MM II Identity Parade

[gizmo33]

Cute story. However, even by risking life, the dog gave up less than what he received by domestication. (also, to protect someone carrying his genes, so the argument doesn't apply in the first place - this is well described by the selfish gene theory).

There is no scientific basis to say this because you did not define a measure for value. I can say that everything that a dog gets from people is worth 0. And you can say it's worth 1 million dinars. I find your premise to be undefined and unscientific. Your instinct for assuming relevant facts without support (eg. the dog "gave up less") is par for course for the internets but is unscientific IME.

 

[Harlekin]

Which models of evolution don't define the successful behaviors for the environment? One that predicts that a wooly mammoth would thrive in the ocean I suppose. So far I don't recognize what you're talking about as being science.

OK, let's break this down. Evolutionary fitness depends of viability and fecundity. I define altruistic behavior is an act that has more cost than benefit to an individual. In evolutionary terms, an act that reduces fitness, likely by reducing viability.

As we talked about altruistic behavior towards other species, there is no gain for the altruistic "gene" by improving fecundity or viability of an other carrier of that gene for example. (*)

Assuming a deterministic model for evolution (not a good fit for dragons) the altruistic "gene" will be reduced in frequency at every generation. Assuming a stochastic model (Small effective population size, so that looks like a good fit) the change in allele frequency depends on the strength of selection, if the costs of altruistic behavior are really small, drift effects will outweigh selection and and the the "selfish" gene may not sweep through the population. However if the costs are substantial, the selfish gene will still become fixed shortly.

That's popgen 101.

(*) I guess if you assume that one dragon's sacrifice gives dragons such a good name that other dragons will profit from it, this might work. I still doubt it, because the effect would probably be too diffuse and not benefit carriers of the noble variant over carriers of the selfish variant. It could lead to some equilibrium distribution though, where the selfish dragons mooch of the good reputation generated by the good dragons.

 

[Harlekin]

There is no scientific basis to say this because you did not define a measure for value. I can say that everything that a dog gets from people is worth 0. And you can say it's worth 1 million dinars. I find your premise to be undefined and unscientific. Your instinct for assuming relevant facts without support (eg. the dog "gave up less") is par for course for the internets but is unscientific IME.

Would you please stop throwing that term around? this is a friendly discussion, so I don't always use the most technical language.

The evolutionary benefit is calculated by the increase in population size due to a behavior. the benefit dogs get from being pets is most easily evaluated by comparing the population size of dogs with the population size of similarly sized non-domesticated predators that would exist in the absence of humans. i would guess that there are a lot more dogs in the US than could be supported as predators by the local ecology. Hence collaboration with humans increases the population size of the animal.

 

[Rechan]

Am I the only one who thinks Gold Dragon Alighment/Evolution needs to be forked?

Because it's really distracting from talking about the MM2. While it has unaligned gold dragons in it, the developer's decision to turn everything "Good" into "Unaligned" goes beyond the MM2, so it is a broader topic than this book.

 

[Rechan]

So, on the topic of monsters, Minions are a little bit more robust.

Slaad Spawn (level 17 minion skirmisher): they have a +2 to hit over the Podspawn.

But here's the cool thing about Slaad Spawn; as an at will power, they get to jump several squares and make a basic attack. If they miss, they explode - and attack everything around them in a close burst 1 for slightly less damage.

What makes this extremely nasty? There's a template that you can apply to other Slaad; as an at will immediate reaction, they spawn a slaad spawn when hit.

Black Pudding also spawn a minion when hit - an 8th level brute. Now, their attacks are a little less accurate, but they're still pulling 10 damage a hit - for an 8th level minion. I think this is certainly suggesting a change in minion design, to say the least. The Black Pudding minions also ignore difficult terrain and opportunity attacks from moving.

 

[Dice4Hire]

So wait, you're stating that you're glad that D&D goes out of it's way to crap on playstyles that aren't yours? Look, I'm glad yours is supported, but that doesn't mean it's now magically unable to support other playstyles. It can be a game where you have good vs not good and have rules for people who want to do otherwise. Right now you're saying "HAH HAH I GOT MY GAME AND YOU DIDN'T. NYEAH NYEAH NEYAH!"

