Monster Alignment

[M.L. Martin]

Once, just once I would like someone to tell me why the old fluff was worthwhile beyond "it's the stuff I remember from my childhood".

Kamikaze Midget has already hit the "Good dragon archetype" that these creatures used to fill and no longer do; on a related note, the good dragons solve the problem that 4E's designers noted with the aasimar--how do you make something both good and cool? They serve as an example that goodness need not be weak or dull.

However, this may make the older fluff a bad fit for 4E, which seems to believe that 'Goodness=PCs and only PCs,' and really doesn't seem that big on encouraging the PCs to be good either. (Yes, I'm cranky, prejudiced, and may not be entirely fair on this point.)

 

[M.L. Martin]

There seemed to me to be a kind of "Law Bad, Chaos Good" thrust during 2e. Even Planescape had reflections of this, and it loved twisting with alignment:

Hmm...it varied. Ravenloft suggested that Lawful Good was the real antithesis to the land, and Chaotic Evil was the lowest of the low and the direction it would often drag its victims towards. Paladins and, optionally, LG clerics would set off 'alarm bells', and forced alignment shifts tended to move in the Chaotic Evil direction (half-giants left alone in Ravenloft, undead under the Requiem rules). Van Richten, the setting's iconic hero, was a Lawful Good thief, after all. Of course, "some of Ravenloft's most fiendish creatures are of lawful evil alignment." (Domains of Dread, p. 9) Given that that same source said that "players have a tendency to see that which is chaotic as evil and to judge those who are lawful as good," I wonder if the emphasis on Chaotic Good and Lawful Evil themes in some products wasn't meant as a reaction against a perceived bias that sometimes went overboard.

I think this went kind of along with 2e's praise of elves as more awesome than anything. Not sure if it existed before then, but that's when I started to notice it.

Does that really manifest that much outside of the Complete Book of Elves? Most of my 2E lore deals with Ravenloft, where elves are rare and largely Dragonlancian, and Dragonlance, where elves are often portrayed in a snobbish and unflattering light. I know the Realms had a lot of powerful elves.
Maybe it was the Tolkien influence--although Tolkien's elves tend more Lawful Good, with noteworthy exceptions.

 

[Cam Banks]

Even the Othlorx metallics?

Well, there are those. But then again, Taladas may as well be another campaign setting.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[Cam Banks]

I think there's always going to be an essential problem for some people to agree to both "the heroes are good guys" and "the heroes kill the bad monsters and take their treasure." Bravely stalking through dungeons and heroically overcoming obstacles is one thing, but the general consensus is that the evil monsters need to be beaten, overcome, or killed in some fashion, and that this is rarely seen as a bad thing by the LG or G players.

I wonder how many people play nonviolent PCs?

It's a tangent of a sort, but entirely relevant. What do the good dragons do? I agree that they're a classic archetype and want them to remain so, but what's their purpose when 4E seems intent on delivering a "kill the bad monster" ethic most of the time?

Cheers,
Cam

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I think someone else said it best when they commented on how 4e might as well change alignments into either Alignment: PC or Alignment: DM.

 

[doctorhook]

I think someone else said it best when they commented on how 4e might as well change alignments into either Alignment: PC or Alignment: DM.

lol Interesting idea. It's certainly a unique response to the inherent problem that is alignment.

 

[wingsandsword]

Obviously you have no intention of discussing alignment, so I'm going to avoid further trouble and not respond to this flamebait anymore.

Finally, FWIW, you failed in your stated intention: not once in your post did even attempt to explain why the old fluff was worth keeping, barring the response that that's how it always was. Or maybe you think you succeeded, because you never actually mentioned "childhood". Bravo.

I am not trying to "flamebait" anybody, someone wanted to know why the old flavor/setting material was worth keeping and it offended people to remove, so I answered honestly.

You might not agree with it, and it seems like you don't want to discuss any viewpoint that you don't agree with, but that is my viewpoint. From what I can tell, I'm far from the only person who thinks this, and for us tradition of the game is a very valid reason not to change major aspects of the "fluff" of D&D, and the alignment of a pretty iconic creature like the Gold Dragon is something I would definitely not say is a minor aspect.

If you play D&D to have fun, playing a game you are familiar with and comfortable with is a lot of that to people, and a game that doesn't feel familiar and comfortable doesn't have that certain intangible "D&D vibe", and a lot of that familiarity and comfort zone is the general sense of continuity in "fluff". Sorry, but that's the way it is for many of us.

Just because you don't agree with me doesn't mean I am trying to "flamebait" anybody. This is what I really believe, this is one of several reasons why I don't play or like 4e, and I was trying to explain why big changes like the 4e alignment changes offend a number of D&D players and have created the split in the player base that has lead to the "Edition Wars".

 

[Derren]

Even the Othlorx metallics?

And now ask yourself why you remembered them?
Maybe because they were different?
Too bad that they are now the default in D&D. No more wonder when you meet an uncaring or even evil metallic dragon. Thats expected behaviour as they are just unaligned monsters like Hook Horrors.

 

[knifie_sp00nie]

Another solution to this alignment problem is to wait for the second droconomicon to come out. The issue is one of fluff, so why not see what the fluff book says? The MM is mostly fighting stats for people that make their own stories up. I'm sure with more pages the writers will give you good dragons of some sort.

I never understood why a creature with godlike power should give a about humanity anyway. I also really hate the idea of making any sort of judgement about character based on skin color or other appearance. Some call that PC, but I think it's more a reflection of an evolving culture and more mature storytelling.

Two whole books just on dragons seem excessive, but it's what the upset people have been crying for. It's WotC paying lip service (that sells) to the color-coded dragons of tradition. Be happy that your pet monster gets two books worth of extended material and let the MM entry be ambiguous.

 

[Umbran]

Folks,

There have been several instances here with people getting personal and generally being snarky jerks. You know who you are. Consider yourself warned. Play nice, please.