D&D General Why do good monsters exist, from a game design standpoint?

[R_J_K75]

So, what purpose do you think good-aligned monsters serve from a mechanical standpoint?

Variety to sell more books

 

[strawpberry]

Blue-and-orange morality is a thing. A given fey might well be Good, along that particular axis, but the risk associated with ticking them off might still be great enough that it presents a challenge to a Good party. Likewise the Ordning brings Good and Evil giants into the same structure, where a Good storm giant might have obligations to an Evil fire giant that bring it into conflict with the party.

Also, there's the notion that a stat block alignment might not be representative of every single individual. If you want your party to fight an Evil couatl, well, it's already statted out for you right there! And conversely, if you're taken by the stat block for the Solar and want your party to fight one, there's now a built-in narrative tension as to why this Celestial is acting this way.

(I know that some of the strictures of alignment have fallen away in modern D&D, but I'm comfortable ascribing these points at least back to 2014, probably further, especially with a creatively exploratory DM.)

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think the question and the thread are a good demonstration how alignment is a terrible idea and how it narrows and diminishes how people think of things. Like to most people it seems to be unthinkable that two "good" factions would be in a conflict, that there is some universal "good team" all members of which are on the same side and never fight each other. To me that is an absurd idea. I don't use alignment, but I give people and creatures motivations, which might be in conflict with those of the PCs, in which case a fight might ensue. Forget alignment, think what sort of things cause conflicts in stories and in the real life, even between people none of which are absolutely reprehensible villains.

 

[tetrasodium]

Blue-and-orange morality is a thing. A given fey might well be Good, along that particular axis, but the risk associated with ticking them off might still be great enough that it presents a challenge to a Good party. Likewise the Ordning brings Good and Evil giants into the same structure, where a Good storm giant might have obligations to an Evil fire giant that bring it into conflict with the party.

Also, there's the notion that a stat block alignment might not be representative of every single individual. If you want your party to fight an Evil couatl, well, it's already statted out for you right there! And conversely, if you're taken by the stat block for the Solar and want your party to fight one, there's now a built-in narrative tension as to why this Celestial is acting this way.

(I know that some of the strictures of alignment have fallen away in modern D&D, but I'm comfortable ascribing these points at least back to 2014, probably further, especially with a creatively exploratory DM.)

Blue & orange morality is definitely a good thing, but I don't think that d&d"s good/Evil|lawful/chaotic spectrum really primea the pump for it to fit on anything but what were once classified as outsiders & aberrations. In the case of many good aligned monsters specifically there is even less to so much as hint at them operating on the bacon/necktie end of things rather than the same 3x3 grid that PCs use.

All of that all results in a presentation that often thwarts good aligned monsters from sliding into blue & orange morality. You can look at Tolkien's criticism of a little girl meeting with the faun in lion the witch and the wardrobe as a good example of what is often missing.

 

[Charlaquin]

The Doylist answer is that they’re there because D&D started as a wargame, and alignments were essentially the factions. It wasn’t necessarily assumed that the players would portray heroes fighting evil, or even that they would necessarily be on the same side as each other. If you had players on team chaos, they would need chaotic monsters for their armies, and lawful monsters to fight against, and vice-versa for the players on team law. When alignment was expanded to include the good/evil axis, the same logic was used. Now, the good monsters are still there for the same reason most things in D&D are - because that’s the way it’s done.

 

[Remathilis]

When Fourth Edition was in production, the Preview book (Worlds and Monsters?) stated that the 4e philosophy is that there were no good-aligned monsters in the Monster Manuals. Creatures who were traditionally "good" (like dryads, metallic dragons, angels, and storm giants) were Unaligned, and everything else was either Unaligned, Evil, or Chaotic Evil. It had an interesting effect on world building in that everything that wasn't a PC race was essentially trying to kill you. It really enforced the whole "points of light" vibe because outside of civilization, everything you met was potentially (and often likely) an antagonist. Coupled with how many NPCs were likewise foes, you really got the impression it was you against the world and you couldn't trust anyone but your allies.

Its certainly an interesting take (one I don't think vibed 100% with D&D, but it certainly tried to harken back to the notion of a dangerous and antagonistic world) but I think if D&D ever changed/removed the good-aligned monsters, you'd probably couldn't do better than what 4e did with the idea.

 

[Pedantic]

I'd argue it's largely because there's a lot of mechanical interactions you might have with monsters that aren't trying to kill each other? Silver dragons give quests, blink dogs will help you navigate a hostile portion of the ethereal, flumphs will let you rest and heal in their burrows, all that stuff.

 

[Steampunkette]

1) Because not all Fantasy creatures in myths and novels are evil and early D&D creators wanted them included (Unicorns and the like)
2) Legacy. It existed in D&D so you've gotta put it into AD&D and 3e and 4e and 5e and Pathfinder and Level Up and Tales of the Valiant and...

Everything else is post hoc ergo propter hoc reverse rationalization.

 

[prabe]

Seems to me as though good "monsters" can exist for approximately the same reasons as good NPCs.

 

[GMMichael]

Along with all the reasons already given, it helps keep the setting from feeling too nihilistic.

I think you mean pessimistic. To the extent that anything has meaning.