Metallic Dragons: Unaligned!?

[KarinsDad]

Well, how many gold dragons do the PCs run into that one behaving in an evil fashion is a deviation from an observed trend?

It would be a deviation from a Monster Knowledge Check. That is, if the designers hadn't screwed it up.

 

[cwhs01]

It would be a deviation from a Monster Knowledge Check. That is, if the designers hadn't screwed it up.

Fair enough. Well except for the screwed it up part

I guess a lot of this comes from the two schools of dnd, one arguing (and rightfully so), that the rules exist for a reason, should make sense and be internally consistent.
The other group thinks rules are meant as guidelines, especially what is mostly fluff anyway, such as alignment and knowledge check tables.
Most people fall somewhere in the middle.

My guess is that wotc actually suceeded in what they wanted to do (mostly), wrt critter statblocks. If you don't like the new paradigm and what they did with alignment doesn't mean they messed it up.

 

[chaotix42]

It would be a deviation from a Monster Knowledge Check. That is, if the designers hadn't screwed it up.

A gold dragon behaving in an evil fashion is still a deviation from a Monster Knowledge Check. Gold dragons are Unaligned, remember?

 

[Derren]

Not really true is it? they have changed a lot of things, mostly in order to make things more playable and increase their number of possible uses. A generally Unaligned race can function as both a villain or an ally. Why is that a bad thing?

A generally good race can also function as an ally or adversary.

World design - makes designing a world easier as you don't have to shoehorn races in or accept the world design as dictated by wotc.

It is not good world design when everything is shoehorned into "justified to be killed".

verisimilitude - how does alignment help verisimilitude (V) in any way? loosening restrictions would actually increase Vmax in my book.

Where are the good races in the world? You have inherently evil creatures like devils and chromatic dragons. So where are the inherently good ones? Its not very immersive when WotC presents a world where everything is out to get you and there is nothing to balance the inherently evil races.
If all (or nearly all) creatures were unalinged than it would be fine. But as soon as you have a lot of inherently evil creatures you should also have some inherently good ones.

Tradition - why is tradition for traditions sake a good thing? it is a new edition after all, for both a new and an old audience.

Why is change for changes sake a good thing? It is still D&D after all.

Non of those three points seems to be a priority for WotC when creating new monsters. Instead its only about presenting the players with another combat encounter.
While in previous editions the monster manuals were a encyclopaedia of creatures living in the D&D world the 4E MM is just a big list of things to kill.

The alignment line in the statblock is mostly a guideline. A Good creature is mostly used as allies, evil critters as opponents and Unaligned can be whatever you need them for. IMO a gm would have most use for the evil and unaligned creatures.

When its just a guideline there is no reason why the good alignment would prevent DMs from using those creatures. But also having good aligned creatures would make a more believable world than a world populated only by evil and unaligned ones.

You only need statblocks when fighting monsters. This doesn't mean that you have to fight everything with a statblock.
Wotc has eased up on the non-combat part of the rules (relative to 3e, not prior editions to 3e). The argument is that you don't really need a detailed ruleset for non-combat task resolution, but you do need it for combat resolution. Depending on the design goals of your game ofcourse. This does not mean that you can't do anything but kill stuff and take its loot. Ofcourse it doesn't and it isn't the design goal of 4e.

Then don't give metallic dragons a stat block then.
Problem is that as soon as WotC wants to give something a stat block it can't be good aligned. SO this policy forces WotC to either leave out iconic good creatures or make iconic good creatures unaligned. A loose/loose situation.
Sure, just because it has a statblock doesn't mean that the PCs have to kill it. But I ask you, what other reason is there to make metallic dragons unaligned if not to make it easier to find a reason to kill them?

Oh and can you explain the use of the word "responsible" in the part i quoted? In what way have wotc behaved irresponsibly when deciding on alignments for their monsters?

Responsible as in thinking about what alignment a creature would have based in its place in the world and not "make it nongood so that the players can kill it".
Unaligned metallic dragons breaks the 4E lore about Bahamut and his relation to his children for example. And that just so that players can kill metallic dragons more easily. Thats using alignment irresponsibly.

 

[Obryn]

A generally good race can also function as an ally or adversary.

So can something unaligned. Or something evil. Seriously, there are generally two alignments in my game: "This thing is trying to kill you now for whatever reason," and "This thing is not trying to kill you for whatever reason."

It is not good world design when everything is shoehorned into "justified to be killed".

