Metallic Dragons: Unaligned!?

[77IM]

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."

Haha, it's like my earlier suggestion that the only two alignments be "Player Characters" and "Dungeon Master."

"Wow, it's a +5 player character avenger greatsword!!! Once per day, on a hit, it can deal +5d12 narrativist damage against a dungeon master-aligned creature!"

-- 77IM

 

[Obryn]

What other conclusion can one make?

That it can be about potential conflict?

Conflict != Killing. You said Killing, which I think is clearly a leap of King-Kongian proportions.

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

I would be happier without any alignment whatsoever, but this is far from the only flavor trope that's been changed in 4e.

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

No, but again I don't see why that matters. It's one thing to know that a beholder is a floating ball with eyes. It's another to say they're all evil and bent on domination. One's a physical description, and the other is a lazy man's motivation. Whether or not a beholder is "evil" is secondary to what that beholder is trying to accomplish.

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???

Why are you assuming a fight? You're really focused that this is only for combat, rather than the much-broader conflict. That's where you're making an unwarranted and illogical leap.

-O

 

[Flipguarder]

Marvel Civil war. Good being killing other good beings. Alignment be damned.

Point being, they did not need to make metallic dragons unaligned simply for the purpose of "making attacking them make sense".

When I started playing in 3.5 the fact that there were good monsters in the MM bothered me for about 10 minutes, until I could come up with a slew of ideas for why they would need to be in combat.

I personally believe that the change from good to unaligned, and the lack of change from evil between dragons simply shows that evil is simply overall more of an influence in the 4e universe than it has been in the past. The only other possibility is that they forgot that good monsters make sense.

 

[Bumbles]

Even the inherently "good humanoid" races like Dwarves and Elves are suddenly "Any".

Funny how I think that change is a good one, as what it means to me is that I no longer have to swallow the image that Elves and Dwarves are inherently good, but can instead be good, evil, or just indifferent.

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.

Only if you are unable to define a settlement independently of the statblock.

Which if you are, is missing the point of "any" being used. It gives you freedom to have a stronghold of good dwarves. Or evil ones. Of course, you really had that freedom in the first place, but I kind of like it being explicitly given.

YMMV

 

[Derren]

That it can be about potential conflict?

Conflict != Killing. You said Killing, which I think is clearly a leap of King-Kongian proportions.

Hm, when people talk about out of combat skills, "conflict" suddenly does mean combat/killing......

Still, you can also have a conflict with good creatures, especially when the PCs are unaligned. But even if they are good, good creatures don't automatically agree with everything. And it can create a whole different type of conflict than normally when you know that simply hacking apart your opposition is not a very moral option.

I would be happier without any alignment whatsoever, but this is far from the only flavor trope that's been changed in 4e.

No alignments would be fine too. But WotC left alignment in the game and so I expect it to be used. All of it, not only unaligned or worse so that players need less justification to kill things.

No, but again I don't see why that matters. It's one thing to know that a beholder is a floating ball with eyes. It's another to say they're all evil and bent on domination. One's a physical description, and the other is a lazy man's motivation. Whether or not a beholder is "evil" is secondary to what that beholder is trying to accomplish.

See above. If everything would be unaligned or there was no alignment then it would be ok. But as soon as you have quite a few inherently evil creatures the world also needs some inherently good creatures to stay believable.
Still, evil beholders are part of the D&D mythos as are good metallic dragons.

Why are you assuming a fight? You're really focused that this is only for combat, rather than the much-broader conflict. That's where you're making an unwarranted and illogical leap.
-O

Tell me one other reason why WotC makes so few good creatures. I can't think of any reason other "You generally don't fight good creatures".

Imo:

1. If you think the alignment entry is useless and a waste of space then there should be no problem with leaving metallic dragons good like they were (leaves previous edition fluff intact).

2. If you think alignment matters then WOtC just making unaligned or evil creatures makes a rather unbalanced and unbelievable world.

 

[KarinsDad]

Why are you assuming a fight? You're really focused that this is only for combat, rather than the much-broader conflict. That's where you're making an unwarranted and illogical leap.

Ok, let's not assume a fight.

Let's assume roleplaying.

Previously, the Gold Dragon was a Paragon of Virtue.

A creature the PCs could find to assist or to guide.

Now, like the Unicorn, he is merely another NPC. Not really any different than many other dragons. Greedy. Conceited. Arrogant. Yawn.


I just do not understand the concept that watering down good races and making them pedestrian is a desirable roleplaying goal. Hence, the reason I was focusing on combat.

I cannot understand the rationale and nobody here has come up with a good reason beyond "WotC did it that way".


The Elves no longer come to the aid of the Dwarves because it is the right thing to do. What's in it for them?


