Monster Alignment

[Scribble]

So in a number of threads I've seen people upset by the change in the metallic dragons (like the Gold Dragons) that used to be LG becoming unaligned. I don't really have an opinion on the actual change itself, other then it doesn't bother me. But I am curious from people that it does bother-

Why is that?

What would keeping the creature the LG alignment offer to the game? What makes the creature's alignment being LG so important? Why is changing it from LG to unaligned so problematic for you?

 

[Ktulu]

Doesn't bother me in the least. I threw out the idea of alignment back in early 3e. I like that WotC finally caught on, as well. It's nice that they have an idea (unaligned, evil, etc..), but really, I don't need a pile of good-aligned creatures in my MM that I'd use maybe once in ten years.

Count me as totally happy with their decision.

 

[Cam Banks]

Much of my D&D headspace is devoted to Dragonlance, where metallic dragons being good and chromatic dragons being evil is part of the core setting conceit. I wouldn't be so bothered by this alignment thing in Eberron, where it was kind of a feature of the setting that you could have a LG red dragon or a CE silver dragon. But I don't want any unaligned metallics in Krynn.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[Bumbles]

But I don't want any unaligned metallics in Krynn.

Not even that dragon who got really bored guarding the eggs on the moon?

 

[Lord Zack]

Doesn't really make sense to me that good aligned creatures are considered useless because aren't may players greedy mercenary types? And I operate off the idea that good isn't monolithic. Even decent folk can fight amongst each other. But my dragons, and other monsters are in fact not always the alignment listed in the book. I reserve "always" alignments to Outsiders pretty much.

 

[Wormwood]

Hundreds of posts later and I still have no earthly idea.

 

[doctorhook]

Much of my D&D headspace is devoted to Dragonlance, where metallic dragons being good and chromatic dragons being evil is part of the core setting conceit. I wouldn't be so bothered by this alignment thing in Eberron, where it was kind of a feature of the setting that you could have a LG red dragon or a CE silver dragon. But I don't want any unaligned metallics in Krynn.

Cheers,
Cam

To be fair, "Unaligned" isn't really the best alignment for Gold Dragons (or any dragons) in Eberron anyway, though it's probably a close second-best choice. The best alignment entry for Eberron Dragons (nay, Eberron creatures) is "Any". On this basis, I think it's fair to say that in Dragonlance, things could reasonably be changed in the opposite direction: Dragons could have fixed alignments, if that's a crucial feature in the setting.

 

[M.L. Martin]

Well, I'm not really a 4E fan, but my two cents:

Copper dragons actually make more sense as Unaligned, given that they were "Chaotic Good (Neutral)" in previous editions. But gold and silver dragons as paragons of goodness and wisdom are part of the D&D tradition, stretching back over thirty years at this point. Granted, Basic didn't have silvers, but even there, Golds were the iconic Lawful dragon.

Does that mean it can't be changed? No, but with that much history behind it, and the fact that this iconic role is key to Dragonlance, shows up in the D&D cartoon, Forgotten Realms, and other places, and even has a pair of iconic deities (Bahamut vs. Tiamat) dedicated to serving as its pinnacle, the burden of proof lies on those who would change it, IMO.

So, what do Unaligned gold and silver dragons add to the game? It darkens the setting a little by reducing the number of powerful and iconic good creatures, adds some more creatures to the types that typical PC groups can fight, and places dragons as a whole firmly on the "Indifferent to Hostile" end of the spectrum of creature types from a civilized point of view. Whether this outweighs the loss of their classic role is largely a subjective decision. Thinking about it, I find the third element most convincing of the reasons for the changeover, but I've generally held the view that dragons often work better as symbols of primal evil than as 'just another creature type.' My Dragonlance Anti-Canon has metallics that are Unaligned at best, but that's a decidedly subvervise take on Krynn.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

*shrug* I don't get it either. Alignments are circumstantial; if I'm playing generic D&D then I assume all ugly monsters are evil and the others are neutral. *cough* I mean, unaligned. If I'm playing Dragonlance, I assume that metallics are good. If I'm playing a homebrew, I make no assumptions other than what the DM mentions.

 

[Nivenus]

I don't mind that metallic dragons can be evil.

However, I do mind that the ax doesn't swing both ways. A gold dragon can be evil but a red dragon, if one takes the MM at face value, can't be good. An eladrin can be chaotic evil, but an orc can't be lawful good.

It's a double-standard really, and it bothers me. I'm all for moral grays. But when all it means is that the good guys aren't necessarily good while the bad guys are still evil, it becomes more of a back and dark gray setting than black, white, and gray one.

From a gameplay perspective, I understand it to a degree, as good parties are less likely to fight good monsters. Then again, I also dislike the "you should only play if you're a good or inclined-to-good guy" vibe the PHB takes as well.