Metallic Dragons: Unaligned!?

[FadedC]

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."

Gold dragons are honest and forthright, treat creatures as wards and students rather then slaves and pay fealty to Bahamut. I'm not sure what game your playing which that's not really any different then a red dragon.

 

[Obryn]

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?

I don't doubt it's a big deal for some players, but I still have no idea why that should be more important that other considerations. Sometimes things change - gnomes were a big deal for some folks, too, but I don't think that's a pressing reason to leave them identical to their previous incarnations.

What advantages are there? By changing most traditionally good creatures to Unaligned, WotC removed the possibility that players will try and shoehorn or coerce a creature's behaviors based on its alignment.

I can also look straight at a creature's motivations and give it whatever motivations I wish without the need to modify the Alignment line or pretend it's not there.

I don't think something needs to be broken in order for it to change. I wouldn't have cared if metallic dragons were Good. As it stands, I prefer that they are Unaligned, and it's emphatically not because WotC says it's better that way.

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."

Unaligned doesn't imply any of those, nor does it exclude lawful and/or good behaviors and goals.

It allows for them, sure, but it doesn't require them.

Unaligned <> Neutral

You can read it as, "No alignment specified" if you choose.

-O

 

[Derren]

Gold dragons are honest and forthright, treat creatures as wards and students rather then slaves and pay fealty to Bahamut. I'm not sure what game your playing which that's not really any different then a red dragon.

Doesn't sound unaligned either.

 

[Obryn]

Doesn't sound unaligned either.

If you are judging how closely a creature's behavior hews to its alignment, there's no such thing as "Not acting unaligned enough."

-O

 

[KarinsDad]

Unaligned <> Neutral

You can read it as, "No alignment specified" if you choose.

Not according to the rules:

If you’re unaligned, you don’t actively seek to harm others or wish them ill. But you also don’t go out of your way to put yourself at risk without some hope for reward. You support law and order when doing so benefits you. You value your own freedom, without worrying too much about protecting the freedom of others.

This is a behavioral indicator not much different than true neutral:

A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn’t feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she’s not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.

The phrase "no alignment" (both in the PHB and in the MM) when defining Unaligned means that the creature does not behave in the good or evil camp, not that they have no alignment whatsoever. They do. Unaligned as defined above.

 

[Bumbles]

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?

And that's a bad thing because???

Sheesh, the Elf/Dwarf conflict has been around for quite some time, you might even say it was part of the foundation of the D&D meta-setting given how prominent it was in Tolkien.

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.

If you don't want firearms in your games, don't have them. Knocking those who do want to explore that trope is not going to anything except increase the hurt feelings. For you, it may not be a good idea. For others...well, it just might be something they like.

Go figure.

 

[webrunner]

The Dwarf, Elf, Human and probably several other entries say Any.

I didn't see those.. but they seem to have dropped this with MM2. There's four pages of humans and every one that isn't evil is unaligned - including ones which presumably would be minor NPCs like Human Noble.

 

[Obryn]

The phrase "no alignment" (both in the PHB and in the MM) when defining Unaligned means that the creature does not behave in the good or evil camp, not that they have no alignment whatsoever. They do. Unaligned as defined above.

...or in the sidebar on p. 19, "Having no alignment; not taking a stand."

-O

 

[Bumbles]

I didn't see those.. but they seem to have dropped this with MM2. There's four pages of humans and every one that isn't evil is unaligned - including ones which presumably would be minor NPCs like Human Noble.

Then it's possible that unaligned is meant to serve the place of any in the new scheme of things. Or something else.

Whatever, as I said in my first post, I'm more concerned with the description than the stat-block...and even then, that's subject to change.

 

[Nail]

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

I think you're confounding your distaste for the alignment system (a personal perspective) with the fact that Gold Dragons in D&D have been (up until a few days ago) Lawful Good.

It's all cool and everything to not like alignments. ....But that has nothing to do with how altering fundamanetal assumptions in the game propagates throughout the gaming comminuty.

Gold Dragons used to be Lawful Good. Now they're not. That cuts against some widely-held assumptions...and I can't agree that doing so is good for the game.