D&D General Why are there Good Monsters in the Monster Manual?

[Vaalingrade]

Again, a common misconception. The existence if a monster stat block does not imply the PCs are going to fight it.

Yeah, it also fills page count.

 

[BookTenTiger]

So where are they supposed to put the Orcs and the Drow now? Are we still fighting those? What the heck is going on around here?!

Let's not bring that conversation into this thread.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

I haven't used Orcs or Drow in my adventures since...heck, probably the mid-1990s.

It is that kind of discrimination that has caused these underprivileged monsters to resort to alignment shifts and ambiguity, good sir! The fact that they have been under-represented in YOUR dungeons and/or dragons has caused the social downfall of the western realms! I say it is time we put the stat blocks on the player characters and let the monsters have a run at them!! Alignment be damned! Am I in the right topic? Who cares! I yield the floor.

 

[Mort]

Plenty of campaigns exist where the PCs are morally gray or "evil," or at least not "good."

Even if the PCs are the "good" guys there is a huge amount of room for mistake, deception and misconception where they come in conflict with other good creatures.

Assuming alignment is even used (and many campaigns don't) not all monsters adhere to the alignment on the page. A Gold dragon that's become (or always has been) corrupt and evil can make for a great foe - especially if the group isn't expecting him to be a foe.

And, as stated above, good to have stats for allies too. Plus, again as stated, tradition and page count are also a thing.

 

[Quickleaf]

I may be an outlier, but I've found the one-size-statblock-fits-all approach of the Monster Manuals to be... more limited than my personal tastes.

For example, yeah I have used a deva and a metallic dragon in combat scenarios, but more often I've used them in tense negotiations. That's one of the elements I feel is missing – holistically thinking about how is this monster intended to be used at the table, and then orienting the presentation of its entry in the Monster Manual towards that intended design.

For example: Kobolds use traps, right? So why not include traps in its MM entry? Maybe expand it to 2-pages, or replace the "winged kobold" (can't that just be a sidebar "it can fly 30 ft"?) with a random table referencing traps in the DMG, or even just include one sample trap that's particularly kobold-ish, or maybe include trap design notes for the DM to the effect of "kobold traps often trigger on tripwires strung at human waist-level or via pressure plates that only activate when 50 lbs are placed onto and then removed from the plate."

Maybe the couatl entry gets a couple of riddles that require the player to reframe a situation through an ethical lens or otherwise practice selfless thinking?

Maybe the deva has a skill challenge or bulletpoint list of negotiation/quest ideas to the effect of "prevent a deva from falling / redeem a fallen deva"?

Because I definitely use good-aligned monsters, just not usually as combat adversaries.

 

[MatthewJHanson]

I'm old enough to remember when the good elves fought the good dwarves at the Battle of Five Armies

The nerd purist in me needs to point out that, while it came close, the dwarves and elves never fought and instead united against the goblins.

I do get you larger point of course that different factions that both consider themselves "good" can find themselves at odds. Also "good" is very relative. I'm not sure how good the dwarves were in terms of D&D alignment. Their motives seemed mostly to be gold and revenge. I could easily see a silver dragon taking it into their head that in order to protect humans from themselves, they needed to crown themselves emperor and institute draconian laws.

In my own campaign, I've had an encounter where the PCs had to fight a solar to prove their worth to wield a magical sword. They were friendly and would let the PCs surrender or retreat, but they had a job to do.

 

[MatthewJHanson]

Also didn't 4e cut metallic dragons out of the Monster Manual and there was an uproar about it.

Traditions are strong.

 

[Willie the Duck]

Were they always there? Do you use the stats, or just the lore?

In the original D&D game, there already were plenty of good and bad (lawful and chaotic at the time) monster entries. It is worth mentioning that there were 5 chromatic dragons but only the gold dragon on team good, so there was already a sense that maybe you needed more villainous enemies than kindly ones. That said, from the very get go, it was rather clear that like could fight (or steal from, remember that one of the most important stats a creature had in the TSR era was the treasure types) like, or players could play amoral crooks or villains or don'tthinkaboutittoohard murderhobos.

 

[Oofta]

Because good monsters exist in the world and need stats.

It’s a common mistake to make, but it’s still a mistake to think the word “monster” in this context absolutely means evil, bad, or needing to be killed, etc.

Again, a common misconception. The existence if a monster stat block does not imply the PCs are going to fight it.

Any of that works.

As above, you’re misunderstanding the word monster in this context and assuming anything with a stat block is meant to be fought and killed.

As far as I can tell, yes. All the way back to 1974 and earlier.

Both. When necessary.

From the first page of the Monster Manual...

“WHAT lS A MONSTER?

A monster is defined as any creature that can be interacted with and potentially fought and killed. Even something as harmless as a frog or as benevolent as a unicorn is a monster by this definition. The term also applies to humans, elves, dwarves, and other civilized folk who might be friends or rivals to the player characters.”

So wait ... are you saying that just because "Bard" is listed as a monster in VGTM it's not okay to kill them on sight? Hmm. I may have some explaining to do.

 

[Greggy C]

I think its similar to why there is so much put into adventure modules that is for the DM's eyes only.

Because it is a book and is meant to be read, and one takes great pleasure in the reading, regardless of whether you use it in your game or not.

To detail all the evil dragons and not detail good dragons? That would be a travesty. It was engrained upon my young mind which good dragons were more powerful than evil dragons. Can the gold kill the red? I must know !

Similarly if you are detailing the outer planes, devils, demons and neutral evil devonsletscallthemsomethingloth, you have to detail the good outer planes, solars and devas and of course lets compare and see who wins.

Then there is wandering monsters, those monsters could include good ones, which is a nice break from fighting, and regardless, you want the monster manual to talk about their rarity, motivations, enemies, etc.