Metallic Dragons: Unaligned!?

[KarinsDad]

I think what Bumbles is trying to say, is that you are bringing up minutiae in your arguments as if these minor, unimportant changes somehow are quite major and game-changing. Or at least, that's what I'm seeing in many of your arguments.

Well, since he did not say that, that's a pretty big leap.

And I haven't read a single person who is a big FR fan who thought that there were not a LOT of fluff changes to that setting. Entire countries and gods and organizations got wiped out. If those are unimportant and minutiae to you, fine. They might not be to other people.

The fact of the matter is that WotC appears to be going for a new and possibly younger crowd. I have no issue with that. It's smart business. I just understand it for what it is and do not claim that "It's still DND and it feels like DND".

No, it doesn't. Not even close. Each earlier edition made changes, but none of them to the extent that the game felt drastically different like this edition. I have over 30 entrenched years of picking my spells and having them actually do something other than just damage foes and do a few conditions, and where Fighters were extremely easy to play and mostly only did damage or possibly a grapple. I have come to grips with the fact that the game is totally different and don't have an issue. One of my players has not. It bothers him a lot. And, it probably bothers some other people.

The pre-release claim "It's still DND" is far from the truth for some people.

If it feels like DND to you and these changes are not game-changing for you, that's fine. I cannot argue how you feel. I cannot really understand how the fluff and crunch changes actually make DND feel the same to someone and are not game-changing, but meh.

 

[Obryn]

So, saying I can just change the gold dragon's alignment in my campaign is kind of moot. The questing is whether it is better for the game for the MM entry to say "Unaligned" or "Lawful Good" or some other thing (like, if a monster stat block can list multiple languages, multiple skills, etc., why not multiple alignments?). It should be valid to (intelligently) criticize WotC's design decisions even if they are easy to change with house rules.

I don't know that it's totally applicable here. In 1e, 2e, and 3e you'd definitely have a point. Alignment in those games is definitely a statistic of sorts with many mechanical effects. In 4e, I don't know that it's reasonable to call the alignment line in a stat block a "rule" to enough of a degree that changing it would be a "house-rule."

In 4e, alignment has about the same mechanical effect as hair color. As such, I don't think changing a creature's alignment is even a house-rule. Nobody is going to cast a Circle of Protection from Good and hit them with an Anarchic weapon, and expect them to work.

So, in other words, I see where you're coming from, but I think "Just change it!" is a much fairer criticism than it would have been in previous editions.

-O

 

[77IM]

Why would it matter what "most" gold dragons are? Wouldn't it only matter for the ones the party interacts with or at least hears about?

Well then, why bother having an Alignment entry on the stat block at all? (If you answer, "No good reason, they should remove it," then I agree. But WotC didn't do that, either.)

To answer the question, it matters because it sets player expectations. This can help tremendously with the plot. For example, a horrific demon is expected to be evil; players expect to interact with it in a certain way. A generally good creature elicits a different set of expectations and behaviors -- which the DM can reinforce or subvert, depending on the sort of plot you need. But this option is not available if there are no generally good creatures.

Except you can't really apply that fallacy to the discussion, because the alignment issue is not a mechanical issue. Whether or not it is broken is entirely subjective; there are no rules issues raised by this change, only flavor ones.

You are right that flavor issues are entirely subjective. But that's true of, well, every flavor issue. Does that mean we can't ever criticize WotC's flavor design decisions???

That's why I think it qualifies for the fallacy -- it asserts that because the DM's setting flavor automatically overrides the designer's setting flavor, that the criticism against the designer's flavor is invalid.

-- 77IM

 

[Obryn]

You are right that flavor issues are entirely subjective. But that's true of, well, every flavor issue. Does that mean we can't ever criticize WotC's flavor design decisions???

Absolutely, but it should be treated as a discussion on flavor, not a discussion on rules, IMHO.

-O

 

[Bumbles]

Uh huh. A good number??? I disagree, but won't say how I disagree because that's minutiae. Whatever dude.

A good number referring to a number higher than a few, less than all. I didn't bother to count them since I figured an approximation would be enough. Think somewhere over 1/8 and less than 1/2 if you need somewhere to go.

And yes, it would be arguing over minutiae, and likely to be fruitless. What I really intended to do was to express how different our perspectives are, which would not, IMO, be served by arguing with you on the specifics.

Yup, changing Eladrins to Elves fixed a big hole. As did forcing Wizards to use implements. Adding brand new races and classes to the core books filled many holes (especially because all players WILL play with all of the new splat books). Adding Spellscar and combining two worlds into FR and killing off the gods. Changing the entire Cosmos. And darn those Wizards for flying for hours at a time. Fighters cannot do that. Unfair! We don't want the entire party flying up to the Dragon's lair at the top of the volcano anymore and avoiding the plethora of encounters in the tunneled maze below. That was a real problem for DMs!

Of course, it's possible none of those are the ones I thought of, so what's the point of your trying to defend yourself? I might agree with some of you on some of them for all you know.

Sorry, but when you purposely won't support your POV, it sounds like you are talking out of your hat. Disagreeing just to disagree.

I'm sorry it sounds that way, but to me, what I'm trying to say is that my perspective on many of your examples is so completely divergent from yours that it may not be possible to come to an agreement other than each thinking of things differently.

