Metallic Dragons: Unaligned!?

[Bumbles]

And when you not change monsters before placing them in your game you are uncreative?

I believe I'd prefer to say "noncreative" or even "less creative" .

Which isn't a bad thing. Following a recipe isn't creative, but it can still make for some good soup.

 

[GrayLinnorm]

Why are the chromatics still evil? I read some of the preview books and heard talk about PCs helping a green dragon; it sounds like they should have made all dragons unaligned (or any alignment).

And if they're going to make angels unaligned, then demons and devils should be too (and vampires).

 

[Bumbles]

And if they're going to make angels unaligned, then demons and devils should be too (and vampires).

Not really. Angels are agents of deities and as such, may be found on all sides of the fence. Demons and devils are independent branches, they may serve deities, but they're generally out for themselves. Sure, they could have chosen to make them more generic, but I can see why WOTC did not choose to go that route in all things. But you can, as you can explore the concepts of demons, devils and vampires as not so bad guys, even if WOTC never goes there.

 

[77IM]

There are two arguments going on at once here. Just to clarify,

1. There's the question of whether the MM should include monsters of good alignment at all.

2. There's the question of whether metallic dragons in particular should be good and have matching flavor text.


Personally, I think that:

1. In 4e, individuals of a species can be any alignment. A good individual of an evil species is a really interesting hero: an outcast drow, a vampire that kills other vampires, or a demon struggling against his own infernal nature (IMHO the fact that tieflings are now unaligned makes them slightly less interesting as characters). Likewise, an evil individual of a good species often makes a great villain. For that to work, though, there need to be some good species!

2. I remember reading the monster entries in my Red Box Basic Set when I was 10 and noticing the unusual progression of dragon alignments, and the idea that gold dragons were good has stuck with me. Yet I don't care about most of the other monster changes in 4e. Why is that? Is it just me? It makes me think that they missed the mark on this one -- that there is something about good dragons that people really like.

-- 77IM

 

[Nail]

1. There's the question of whether the MM should include monsters of good alignment at all.

Has anyone argued that there shouldn't be? I must have missed that.

2. There's the question of whether metallic dragons in particular should be good and have matching flavor text.

I think some have argued here that the flavor text is all you need - the alignment adds nothing.

I disagree with that, within the generic setting, at any rate.

 

[KarinsDad]

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?

This is backwards logic.

The default should be the traditional approach and the MM should indicate that DMs should feel free to change that (like it does). Historic monsters should not change flavor-wise.

The default should not be a brand new approach that is there solely to remove the concept of good monsters from DND and allow new DMs to auto-set up encounters by having traditionally good monsters fight PCs because the designers want PCs to fight every monster.

Your rationale for why that is preferable is pretty darn weak.

 

[77IM]

Has anyone argued that there shouldn't be? I must have missed that.

These were all around page 1 or 2:

99.9999% of the time you don't need stats for totally good/helpful monsters. Just like you don't need stats the vast majority of the time for the random town blacksmith or a deer.

Actually, let me tell you why. Most, but not all, players tend to play good characters. Since the MM is meant to present monsters to the players to defeat (as opposed to allies) a good aligned monster is essentially a waste of paper for them.

...

The MM is a book of combat statistics. If you're not planning on fighting on killing something . . . why do you want its combat statistics?

...

I suppose my point is that the MM is a book full of things to fight and kill, and that's what it should be. It's called the Monster's Manual after all, not the Allied Creature's Manual. I'm not saying that information on riding Metallic Dragons into combat against Chromatic Dragons would not be nice, but maybe it would be more at home in the PHB3 (along with information on riding Chromatic Dragons, since there are going to be Gith . . .).

Well, if you're not going to fight them, what's the point of including stats for good monsters? If they are just there as plot devices or NPCs, then the don't need stats; they can be interacted with via a skill challenge.

It's a valid approach to monster design but one that I think simplifies the game in a very unhelpful way.

-- 77IM

 

[FadedC]

Doesn't sound unaligned either.

But that is the description of gold dragons. So we've established that your argument that they are not different from other dragons is incorrect. The only thing left over is why you feel that someone honest and forthright and respectful of those in their charge has to be a divine paragon of good?

 

[FadedC]

1. In 4e, individuals of a species can be any alignment. A good individual of an evil species is a really interesting hero: an outcast drow, a vampire that kills other vampires, or a demon struggling against his own infernal nature (IMHO the fact that tieflings are now unaligned makes them slightly less interesting as characters). Likewise, an evil individual of a good species often makes a great villain. For that to work, though, there need to be some good species!
-- 77IM

I don't completely disagree with you here, but these things can and often are taken a bit too far. I remember the days of planescape novels and games where in their desire to constantly create "interesting" characters it seemed like almost every angel you met was evil and if you wanted to find someone who was good you had better odds looking for a demon or devil.

 

[Old Gumphrey]

Why don't you guys arguing against the change just take a sharpie, scribble out "unaligned", and write "good"?