General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
Once, just once I would like someone to tell me why the old fluff was worthwhile beyond "it's the stuff I remember from my childhood".
Kamikaze Midget has already hit the "Good dragon archetype" that these creatures used to fill and no longer do; on a related note, the good dragons solve the problem that 4E's designers noted with the aasimar--how do you make something both good and cool? They serve as an example that goodness need not be weak or dull.
However, this may make the older fluff a bad fit for 4E, which seems to believe that 'Goodness=PCs and only PCs,' and really doesn't seem that big on encouraging the PCs to be good either. (Yes, I'm cranky, prejudiced, and may not be entirely fair on this point.)
There seemed to me to be a kind of "Law Bad, Chaos Good" thrust during 2e. Even Planescape had reflections of this, and it loved twisting with alignment:
Hmm...it varied. Ravenloft suggested that Lawful Good was the real antithesis to the land, and Chaotic Evil was the lowest of the low and the direction it would often drag its victims towards. Paladins and, optionally, LG clerics would set off 'alarm bells', and forced alignment shifts tended to move in the Chaotic Evil direction (half-giants left alone in Ravenloft, undead under the Requiem rules). Van Richten, the setting's iconic hero, was a Lawful Good thief, after all. Of course, "some of Ravenloft's most fiendish creatures are of lawful evil alignment." (Domains of Dread, p. 9) Given that that same source said that "players have a tendency to see that which is chaotic as evil and to judge those who are lawful as good," I wonder if the emphasis on Chaotic Good and Lawful Evil themes in some products wasn't meant as a reaction against a perceived bias that sometimes went overboard.
Quote:
I think this went kind of along with 2e's praise of elves as more awesome than anything. Not sure if it existed before then, but that's when I started to notice it.
Does that really manifest that much outside of the Complete Book of Elves? Most of my 2E lore deals with Ravenloft, where elves are rare and largely Dragonlancian, and Dragonlance, where elves are often portrayed in a snobbish and unflattering light. I know the Realms had a lot of powerful elves.
Maybe it was the Tolkien influence--although Tolkien's elves tend more Lawful Good, with noteworthy exceptions.
Last edited by Matthew L. Martin; 6th June 2009 at 05:57 AM..
I think there's always going to be an essential problem for some people to agree to both "the heroes are good guys" and "the heroes kill the bad monsters and take their treasure." Bravely stalking through dungeons and heroically overcoming obstacles is one thing, but the general consensus is that the evil monsters need to be beaten, overcome, or killed in some fashion, and that this is rarely seen as a bad thing by the LG or G players.
I wonder how many people play nonviolent PCs?
It's a tangent of a sort, but entirely relevant. What do the good dragons do? I agree that they're a classic archetype and want them to remain so, but what's their purpose when 4E seems intent on delivering a "kill the bad monster" ethic most of the time?
I think someone else said it best when they commented on how 4e might as well change alignments into either Alignment: PC or Alignment: DM.
__________________ Psionics are too sci-fi, not like the traditional method of spell casting that has existed only in D&D, involves research, laboratory work, and formulas, and was cribbed directly from a series of science fiction novels. I mean, come on, calling forth the power to alter the world from your own center of will? That's not magical in the slightest! Not at all like my wizard's spell "Telepathy!"
Obviously you have no intention of discussing alignment, so I'm going to avoid further trouble and not respond to this flamebait anymore.
Finally, FWIW, you failed in your stated intention: not once in your post did even attempt to explain why the old fluff was worth keeping, barring the response that that's how it always was. Or maybe you think you succeeded, because you never actually mentioned "childhood". Bravo.
I am not trying to "flamebait" anybody, someone wanted to know why the old flavor/setting material was worth keeping and it offended people to remove, so I answered honestly.
You might not agree with it, and it seems like you don't want to discuss any viewpoint that you don't agree with, but that is my viewpoint. From what I can tell, I'm far from the only person who thinks this, and for us tradition of the game is a very valid reason not to change major aspects of the "fluff" of D&D, and the alignment of a pretty iconic creature like the Gold Dragon is something I would definitely not say is a minor aspect.
If you play D&D to have fun, playing a game you are familiar with and comfortable with is a lot of that to people, and a game that doesn't feel familiar and comfortable doesn't have that certain intangible "D&D vibe", and a lot of that familiarity and comfort zone is the general sense of continuity in "fluff". Sorry, but that's the way it is for many of us.
