Metallic Dragons: Unaligned!?

[Regicide]

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]

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

 

[KarinsDad]

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]

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?

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]

(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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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".

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.