Allignment of metallic dragons in 4th and 5th edition

In 4th edition and in the book draconomicom:metallic dragons,wizards of the coast said that metallic dragons are now unalignedCry,which SCREWD UP the game!Yellwith the help of good metallic dragons, killing the evil chromatic dragons is funny, but now while there are no real good metallic dragons(which the are now unaligned) the game is not very funny!Can you Wizards of the coast fix this problem?because the thing that makes me your fan are these good alligned(not unalligned) mettalic dragons.
Hopefully alignment will be relegated to history in 5e.

In any event, any creature can be any alignment, so your protest is unnecessary.  If you wish a good metallic dragon, you simply declare that it is so.  If you wish a good chromatic dragon, you do the same.
Hopefully alignment will be relegated to history in 5e.

In any event, any creature can be any alignment, so your protest is unnecessary.  If you wish a good metallic dragon, you simply declare that it is so.  If you wish a good chromatic dragon, you do the same.



Indeed. The original MM mentioned that Alignments are not rigid, and can variate.  The other two mention that the monster's most common alignment is listed within their block.  All together this means that while the game itself assigns certain alignments to certain creatures, that is not specifically the only alignment they can ever have. 

I would much prefer that the books allow for and encourage that kind of flexibility.
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- ) Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right.
fun quotes
58419928 wrote:
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
69216168 wrote:
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?[/quote]
I would personally prefer good metallic dragons with a note saying that draconic greed and arrogance means that plenty of them fall to evil.  I can houserule it that way with no trouble whatsoever.
Hoard: may earn you gp; Horde: may earn you xp.
Easy fix. Make them good. Or Chaotic Good. Or whatever. In my game I use alignments and factions. You have Good, Unaligned, and Evil. Those are alignments. You then have Law, Neutrality, and Chaos. Those are factions. Most normal people are unaligned. 

If you are the DM, just make the monsters what ever alignment, faction, or whatever you want.  
I prefer to have the Bahamut v Tiamat alignment war, with their corresponding armies of appropriate alignment.

Somnia, the Evanescent Plane -- A 3-set Block
Set 1 — Somnia
Set 2 — TBD
Set 3 — TBD
Planeswalker's Guide to Somnia

Build Around This
A weekly MTG Cards and Combos forum game.
Build Around This #1 - Sage's Starfish Wish
BAT #1 was built using the Legacy format with Spiny Starfish, Sage's Knowledge, and Make a Wish. Winner: Dilleux_Lepaire with Fishy Starfishies. Runner-Up: JBTM
I prefer to have the Bahamut v Tiamat alignment war, with their corresponding armies of appropriate alignment.



Yes, but there's no reason those alignments have to be drawn along chromatic/metallic lines.  'Good dragons over here, regardless of scales, bad dragons over there, regardless of scales'.
I prefer to have the Bahamut v Tiamat alignment war, with their corresponding armies of appropriate alignment.


Yes, but there's no reason those alignments have to be drawn along chromatic/metallic lines.  'Good dragons over here, regardless of scales, bad dragons over there, regardless of scales'.


Oh, sure -- absolutely!  I'm not a fan of putting "Always XX" on creatures that have the necessary blend of sentience and sapience to have volition.  I would prefer to see the alignment block for metallic dragons as "Usually XG" similar to how I prefer Demons as usually CE and Devils as usually LE, as thematic representation of those societies.

Somnia, the Evanescent Plane -- A 3-set Block
Set 1 — Somnia
Set 2 — TBD
Set 3 — TBD
Planeswalker's Guide to Somnia

Build Around This
A weekly MTG Cards and Combos forum game.
Build Around This #1 - Sage's Starfish Wish
BAT #1 was built using the Legacy format with Spiny Starfish, Sage's Knowledge, and Make a Wish. Winner: Dilleux_Lepaire with Fishy Starfishies. Runner-Up: JBTM
I prefer to have the Bahamut v Tiamat alignment war, with their corresponding armies of appropriate alignment.



Yes, but there's no reason those alignments have to be drawn along chromatic/metallic lines.  'Good dragons over here, regardless of scales, bad dragons over there, regardless of scales'.



