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

[BookTenTiger]

Thanks everyone for the responses!

I think it's interesting thinking about this from a game design perspective. What does the inclusion of Good Monsters say about how the game is played?

To me, it seems to communicate that...

1) You can fight good monsters.

This definitely supports the huge amount of flexibility in how D&D is played. Even though most published adventures assume you will be fighting evil enemies, the MM provides you with the capability to fight Good enemies.

2) All monsters follow the same rules.

This one I find really interesting, and it's something I hadn't thought of before. If my Lawful Good paladin is interacting with a Gold Dragon, I most likely am not going to swing my sword at it. But I could. And if I did, the rules support it as much as they do me fighting an evil Red Dragon. There's something very satisfying about that, as a player.

 

[Unwise]

My party has fought more angels than devils. They are always joking about it. I have always loved the idea of angels being made for a single purpose and not understanding morality outside of that. They don't have a complete soul like a mortal, they are sentient tools.

So when an angel of protection is summoned by the high priest, it does not understand that he is corrupted, it just wants to protect.

When an angel of vengeance is summoned by a dying martyr, it does not care that its victim is penitent, or was deceived or coerced into doing something bad. It is Frank Castle on a bad day.

PCs are also often raiding ruins to reclaim holy items. Ancient temples and relics of goodness could often be protected by good creatures. Remove their ability to be reasoned with easily and they are very valid adversaries. My most recent PC death was due to a Kirin that was guarding the sacred scrolls from the unworthy. Apparently the PC was unworthy.

 

[Shiroiken]

I always mentally put the word "typically" in front of the alignment line for creatures in the monster manual.

If you actually read the opening chapter, where it talks about all the different stats, it always had this.

Because sometimes even good people will fight each other for bad reasons ?

It doesn't even need to be bad reasons; good is no more monolithic than evil. My goals as a good character might still directly oppose those of a good monster, leading to conflict.

 

[Maxperson]

I was there, 4000 years ago. I was there when the strength of Men failed.

Me crossing the Helcaraxe.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

When the players say "F' it, let's do him!"

Clearly we have very different players, because if they said that, it's not a statblock I'd be needing, as that sounds like a skirmish in the wars of Venus, to use the old Latin metaphor.

 

[Divine2021]

So I was wondering: why are they there?

They are there for you to kill.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So I was wondering: why are they there?

Beyond the two reasons you listed, I find that there's a third, which might be easily mistaken for verisimilitude but is actually quite different. That is, verisimilitude covers (more or less) "how this creature exists in the world/cosmology." There's another reason of a similar kind but not the same: explicitly spelling out how its abilities work.

I don't mean its combat abilities, though those are also relevant. I mean things like "how a genie's wishes work" or "what mummy rot does" or the like. Things like the ecology, behavior, and society (if sapient) are verisimilitude. Things like damage values, AC, HP, etc. are combat. But "can speak telepathically at-will, but only broadcast"? That's...not really a combat thing, but it's also not particularly related to verisimilitude either. Likewise, what languages a creature knows are verisimilitude, and its Intelligence bonus is more or less mostly combat-focused, but supernatural linguistic abilities warrant explanation, e.g. "acts as though under the effect of tongues and comprehend langauges at all times, but as an innate ability that is not suppressed when entering an antimagic field or dead magic zone." No real combat significance, but also not really "verisimilitude" in the formal sense, since it doesn't really have anything to do with giving the impression of a grounded, realized entity.

And the thing is, a LOT of good creatures in the MM have abilities like this! Angels and dragons and agathions/guardinals, all sorts of things have fancy features or quirky non-combat abilities that warrant being spelled out.

That gives us three reasons: statblocks for when they need to fight (whether with or against the PCs), ecological/sociological/psychological info for helping contribute to a consistent and believable world, and miscellaneous abilities that matter but aren't ecological/etc. nor meaningfully combat-related.

 

[Older Beholder]

So help me understand. Why are there Good Monsters in the Monster Manual? Were they always there? Do you use the stats, or just the lore?

One reason is the existence of spells like Conjure Celestial and Planar Ally

 

[Dioltach]

As a DM, I tend to look at a monster's stats and abilities and decide whether it will provide a challenge that fits the encounter or adventure. I tend to ignore all "official" worldbuilding stuff like alignment or environment (unless it's important to the abilities).

 

[Baldurs_Underdark]

Q: Why are there good monsters in the MM?

A: So that my evil players PCs have something to fight.