D&D General Keys from the Golden Vault look through.

[MonsterEnvy]

I'm not trying to have an argument. I just said this wasn't what I thought of as a heist and got jumped on by people using new-to-me definitions of what a heist is. Rock on, guys. I hope it's a good adventure for you; it's just clearly not for me.

Why is it not a heist I want to know, because someone else is paying the party to steal?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Why is it not a heist I want to know, because someone else is paying the party to steal?

I've already explained this several times. I don't know why people want to fight about this. Enjoy your book.

 

[pukunui]

Why is it not a heist I want to know, because someone else is paying the party to steal?

I guess it's not a heist if it's for altruistic reasons. It can only be a heist if it's for personal gain.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

I guess it's not a heist if it's for altruistic reasons. It can only be a heist if it's for personal gain.

Ahh that is nonsense.

 

[pukunui]

Man, I'm pretty keen to get this book now, but I'm not going to give into temptation and get the bundle for the early access on DDB. I'm simply not going to do it. And that's not just because I got burned with DL but also because I want the special cover version. I'll be patient and get this from my FLGS. I do have a birthday coming up next month, after all.

 

[Maxperson]

If it is metallic dragons behind the Golden Vault, it couldn't be Gold or Silver or Bronze, not by their RAW alignment (=lawful good)

That only leaves Brass and Copper.

Lawful does not have to equate to laws. You can be all about order, which might involve breaking some mortal laws to bring about. Gold dragons can be behind it.

 

[Emoshin]

Lawful does not have to equate to laws. You can be all about order, which might involve breaking some mortal laws to bring about. Gold dragons can be behind it.

I think gold dragons would at least have respect the laws of mortals. Even if they don't necessarily agree with them. That respect and consideration to others is a sign of goodness, at least for me.

Like if you are belonging to one religion, and you respect another person for their religious traditions, even if you don't agree with all the details -- that to me is some mix of goodness and lawfulness.

As I said elsewhere, for me, D&D is an escape from reality. Goodness actually means something in fantasy heroic genre. For me, it degrades the whole point of alignment if lawful goodness is diminished in the way you suggest.

(Not that I am a huge fan of alignment, but I'm just working with what's in the game)

 

[Maxperson]

To be fair, the Yawning Portal is a really, really dumb idea.

Yes, let's put a giant pit in the middle of a room full of drunks. Sure, the pit goes down to where a bunch of dangerous monsters are, but don't worry: The drunks are all armed.

That's not what happened. There was a well that went down into Undermountain and the inn was built around it. Halaster also wouldn't allow denizens to attack up the well, because he doesn't want the big guns coming down after him.

 

[Maxperson]

I think gold dragons would at least have respect the laws of mortals. Even if they don't necessarily agree with them. That respect and consideration to others is a sign of goodness, at least for me.

Like if you are belonging to one religion, and you respect another person for their religious traditions, even if you don't agree with all the details -- that to me is some mix of goodness and lawfulness.

As I said elsewhere, for me, D&D is an escape from reality. Goodness actually means something in fantasy heroic genre. For me, it degrades the whole point of alignment if lawful goodness is diminished in the way you suggest.

(Not that I am a huge fan of alignment, but I'm just working with what's in the game)

Do you think that the gold dragons should have respect for evil laws? Legal slavery?

 

[Emoshin]

Do you think that the gold dragons should have respect for evil laws? Legal slavery?

Nope, because the goodness part overrides the lawful part in that respect. And that's not at all what I meant in the quote that you quoted me from.