Gee, try the other side of the bed for a change. If you want that game, more power to you, enjoy yourself, have fun, and such. Wizards has expressed the preference for good parties from the get-go in this game system, and I'm not going to apologize for being happy WOTC has done so even stronger in 4E.

If you need an evil game, play it. No one is stopping you.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Harlekin, your entire model and theories are broken when you remember that gold dragons are not unintelligent animals who lack sentience.

Besides, my main gripe with dragons is that if some are unaligned, they ALL should be.

Which reminds me, your argument also breaks apart when you consider the existance of ALWAYS EVIL ALWAYS ALL THE TIME monsters.

All caps plus all bold is very rude on the interwebs.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Black Pudding also spawn a minion when hit - an 8th level brute. Now, their attacks are a little less accurate, but they're still pulling 10 damage a hit - for an 8th level minion. I think this is certainly suggesting a change in minion design, to say the least. The Black Pudding minions also ignore difficult terrain and opportunity attacks from moving.

I ahd not read those monsters, but good catch. I am glad that monsters will be using minions more as special power effects and less and 1/4 xp crowds. I found minions at levels 1-5 or maybe even 6-7 in my face to face to be a lot of fun, but they are just plain useless at higher levels. Other people's experience may vary, but minions just do not do the damage to be much of a threat. It is a shame, as it is such a cool concept.

I'm glad to wee WOTC working on expanding monsters like they are expanding classes and such.

 

[Upper_Krust]

New Minion Damage

Hey all!

I ahd not read those monsters, but good catch. I am glad that monsters will be using minions more as special power effects and less and 1/4 xp crowds. I found minions at levels 1-5 or maybe even 6-7 in my face to face to be a lot of fun, but they are just plain useless at higher levels. Other people's experience may vary, but minions just do not do the damage to be much of a threat. It is a shame, as it is such a cool concept.

I'm glad to wee WOTC working on expanding monsters like they are expanding classes and such.

I don't have MM2 yet to make a thorough enough analysis but I suspect that minion damage has went from being equal to the Minimum of the Low Column on the Normal Damage Expression Table to being equal to the Average of the Low Column Normal Damage Expression Table (round fractions up).

So that might change things as follows:

Minion Level, Old Damage, New Damage
1-3, 4, 7
4-6, 5, 8
7-9, 6, 10
10-12, 6, 10
13-15, 7, 12
16-18, 8, 13
19-21, 9, 14
22-24, 10, 15
25-27, 11, 18
28-30, 12, 19

Can anyone with the book confirm the above?

 

[I'm A Banana]

As we talked about altruistic behavior towards other species, there is no gain for the altruistic "gene" by improving fecundity or viability of an other carrier of that gene for example.

Altruism and selfishness are not genetic or hard-wired as much as they are learned, social behaviors. But regardless, talking about evolutionary alignment is pretty insane, IMO. Gold Dragons are "good" to show that not every dragon is there just to be killed, and to provide a different kind of challenge for a party, and to make a world in which there is one a richer place, and to provide homage to all the good, pure, sacred dragons in myth and legend, to give the party a powerful dragon patron, to represent the fantasy trope of "it looks on the outside like it is on the inside (beautiful and good, ugly and evil)," etc., etc., etc.

A D&D game that doesn't want to represent basic fantasy storytelling techniques isn't a good game for my group, because that is important for my group. Being able to kill a Gold dragon without changing the alignment is NOT important for my group, really, in the slightest. I've lost something constructive, nothing constructive was added, this was an idiot choice from my perspective.

And I really wonder why the 4e team even kept alignment in the game if it's just going to be "PC's Good, everyone else Not Good." If all you use the Good alignment for is to give PC's the right to stab things, it's not being used in a heroic or noble narrative context at all. May as well take the thing out of the game, especially given the mercenary nature of most PC parties.