The fantasy tropes were there for a reason. They give players a common and traditional understanding of DND and medieval (swords and sorcery) fantasy in general. Ripping them out is lame. Kind of like adding firearms to DND (that was a real winner and will show up in 4E eventually). Just because someone can think up an idea does not make it a good one.

 

[Obryn]

Hm, when people talk about out of combat skills, "conflict" suddenly does mean combat/killing......

Still, you can also have a conflict with good creatures, especially when the PCs are unaligned. But even if they are good, good creatures don't automatically agree with everything. And it can create a whole different type of conflict than normally when you know that simply hacking apart your opposition is not a very moral option.

You absolutely can, but I can have exactly those same conflicts with a creature I'm running as "Unaligned."

No alignments would be fine too. But WotC left alignment in the game and so I expect it to be used. All of it, not only unaligned or worse so that players need less justification to kill things.

Alignment is about the worst possible justification for killing things imaginable, IMO. It doesn't matter if something is evil, unaligned, etc.

See above. If everything would be unaligned or there was no alignment then it would be ok. But as soon as you have quite a few inherently evil creatures the world also needs some inherently good creatures to stay believable.
Still, evil beholders are part of the D&D mythos as are good metallic dragons.

Again, I don't necessarily know why. An unaligned creature can easily create a "point of light" or what-have-you. So can an evil creature. So can a good creature. It's no different to me.

Tell me one other reason why WotC makes so few good creatures. I can't think of any reason other "You generally don't fight good creatures".

How about this...

If something is Good, it implies a lot - namely, that it has some stake in fighting against Evil. If something is unaligned, it may have a stake in fighting against Evil, or it may not. Regardless, the PCs can't just beat a gold dragon with an alignment stick and say, "Hey! Go fix this problem!"

Yes, it's an oversimplification. But so is all alignment, and I'm finding it hard to care even this much.

Imo:

1. If you think the alignment entry is useless and a waste of space then there should be no problem with leaving metallic dragons good like they were (leaves previous edition fluff intact).

2. If you think alignment matters then WOtC just making unaligned or evil creatures makes a rather unbalanced and unbelievable world.

I would have been fine had they been Good. I would have been fine had they been Evil. In both cases, I wouldn't have spared much thought about it. Having them unaligned is awesome because it means I don't even need to ignore it - it comes pre-ignored.

I honestly don't know why monster alignment is such a big deal because it doesn't seem to matter for adventures.

A good creature with motivations is defined by its motivations. An evil creature with motivations is defined by its motivations. If there's a rampaging monster bent on destruction, it doesn't matter what alignment it is. If there's a monster in a dungeon waiting for its next round of adventurers, it doesn't matter what alignment it is.

-O

 

[KarinsDad]

I honestly don't know why monster alignment is such a big deal because it doesn't seem to matter for adventures.

It's a big deal for some players.

Let me ask you a question.

What significant advantage did WotC gain by changing the alignments? What is the purpose of it? How was it broken and needed to be fixed previously?

 

[Derren]

A good creature with motivations is defined by its motivations. An evil creature with motivations is defined by its motivations. If there's a rampaging monster bent on destruction, it doesn't matter what alignment it is. If there's a monster in a dungeon waiting for its next round of adventurers, it doesn't matter what alignment it is.

-O

To use what some poster said on the WotC boards:
When you have good aligned creatures the exceptions who are evil (standard fantasy trope) are much more memorable. As karins Dad said, by being unaligned, golds are "Not really any different than many other dragons. Greedy. Conceited. Arrogant. Yawn."

 

[Obryn]

Ok, let's not assume a fight.

Let's assume roleplaying.

Previously, the Gold Dragon was a Paragon of Virtue.

A creature the PCs could find to assist or to guide.

Now, like the Unicorn, he is merely another NPC. Not really any different than many other dragons. Greedy. Conceited. Arrogant. Yawn.

Why isn't the gold dragon in your campaign a paragon of virtue? Why can't the PCs assist or guide them? Why can't it be a patron of noble deeds? Why can't it be generous or humble?

"Unaligned" doesn't exclude any of those options.

I cannot understand the rationale and nobody here has come up with a good reason beyond "WotC did it that way".

Because "Unaligned" doesn't presume how you should use a creature in your game. An unaligned creature can be good, evil, or mixed. It's a more interesting choice for roleplaying and motivation, imo.

The Elves no longer come to the aid of the Dwarves because it is the right thing to do. What's in it for them?

Why can't they?

Unaligned isn't synonymous with 1e-3e's "Neutral."

The fantasy tropes were there for a reason. They give players a common and traditional understanding of DND and medieval (swords and sorcery) fantasy in general. Ripping them out is lame. Kind of like adding firearms to DND (that was a real winner and will show up in 4E eventually). Just because someone can think up an idea does not make it a good one.

I would prefer that all creatures were unaligned or non-aligned, but I'm fine if creatures primarily come in the flavors of unaligned-evil-chaotic evil.

-O