Rich Baker Blog on Monsters

[Hussar]

^ Wut he said.

 

[TwinBahamut]

The only problem with unicorn as mount though is how many people play LG females? That's a pretty narrow niche for a mount.

Well, then they should remove those restrictions. Take a cue from Warcraft 3, and make them into the ideal mounts for powerful old wizards, or something. The important thing is that they can be made more useful without forcing them into a role other than what best suits them.

I mean, is there a purpose for pegasi other than being a flying mount for characters?

Also, mounts can be interesting opponents simply by combining them with a rider, and changing the encounter without requiring the mount becoming an individual combatant. A group of evil soldiers riding horses is a different encounter than a group of soldiers on foot. A group of evil soldiers riding pegasi, gryphons, or wyverns is another very different encounter. A PC riding a horse is a different kind of PC, and a PC riding a unicorn should be just as different and interesting.

As far as the sense of making things into something the PC's fight, well, what else is a monster good for? I mean, how often do you ever see dryads or unicorns in adventures? It's very, very rare. I'd much rather the monsters in the books be applicable to the widest range possible. It's far easier to turn a combat monster into a non-combat monster than the other way around. IMHO.

Monsters are good for a lot of things other than combat, and you admit so yourself right here (or else there wouldn't be a wide range for you to value). The reason that you don't seem to see dryads or unicorns often might because they are extremely limited creatures in their current implementation is a bit restrictive, not because their roles as allies and non-combatants is flawed.

 

[Lackhand]

"Myth".

Or rather, the LG female-only nature of the unicorn has pretty good mythological roots. You could probably broaden that to "Good-aligned females" -- but I think crotchety old bearded lechers -- celibate or not -- is pushing it.

And the symbolism hurts, too. Strapping warriors? Fine. But the wizard carries around a stick to compensate, he doesn't need a blinkin' narwhal to ride around on.

(only half serious)

 

[Sir Sebastian Hardin]

"Good" =/= "Friendly"

If the unicorn is CG, it will not see a LG party as kindred spirits, but will see what they differ at. To a CG creature, a LG creature is a tyrant. An enlightened one, true, but still a dictator willing to enforce his own world view on other, freer spirits.

That's not true. Everyone knows that chaotic beings are the ones that think more about themselves, while lawful ones seek the greater common good.
Unlike evil characters, most good ones see good as something more important than law/chaos. Elandrins would side with Archons against Devils, but they wouldn't side with Demons against the lawful Archons.

 

[pawsplay]

That's not true. Everyone knows that chaotic beings are the ones that think more about themselves, while lawful ones seek the greater common good.
Unlike evil characters, most good ones see good as something more important than law/chaos. Elandrins would side with Archons against Devils, but they wouldn't side with Demons against the lawful Archons.

That's only because alliance is a more meaningful concept to good creatures.

 

[KingCrab]

Fey should be, at the very least, dangerous and upredictable. It should be possible to befriend them, but if it's difficult and risky to try, that makes them so much more mysterious and fun.

 

[Merlin the Tuna]

That's not true. Everyone knows that chaotic beings are the ones that think more about themselves, while lawful ones seek the greater common good.

Either that, or Lawful beings are obsessed about looking good according to existing standards and Chaotic beings are willing to look past all of the nonsense to cut to the heart of the matter to seek the greater good.

Hey look, alignment is silly!

 

[DM_Blake]

The only problem with unicorn as mount though is how many people play LG females? That's a pretty narrow niche for a mount.

Oooooh, I soooo very badly want to say that a LG female is an oxymoron, but my wife would kill me, so I won't say it

 

[DM_Blake]

As for me, I don't care.

I have almost completely abolished alignments from my 3.5e game, and would do so again with 4e.

I tell my players to write an alignment on their character sheet only if it helps them from a roleplaying aspect.

I judge their alignments from how they play. And to be fair, I talk about it with them from time to time, so that I know we're both on the same page.

Then, one day when a spell only affects chaotic party members, and I tell a couple players to roll their saves and the rest are immune, nobody is surprised by my choice of who it affects. Sometimes, in those situations, my players had a different alignment on their sheet, but I don't care about what is written; only what is played.

Monsters are the same way. So what if the book says an ogre is usally CE. Ogres in my world have their own goals and motivations and they don't always conform to human-centric alignments. Finding a neutral ogre, is just about as common as finding an evil one, and finding a good ogre is less common, but still common enough that it isn't surprising. And just because that ogre is willing to eat humans doesn't make him evil, any more than a human eating a pig is evil.

So I say, "Down with alignments" once and for all.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I'm absolutely sure alignments such as LG, CN, and NE are still there, because taking those away will make it un-D&D.

By that argument, though, Basic D&D wasn't D&D, and neither was the original D&D that predated AD&D 1E.

The former only had Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic. The latter had (IIRC) Lawful Good, Lawful Evil, Chaotic Good, Chaotic Evil, and Neutral.

Very little is as intricately tied to D&D as people think.