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.
Neither does alignment in any sort of mechanical way. I'd expect a statistic to have a mechanical effect.
I think alignment in 4E remains as a categorical limiter, at least in terms of a "what warbands would this guy be in" sense. You'd keep the Chaotic Evil creatures away from the Unaligned creatures, etc etc. It's shorthand for behavior and attitude. It has no effect other than one of grouping like-minded creatures and NPCs together.
This is not a bad thing in and of itself, but I think what the designers may have been trying to go for is a sense of allegiance or attitude rather than alignment. In other words, as has been said several times already, you want to know whose side the NPC or creature is on. That determines a number of things, not the least of which is whether it's OK to inflict serious violence upon it.
I think alignment in 4E remains as a categorical limiter, at least in terms of a "what warbands would this guy be in" sense. You'd keep the Chaotic Evil creatures away from the Unaligned creatures, etc etc. It's shorthand for behavior and attitude. It has no effect other than one of grouping like-minded creatures and NPCs together.
This is not a bad thing in and of itself, but I think what the designers may have been trying to go for is a sense of allegiance or attitude rather than alignment. In other words, as has been said several times already, you want to know whose side the NPC or creature is on. That determines a number of things, not the least of which is whether it's OK to inflict serious violence upon it.
Cheers,
Cam
I still don't think that's what I'd call a mechanical effect. (Or a statistic, for that matter.) For a minis wargame like DDM the "factions" explanation would make sense, but for an RPG it doesn't really fly for me.
I think alignment in 4E remains as a categorical limiter, at least in terms of a "what warbands would this guy be in" sense. You'd keep the Chaotic Evil creatures away from the Unaligned creatures, etc etc. It's shorthand for behavior and attitude. It has no effect other than one of grouping like-minded creatures and NPCs together.
I dunno about that, Cam; from what I've seen, 4E tends to have more encounters with creatures of mixed alignment than previous editions. For example, Chaotic Evil creatures are often encountered with both Evil and Unaligned creatures. (Unaligned creatures can and do appear with everybody.) Since these three alignments make up 99% of the alignments possessed by enemies in the typical 4E encounter (of which probably half are Unaligned), it's probably a lot more useful to group enemies by their "faction" (if any) within the dungeon. Rather than worrying about a creature's moral outlook, it's better to be concerned with which interests the monster is pursuing, and whether or not they are contrary to the interests of the PCs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Invisible Stalker
It bothered me about as long as it took for me to take out a pen and change the alignments to what I wanted.
If I DM, chromatic dragons are evil and metallic dragons are good. End of discussion.
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.
A little hyperbolic, maybe, but I basically agree, at least as far as 4e is concerned. It was useful in previous MM's for an at-a-glance reference for behavior, but if it's in an MM in 4e, it wants to try to kill you somehow, so that's how it's going to behave. I'm not sure that's a wise thing for an MM to be, but for what it is now, alignment isn't very useful, and is, yeah, mostly just taking up space in the monster entry.
A little hyperbolic, maybe, but I basically agree, at least as far as 4e is concerned. It was useful in previous MM's for an at-a-glance reference for behavior, but if it's in an MM in 4e, it wants to try to kill you somehow, so that's how it's going to behave. I'm not sure that's a wise thing for an MM to be, but for what it is now, alignment isn't very useful, and is, yeah, mostly just taking up space in the monster entry.
I don't think that's a very reasonable stance, either. The MM may have backed off from the "This is a Bestiary of the ENTIRE WORLD" concept, but not every adversary will be fought with and/or killed. Conflict <> Fighting.
The combat stats are good in case that does happen, but just because a creature is in the Monster Manual doesn't make them automatic random encounter table dungeon dressing.
So in a number of threads I've seen people upset by the change in the metallic dragons (like the Gold Dragons) that used to be LG becoming unaligned. I don't really have an opinion on the actual change itself, other then it doesn't bother me. But I am curious from people that it does bother-
Why is that?
What would keeping the creature the LG alignment offer to the game? What makes the creature's alignment being LG so important? Why is changing it from LG to unaligned so problematic for you?
It's another break with the past of the game, a break that's piled upon quite a few of them already, and already discussed in plenty of other edition debating (sometimes even warring) threads.
How necessary was it to change it? Was it "broken" before? What's the purpose of the change? To carve out more of a separate conceptual space for 4e compared to editions 1-3? To give parties of heroes another type of dragon to kill without anybody feeling guilty?
For those people who are irked at the change (like others before it), why would their familiar-for-decades conception of the core gold dragon not be suitable for 4e?
For me, it's another illustration that 4e really is trying to forge a separate and different product identity from the 1e-3e line of games.
__________________ Bill D
"There's a fine line between a superpower and a chronic medical condition."
- Doctor Impossible
So it's not the usablity of the monster that is the issue, it's the fact that there was a change and that some people like the change, some hate the change, some are unconcerned at that change.
I see it the same way, for example, FR fans deal with change to their setting. Some people continued using 1e FR in 2e, some use 3e FR in 4e. The point is, the stats and rules change, but the fluff isn't incinerated. It's still usable, it still exists both on paper and in one's mind. Just because the 4e MM2 says Gold Dragons are Unaligned, that isn't exactly set in stone any more than any of their more mechanical stats are.
The reason for the change is obvious. Yes, the MM has fightable monsters in it. Like Obryn said, they can be fought, but they need not necessarily be fought. The point of the MM is monsters that can be adversaries. But even a devil can be bargained with.
