Dragon boobs!
Metallic Dragons: Unaligned!?
- Thread starter Zaran
- Start date
keterys
First Post
Hmm, backing away from previous editions of D&D and more modern references for a moment (such as Dragonlance), were unicorns actually good (in myth or supposed history, or whatever)? I mean, there's a pretty big difference between 'tamed by a virgin girl' and 'good'. People supposedly hunted them for their horns, to cure poison, and presumably untamed means "will stick things with their horn" along with "runs away from people".
Dragons are almost universally not good, as far as I can tell. Sometimes helpful, but with their own agenda at best (and cruising for snacks often enough too).
Fey creatures that dance and have fun with you were good in some editions of dnd, but weren't they pretty much stealers of kids, waylayer of travelers, kidnappers, killers, etc?
Looking for myths and legends about actually _good_ creatures are pretty few and far between.
That said, I don't see that metallic dragons being unaligned changes anything about some campaign worlds. Dragonlance dragons are still Good and Evil. Except, y'know, all those ones on the other continent that aren't
And the, like, single unicorn in the world is good... but more because that's what it is, and less because it's a unicorn you'd fight.
Dragons are almost universally not good, as far as I can tell. Sometimes helpful, but with their own agenda at best (and cruising for snacks often enough too).
Fey creatures that dance and have fun with you were good in some editions of dnd, but weren't they pretty much stealers of kids, waylayer of travelers, kidnappers, killers, etc?
Looking for myths and legends about actually _good_ creatures are pretty few and far between.
That said, I don't see that metallic dragons being unaligned changes anything about some campaign worlds. Dragonlance dragons are still Good and Evil. Except, y'know, all those ones on the other continent that aren't
And the, like, single unicorn in the world is good... but more because that's what it is, and less because it's a unicorn you'd fight.
Obryn
Hero
Again with the fighting. You're stuck on the unaligned = easier to fight, rather than on unaligned = easier for conflict.
Yes, insofar as it could ever matter. (Which, I might add, I doubt.)
I love the concept of alien and inhuman, amoral Fey. It has a great place in folklore, and has a place in D&D now that one has been made for it. Unicorns, being fey creatures, fit right in.
Why can't you use Unaligned creatures in the same ways as Good creatures?
Why can't you make any creature you wish Good-aligned when it's necessary for the game?
Why should PCs feel perfectly swell about randomly killing Unaligned creatures? What is it that makes them more combat-ready than a Good creature would be? Did PCs randomly slaughter Neutral monsters in 1e-3e?
-O
chaotix42
First Post
When I think of unicorns I think of solitary, reclusive creatures that avoid contact with most humanoids. That sounds like Unaligned to me.
As for angels being Unaligned, that's because they can serve any god, good or evil. Perhaps angels who have long-served good gods are Good, and the same for evil gods. For whatever reason, angels are now Unaligned so that they can serve any god. If angels were Good then they'd only serve Good gods, unless you changed their alignment. As Unaligned they are at their most flexible story-wise, much like the new metallic dragons.
As for angels being Unaligned, that's because they can serve any god, good or evil. Perhaps angels who have long-served good gods are Good, and the same for evil gods. For whatever reason, angels are now Unaligned so that they can serve any god. If angels were Good then they'd only serve Good gods, unless you changed their alignment. As Unaligned they are at their most flexible story-wise, much like the new metallic dragons.
Another thing Wizards could have done would be to bury the alignment in the flavor text where it belongs.
For example, suppose gold dragon didn't have that silly "Alignment Unaligned" entry. Instead, one of the monster lore DCs would say something like, "Most gold dragons are unaligned, but some genuinely care about lesser races, becoming exemplars of good or lawful good." A species like hobgoblin might say, "Hobgoblins on the whole are evil, power-hungry, and cruel, although some members of their society may be considered unaligned." A creature like mind flayers might say, "By their very nature, mind flayers are inherently evil; exceptions are exceedingly rare."
By keeping the alignment in the flavor text, it would present it in context of the creature's behavior and could give a more elaborate alignment breakdown, which is way more useful than a silly one-word alignment entry which can only serve to pigeonhole monsters.
-- 77IM
For example, suppose gold dragon didn't have that silly "Alignment Unaligned" entry. Instead, one of the monster lore DCs would say something like, "Most gold dragons are unaligned, but some genuinely care about lesser races, becoming exemplars of good or lawful good." A species like hobgoblin might say, "Hobgoblins on the whole are evil, power-hungry, and cruel, although some members of their society may be considered unaligned." A creature like mind flayers might say, "By their very nature, mind flayers are inherently evil; exceptions are exceedingly rare."
By keeping the alignment in the flavor text, it would present it in context of the creature's behavior and could give a more elaborate alignment breakdown, which is way more useful than a silly one-word alignment entry which can only serve to pigeonhole monsters.
-- 77IM
Angels in my Monster Manual 4e say Any, not Unaligned. This actually makes the reason quite abundantly clear. Sure, it may fool some folks who are only familiar with certain conceptualizations of Angels, but aside from a few, most can grasp the point with a little explanation. Those who can't? Might be the ones who can't accept fictitious deities existing in the game without objection, so it's no real surprise.
Well I'm not sure genuinely caring about lesser races is mutually exclusive to unaligned. I've known a ton of people in the real world who genuinely love and protect animals who I would still classify as unaligned.
But I do agree that I'd like to see more flavor text about creatures in general. That's one thing I've been disapointed about in both monster manuals.
From Wiki:
"In even the earliest references he is fierce yet good"
Again, from Wiki:
"Chinese dragons (simplified Chinese: 龙; traditional Chinese: 龍; pinyin: lóng), and Oriental dragons generally, can take on human form and are usually seen as benevolent, whereas European dragons are usually malevolent though there are exceptions (one exception being Y Ddraig Goch, the Red Dragon of Wales)."
Fairies in general across cultures were a description of anything that was unseen, but active. Trolls, changelings, demons, pagan gods, fallen angels, even Wizards.
But even there, the Seelie court (including hobgoblins) was considered benevolent and the Unseelie court was considered malevolent.
The fact is that early versions of DND drew on real world mythological creatures to some extent which had both good and evil and that is being thrown out now. Gary would roll over in his grave. Culture be damned.
chaotix42
First Post
Haven't actually checked out the Angel entry in a while.
It was just an example. Try this instead: "Most gold dragons are unaligned, but some are genuinely benevolent and noble, becoming exemplars of good or lawful good. Few ever resort to the overtly evil ways of their chromatic kin."
The point was that it allows both sides of this debate to win:
* Those who feel that unaligned creatures are more useful because they have more reasons to be antagonists can throw unaligned gold dragons at the party over some conflict of interest
* While those who feel that the tradition of good gold dragons should not be abandoned have that precedent set as well
-- 77IM
Similar Threads
- Locked
