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.
I mean it. Good dragons come from Chinese myth. The concept of the dragon in Western myth is 100% evil, they represent greed and the devil.
Get your anime out of my traditional Western fantasy, Gary.
How did I miss this?
Good dragons are always 100% asian? You know, one of my great grandfathers, rest his soul, was Welsh. I'd like to think that, on hearing that, he'd laugh loud and hard at (not with) you for a good amount of time. Of course, he was Welsh, and as a traditional dour Welshman, he'd probably just glare at you for a very uncomfortable amount of time.
Alternate response!
You know what I see when I look at fighters and paladins? Let's look. Oh hey, a character who's represented purely by 1) his mastery over a weapon, or 2) his complete servility and dedication to his lord. They also wear highly decorative armor if you look at the armor illustrations, and they focus typically on just that one weapon of theirs. Know what fighters and paladins are? Samurai. God, Gary, get your eastern crap out of my western mythology!
__________________ 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!"
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."
So you've missed the parts where people have posted why they think Unaligned metallic dragons might, in fact, be better for the game?
Wait, what? The PH specifically says that the evil alignment is not for player characters. That's what I'm talking about.
If I'm DM of a group of random people for a one-shot and I say, "make characters using the options in the Player's Handbook", then evil characters are not one of those options. It's not a huge deal, but I do like that I don't have to specifically say "and no evil characters!" (If I don't mind evil characters, I don't mind having to specifically say, "Evil characters are ok.")
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.
Well, as was stated earlier, there are no good monsters. There are - to my knowledge, this might've changed - no feats for evil clerics, either. Lastly, there haven't been any of the more traditional forms of evil magic made available (again, I could be wrong there), like necromancy. There are others, those are just the three off the top of my head.
__________________ 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!"
Well, as was stated earlier, there are no good monsters. There are - to my knowledge, this might've changed - no feats for evil clerics, either. Lastly, there haven't been any of the more traditional forms of evil magic made available (again, I could be wrong there), like necromancy. There are others, those are just the three off the top of my head.
A partial answer to those concerns is that there is room for only so many monsters, feats, etc. There are inevitably going to be gaps as far as supporting specific styles of play.
As far as lack of good monsters, well, there's gold dragons, unicorns, couatl, angels... That was pretty much my original point, if you're diverging from the default by incorporating evil PCs, you might as well diverge from the default alignments for these beasties. But I suppose it's a fair point that there are fewer of the traditionally good beasties being provided overall (no matter what their official alignments).
I think a lack of evil cleric feats and other "evil" magic is maybe your most telling point, basically because of 4e's split between PC and NPC/monster mechanics. Unfortunately you can't lift a feature from an evil NPC cleric and paste it directly onto an evil PC cleric. You can get a fair amount of mileage out of some simple reskinning, at least - swap necrotic for radiant, etc. That's actually mentioned in one of the core books (DMG I think).
But again, WotC can only cover so much ground. It's a loss to groups that do enjoy having evil PCs, but as I've stated, I do think there are some sound reasons behind the decision not to cover that ground.
Good dragons are always 100% asian? You know, one of my great grandfathers, rest his soul, was Welsh. I'd like to think that, on hearing that, he'd laugh loud and hard at (not with) you for a good amount of time. Of course, he was Welsh, and as a traditional dour Welshman, he'd probably just glare at you for a very uncomfortable amount of time.
Oh, ok then, in deference to your dead great grandad I'll amend my claim.
The concept of the dragon in Western myth is 99% evil, they represent greed and the devil. And Wales.
Good dragons are still anime and if you like them that means you play Yu-Gi-Oh. The turning into human form power of gold and silver dragons also comes from Eastern mythology.
__________________ The female tiefling's horns are not 'handlebars'.
Every time I insult someone in a thread, I put on a fluffy tutu and pirouette around my living room! I like to cuddle Baby Tippytoes, my favorite My Little Pony, when I do. She helps remind me that moderators get tired of always telling someone to think before posting and not to insult people.
Last edited by Piratecat; 9th June 2009 at 07:46 AM..
Reason: La la la, slightly edited by Admin
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.
I think this here may be the primary reason that people are angry or disappointed. I think there is a pretty good correlation between how long one has played dnd and how likely you are to be offended by any of the changes in the new edition.
Familiarity with the implied setting and core assumptions from the last 30 years of dnd fluff is imo a good enough reason not to desire changes.
However, it IS a new edition and it isn't (exclusively) targeted towards people with 30 years of experience. It should be playable by people with no prior experience with rpgs (which it fails in slightly imo, as it is still a little to rules heavy to be an ideal game for beginners). It's a restart of the franchise, and the old paradigms should be reviewed and changed as needed.
The new implied setting focuses on the "points of light" concept. This mostly means that the pc's are the shining exemplars of good in a sea of darkness and conflict (using wotc's sales lingo). This also means that there will be few powerful allies to rely on for help, and that conflict can be found everywhere. Changing alignments is just one method used by wotc to promote the POL concept.
Changing alignments doesn't decrease the options for roleplaying and conflict, it just changes the implied setting. which depending on where you come from, may be a good thing or bad.
__________________ "hp evaluate the degree of script immunity of a character" - Ti-Bob
Wait, what? The PH specifically says that the evil alignment is not for player characters.
Character Builder does not agree with PHB
One more page and I'm still convinced that new players must be pigholed to the path of Gooooooood like some cartoon Paladin.
As cwhs01 said, removing good oponents from the book it's a way to promote the Points of Light idea of bold heroes fighting evil. No older edition pushed so much. Good for some, bad for my 4E games. That's ok.
I just don't know if this will work. Maybe you guys experience is different but if Wotc aims to attract a new generation the last thing I think they would want is to play Warriors of Light. The teenagers I DMed want fight, loot and have a good laugh. They don't hesitate stealing, cheating and killing if there's some fun in it. They're probably like 8 Bit Theater group, not gooood doers
(I'm just repeating myself again)
__________________ And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make
One more page and I'm still convinced that new players must be pigholed to the path of Gooooooood like some cartoon Paladin.
I'm on my 3rd campaign, and still not a single Good PC (no Evil PCs either...)
Of course, that might have to do with the threat of violence I issue my players should they be lazy and try to right down an alignment instead of personality traits on their sheet.
That was pretty much my original point, if you're diverging from the default by incorporating evil PCs, you might as well diverge from the default alignments for these beasties. But I suppose it's a fair point that there are fewer of the traditionally good beasties being provided overall (no matter what their official alignments).
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
