Monster Alignment

[doctorhook]

Eyecolor doesn't influence any assumptions of behavior, interaction with PCs, and role however.

Actually, I'm currently running the Blue-Eyed/Brown-Eyed campaign setting...

 

[Cam Banks]

Neither does alignment in any sort of mechanical way. I'd expect a statistic to have a mechanical effect.

I think alignment in 4E remains as a categorical limiter, at least in terms of a "what warbands would this guy be in" sense. You'd keep the Chaotic Evil creatures away from the Unaligned creatures, etc etc. It's shorthand for behavior and attitude. It has no effect other than one of grouping like-minded creatures and NPCs together.

This is not a bad thing in and of itself, but I think what the designers may have been trying to go for is a sense of allegiance or attitude rather than alignment. In other words, as has been said several times already, you want to know whose side the NPC or creature is on. That determines a number of things, not the least of which is whether it's OK to inflict serious violence upon it.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[Invisible Stalker]

It bothered me about as long as it took for me to take out a pen and change the alignments to what I wanted.

If I DM, chromatic dragons are evil and metallic dragons are good. End of discussion.

 

[Obryn]

I think alignment in 4E remains as a categorical limiter, at least in terms of a "what warbands would this guy be in" sense. You'd keep the Chaotic Evil creatures away from the Unaligned creatures, etc etc. It's shorthand for behavior and attitude. It has no effect other than one of grouping like-minded creatures and NPCs together.

This is not a bad thing in and of itself, but I think what the designers may have been trying to go for is a sense of allegiance or attitude rather than alignment. In other words, as has been said several times already, you want to know whose side the NPC or creature is on. That determines a number of things, not the least of which is whether it's OK to inflict serious violence upon it.

Cheers,
Cam

I still don't think that's what I'd call a mechanical effect. (Or a statistic, for that matter.) For a minis wargame like DDM the "factions" explanation would make sense, but for an RPG it doesn't really fly for me.

-O

 

[doctorhook]

I think alignment in 4E remains as a categorical limiter, at least in terms of a "what warbands would this guy be in" sense. You'd keep the Chaotic Evil creatures away from the Unaligned creatures, etc etc. It's shorthand for behavior and attitude. It has no effect other than one of grouping like-minded creatures and NPCs together.

I dunno about that, Cam; from what I've seen, 4E tends to have more encounters with creatures of mixed alignment than previous editions. For example, Chaotic Evil creatures are often encountered with both Evil and Unaligned creatures. (Unaligned creatures can and do appear with everybody.) Since these three alignments make up 99% of the alignments possessed by enemies in the typical 4E encounter (of which probably half are Unaligned), it's probably a lot more useful to group enemies by their "faction" (if any) within the dungeon. Rather than worrying about a creature's moral outlook, it's better to be concerned with which interests the monster is pursuing, and whether or not they are contrary to the interests of the PCs.

It bothered me about as long as it took for me to take out a pen and change the alignments to what I wanted.

If I DM, chromatic dragons are evil and metallic dragons are good. End of discussion.

You, sir or madam, obviously get it.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I find it difficult to even consider alignment in the statblock.

I mean, it's certainly a word that is found within the stat block, but given that it has no mechanical effects, I don't think it belongs there. It's not really a statistic as such in 4e.

If eye color were added to the stat block, it'd be "in the stat block" too. And it would have just as much effect on the creature's use in the game.

A little hyperbolic, maybe, but I basically agree, at least as far as 4e is concerned. It was useful in previous MM's for an at-a-glance reference for behavior, but if it's in an MM in 4e, it wants to try to kill you somehow, so that's how it's going to behave. I'm not sure that's a wise thing for an MM to be, but for what it is now, alignment isn't very useful, and is, yeah, mostly just taking up space in the monster entry.

 

[Obryn]

A little hyperbolic, maybe, but I basically agree, at least as far as 4e is concerned. It was useful in previous MM's for an at-a-glance reference for behavior, but if it's in an MM in 4e, it wants to try to kill you somehow, so that's how it's going to behave. I'm not sure that's a wise thing for an MM to be, but for what it is now, alignment isn't very useful, and is, yeah, mostly just taking up space in the monster entry.

I don't think that's a very reasonable stance, either. The MM may have backed off from the "This is a Bestiary of the ENTIRE WORLD" concept, but not every adversary will be fought with and/or killed. Conflict <> Fighting.

The combat stats are good in case that does happen, but just because a creature is in the Monster Manual doesn't make them automatic random encounter table dungeon dressing.

-O

 

[avin]

It bothered me about as long as it took for me to take out a pen and change the alignments to what I wanted.

If I DM, chromatic dragons are evil and metallic dragons are good. End of discussion.

Sure, works the same way here, but I think we were discussing the reasons why Wotc elected that killing evil is fine and killing good isn't.

 

[Doug McCrae]

For me, this isn't a game about fighting and killing things.

I think for most people that's exactly what D&D is, primarily.

"Mosnter Manuals should not just be stat blocks"

I think they should be. "Monsters" = opposition. People who want fluff can find it in the Dragonomicon, etc.

 

[Doug McCrae]

4E loves GOOOOOD vs Evil

Yes. Just like 3e. Just like 2e. And just like post-Gary 1e.