Just because you don't agree with me doesn't mean I am trying to "flamebait" anybody. This is what I really believe, this is one of several reasons why I don't play or like 4e, and I was trying to explain why big changes like the 4e alignment changes offend a number of D&D players and have created the split in the player base that has lead to the "Edition Wars".
And now ask yourself why you remembered them?
Maybe because they were different?
Too bad that they are now the default in D&D. No more wonder when you meet an uncaring or even evil metallic dragon. Thats expected behaviour as they are just unaligned monsters like Hook Horrors.
__________________ Everything about RPGs is subjective, so everything I say about them is I my opinion and not hard facts
Having a backstory is good. Using this backstory in game is better. And for that you need background skills.
4E, the game where you play HSMFOS
Heroic
Only good, or at least unaligned adventurers are supported and no monster you can fight is good aligned.
Super-
The PCs become masters in any skill automatically and it is impossible for them to be bad at a mundane task
Mutants
Compared to NPCs of the same strength, PCs poses a ungodly amount of HP and can withstand huge mountains of punishment. That or they can spontaneously regenerate wounds.
From Outer Space
Yet despite no matter how powerful the PCs become, they can never do anything special what the "natives" (=NPCs) can do like animating a skeleton.
Another solution to this alignment problem is to wait for the second droconomicon to come out. The issue is one of fluff, so why not see what the fluff book says? The MM is mostly fighting stats for people that make their own stories up. I'm sure with more pages the writers will give you good dragons of some sort.
I never understood why a creature with godlike power should give a about humanity anyway. I also really hate the idea of making any sort of judgement about character based on skin color or other appearance. Some call that PC, but I think it's more a reflection of an evolving culture and more mature storytelling.
Two whole books just on dragons seem excessive, but it's what the upset people have been crying for. It's WotC paying lip service (that sells) to the color-coded dragons of tradition. Be happy that your pet monster gets two books worth of extended material and let the MM entry be ambiguous.
There have been several instances here with people getting personal and generally being snarky jerks. You know who you are. Consider yourself warned. Play nice, please.
I wonder if the emphasis on Chaotic Good and Lawful Evil themes in some products wasn't meant as a reaction against a perceived bias that sometimes went overboard.
Good point. I've heard legends about how "chaotic = evil" during early D&D days, so I wouldn't be surprised if that was partially the case.
4e definitely has a more "lawful = good" vibe going on, but it's also not particularly keen on encouraging people to be capital-G-Good, which is probably OK.
Quote:
Does that really manifest that much outside of the Complete Book of Elves?
It crept in a few places. I remember Monster Mythology having a heaping helping of it. I did usually prefer the "aloof, snobbish" look for elves, myself.
Back on topic!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cam Banks
It's a tangent of a sort, but entirely relevant. What do the good dragons do? I agree that they're a classic archetype and want them to remain so, but what's their purpose when 4E seems intent on delivering a "kill the bad monster" ethic most of the time?
Now this is a fun question!
I've been playing around with the idea of "patronage powers" in my 4e campaign. The PC's have a choice of adventures to go on, a lot of people clamoring for their help. Part of the incentive is that if they choose a particular person, they gain a "patronage power" over the course of the adventure related to that person's goal. Use them with APs or at Milestones.
So say you sign on to help a Gold Dragon: maybe you get powers of luck and fire, sunlight and flight. Help an Angel, maybe powers of defensive magic and healing.
I'd also like to see social encounters with these beasts. Convincing it to avoid burning the town where the thieves are hiding; convincing it to give up a piece of treasure for the PC's to use (no easy task, especially if what the PC's want to use it for might not be entirely good!).
Information as a mount or as an NPC ally are also extremely useful. Who doesn't want to ride into the thick of evil on the back of a shining gold dragon? How is that NOT one of the coolest images in heroic fantasy?
And I honestly don't begrudge the existence of non-Good variants that they can plunk down a stat block for (this Gold Dragon is possessed by a demon! It has demonic gold dragon powers of awesome evil coolness!), but I want the baseline Lawful Good Gold Dragon.
That might mean that normal gold dragons don't appear in the Monster Manual, but only in the Draconomicon or something.
That's perfectly OK with me. I'd rather have a useful gold dragon than another monster stat block.