The reason is mostly because Golds (Well, I know for sure golds at least) are based on Oriental dragons, which tend to be helpful, while the others are based on Western style ones, which tend to steal princesses and horde treasure

Of course, I prefer them being unaligned because the best story I have ever heard of people playing a dragon was the time one of them was a blue dragon, and opened his own casino in the middle of a desert, right on a trade route, and made good use of Sand to Water in order to turn this town into a vibrant oasis

Of course, then anyone who didn't pay the tax to enter would be hunted down by the bandits the dragon had paid to hunt down people, so uh... Not very good. But, pretty unique!
I'd also like to point out:

the 4e books the core books(namely the phb, dmg, the mosntermanuals), the underdark, the essential books, the dragonomicons, opengrave, etc( the exceptions are the FR, eberron and ds settings along with any books tied to those settings) are all set up and geared to the Nentir Vale setting.


thus dragons in the other settings are not unaligned 
a mask everyone has at least two of, one they wear in public and another they wear in private.....
the 4e books the core books(namely the phb, dmg, the mosntermanuals), the underdark, the essential books, the dragonomicons, opengrave, etc( the exceptions are the FR, eberron and ds settings along with any books tied to those settings) are all set up and geared to the Nentir Vale setting.


Um, no.

Only Monster Vault: Threats to the Nentir Vale is geared specifically towards the Nentir Vale setting. Everything else is generic.

Saying the monsters in the Draconomicons are geared towards the Nentir Vale setting is like saying the Monk class is geared towards the Nentir Vale setting.
In 4th edition and in the book draconomicom:metallic dragons,wizards of the coast said that metallic dragons are now unalignedCry,which SCREWD UP the game!Yellwith the help of good metallic dragons, killing the evil chromatic dragons is funny, but now while there are no real good metallic dragons(which the are now unaligned) the game is not very funny!Can you Wizards of the coast fix this problem?because the thing that makes me your fan are these good alligned(not unalligned) mettalic dragons.


Alignment is not chiseled in stone.  If all that bothers you is metallic dragons are no longer good, then just say that they are.  It's not like you'll have to strip away any alignment tags from their powers, or make them susceptible to spells that target good alignments.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

the 4e books the core books(namely the phb, dmg, the mosntermanuals), the underdark, the essential books, the dragonomicons, opengrave, etc( the exceptions are the FR, eberron and ds settings along with any books tied to those settings) are all set up and geared to the Nentir Vale setting.


Um, no.

Only Monster Vault: Threats to the Nentir Vale is geared specifically towards the Nentir Vale setting. Everything else is generic.




Um, no. 

Those books refer to the world the Nentir Vale is in as a whole (Underdark in particular describes the Underdarks of that world), while Threats to the Nentir Vale focuses solely on the Nentir Vale.  There are no generic fluff books in 4ed.

"Ah, the age-old conundrum. Defenders of a game are too blind to see it's broken, and critics are too idiotic to see that it isn't." - Brian McCormick

Um, no. 

Those books refer to the world the Nentir Vale is in as a whole (Underdark in particular describes the Underdarks of that world), while Threats to the Nentir Vale focuses solely on the Nentir Vale.  There are no generic fluff books in 4ed.


1) This fails in that there is no single world the Nentir Vale is in, as the Nentir Vale itself is designed to be a generic setting that can be easily pluged into or expanded upon in other campaign worlds.

2) It fails a second time in that monster stat blocks are not fluff.

3) It fails a third time in that i don't even think the Nentir Vale is even mentioned in some of those books. Open Grave may tell you about the graveyard of Col Fen, but Col Fen is given no point of reference to place it. Strange, for a book supposidly about the Nentir Vale.

4) Taking 1 and 3 together, it fails spectacularly in that there are, indeed, generic fluff books in 4ed.

So, um, no.
Um, no. 

Those books refer to the world the Nentir Vale is in as a whole (Underdark in particular describes the Underdarks of that world), while Threats to the Nentir Vale focuses solely on the Nentir Vale.  There are no generic fluff books in 4ed.


