Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="cwhs01" data-source="post: 4802428" data-attributes="member: 18388">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?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.verisimilitude - how does alignment help verisimilitude (V) in any way? loosening restrictions would actually increase Vmax in my book.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.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. 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.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?</blockquote>

Verification