I have my reasons. I do not think I will be able to persuade you. Rather than try to engage what I feel would be a fruitless argument, I'm bypassing it.

I think what Bumbles is trying to say, is that you are bringing up minutiae in your arguments as if these minor, unimportant changes somehow are quite major and game-changing. Or at least, that's what I'm seeing in many of your arguments.

Not quite. What I'm saying is that I can see I'm coming from a totally different perspective, that many of the examples cited, I just don't see.

If anything, I'm casting everybody's arguments in that light, rather than singling out any one in particular.

Well, since he did not say that, that's a pretty big leap.

Really? I thought I did say something like that. Let me check...

So um..yeah, my mileage varied quite a lot. I'm not even sure if I'm even using the same form of transport.


Yes, I did. DB was a little off, but not so big a leap that it was completely wrong.

If it feels like DND to you and these changes are not game-changing for you, that's fine. I cannot argue how you feel. I cannot really understand how the fluff and crunch changes actually make DND feel the same to someone and are not game-changing, but meh.

And I cannot argue how you feel. Hence my declining to do so. Nor at this point, do I believe how I can help with your understanding. Especially not with arguing over what I'd see as minutiae. Which believe it or not, does not include everything you said, so citing individual examples as if they proved anything, really does not.

 

[Mistwell]

Well then, why bother having an Alignment entry on the stat block at all? (If you answer, "No good reason, they should remove it," then I agree. But WotC didn't do that, either.)

That would be my answer. There's no good reason really. I think it was something to vaguely please folks who really like alignment.

To answer the question, it matters because it sets player expectations.

In my opinion, players should not be reading the MM and getting expectations from it. It's not really a book intended for them, and it's metagaming to be gaining character expectations based on the player reading it.

This can help tremendously with the plot. For example, a horrific demon is expected to be evil; players expect to interact with it in a certain way. A generally good creature elicits a different set of expectations and behaviors -- which the DM can reinforce or subvert, depending on the sort of plot you need. But this option is not available if there are no generally good creatures.

The expectation comes from the description of looks and deeds, not the alignment listed. If the DM tells me a horrible demon-looking thing with a whip is charging at me, I expect it will be evil. I didn't get that expectation from an alignment entry. I get it because it looks like a demon trying to kill me.

 

[Dire Bare]

Some of the reasoning on this thread sounds suspiciously like the Oberoni fallacy ("It's not broken, because you can fix it with house rules;" the fact that it needs to be fixed implies that it is, in fact, broken).

Obviously, in my campaign I can say that gold dragons are lawful good, telepathic, breathe corrosive gas, and are purple. I can even say that there are no gold dragons, or I could say that all dragons are gold, and that they run a passenger service and are happy to ferry PCs from town to town. In my game, I can say that eating the heart of a gold dragon earns you tremendous XP, enough to gain 5 levels. Or I can say that all gold dragons have a gaze attack: Death Glare (minor action; at-will) Close blast 5; +Level+3 vs. Fortitude; target dies instantly.

So, saying I can just change the gold dragon's alignment in my campaign is kind of moot. The questing is whether it is better for the game for the MM entry to say "Unaligned" or "Lawful Good" or some other thing (like, if a monster stat block can list multiple languages, multiple skills, etc., why not multiple alignments?). It should be valid to (intelligently) criticize WotC's design decisions even if they are easy to change with house rules.

Not quite. One side of our discussion here states, "The change in gold dragon's alignment from good to unaligned is either a good change or an unimportant one." The opposing argument is that this change is a bad change. The suggestion to simply change the alignment to what you want could apply to both sides . . . except that the alignment IS currently unaligned. If WotC had made a different choice then we'd have a slightly different argument.

 

[Dire Bare]

To answer the question, it matters because it sets player expectations. This can help tremendously with the plot. For example, a horrific demon is expected to be evil; players expect to interact with it in a certain way. A generally good creature elicits a different set of expectations and behaviors -- which the DM can reinforce or subvert, depending on the sort of plot you need. But this option is not available if there are no generally good creatures.

While I am fine with the new alignment of gold dragons being unaligned, I actually do agree with what you state here.

In prior editions, D&D fans "knew" that gold dragons were good. So, unless your DM stated otherwise, it was safe to assume the horrifying gargantuan lizard-like creature with golden scales wasn't going to hurt you . . . unless perhaps you pissed it off.

In 4th edition, fans "know" that gold dragons tend to be nicer and safer than red dragons, but could hardly be considered "good" as a race. Which means when you encounter one, you better be more careful and cognizant of the situation.

Which, in my opinion, is a fantastic change!!! This isn't the first time this change has appeared in D&D, but now it is a part of the default setting rather than an alternate one like Eberron. Love it!

 

[Bumbles]

The expectation comes from the description of looks and deeds, not the alignment listed. If the DM tells me a horrible demon-looking thing with a whip is charging at me, I expect it will be evil. I didn't get that expectation from an alignment entry. I get it because it looks like a demon trying to kill me.

And then the artificer appears to yell at you for attacking his dungeon exploration model nine!

 

[Char_Aznable]

I don't understand what all the hubbub is all about; every dragon I've used in D&D4 so far has been altered. Quite frankly, the unaligned entry makes sense to me, since I'd imagine a lot of dragons are more interested in the higher affairs of other dragons than with the world around them. Then again, I do tend to use dragons sparingly.