D&D General Why are there Good Monsters in the Monster Manual?

[Hawk Diesel]

Well, one reason I can think of to include "good" monsters is because only the DM should be able to decide what a "good" monster is. Also, I'm glad that WOTC gives me the power decide what and how I use these things, rather than prescribing what is "appropriate" by only including "evil" creatures.

Additionally, the monster manual presents both lore and stat blocks. While WOTC has presented them as linked via their proximity in their presentation within the book does not mean they are inherently related. At anytime I could swap the planetar stat block and skin it as a hobgoblin, or take a Medusa and substitute the beholder's stats. In this way, the monster manual is more like a set of Legos than fixed toys. Yea, you could follow the instructions to create a Lego X-wing, but you could also go rogue and create anything with those pieces. The same goes for the tools presented in the monster manual.

 

[Oofta]

I have occasionally used the entries for good aligned monsters because they were allies, or in one case because the PC found out that she was really a silver dragon. In addition there's the case of the good monster that's been subverted or mistaken along with simply fighting because of different goals. Being good doesn't mean you always get along.

 

[Remathilis]

I recall 4e basically removed all "good" monsters from the MM, even gold dragons were unaligned at best because they wanted the MM to just be the stat-blocks for all the minis they were selling, and stats for something you aren't going to use in the skirmish system they were pushing at the time aren't useful. Many of the "good" creatures got recast into antagonist roles (angels, metallic dragons, dryad's, etc) and the few that remained were for summoning purposes (unicorn).

I'm glad they had backed off of that and allowed good creatures to exist. It made the game feel a little less nihilist that it's PC races vs. everyone else.

 

[collin]

For the same reason there are evil PCs. It's a whole diverse world. To assume all "monsters" are "bad" or evil is too limiting in thinking, just like assuming all PCs or NPCs will be "good".

 

[commandercrud]

It's in the Monster Manual. It must be killed.

 

[Gradine]

It's in the Monster Manual. It must be killed.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

4e really suffered because they had the attitude that "if it's good it shouldn't be in the Monster Manual" it made the game hollow and too much into "it's tactical game not a role-playing game".

 

[Maxperson]

So help me understand. Why are there Good Monsters in the Monster Manual? Were they always there? Do you use the stats, or just the lore?

In addition to the allies portion you mentioned, sometimes good creatures do bad things for the greater good. The Gold Dragon may have decided that wiping out a town infested with evil cultists is for the greater good of the world, because they are going to destroy the world if their plot succeeds and it would be next to impossible to make sure they are all found out, but your PCs might object and fight back.

 

[Micah Sweet]

For both of you, how often do you actually use the stats of Good Monsters, rather than just the lore?

If someone wants to fight an angel, I want to know how that fights going to go.

Can we please stop with the calls to remove content?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm old enough to remember when the good elves fought the good dwarves at the Battle of Five Armies

I was there, 4000 years ago. I was there when the strength of Men failed.