't  just about alignment though.  There should be more background information as well.


----------



## Bumbles (Jun 5, 2009)

Zaran said:


> There should be more background information as well.




I'd rather make up my own background information, thank you very much.  Please don't make WOTC waste space on something I consider junk.


----------



## Derren (Jun 5, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> I'd rather make up my own background information, thank you very much.  Please don't make WOTC waste space on something I consider junk.




I'd rather make up my own soulless statblocks, thank you very much. Please don't make WOTC waste space on something I consider junk.

What is "junk" in an Monster Manual is highly subjective. I rather have interesting background stories which spark my imagination than combat stat block #94 which are easily generated by yourself (Wasn't that one of the advertised advantages of 4E? How easily you could create monsters?)

To answer Obryns question.

Apart from my recent post not saying anything about slaughtering everything unaligned I do have noticed that players do have certain  predispositions when it comes with interacting with monsters. Not having any good monsters enforces the image that everything in the Monster Manual is an enemy.  Sure, experienced players know that this isn't so (generally), but what about new players? Many new players will be influenced by MMOs which have exactly that mindset. How should they know that not everything in the Monster Manual is supposed to be an enemy by default? Because the DM tells them? What if he is also new?


----------



## Gort (Jun 5, 2009)

Derren said:


> I'd rather make up my own soulless statblocks, thank you very much. Please don't make WOTC waste space on something I consider junk.




Maybe you're making bad statblocks. I love flicking through the monster manual and going, "I can't wait to use _that_ on my players!"

Seriously, though, I don't play D&D because it has a good implied setting, I play it because it has a robust rules set I can turn to my own purposes.


----------



## Silverblade The Ench (Jun 5, 2009)

77IM said:


> First the unicorn, and now the gold dragon???
> 
> What will they come up with next, a good-aligned PC lich?
> 
> -- 77IM




A) There has been a Good lich since 2nd ed Spelljammer: the Arch Lich
(Spelljammer monster compnediums gave us Neogi, Giff, and Giant Space Hamsters, which makes it the most awesome monster volumes since the original Fiend Folio!
"_Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!! Raaaaaargh!"_  )

B) The Arch Lich is an epic destiny in Arcane Power, so yes you CAN be a good aligned lich in 4th ed!


----------



## Obryn (Jun 5, 2009)

Derren said:


> To answer Obryns question.
> 
> Apart from my recent post not saying anything about slaughtering everything unaligned I do have noticed that players do have certain  predispositions when it comes with interacting with monsters. Not having any good monsters enforces the image that everything in the Monster Manual is an enemy.  Sure, experienced players know that this isn't so (generally), but what about new players? Many new players will be influenced by MMOs which have exactly that mindset. How should they know that not everything in the Monster Manual is supposed to be an enemy by default? Because the DM tells them? What if he is also new?



I think you're leaping to a lot of assumptions about new players, not all of which are warranted, IMHO.

For one thing, I don't know that anything will keep brand new young players from slaughtering everything in sight.  How many times have you heard people talk about running through the Keep on the Borderlands and killing everything in there for treasure?  I've heard it several times.  Not every group does - but it happens!

For new adult players, I have no idea what they'll do.  Probably the same thing they've done in the past - whatever's appropriate for the situation and  adventure.  If a DM sets up a gold dragon as dungeon dressing, I expect it will be killed.  If a DM sets it up as an NPC, I expect it won't be.

-O


----------



## Bumbles (Jun 5, 2009)

Derren said:


> I'd rather make up my own soulless statblocks, thank you very much. Please don't make WOTC waste space on something I consider junk.




Maybe you should just not buy the book then.  Or just buy it for the pretty pictures!  



> What is "junk" in an Monster Manual is highly subjective.




You don't say!  What a revelation!   

Sarcasm aside, that's exactly the problem.  People want different things, and what one person is looking for in a book may not be the same as somebody else.  I see some background information in some monster description, I prefer it to be generic rather than give me some fluff.  If they want to make fluff, I would prefer it to be in a campaign setting or something.  Things about Io, Vecna, Gruumsh, Bane, etc., they often mean nothing to me in my games.  Core books should be generic, that's how I like it.

And oh yeah, my statblocks do have souls.  So don't be discriminating!



> Apart from my recent post not saying anything about slaughtering everything unaligned I do have noticed that players do have certain  predispositions when it comes with interacting with monsters. Not having any good monsters enforces the image that everything in the Monster Manual is an enemy.  Sure, experienced players know that this isn't so (generally), but what about new players? Many new players will be influenced by MMOs which have exactly that mindset. How should they know that not everything in the Monster Manual is supposed to be an enemy by default? Because the DM tells them? What if he is also new?




That tendency existed prior to MMOs, and has long been a factor in the game.  If you want to deal with it, I suggest some advice articles, but then you may find many folks just enjoy fragfests.  Some don't.  People play whatever game they like, best you can do is offer some opinions.


----------



## cwhs01 (Jun 6, 2009)

I'll agree with you on this one.
 I'd quite like a little more background info together with the statblock. I don't find either to be imposibly difficult to come up with myself, but it would save a lot of time to have both. And i kinda miss the physical descriptions of monsters like size, weight or colorscheme in addition to generel ecology and behaviour of the monster. Just a few lines would be fine. 




Derren said:


> I'd rather make up my own soulless statblocks, thank you very much. Please don't make WOTC waste space on something I consider junk.





I do believe system matters (borrowing from Forge terminology i think). 

If, as an example, in your games it is important to know exactly how good a pc is at crafting a bow or how good a smith you are, then the associated skills matter. Not having them in the game makes it less suitable for your preferred playstyle.
But i disagree that the lack in 4e of a number of skills present in 3e, means that 4e fails for all playstyles, and especially that it means 4e is only suitable for dungeoncrawl hackfests. I believe that the rules are adequate for games where it is relatively unimportant how good a cook a PC actually is. Which i would guess would be a lot or even most games.

 I also don't believe that changing dragons alignment is objectively worsening the game. 
It is mostly a change to the implied setting and may change how people new to the game, play the game compared to how it was done in earlier editions. 

And so?

I do not believe that you can play DnD the wrong way. Unless youre not having fun, and then you properbly should make some changes or be playing something else.


----------

