Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="CovertOps" data-source="post: 4807357" data-attributes="member: 65152">Having finally read this entire thread it seems the entire argument is between a black and white point of view and one that includes shades of grey.&nbsp; Derren and KarensDad seem to basically be saying that &quot;Unaligned&quot; is within itself a moral code and anyone who is &quot;Unaligned&quot; acts in EXACTLY the same manner as any other creature that is &quot;Unaligned&quot;.&nbsp; If you start with this premise then the only way you can have a &quot;Good&quot; Gold Dragon is to change it's alignment.&nbsp; If on the other hand you believe as Obryn does that within &quot;Unaligned&quot; you can run the entire gamut from con artists to Mother Teresa and still be &quot;Unaligned&quot; and reserve &quot;Good&quot; for the truly good beings and &quot;Evil&quot; for only the most despicable acts then you can wonder why Dragons weren't &quot;Unaligned&quot; from the very beginning.&nbsp; This however still leaves me wondering why the chromatic dragons got to stay &quot;Evil&quot;.Frankly there is no resolution between these two world views and neither side is going to convince the other.WotC would like to see any side of any issue as being supported by their system.&nbsp; To this end they have specifically excluded almost any but the most basic information about cultures of creatures in the MM's and all (as far as I know) out of combat statistics for everyone ON PURPOSE.&nbsp; This is done for campaign building purposes.&nbsp; In my world I can have evil Gold Dragons that can't talk and are basically just big lizards if I want.&nbsp; Someone else could have them as paragons of virtue that can cast spells and speak with the &quot;lesser&quot; races and maybe even polymorph into them.&nbsp; No matter what choice you make there are no game mechanics to get in your way as the DM.&nbsp; This is a Win/Win for WotC.&nbsp; This kind of issue is exactly the kind of thing where WotC does NOT want to take either side.&nbsp; They want to say &quot;We support both of your play styles&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="CovertOps, post: 4807357, member: 65152"] Having finally read this entire thread it seems the entire argument is between a black and white point of view and one that includes shades of grey. Derren and KarensDad seem to basically be saying that "Unaligned" is within itself a moral code and anyone who is "Unaligned" acts in EXACTLY the same manner as any other creature that is "Unaligned". If you start with this premise then the only way you can have a "Good" Gold Dragon is to change it's alignment. If on the other hand you believe as Obryn does that within "Unaligned" you can run the entire gamut from con artists to Mother Teresa and still be "Unaligned" and reserve "Good" for the truly good beings and "Evil" for only the most despicable acts then you can wonder why Dragons weren't "Unaligned" from the very beginning. This however still leaves me wondering why the chromatic dragons got to stay "Evil". Frankly there is no resolution between these two world views and neither side is going to convince the other. WotC would like to see any side of any issue as being supported by their system. To this end they have specifically excluded almost any but the most basic information about cultures of creatures in the MM's and all (as far as I know) out of combat statistics for everyone ON PURPOSE. This is done for campaign building purposes. In my world I can have evil Gold Dragons that can't talk and are basically just big lizards if I want. Someone else could have them as paragons of virtue that can cast spells and speak with the "lesser" races and maybe even polymorph into them. No matter what choice you make there are no game mechanics to get in your way as the DM. This is a Win/Win for WotC. This kind of issue is exactly the kind of thing where WotC does NOT want to take either side. They want to say "We support both of your play styles". [/QUOTE]

Verification