Metallic Dragons: Unaligned!?

[Old Gumphrey]

What this DOES DO is ends any chance of Dragonlance being on the table for a 4e revival (at least in the near term).

Thank God.

 

[77IM]

This statement is statically incorrect. Open your door, walk out on to your street, ask 20 people to describe what a dragon is to you. Then come back and tell me 'the most people possible' think that half the dragons in the world are good.

No, 'the most people possible' (billions of them) think that most of the dragons in the world are good. Note the gold dragon's snub nose, whiskers, and sinuous shape. He is not supposed to represent the western mythological ideal of dragons, but the eastern.

-- 77IM

 

[Nail]

No, 'the most people possible' (billions of them) think that most of the dragons in the world are good. Note the gold dragon's snub nose, whiskers, and sinuous shape. He is not supposed to represent the western mythological ideal of dragons, but the eastern.

-- 77IM

Agreed.

Taking my daughter's 3rd grade class as an example, "most people" think all dragons are good...even those that eat people.

...especially those that eat people!

 

[chaotix42]

And by Good, don't you really mean Awesome?

 

[Errantocracy]

If you're looking at the sentence I think you are, I believe that's a typo, as it's quite awkward if it were meant literally, but adding a "not" to it makes it flow quite readily.

But you'd have to ask Cyfer about it.

Thanks; it was indeed a typo.

That was just off the top of my head. There are plenty of other reasons.

"You must prove your strength before I will help you!"
"This is a sacred place. I'm sorry, but if you don't turn back, I will be forced to attack you."
"Actually, my father was a red dragon, so while I inherited my mother's golden scales, I got his sense of unbridled arrogance and avarice. My, those are some nice magic items you have there..."

The good heroes with opposing goals to the good monsters has been a scenario staple of DND since its inception.

Actually, I made a point of addressing that issue (I think both quotes are aimed in the same direction). I do not disagree with either of these quotes. The problem is that those instances are generally exceptions, rather than common occurrences. For example, if we look at that list . . . the case of a strength challenge would probably get old quickly, if used to often, and is probably more common to unaligned. The second point is something that can be avoided by the PCs through roleplaying (potentially, and at the DMs discretion). The third is a case of an evil gold dragon, which I'm not sure has barring in this discussion. In any case, while I do agree that the first two points could very well be used to have good PCs fight good creatures, it would be something used . . . what, every three levels, at most? How soon before you run out of excuses for your PCs to be fighting creatures who are supposedly inherently virtuous? It hardly justifies the inclusion of twenty different stats for good dragons.

 

[77IM]

These sort of plots are indeed exceptions, but that's what makes them interesting. And they are not possible if the monster isn't generally good. For example, one of the reason fallen Jedi are so cool (and they are, even after it has become a cliche) is because Jedi are paragons of goodness. In previous editions of D&D, this same trope could be applied to paladins, dragons, angels, and several other creatures. Now, it's more like "WTF is this gold dragon attacking us for??? Is it a freaky mystery? No, he probably just wants our treasure, or to manipulate our society somehow. Par for the course."

I agree that most of the monsters in the Monster Manual should be evil or unaligned or any alignment. But I think the game is more interesting if there are a handful of good creatures in there too, to use in exceptional circumstances. If I were the designers I would have drawn the line at unicorns and silver and gold dragons (copper and lesser metals never seemed that "good" to me in previous editions). That's like 10 stat blocks over the course of 2 books, so like less that 5% of the stat blocks going to seldom-used good creatures.

-- 77IM

 

[KarinsDad]

These sort of plots are indeed exceptions, but that's what makes them interesting. And they are not possible if the monster isn't generally good. For example, one of the reason fallen Jedi are so cool (and they are, even after it has become a cliche) is because Jedi are paragons of goodness. In previous editions of D&D, this same trope could be applied to paladins, dragons, angels, and several other creatures.

Precisely.

The reason for putting good monster stats in the monster manual is not because the PCs are going to necessarily fight a good Gold Dragon (although they could if they have opposing good goals), it's because they are going to fight the Gold Dragon that fell from grace.

The reason to have good monsters in the first place is to have variety. To have epic battles between good dragons and evil dragons.

An entire group of new future DND players are going to be taught that "No Bobby, Gold Dragons are not your ally".

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

 

[cwhs01]

Is there any advice in the dmg about using monsters out of the MM but changing alignment, ignoring alignment or playing monsters against alignment of the statblocks?

If so, then this discussion looses (some of) its relevance. If there isn't any advice in the dmg about these things, then that would be more worthy of a few grumbling arguments.

 

[FadedC]

Precisely.

The reason for putting good monster stats in the monster manual is not because the PCs are going to necessarily fight a good Gold Dragon (although they could if they have opposing good goals), it's because they are going to fight the Gold Dragon that fell from grace.

The reason to have good monsters in the first place is to have variety. To have epic battles between good dragons and evil dragons.

An entire group of new future DND players are going to be taught that "No Bobby, Gold Dragons are not your ally".

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

Well the difference is just that while before gold dragons were automatically your ally, now there is some chance they won't be. Based on their personalities they are still very likely to clash with evil dragons and are substantialy more likely to help the players then hurt them. Players just need to be much more on their toes when encountering them and not just think "oh it's a gold dragon, he's automatically my buddy."

If you read the draconomican it generally encourages all dragons (including the evil ones) to be played with complex motives and not just by alignment anyway. There are a number of scenarios in there where the friendly dragon patron is chromatic rather then metallic.

 

[FadedC]

Is there any advice in the dmg about using monsters out of the MM but changing alignment, ignoring alignment or playing monsters against alignment of the statblocks?

If so, then this discussion looses (some of) its relevance. If there isn't any advice in the dmg about these things, then that would be more worthy of a few grumbling arguments.

According the the monster manual, the only thing monster alignment means is what alignment is most typically encontered. So yeah monsters are generally free to vary to whatever alignment they want.