Metallic Dragons: Unaligned!?

[Nail]

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

These were all around page 1 or 2: <snipped some people saying that Good monsters shouldn't be written out in the MM>

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

Ah! Thanks!

I agree: including Good monsters in the MM makes the game better.

 

[Nail]

The alignment literally adds nothing. You can't detect it, deal extra damage from it or protect from it. The only line that matters is the experience point line. Woo, that monsters is "neutral-enough for my next fricken level!"

<chuckle> Excellent. Quotable, even!

 

[Usumcasane]

This assumes that "better" = "easier justification for good PCs to fight all creatures" and not "better" = "common sense" (e.g. angels and unicorns).

Let me ask you a personal question. Does changing a Unicorn from good to unaligned REALLY make the game better?

Be totally truthful. Don't make the knee jerk response, but sit down and seriously think about it. Do you truly believe that unaligned Unicorns are better for the game than good Unicorns (with their rich history and flavor of virgin/virtuous girls riding them, etc.)? If so, why?

Honestly I don't care what alignment it says they are. I think it is better for the game in that it is a step in the direction of jettisoning the whole stupid alignment system.

But I think it is better for DMs because they can open the MM up and say, "hey, I think a Unicorn would be fun in this fight". And when his players say, "no way, unicorns are good", he can point those that can't roll with the story at the monster's entry. For those that need rules justification over DM discretion. He doesn't have to use the Unicorn as a monster, but since it is in the book with a full block of combat stats, he can without creating a justification for why a Good creature is attacking them.

Yes, you can create such a reason, but not every DM wants to.

And this leads up to the following questions: Does having a total of two good/lawful good creatures out of nearly a thousand make for a rich varied set of creatures, or a restricted set of creatures? Is variety better for the game, or is a bunch of attackable "without any morality thought put into it" creatures better for the game? In other words, is it more fun to attack and kill any creatures the PCs want better than attacking and killing only creatures that are deserving of death?

And see, that is the problem with an alignment system right there. Deserving of death and motivation is determined by what word is written down, rather than complex personality traits and outlooks. There are a number of us that see Unaligned as an opportunity to go beyond black and white alignment into something more nuanced and real. And then there are others so ingrained with the alignment system that they can only see it as the new Neutral. And to those, it will indeed look like everything is Neutral or Evil (and in fact, most things in nature are neutral, humans included). Nothing said will convince these folks that Unaligned actually allows for a richer tapestry of creatures than the more rigid Good alignments.

And yes, I'm saying most Evil monsters should be listed as Unaligned too. Even in the context of an alignment system. It is individual PCs and NPCs that have alignments -- not species. Red Dragon's aren't evil -- Fenril the Red Drake is Evil (or preferably, selfishly and sadistically unaligned).

 

[KarinsDad]

Unaligned actually allows for a richer tapestry of creatures than the more rigid Good alignments.

Unaligned in 4E boils down to "doesn't give a crap about anyone else". It is a self centered alignment.

If you’re unaligned, you don’t actively seek to harm others or wish them ill. But you also don’t go out of your way to put yourself at risk without some hope for reward. You support law and order when doing so benefits you. You value your own freedom, without worrying too much about protecting the freedom of others.

That is not richer. Not even close. That's pedestrian. That's not rich flavor, it's boring when none of the races strive for betterment and all are either self centered or evil.

Why should PCs strive for betterment if none of the races they encounter are that way?

It is individual PCs and NPCs that have alignments -- not species.

This is where we have our main difference of opinion.

In mythology, it was indeed entire species that were of a given set of core beliefs (or alignment or morality). In fact, it is counterintuitive that cultural beliefs or genetics in a race would NOT result in nearly an entire race being good.

In 4E now, creatures default to the less desirable moralities of humans.

Some bad. Some in between.

To me, this waters down DND to an enormous extent. Every race is now a target and no race is an inspiration. Many races are morally the equivalent of humans. Where is the fantasy in that?


Neither of us will convince the other. It is interesting that many of the supporters of the new model are anti-alignment as well. I wonder if that is a trend within 4E designers as well.

 

[keterys]

From Wiki:

"In even the earliest references he is fierce yet good"

Much like?
'The warlike fierceness of the unicorn is referred to when Ephraim and Manasseh are described as being like the horns of unicorns. [Deu 33:17]; The terrifying destruction of Idumea is completed when God sends unicorns and wild bulls to attack the people. [Isa 34:8 see also Psa. 92:10 & Psa 22:21]'
'If, however, the girl was merely pretending to be a virgin, the unicorn would tear her apart.'