And honestly, powerful dragons that are greedy and unconcerned with mortals makes more sense to me that all-powerful altruistic creatures.
And honestly, powerful dragons that are greedy and unconcerned with mortals makes more sense to me that all-powerful altruistic creatures.
I can imagine them being unconcerned but greedy treasure lovers is something common on literature, fantasy tales and RPGs but doesn't work very well in my head. Why would them need treasure? They don't even shapeshift to spend all that gold on girls anymore hehehe...
And "all-powerful altruistic" is as bad as "all-power we are evil just because", in my opinion.
Still thinking they should removed all alignment and idea of good or evil races on 4E.
__________________ And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make
Some have mentioned that they like having good dragons because 1) they are good antagonists for evil PC's, and 2) they make great cohorts/allied NPCs for good PCs.
#1 is a fine reason for good dragons in many games. But since evil PCs aren't part of the core player rules, it makes sense that the core monster rules don't worry about antagonists for evil PCs.
(It's a bit of a side issue, but personally I like the decision not to include evil PCs in the core rules. Evil PCs can work great in many games, but can also be a big source of trouble. So if, say, I'm going to play a game with a bunch of people I don't know, it's just as well that none of them will show up with an evil PC. If evil PCs were even mentioned in the PH as an option, someone will show up with one saying "you have to let me be evil, it's in the book." If your game does have evil PC's, you're already "off book" and presumably smart enough to change the official alignment of the dragons to suit.)
#2 is more problematic, but here I don't think it's an issue strictly of the alignment of the dragons. It's a general problem. Monsters are built to fight PCs, not other monsters. So they don't make good cohorts or allies in battle. In general I think it's good that monsters' combat stats are built this way, since 95%+ of the time they'll be fighting PCs. But it would be nice if there were some simple modifications you could do to any monster to make it more "cohort-ready".
(It's a bit of a side issue, but personally I like the decision not to include evil PCs in the core rules. Evil PCs can work great in many games, but can also be a big source of trouble. So if, say, I'm going to play a game with a bunch of people I don't know, it's just as well that none of them will show up with an evil PC. If evil PCs were even mentioned in the PH as an option, someone will show up with one saying "you have to let me be evil, it's in the book." If your game does have evil PC's, you're already "off book" and presumably smart enough to change the official alignment of the dragons to suit.)
I've seen this before, and I still don't understand it. You're essentially saying "I didn't have campaigns with evil characters, so I'm glad WotC took away that option from other groups who did." Because here's the thing - in your group, there's no change. You didn't have evil characters. Now you...continue to not have evil characters. But now other groups have lost that option.
It's lose all around. You've gained nothing. Other groups lost something. Nobody gained anything.
It's like if there's a group who never used wizards, and then WotC explicitly made rules that didn't support wizard characters. Everyone who likes wizards would be pissed, but that one group that goes "Well my group never had wizards, so I like this change, and you'll just have to deal with it."
Secondly, this topic doesn't really make sense. When a big change is made, you have to defend the reasons for making the change. You don't demand others to give you reasons not to change something. Change for the sake of change is dumb. And yes, count me in as someone who finds zero excitement in having yet another dragon statblock to through at the enemy. Monster Manual is now "Book of Stats to Kill."
__________________ 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!"
I've seen this before, and I still don't understand it. You're essentially saying "I didn't have campaigns with evil characters, so I'm glad WotC took away that option from other groups who did." Because here's the thing - in your group, there's no change. You didn't have evil characters. Now you...continue to not have evil characters. But now other groups have lost that option.
It's lose all around. You've gained nothing. Other groups lost something. Nobody gained anything.
It's like if there's a group who never used wizards, and then WotC explicitly made rules that didn't support wizard characters. Everyone who likes wizards would be pissed, but that one group that goes "Well my group never had wizards, so I like this change, and you'll just have to deal with it."
I was probably not too clear in my post, because this is a side issue... in brief, I'm glad WotC took away the default option for evil PCs, because evil PCs tend to be problematic. Not always by any means, but there's definitely been a tendency in my experience. So I think it's for the best that evil PCs do not show up in default play circumstances, such as the "bunch of random people I don't know roll up characters and meet for a one-shot" scenario I mentioned. In that particular scenario I'm personally happy to trade the "somebody playing an evil character in an interesting and mature way" possibility for the "someone playing an evil character as an excuse to be a jerk" possibility. The latter is far more likely IME. (Though truth be told, I haven't really participated in that kind of scenario for many years, have things changed?)
I also think it's probably better for groups with little or no play experience who are basically going with what is found in the core books and nothing else. It will be helpful for that sort of group to all be on the same page or at least not actively at cross purposes. Evil PCs just can open up a lot of social and table issues that may be hard to deal with. (Not will or must, but can.) Why risk having those sort of issues crop up with a "newbie" group and possibly spoil their impression of the game?
I also don't see how WotC has "taken away the option" for your group to run with evil PC's. Your group can of course play however it likes - it's not the "default" group I'm talking about. If WotC omitted wizards, then sure that would impact your group's ability to have wizards, since a wizard class involves a lot of rule support you'd naturally look to WotC to provide.
But is there rule support for evil PCs that you feel is lacking? Maybe I have a blind spot here, but it seems like you don't need a bunch of rules from WotC for that. Instead, you need some conversation about expectations, boundaries, and perhaps ground rules that will be specific to your group and your campaign. WotC can't provide that.
)
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