1) This fails in that there is no single world the Nentir Vale is in, as the Nentir Vale itself is designed to be a generic setting that can be easily pluged into or expanded upon in other campaign worlds.

2) It fails a second time in that monster stat blocks are not fluff.

3) It fails a third time in that i don't even think the Nentir Vale is even mentioned in some of those books. Open Grave may tell you about the graveyard of Col Fen, but Col Fen is given no point of reference to place it. Strange, for a book supposidly about the Nentir Vale.

4) Taking 1 and 3 together, it fails spectacularly in that there are, indeed, generic fluff books in 4ed.

So, um, no.



taking 4

your oppinion fails because the 4e books listed fluff not canonically attached to any of the settings save Nentir VAle. and for 4e to have had generic books, they would have had to not list places of origins or have deities in the core books or any of the books save the setting books. but they didnt.



ummm first and last warning: back to dragons please


silver dragons are cool        
a mask everyone has at least two of, one they wear in public and another they wear in private.....
your oppinion fails because the 4e books listed fluff not canonically attached to any of the settings save Nentir VAle


And this fails because they are not attached to the Nentir Vale. The Nentir Vale is simply not mentioned. At all.

And even if a mention of the Nentir Vale in one section of the book consigns the whole thing to the Nentir Vale, then I guess there are no Bards, Invokers, Avengers, Psions, Monks, Druids, Barbarians etc., etc., in the Realms. I guess you're stuck with playing a PHB1 class (actually mentioned in the class section) or a Swordmage.
and for 4e to have had generic books, they would have had to not list places of origins or have deities in the core books or any of the books save the setting books. but they didnt.


For a unique and narrow definition of generic. In previous editions, there were generic deities. It was only in 3rd edition where the game had a default setting (Greyhawk). And yet, throughout those years, core books included things like deities.

As for places: Tomb of Horrors is a specific place, but it is generic in that it can be dropped into any setting. Just like the Underdark, just like the lairs in Open Grave.
ummm first and last warning: back to dragons please


Are... you serious?
In 4th edition and in the book draconomicom:metallic dragons,wizards of the coast said that metallic dragons are now unalignedCry,which SCREWD UP the game!Yellwith the help of good metallic dragons, killing the evil chromatic dragons is funny, but now while there are no real good metallic dragons(which the are now unaligned) the game is not very funny!Can you Wizards of the coast fix this problem?because the thing that makes me your fan are these good alligned(not unalligned) mettalic dragons.


Alignment is not chiseled in stone.  If all that bothers you is metallic dragons are no longer good, then just say that they are.  It's not like you'll have to strip away any alignment tags from their powers, or make them susceptible to spells that target good alignments.



Which is the great thing about alignment not being tied to mechanics.  No need to worry about making evil gold dragons and good red dragons; now it relies on story, without mechanics needing to be stripped away.
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- ) Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right.
fun quotes
58419928 wrote:
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
69216168 wrote:
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?[/quote]
In 4th edition and in the book draconomicom:metallic dragons,wizards of the coast said that metallic dragons are now unalignedCry,which SCREWD UP the game!Yellwith the help of good metallic dragons, killing the evil chromatic dragons is funny, but now while there are no real good metallic dragons(which the are now unaligned) the game is not very funny!Can you Wizards of the coast fix this problem?because the thing that makes me your fan are these good alligned(not unalligned) mettalic dragons.


ಠ_ಠ Not sure if serious?
Thinking about creating a race for 4e? Make things a lil' easier on yourself by reading my Race Mechanic Creation Guide first.
I think they picked it up from Eberron.  My thinking is, I can House Rule any monster I want to have any alignment you want.  So, I don't much care what their books say.  Gold dragons are LG.  We all know it.  I want to be able to fight them every once in a while though.  Otherwise, it's a waste of stats.
In my home-brew campaign dragons have never been restricted to alignment by color/type. For my games those entries only referred to tendencies of particular kinds. Dragons are ancient creatures from the time before Man and are highly intelligent, thus, I felt that they could make moral choices same as anyone.

It made encounters with dragons more more interesting and dangerous for my players, because they had to actually engage any dragon they encountered before simply killing it (Not that dragon assassinations where that easy to begin with).