Where are the good races in the world? You have inherently evil creatures like devils and chromatic dragons. So where are the inherently good ones? Its not very immersive when WotC presents a world where everything is out to get you and there is nothing to balance the inherently evil races.
If all (or nearly all) creatures were unalinged than it would be fine. But as soon as you have a lot of inherently evil creatures you should also have some inherently good ones.

So you're arguing that something with Unaligned in the stat block can't be "Good" as it's colloquially described?

Curious position.

Why is change for changes sake a good thing? It is still D&D after all.

I'll remember you said that.

Non of those three points seems to be a priority for WotC when creating new monsters. Instead its only about presenting the players with another combat encounter.
While in previous editions the monster manuals were a encyclopaedia of creatures living in the D&D world the 4E MM is just a big list of things to kill.

They're about presenting the player with another encounter, but it need not be combat. There's pure roleplaying encounters, skill challenges, and hybrids.

Then don't give metallic dragons a stat block then.
Problem is that as soon as WotC wants to give something a stat block it can't be good aligned. SO this policy forces WotC to either leave out iconic good creatures or make iconic good creatures unaligned. A loose/loose situation.

I am still finding it hard to care. Why can't an unaligned creature behave in a good fashion?

Sure, just because it has a statblock doesn't mean that the PCs have to kill it. But I ask you, what other reason is there to make metallic dragons unaligned if not to make it easier to find a reason to kill them?

Because Unaligned represents complex motivations that can't be summed up in a single word on a stat block?

-O

 

[cwhs01]

A generally good race can also function as an ally or adversary.
It is not good world design when everything is shoehorned into "justified to be killed".

Just because it has a statblock doen't mean it has to be killed. Never did before, and doesn't now in 4e.

Where are the good races in the world? You have inherently evil creatures like devils and chromatic dragons. So where are the inherently good ones?

This argument i can understand, especially if you think of the mm fluff as basis for an implied setting. It also gives another reason they should have ditched the alignment system.

Why is change for changes sake a good thing? It is still D&D after all.

You kinda forgot to answer my question of why tradition is good. A valid argument to that would be along the lines of "if it ain't broke.. etc.".
I would answer your question with "It's a new edition with new design goals, so change what needs changing regardless of tradition".

While in previous editions the monster manuals were a encyclopaedia of creatures living in the D&D world the 4E MM is just a big list of things to kill.

New paradigm. Statblocks are only necessary when actually killing stuff, otherwise wing it (with an eye at the statblock if necessary). just because it has a statblock doesn't mean it must be killed (eg. Gnome entry in mm).

Sure, just because it has a statblock doesn't mean that the PCs have to kill it. But I ask you, what other reason is there to make metallic dragons unaligned if not to make it easier to find a reason to kill them?

A statblock makes it possible to kill them, not unavoidable. It's as always up to the gm if he wants to present monsters as antagonists or allies. The Unaligned status gives more options.

Unaligned metallic dragons breaks the 4E lore about Bahamut and his relation to his children for example. And that just so that players can kill metallic dragons more easily. Thats using alignment irresponsibly.

We are using the word "irresponsible" slightly differently.

 

[KarinsDad]

So you're arguing that something with Unaligned in the stat block can't be "Good" as it's colloquially described?

No, he's arguing that the world setting is all about killing and not about any good vs. evil flavor.

The world feels like a big combat when only 2 creatures out of nearly a thousand presented in the game system are inherently good. Even the inherently "good humanoid" races like Dwarves and Elves are suddenly "Any".

This world, which was described pre-release as Points of Light in a dark world, has no Points of Light creatures. None. Going to the Dwarven stronghold goes to a place no better than a human village. It's no longer a bastion of good, it's a bastion of Any.

Every time we turn around, the world gets darker and more apocalyptic.

We might as well be playing Gamma World.

It's one thing to have a DND steampunk setting like Eberron. It's another to default the core game system more into a combat only and every creature is human behaviored system.

What medieval fantasy setting ever had non-good Unicorns as a default? Non-good Angels? Look up Unicorn on Wiki. You will not find this. Non-good dwarves were a part of mythology, but that's what Duegars should represent. Not normal Dwarves.

Sorry, but it's stupid. I cannot comprehend supporting this as a good idea. The only justification I am hearing is "because WotC did it this way".


Just to mix things up, the 5E version of DND will have all Good Demons. Doh!!!

 

[Nail]

So can something unaligned. Or something evil. Seriously, there are generally two alignments in my game: "This thing is trying to kill you now for whatever reason," and "This thing is not trying to kill you for whatever reason."

But here's the problem: As a player in Obryn's game, you can't know which "Obryn Alignment" a creature falls into until you encounter it. That's not very cool (IMO), as it takes away the player's ability to predict and plan and interact.

