NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Erich the Fuzzy" data-source="post: 9706987" data-attributes="member: 7015978">I'm a little bugged by the inconsistency with alignments for NPCs in this book. I have reluctantly accepted WotC's concept that many traditionally evil monster species (races) no longer have a standard alignment, but that was just to emphasize that specific individuals could have any alignment. Yet in this book, many of them don't. In some adventures, all the NPCs (including key monsters, e.g. dragons) have an alignment. In others, none of them do. And in some, only some of them do (usually the secretly/unexpectedly evil NPC). As a DM, I would really like the NPCs to all have their alignment listed, since it helps me figure out their basic drives - are they more kind/helpful (good) or more selfish/spiteful (evil), do they try to meet their goals in an organized fashion (lawful) or spur-of-the-moment FAFO (chaotic), etc. What the book does (usually) state is their initial condition of friendly/indifferent/hostile but I'd still like to have their alignment spelled out because that doesn't change with an influence check.If the idea was that an orc, or an elf, kobold, gnome, halfling, etc. could be of any alignment, then since I'm not falling back on a standard racial alignment (which the MM no longer has), you should be telling me the alignment of this individual so I know better how to play them, at least their default reaction/strategy. Am I to assume that all non-stated alignments are just neutral? Are townsfolk generally good? (That depends so much on the mood of the narrative). I feel this is a failing, especially since they did list alignments in some of the adventures. Why not make it a standard component?</blockquote>

Verification