Metallic Dragons: Unaligned!?

[Obryn]

Gold Dragons used to be Lawful Good. Now they're not. That cuts against some widely-held assumptions...and I can't agree that doing so is good for the game.

Well, I guess we're even because I can't see how it's bad for the game.

-O

 

[Derren]

Well, I guess we're even because I can't see how it's bad for the game.

-O

Except that it destroys much of fluff from previous editions (which is the main source of fluff for 4E)?

Lets turn it around. How it is good for the game?
When a change doesn't make something better, don't change it.

 

[Usumcasane]

So if you are a long-time player with assumptions about D&D monsters, you can easily ignore the alignment in the MM, no? If you are a brand new player, you don't have those assumptions to begin with, so nothings been ruined.

If you assign your monsters an ethos and place in your game world based on what the MM tells you it should be, I don't think you're using your imagination and creativity enough.

 

[Derren]

So if you are a long-time player with assumptions about D&D monsters, you can easily ignore the alignment in the MM, no? If you are a brand new player, you don't have those assumptions to begin with, so nothings been ruined.

If you assign your monsters an ethos and place in your game world based on what the MM tells you it should be, I don't think you're using your imagination and creativity enough.

And nothing has been gained either.
And when you not change monsters before placing them in your game you are uncreative?

 

[KarinsDad]

If you assign your monsters an ethos and place in your game world based on what the MM tells you it should be, I don't think you're using your imagination and creativity enough.

So for people who for 30+ years (or even 3+ months) LIKED the flavor that was the default, you are telling us that we are not imaginative and creative enough?

Got it.

 

[Obryn]

Except that it destroys much of fluff from previous editions (which is the main source of fluff for 4E)?

Lets turn it around. How it is good for the game?
When a change doesn't make something better, don't change it.

I think I listed a few ways in which I think it's better for the game upthread.

What advantages are there? By changing most traditionally good creatures to Unaligned, WotC removed the possibility that players will try and shoehorn or coerce a creature's behaviors based on its alignment.

I can also look straight at a creature's motivations and give it whatever motivations I wish without the need to modify the Alignment line or pretend it's not there.

If something is Good, it implies a lot - namely, that it has some stake in fighting against Evil. If something is unaligned, it may have a stake in fighting against Evil, or it may not. Regardless, the PCs can't just beat a gold dragon with an alignment stick and say, "Hey! Go fix this problem!"

-O

 

[Usumcasane]

So for people who for 30+ years (or even 3+ months) LIKED the flavor that was the default, you are telling us that we are not imaginative and creative enough?

Got it.

Nope. I'm saying that if you can't revert back to that flavor because the new text says something else -- then you're uncreative.

 

[Derren]

Nope. I'm saying that if you can't revert back to that flavor because the new text says something else -- then you're uncreative.

Of course , you are equally uncreative when you are not able to change good dragons into unaligned ones if you want your players want to fight them more often.

 

[Usumcasane]

Of course , you are equally uncreative when you are not able to change good dragons into unaligned ones if you want your players want to fight them more often.

Naturally. Now who is more likely to be uncreative (at least initially)? People playing for many years/editions or brand new DMs? Which alignment type helps the uncreative design better encounters but leaves those that are quite creative free to adapt the monsters as they need too?

 

[Bumbles]

Except that it destroys much of fluff from previous editions (which is the main source of fluff for 4E)?

Except a perusal of the full entry for the Gold Dragon in the MM2 will tell you that it doesn't destroy any of that fluff AFAICT, let alone much of it.

At least, that's how I read it. How do you read it differently? What do you find objectionable?