For us, it simply made a better story.
I thought unaligned dragons in Eberron was a great idea!  It really worked in that campaign setting. 

When I saw that was core 4e, I thought it would be cool but it wasn't.  I have some veteraon players and the chromatic dragons will always be evil and the metallic dragons will always be good to them.

I think D&D Next should return to classically aligned dragons as core.  If your playing 5th Eberron they can be unaligned and certainly you can homebrew unaligned  dragons if you want. 
In 4th edition and in the book draconomicom:metallic dragons,wizards of the coast said that metallic dragons are now unalignedCry,which SCREWD UP the game!Yellwith the help of good metallic dragons, killing the evil chromatic dragons is funny, but now while there are no real good metallic dragons(which the are now unaligned) the game is not very funny!Can you Wizards of the coast fix this problem?because the thing that makes me your fan are these good alligned(not unalligned) mettalic dragons.


...what.


More seriously, even two dragons of the same aligment are usually said to not be getting along, right? Highly territorial and all. So it would make sense to even use an evil dragon against another evil dragon, if a deal was struck (IIRC, greens were reasonable? wow, that sounded colorist).
I thought unaligned dragons in Eberron was a great idea!  It really worked in that campaign setting. 

When I saw that was core 4e, I thought it would be cool but it wasn't.  I have some veteraon players and the chromatic dragons will always be evil and the metallic dragons will always be good to them.

I think D&D Next should return to classically aligned dragons as core.  If your playing 5th Eberron they can be unaligned and certainly you can homebrew unaligned  dragons if you want. 


As long as the alignment is only fluff in core and can be modified by a mechanical integration module (perhaps the module, and a few others, should even be included in the core books), I'm cool with the core books using old-school alignment labels for the sake of drawing back old-school fans.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

I thought unaligned dragons in Eberron was a great idea!  It really worked in that campaign setting. 

When I saw that was core 4e, I thought it would be cool but it wasn't.  I have some veteraon players and the chromatic dragons will always be evil and the metallic dragons will always be good to them.

I think D&D Next should return to classically aligned dragons as core.  If your playing 5th Eberron they can be unaligned and certainly you can homebrew unaligned  dragons if you want. 

As long as the alignment is only fluff in core and can be modified by a mechanical integration module (perhaps the module, and a few others, should even be included in the core books), I'm cool with the core books using old-school alignment labels for the sake of drawing back old-school fans.

A dragons alignment is just a stat block entry.  It will probably be there and you have the Optional Rule to overlook it. 

Look at how poorly the Item Rarity worked when you have seperate lists.  It is better if they include more than you may want to use in stat blocks than have to cross reference some incomplete list elsewhere.  I would say the same thing for weapon damage type (slicing, piercing, etc) and arcane school specialization.  You might not use either in your campaign or they might not even be core game but if they are options they should be listed in the stat blocks.
I want to see alignment abolished, and have for decades. That said, historically metallic dragons have been more people-friendly, while chromatic dragons have been more nefarious and people-eaty. That is not to say that it is impossible to find a gold dragon with a taste for human flesh, or a vegetarian red dragon who is a pacifist. These things can be done entirely without alignment. Regardless of their history of friendliness, only a true idiot (paladin? lol) would run into the lair of a metallic dragon with his (or her) arms outstretched for a hug. 
I thought unaligned dragons in Eberron was a great idea!  It really worked in that campaign setting. 

When I saw that was core 4e, I thought it would be cool but it wasn't.  I have some veteraon players and the chromatic dragons will always be evil and the metallic dragons will always be good to them.

I think D&D Next should return to classically aligned dragons as core.  If your playing 5th Eberron they can be unaligned and certainly you can homebrew unaligned  dragons if you want. 

As long as the alignment is only fluff in core and can be modified by a mechanical integration module (perhaps the module, and a few others, should even be included in the core books), I'm cool with the core books using old-school alignment labels for the sake of drawing back old-school fans.

A dragons alignment is just a stat block entry.  It will probably be there and you have the Optional Rule to overlook it.


