Metallic Dragons: Unaligned!?

[Obryn]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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".

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]

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.

(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]

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]

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".

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.