On some level I can see the rationale behind the 4e idea of 'if it's good you don't fight it, and PCs as heroes don't fight good creatures, and you don't need stats if you don't fight it', I find it too constraining as a default. It's in some ways similar in tone to the things that early 2e was often attacked for: being too goody-goody, except here in 4e it's part of the core assumptions (all PCs are heroes, heroes do this, and nothing outside of this really be supported).
I find an absolutely delicious glee as a DM in providing moral quandries, and when appropriate, using good creatures as antagonists. They might be misguided, they might be right and the PCs wrong, and yes even two good aligned people can be fighting with both of them being true to their alignments.
And of course, they're free game for use when I have a party of PCs comprised of various flavors of neutral or even evil characters. My current campaign has such upstanding individuals as a NE/CE tiefling worshipper of Shar, a sorceress who's the offspring of a greater yugoloth and a fallen guardinal, a half-drow wizard with a living manifestation of Baator sitting on his shoulder, a rakshasa from a banished noble house in Acheron, a psion with questionable sanity, and to balance them out a NG cleric and his LG fighter cohort. Even evil people can have friends and shared goals.
I've usually skewed towards evil enemies in all of my campaigns, but again when appropriate, I've used good creatures just as much. Removing good creatures out of some wierd desire to straightjacket PC concepts and campaign flavor is misguided in my opinion, and rather annoying. Scrubbing the serial numbers from previously good creatures and making them unaligned in 4e isn't a good solution either, because while you still technically have the creature, it's no longer the same outside of the name and superficial appearance perhaps. You still have the thematic restrictions built into the game's precepts, rather than there being a big tent approach to what campaigns can contain.
Some folks are going to immediately say that including good monsters and their stats is a waist of space. Fair enough if you only use monsters for PCs to fight. But again that restricts others from using them as antagonists for evil PCs, or even occasionally for neutral or good PCs as well. And I've heavily used good monsters as allies and NPC cohorts in my games, and I think something is lost in that regard by shutting the door on good monsters in 4e material.
That's my take on the matter.
__________________ "I can just see the 4e adventure anthology "Tale from the Limited Staircase"." - Ken Marable
All of those are good ideas, KM. Maybe we will see them in a Draconomicon or DMG. Having them unaligned though, doesn't discount them from being patrons or negotiating or what have you. In fact, it makes it equally likely you could use them as a monster or a friendly NPC.
All of those are good ideas, KM. Maybe we will see them in a Draconomicon or DMG. Having them unaligned though, doesn't discount them from being patrons or negotiating or what have you. In fact, it makes it equally likely you could use them as a monster or a friendly NPC.
Right. Like I pointed out upthread, that's not really the point.
Right. Like I pointed out upthread, that's not really the point.
Fair enough. We can agree to disagree. I do a lot of modding to monsters already, changing one word to another in the stat block would be fairly trivial.
Fair enough. We can agree to disagree. I do a lot of modding to monsters already, changing one word to another in the stat block would be fairly trivial.
I agree with you there, but, again, modding the statblock isn't really the point. We can certainly agree to disagree that the proper role for the Gold Dragon in D&D is to be that archetypal good dragon, or that the good dragon archetype is something that D&D even needs, of course.
I agree with you there, but, again, modding the statblock isn't really the point. We can certainly agree to disagree that the proper role for the Gold Dragon in D&D is to be that archetypal good dragon, or that the good dragon archetype is something that D&D even needs, of course.
I find it difficult to even consider alignment in the statblock.
I mean, it's certainly a word that is found within the stat block, but given that it has no mechanical effects, I don't think it belongs there. It's not really a statistic as such in 4e.
If eye color were added to the stat block, it'd be "in the stat block" too. And it would have just as much effect on the creature's use in the game.
Eyecolor doesn't influence any assumptions of behavior, interaction with PCs, and role however.
Neither does alignment as far as I'm concerned. NPC's behave in the manner that they are needed to behave. All a printed alignment really accomplishes is a metagame expectation on the part of players that happen to have read the MM. IMHO of course.
__________________ Oni
"Each man, one way.
Each horse, one stance.
Each church, one buddha.
Each master to his own technique."
Of course, "some of Ravenloft's most fiendish creatures are of lawful evil alignment." (Domains of Dread, p. 9) Given that that same source said that "players have a tendency to see that which is chaotic as evil and to judge those who are lawful as good," I wonder if the emphasis on Chaotic Good and Lawful Evil themes in some products wasn't meant as a reaction against a perceived bias that sometimes went overboard.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