Not entirely.  I seem to recall a monster manual entry about a kind of black dragon (though it had its own name) that had an evil-aligned breath-weapon attack.  Dragons have also traditionally had the ability to cast wizard spells, or spell-like abilities.  If these abilities are aligned, then there's even more to yank out.  And will the balance of the monster be assumed to include those aligned powers?  Will we get two different CRs/encounter levels?  If not, how are we to know what the power difference is?

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

A dragons alignment is just a stat block entry.  It will probably be there and you have the Optional Rule to overlook it.

Not entirely.  I seem to recall a monster manual entry about a kind of black dragon (though it had its own name) that had an evil-aligned breath-weapon attack.  Dragons have also traditionally had the ability to cast wizard spells, or spell-like abilities.  If these abilities are aligned, then there's even more to yank out.  And will the balance of the monster be assumed to include those aligned powers?  Will we get two different CRs/encounter levels?  If not, how are we to know what the power difference is?

That's the odd specific case.  My hope is alignment and other core mechanics that have Optional Rule removal write ups are used sparingly and only in specific cases.  If your not playing with alignment, maybe an NPC named the Lord of Chaos isn't a good fit for your campaign.  Dragons, on the other hand, need to work in every campaign and Optional Rule combination.  So I hope they have alignments but not alignment dependant breath weapons like you descirbe.

And I am only adressing the core dragons, the ones on Tiamat's body and the classic metalic dragons.  If something-creep produces fuschia dragons or tin dragons, that's not the issue.

A dragons alignment is just a stat block entry.  It will probably be there and you have the Optional Rule to overlook it.

Not entirely.  I seem to recall a monster manual entry about a kind of black dragon (though it had its own name) that had an evil-aligned breath-weapon attack.  Dragons have also traditionally had the ability to cast wizard spells, or spell-like abilities.  If these abilities are aligned, then there's even more to yank out.  And will the balance of the monster be assumed to include those aligned powers?  Will we get two different CRs/encounter levels?  If not, how are we to know what the power difference is?

That's the odd specific case.  My hope is alignment and other core mechanics that have Optional Rule removal write ups are used sparingly and only in specific cases.  If your not playing with alignment, maybe an NPC named the Lord of Chaos isn't a good fit for your campaign.  Dragons, on the other hand, need to work in every campaign and Optional Rule combination.  So I hope they have alignments but not alignment dependant breath weapons like you descirbe.


Look, I'm willing to conceed that alignment should be part of the game and each monster should have one.  It would be too hard later to add that stuff.  However, it is equally hard to remove all the mechanical tie-ins of alignment.  The simple solution is to include alignment (my concession for ease of the opposition) without mechanical weight (the opposition's concession for my ease) as a base assumption.  Alignment mechanics are part of traditional D&D and may be a make-or-break item for fans of older editions.  Because of this, I think the module to add mechanics to alignments should be included in the core books.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

well you could have color coded dragons again.
they removed the forcefull good alignment from metalic dragons so they also could be used as enemies.

but in my opinion a good aligned dragon can still be a enemy.
mainly becouse dragons tend to play on a bigger time scale.
and see humanoids as inteligent yet inferior species.

we had a adventure where a nutral good metalic dragon had decided the humand where expanding faster then was good for them and the other creatures around them.
The dragon demanded that the humans would stop building new setlements and would reduce their numbers.
becouse this would be best for all involved.

when the human ruler refused the dragon started attaching any new settlement that was build. seeing the humans as to stupid and to focused on the short term to understand the big picture.

well you could have color coded dragons again.
they removed the forcefull good alignment from metalic dragons so they also could be used as enemies.

but in my opinion a good aligned dragon can still be a enemy.
mainly becouse dragons tend to play on a bigger time scale.
and see humanoids as inteligent yet inferior species.

we had a adventure where a nutral good metalic dragon had decided the humand where expanding faster then was good for them and the other creatures around them.
The dragon demanded that the humans would stop building new setlements and would reduce their numbers.
becouse this would be best for all involved.

when the human ruler refused the dragon started attaching any new settlement that was build. seeing the humans as to stupid and to focused on the short term to understand the big picture.



