Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Vyvyan Basterd" data-source="post: 4782193" data-attributes="member: 4892">I strongly disagree. The new celestials make much more sense to me. They are servants of the gods. They serve their god without question. This could be a good or evil god, so the celestials we have in the MM1 can be servants of good or evil. Being unaligned fits better with modern fantasy stories about angels. See shows like Supernatural for their treatment on angels.See above. Plus, any unaligned creature can be just as heroic and "good" as unaligned PCs. They can make for interesting non-combat encounters. Unaligned does not equal the Neutral alignment of past editions. All it means is that the creature is not inherently good. It can be corrupted through normal means. But that doesn't mean it can't be a "good" being. The actual aligned creatures, IMO, are those that can't be corrupted by normal means (if G or LG) or can never be redeemed* (if E or CE). I think they slapped Evil on too many creatures though.I completely disagree here. Celestial servants of good deities most assuredly exist. Mischievious fey don't have to be good alignment. NPC adventurers can be any alignment the DM chooses and can ally with the PCs no matter what their alignment is. And I agree with Ochre Jelly on Ents. IIRC in all editions of D&D Treants have not been good-aligned.[sblock]One of the hooks in the second Paragon adventure is that the PCs ally with Orcus![/sblock]As already mentioned there has been support for evil PCs already. And the best thing about evil PCs? They will fight anyone who stands in the way of their goals, whether they be good, evil or unaligned.I think this is a gross overgeneralization and quite unfair of you to say. The adventures I have run so far from the "4E team" have had plenty of opportunities outside of combat and give some good advice and background to make those opportunities interesting. The issue is that outside of combat things are boundless and trying to bind those ideas would require authors to cover infinite ground. Instead they provide DMs with some starting ground and encourage the DM to gel that into something interesting on his own. That's what differentiates tabletop from computers, the DM can go "off-program."That would definitely be a constructive way to address the things you consider to be an issue.*Never being too absolute of course, but a case of this happening should be a unique circumstance.</blockquote>

Verification