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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Usumcasane" data-source="post: 4804309" data-attributes="member: 6112">Honestly I don't care what alignment it says they are.  I think it is better for the game in that it is a step in the direction of jettisoning the whole stupid alignment system.  But I think it is better for DMs because they can open the MM up and say, "hey, I think a Unicorn would be fun in this fight".  And when his players say, "no way, unicorns are good", he can point those that can't roll with the story at the monster's entry.  For those that need rules justification over DM discretion.  He doesn't have to use the Unicorn as a monster, but since it is in the book with a full block of combat stats, he can without creating a justification for why a Good creature is attacking them.  Yes, you can create such a reason, but not every DM wants to.  And see, that is the problem with an alignment system right there.  Deserving of death and motivation is determined by what word is written down, rather than complex personality traits and outlooks.  There are a number of us that see Unaligned as an opportunity to go beyond black and white alignment into something more nuanced and real.  And then there are others so ingrained with the alignment system that they can only see it as the new Neutral.  And to those, it will indeed look like everything is Neutral or Evil (and in fact, most things in nature are neutral, humans included).  Nothing said will convince these folks that Unaligned actually allows for a richer tapestry of creatures than the more rigid Good alignments.And yes, I'm saying most Evil monsters should be listed as Unaligned too.  Even in the context of an alignment system.  It is individual PCs and NPCs that have alignments -- not species.  Red Dragon's aren't evil -- Fenril the Red Drake is Evil (or preferably, selfishly and sadistically unaligned).</blockquote>

Verification