*insert 3-4 posts arguing that wasn't very Neutral Good*
A dragons alignment is just a stat block entry.  It will probably be there and you have the Optional Rule to overlook it.

Not entirely.  I seem to recall a monster manual entry about a kind of black dragon (though it had its own name) that had an evil-aligned breath-weapon attack.  Dragons have also traditionally had the ability to cast wizard spells, or spell-like abilities.  If these abilities are aligned, then there's even more to yank out.  And will the balance of the monster be assumed to include those aligned powers?  Will we get two different CRs/encounter levels?  If not, how are we to know what the power difference is?

That's the odd specific case.  My hope is alignment and other core mechanics that have Optional Rule removal write ups are used sparingly and only in specific cases.  If your not playing with alignment, maybe an NPC named the Lord of Chaos isn't a good fit for your campaign.  Dragons, on the other hand, need to work in every campaign and Optional Rule combination.  So I hope they have alignments but not alignment dependant breath weapons like you descirbe.


Look, I'm willing to conceed that alignment should be part of the game and each monster should have one.  It would be too hard later to add that stuff.  However, it is equally hard to remove all the mechanical tie-ins of alignment.  The simple solution is to include alignment (my concession for ease of the opposition) without mechanical weight (the opposition's concession for my ease) as a base assumption.  Alignment mechanics are part of traditional D&D and may be a make-or-break item for fans of older editions.  Because of this, I think the module to add mechanics to alignments should be included in the core books.

So here's alignment, it's a quick way to describe a monster's personality or their outlook.  It also establishes the simplified good v evil conflict and the chaos v law conflict.  What would D&D be without conflict?  I think that's worth adding it to the stat block.

I think alignment's mechanical weight should be adjustable, too.  Maybe Protection from Evil doesn't apply to alignment per say, but the creature's origin or some other stat block entry.  Just because a dragon doesn't want to clean it's room should it be subject to all the Lawful bonuses and spells - unless you specifically want that alignment heavy campaign. 

I would be more in favor of alignment mechanics lite, almost like a PC or NPC really had to go out of their way to be affected by alignment mechanics.

A dragons alignment is just a stat block entry.  It will probably be there and you have the Optional Rule to overlook it.

Not entirely.  I seem to recall a monster manual entry about a kind of black dragon (though it had its own name) that had an evil-aligned breath-weapon attack.  Dragons have also traditionally had the ability to cast wizard spells, or spell-like abilities.  If these abilities are aligned, then there's even more to yank out.  And will the balance of the monster be assumed to include those aligned powers?  Will we get two different CRs/encounter levels?  If not, how are we to know what the power difference is?

That's the odd specific case.  My hope is alignment and other core mechanics that have Optional Rule removal write ups are used sparingly and only in specific cases.  If your not playing with alignment, maybe an NPC named the Lord of Chaos isn't a good fit for your campaign.  Dragons, on the other hand, need to work in every campaign and Optional Rule combination.  So I hope they have alignments but not alignment dependant breath weapons like you descirbe.


Look, I'm willing to conceed that alignment should be part of the game and each monster should have one.  It would be too hard later to add that stuff.  However, it is equally hard to remove all the mechanical tie-ins of alignment.  The simple solution is to include alignment (my concession for ease of the opposition) without mechanical weight (the opposition's concession for my ease) as a base assumption.  Alignment mechanics are part of traditional D&D and may be a make-or-break item for fans of older editions.  Because of this, I think the module to add mechanics to alignments should be included in the core books.

So here's alignment, it's a quick way to describe a monster's personality or their outlook.  It also establishes the simplified good v evil conflict and the chaos v law conflict.  What would D&D be without conflict?  I think that's worth adding it to the stat block.

I think alignment's mechanical weight should be adjustable, too.  Maybe Protection from Evil doesn't apply to alignment per say, but the creature's origin or some other stat block entry.  Just because a dragon doesn't want to clean it's room should it be subject to all the Lawful bonuses and spells - unless you specifically want that alignment heavy campaign. 

I would be more in favor of alignment mechanics lite, almost like a PC or NPC really had to go out of their way to be affected by alignment mechanics.


