I've disagreed on this point before and will continue to do so. I am completely befuddled why you and Derren are confounding the definitions of Conflict and Killing repeatedly. If the only way to resolve conflict in your campaign is through combat, I don't know that we have anything to talk about on this issue.
Lovely....
Is there any specific reason why you, over two posts by now, accuse me and now KarinsDad of such a playtyle?
I would request that you stop trying to make people who don't agree with you look like hack & slash gamers.
I already explained my reasons.
1. I just apply what I "learned" in other discussions (When talking about Out of Combat abilities, suddenly most 4E defenders say that such abilities are not needed as they have nothing to do with conflict resolution. Only combats abilities do)
2. You can have plenty of non violent conflict with good creatures. That certainly was not the reasons to change the metallic dragon alignment. The designers said it themselves. They did this so that metallic dragons can be adversaries. And in 4E that means in most cases combat enemies.
I disagree with your basic premise that alignment-less games lead to rampant looting and slaughter. I think this may be an issue for you that is outside the game, rather than inside it. I can say from personal experience that all games I've run without alignment (including WFRP, CoC, Arcana Evolved, and so on) have not devolved into trespass/kill/steal territory, and I'd be willing to bet that they generally don't. In fact, I'd say that my Arcana Evolved game was far more ethical-conflict-driven than any other game I've run.
If this is the conclusion you've reached, I don't know that we are capable of communicating with each other on a productive level about this issue.
-O
And you do it again...
You can't really compare the games you listed with D&D though. 4E is not an alignment free game. It does have alignment and that the designers change those alignments and not copy them shows that they pay attention to this mechanic.
So what does it ,in a 4E sense, mean when you demote a monster from being good to being unaligned? To me this change can only mean that it becomes more acceptable to kill this creature. No longer do you need to have qualms about killing metallic dragons because they are on your side. They are not any more. Instead they are no better than all other unaligned creatures in the MMs and get the same treatment. And most of the time, as they are not humanoid, that means killing.
I have the impression that you want to make this look like its my problem that I can't simply houserule it. That is wrong. I can houserule it like everything else. I just not want to have to do it. And I don't see this as a single issue, but as a symptom of a bigger problem. The problem that there are nearly no good creatures in 4E at all. That simply creates a, in my opinion, boring and strange world when everything which moves is either selfish or completely evil and nothing out there is by default an ally. Again I can change that, but what about all the new players? They get the impression that everything in the MM is supposed to be an enemy and WotC seem to want exactly that. Now what should I do when some of those players come to my table? I don't want to have to re-educate them that not everything in the Monster Manual is a enemy unless proven otherwise and that there are a slew of creatures which will aid them in their quest, or oppose them because of good reasons.
And finally, I want my players to be astonished when they meet an evil member of a good aligned species and wonder how that happened, the same way they would wonder when they would find a good aligned beholder. I do not want them to just shrug and roll for initative. But that's exactly what new players are taught to do with this design decision of not having good monsters.
