D&D 5E Do you find alignment useful in any way?

[FrozenNorth]

That is interesting. So damage type is more defining of who gets along? The Haughty and Cruel get along better with the Gregarious more so than with Vain and territorial creatures, if the damage type matches.

This looks to me like you are suggesting that you would have difficulties placing red dragons (CE) in the City of Brass. Huh. Seems like instead of opening possibilities, alignment is closing them off.

Also, what alignment is Haughty and Cruel? What about Gregarious? Can a monster be LN and still very friendly?

But to answer your question, yes, it makes a lot more sense that a creature with a fire theme would be found in the City of Brass whatever its alignment rather than an ice-themed LE creature (or even an lightning-themed dragon, like blues).

Maybe it makes sense for them to work together even if they have different outlooks. Maybe one is enslaved by the other. Maybe this particular red dragon (or this group of them) rejects stereotypes.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Uh...yep.

If it's that random then its "personality" and tendencies will (assuming the party don't just kill it in three rounds!) emerge during play, and I'll tag an alignment on from that. Why? Because while this one monster might be random the first time I plop it in it's also setting a lot of precedents for any others of its type that might be encountered later.

Why does it matter? If you can't even be arsed to read a short description of monster before using it, what possible difference would it make for the cohesion of your setting whether one random angry thing was chaotic neutral or lawful evil? And if you want all things of one species for some reason be the same, why does it matter what that same is? If you once decided that a random monster X behaved in certain way, then all later monsters X can behave in the same way. Why does it matter whether that was based on alignment or just something you made up?

 

[FrozenNorth]

Does the War between the Githyanki and Githzerai also bother you, since they are so similar except for their outlooks?

Why should it? Does it bother you since apparently the Githyanki (LE) are particularly noted for riding red dragons (CE) into battle?

 

[Lanefan]

Why does it matter? If you can't even be arsed to read a short description of monster before using it,

Description? What description?

If I'm using something that random, chances are I'm making it up as I go along. Which means I then have to note down for later such description as I can, for consistency when another one is met three years later.

 

[FrozenNorth]

So 5 or 6 statblocks for each species instead of one.

Couldn't the same thing be achieved by using a 3e-like series of templates? E.g. you've got the baseline statblock for each creature then if you want a beefed-up version you overlay the "leader" template on it, or the "soldier" template, etc.

If nothing else this would save a boatload of page space: you only have to print the variants once, instead of once for each species.

Specifically for 4e, the differences between enemy types (brutes, leaders, skirmishers, lurkers and controllers) were sufficiently different that a template wasn’t enough. Plus different enemies with the same role were also very different.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Description? What description?

If I'm using something that random, chances are I'm making it up as I go along. Which means I then have to note down for later such description as I can, for consistency when another one is met three years later.

Then do so! What do you need the alignment for?

 

[Maxperson]

Why should it? Does it bother you since apparently the Githyanki (LE) are particularly noted for riding red dragons (CE) into battle?

The original Githyanki where that lore comes from were not set as LE. They were any evil, which means plenty of CE among them, matching the Red Dragon alignment.

 

[Maxperson]

Double post

 

[Vaalingrade]

So 5 or 6 statblocks for each species instead of one.

Couldn't the same thing be achieved by using a 3e-like series of templates? E.g. you've got the baseline statblock for each creature then if you want a beefed-up version you overlay the "leader" template on it, or the "soldier" template, etc.

If nothing else this would save a boatload of page space: you only have to print the variants once, instead of once for each species.

Well for one, that did exist. There were 'templates' for each class that could be attached to monsters.

However, templates take a lot more work and require a homogeneous base. In practice, a family of critters was defined by a unifying power and that power and the family theme informed how the different roles actually plated. So kobolds all worked around thier Shifty ability that let them slide around the battlefield without taking AoOs for example. So a template didn't really service the concept as well as making the new role for that monster.

Also, 4e 'CR' was actually just level, so the 3e style 'template adds +CR' deal wasn't really a thing. What templates there were just added versatility rather than power.

So every species then ends up being mentally just the same as Humans. Why, when we already have Humans for that?

Being mentally different has nothing to do with randomly calling some people's dumber than others (IE 'Our Elves Are Just Better') Being mentally different can mean having different thought and learning processes and biological needs that dictate them. There's no reason for orcs to be dumber than humans if they have an actual different set of imperatives.

 

[Maxperson]

Posting error. Kept saying problem happened rather than informing me of post.