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)."

I tend to think of D&D as a western game, not an eastern one. There are exceptions, of course, but that was an oversight on my part. At least gold dragons were actually modeled after eastern dragons, unlike the rest.

But even there, the Seelie court (including hobgoblins) was considered benevolent and the Unseelie court was considered malevolent.

The Seelie Court is known as the good court because its pranks are _not_ of the murderous variety. They're not good. Just not evil.

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.

I have to admit, Gary rolling in his grave is almost the Hitler of D&D debates. He separated from the process and disagreed with most changes that happened after he left, decades before now, but somehow he'll care more about things like this? It's a disservice to his memory and a gross assumption to invoke him when something bothers you.

Personally, I'm not really sure I agree with making, say, gold dragons not good... but I also didn't agree with leaving alignment in the system at all, so I can ignore that line on dragons like I do on everything else. If it's Eberron, the gold dragon can be evil and the red dragon can be good, and if it's Dragonlance they can be the reverse, and hopefully at the end of the day it matters more about the intentions, motivations, and actions rather than a word in a monster manual.

 

[KarinsDad]

'If, however, the girl was merely pretending to be a virgin, the unicorn would tear her apart.'

Much like Good and Lawful Good adventurers. Trespass into lair, murder inhabitants, steal loot (it's just more morally justifiable in 4E). Evil is in the eye of the beholder.

The pretending girl broke the Unicorn's law and he carried out sentence. That does not make him evil or even unaligned.

It's interesting how DND players (and people in general) think that killing a human is evil, but killing monsters is ok (or even good). That's human-centric thinking. As the Klingon said in Star Trek VI, "Inalienable Human Rights, if you could only hear yourselves".

Part of the fantasy in the game is lost if all races think like humans.

The Seelie Court is known as the good court because its pranks are _not_ of the murderous variety. They're not good. Just not evil.

Source?

This disagrees with everything I've ever read on them. They could do pranks on people that bothered them, but they were not known to be good because they didn't kill. They actually helped people in need and opposed the Unseelie Court.

 

[Derren]

Yep, its really interesting that those who defend unaligned good dragons and the general lack of good creatures are those who wish alignment would be gone entirely.

When you don't care about alignment, why are you defending WotCs decision to change?

 

[Dire Bare]

It's just flavor change for the sake of flavor change. There's no good game mechanic reason for it.

The "change for change's sake" claim is so tired. And dead wrong.

One of the main reasons for this flavor change was given by the OP, the very first post of the thread! You just don't like it, and don't agree with it. Which is fine. But just because you and a small handful of others have chosen this issue to soapbox on, hardly makes it "change for change's sake".

 

[keterys]

Yep, its really interesting that those who defend unaligned good dragons and the general lack of good creatures are those who wish alignment would be gone entirely.

When you don't care about alignment, why are you defending WotCs decision to change?

I'm actually not defending the change. I'm devil's advocating against the more contentious position.

People are up in arms because of something that doesn't seem to affect the game, from where I sit. Kobolds are evil, but Meepo can still be adopted by PCs. Red Dragons are evil, but a player in one of my games still has one as a follower and a different party still made a deal with one, when it helped them complete their mission. Did the 'evil' tags somehow make it easier for these actions to happen? Might the evil tag have hindered those actions in some games? What does alignment actually offer to the game? I'm pretty sure I've played D&D variants that didn't have alignment and things worked fine. I'm pretty sure I've played D&D while ignoring alignment and things worked fine.

If WotC marketing has determined that it's not worthwhile to publish creatures that have the 'Good' tag, in terms of usefulness to players, and removing the 'Good' tag helps, then fine, whatever lets them sleep at night. There will still be some dragons (and fey, etc) that want to talk to the PCs, and there will still be some that want to eat them. And sometimes it'll be the same ones.

 

[Derren]

If WotC marketing has determined that it's not worthwhile to publish creatures that have the 'Good' tag, in terms of usefulness to players, and removing the 'Good' tag helps, then fine, whatever lets them sleep at night. There will still be some dragons (and fey, etc) that want to talk to the PCs, and there will still be some that want to eat them. And sometimes it'll be the same ones.

And what impression does that give to new players, many of them with WoW and other MMORPG experience? That everything that moves is a potential enemy and that if its not a player race its a mob which can be killed for XP?

I don't think that this is a good way to foster role playing.