....

I'll bet - a beverage of your choice - that Obryn has a "World Document" of some kind that he can give to players. Something that describes his world, some of the creatures or organizations or gods or terrains or rules within it. Lots of DMs do this (myself included), so it's a pretty safe bet.

Now the "World Document" usually outlines the differences between Obryn's World and that of the Generic Setting of D&D. Perhaps "All Orcs have purple hair" or "Undead always ask for a napkin before they eat you", or some such thing. As a new player glances through the document, there's no mention of how orcs are brutish and that undead usually smell of rotting flesh.

Why is that? Why leave out those details?

'Cuz it's assumed you knew that already! When playing a fantasy game as well known as D&D, some knowledge of some of the common fantasy tropes is assumed. That's really useful - its saves lots of time on the DM's part.

But NOW: If you have a Gold Dragon in your 4e setting, one of the primary stereotypes of "gold dragon-ness" has been muddled by WotC developers. The players will have to ask: "Are gold dragons usually good in your campaign?"

....and maybe - and here's the worst part - they won't think to ask, as they'll assume the stereotype from previous editions. I mean "aren't gold dragons supposed to be Good?"

 

[Obryn]

No, he's arguing that the world setting is all about killing and not about any good vs. evil flavor.

I fail to see how the Alignment line in the Monster Manual actually leads you to this conclusion. I think you're missing a lot of logical steps, not all of them logical.

But here's the problem: As a player in Obryn's game, you can't know which "Obryn Alignment" a creature falls into until you encounter it. That's not very cool (IMO), as it takes away the player's ability to predict and plan and interact.

It doesn't, though. That kind of planning isn't based on the alignment line in the Monster Manual and never really has been for my games.

During my 3e days, I ran a lot of Arcana Evolved. There's zero alignment in the game, and it worked pretty well regardless. It didn't hinder my players' planning, or their reactions to encounters at all.

I'll bet - a beverage of your choice - that Obryn has a "World Document" of some kind that he can give to players. Something that describes his world, some of the creatures or organizations or gods or terrains or rules within it. Lots of DMs do this (myself included), so it's a pretty safe bet.

Nope, I don't right now. I haven't needed it as of yet. I can't remember needing one for any D&Dish game, recently.

Now the "World Document" usually outlines the differences between Obryn's World and that of the Generic Setting of D&D. Perhaps "All Orcs have purple hair" or "Undead always ask for a napkin before they eat you", or some such thing. As a new player glances through the document, there's no mention of how orcs are brutish and that undead usually smell of rotting flesh.

Why is that? Why leave out those details?

'Cuz it's assumed you knew that already! When playing a fantasy game as well known as D&D, some knowledge of some of the common fantasy tropes is assumed. That's really useful - its saves lots of time on the DM's part.

I let my players know when the time is right, usually. Again, going back to Arcana Evolved, I had to more or less instruct them on Chorrim and ... crud, the goat-headed dudes. Those aren't in your typical D&D game, and it wasn't necessarily important for them to know that Chorrim are more or less militaristic, intelligent ogre-sized creatures bent on domination; or that the goat guys were generally nomadic raiders until it mattered.

In both cases, they worked just fine without an alignment. Alignment is a crutch - motivation is what matters.

But NOW: If you have a Gold Dragon in your 4e setting, one of the primary stereotypes of "gold dragon-ness" has been muddled by WotC developers. The players will have to ask: "Are gold dragons usually good in your campaign?"

....and maybe - and here's the worst part - they won't think to ask, as they'll assume the stereotype from previous editions. I mean "aren't gold dragons supposed to be Good?"

If they wonder what alignment a gold dragon is, I'd tell them what I've always told them: "It depends on the dragon." Then, they can always roll a monster knowledge check of some sort if they need to know more in general; or hunt for rumors if they need to know about one in particular.

I can't remember the last time I used a purely good or evil dragon in one of my games. They're always detailed as a major NPC.

-O

 

[KarinsDad]

I fail to see how the Alignment line in the Monster Manual actually leads you to this conclusion

What other conclusion can one make?

Because WotC suddenly discovered "People do not think of good creatures when they think of Unicorns"?

Talk about illogical.


The issue is one of throwing 30 year old flavor tropes that players are used to out the window for no good reason.

When someone says "Beholder" to a player, he doesn't think "Hydra". When someone says "Angel" to a player, he doesn't think "Unaligned".


Dwarves are basically good. Not anymore. Now they are just as broadbased as any human. Why? Because. Because why? Because we want PCs to fight Dwarves.

What other conclusion can one make? A typo???