I largely agree with that.  I sincerely hope alignment is present (to appease the olde edition fans) but without mechanical impact (to not alienate 4e fans), and that there is a module presented in the core book (but not as a core assumption) that allows play groups to impose different depths of alignment mechanics.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

I think alignment's mechanical weight should be adjustable, too.  Maybe Protection from Evil doesn't apply to alignment per say, but the creature's origin or some other stat block entry.  Just because a dragon doesn't want to clean it's room should it be subject to all the Lawful bonuses and spells - unless you specifically want that alignment heavy campaign. 

I would be more in favor of alignment mechanics lite, almost like a PC or NPC really had to go out of their way to be affected by alignment mechanics.



You know, that kind of makes Protection from Fey/Immortal/Shadow/etc. kind of viable to 4ed, even if "Protection from Natural" would sound silly. Still, one of those symmetries cut and I like it.
I see both sides of the issue.

One the one hand, dragon stats take up a LOT of space, especially if different ages are included. And most players are not going to fight a good dragon, so it's a large amount of space that will be used by a minimal number of players. 
Making them unaligned just makes it easier to justify their use. 

On the other hand, there's always the possibility of evil PCs, and other ways of finessing good creatures into fighting PCs, such as opposing goals or mind control. And it's possible for PCs to have good dragon allies, such as mounts or companions, fighting together against evil dragons. Which would be much harder without statblocks. 

It's easy enough to set the default to good but mention "tarnished" or "fallen" metallic dragons of evil alignments, or present them as good but very selfish and unconcerned with lesser beings.

Another way to handle metallic dragons is to not have full statblocks and instead just have fluff. That's what's really important: the story and flavour of the metallics. Instead of full statblocks there could be something akin to alternat powers that let you modify specific chromatics to make a metallic (add powers X and Y but take away Z).

5 Minute WorkdayMy Webcomic Updated Tue & Thur

The compilation of my Worldbuilding blog series is now available: 

Jester David's How-To Guide to Fantasy Worldbuilding.

On the other hand, there's always the possibility of evil PCs, and other ways of finessing good creatures into fighting PCs, such as opposing goals or mind control. And it's possible for PCs to have good dragon allies, such as mounts or companions, fighting together against evil dragons. Which would be much harder without statblocks. 



And there's one more option; the PCs could *be* dragons. I'm hoping that the ability to play most any (not all) creatures from the MM is presented right from the start, or at least soon afterward. In which case, stats for every kind of creature make sense, even ones that a standard party is unlikely to fight, because it could be in the party, possibly. I just hope it's better implemented than the 3.5 LA/ECL.

I'd also rather see metalics either mostly all good again, or the chromatics made less evil too. Make the differences between the two groups of dragons more of personality, rather than morality, and let their morality be similar to humans, both good and evil in about equal parts or so. (OK, frankly I prefer all my dragons good or neutral, but I know WotC isn't going to do that :P)
"I don't want to fight dragons." - Hiccup If dragons are to be invovled, I much prefer to play as a dragon, dragon rider, dragonslayer-slayer, dragonfriend, or anything else *but* a dragonslayer.
Does anybody remember sun, moon, and star dragons? Bring those guys back.
(OK, frankly I prefer all my dragons good or neutral, but I know WotC isn't going to do that :P)



You don't need them to, of course.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
(OK, frankly I prefer all my dragons good or neutral, but I know WotC isn't going to do that :P)



You don't need them to, of course.



Yeah, I know, but it'd make it easier to use published adventures if I didn't have to edit out the evil dragons that appear in something like 75%+ of them.
"I don't want to fight dragons." - Hiccup If dragons are to be invovled, I much prefer to play as a dragon, dragon rider, dragonslayer-slayer, dragonfriend, or anything else *but* a dragonslayer.
I want to see good aligned metallic dragons for 5th edition.
I want to see good aligned metallic dragons for 5th edition.


Yup, I would love 5e to return to the established D&D lore of pre-4e. The abandoning of pre-existing lore was the biggest thing about 4e that alienated me and caused me not to participate.
Pssst.

Nothing says there aren't good dragons in 4e, people.  Use some imagination and creativity, for Kolker's sake.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Sign In to post comments