D&D 5E The October D&D Book is Fizban’s Treasury of Dragons

As revealed by Nerd Immersion by deciphering computer code from D&D Beyond!

Spoiler

Fizban the Fabulous is, of course, the accident-prone, befuddled alter-ego of Dragonlance’s god of good dragons, Paladine, the platinum dragon (Dragonlance’s version of Bahamut).

Which makes my guess earlier this year spot on!

UPDATE -- the book now has a description!

D&D 5E - Fizban's Treasury: The Dragon Book Now Has A Description... And A Feat

Courtesy of Amazon, we now have a description for Fizban's Treasury of Dragons, the October D&D hardcover. The book introduces gem dragons, dragon-themed player options, and plenty of draconic lore! This joins September's The Wild Beyond the Witchlight, and November's Strixhaven: Curriculum of...

www.enworld.org

D&D 5E - My guess for the other D&D book this year... Draconomicon!

We know the fifth major product this year will be James Wyatt‘s as-yet unannounced project, and we know it will be coming out this year between Witchlight and Strixhaven. Wyatt co-wrote the Draconomicon for 3E. There have been two recent dragon-themed Unearthed Arcanas — dragon-themed...

www.enworld.org

Fizban the Fabulous by Vera Gentinetta

 

[Parmandur]

I'm guessing that they'll put the Dragonborn lore in the Player Options chapter. They could also put the First World Lore in there, but I'm guessing that they'll do that towards the beginning of the first chapter, or under the header of the different sections for lairs of Chromatic/Metallic/Gem Dragons.

With at least 16 Great Wyrm stat blocks that are all going to take up a single page, that's really taking up a lot of room from the Bestiary. I really don't want it to be much smaller than the ones in the other Monster books. IMO, Mordenkainen's bestiary was the perfect size; not too big, not too small. I'd want Fizban's to have a similar size.

Well, update based on the recent Dragon+ article: Chapters 1-4 (player options, Spells, DM tables, and treasure respectively) take up about 75 pages, Chapter 5 (dragon type deep dives with personality creation tools and lair) takes up about 75 pages, and Chapter 6 (Bestiary) takes up about 75 pages or a bit less. So, probably around 70 Monster stat blocks overall, maybe fewer.

 

[JEB]

Posted too early. Carry on.

 

[JEB]

If the instructions are vague to the point that there have been ream's worth of articles and essays written over the decades on making them clearer and more useful, but many of those articles are contradictory or don't work well with each other, and there are many, many other ways to produce chairs that just as good... yes, maybe you need to toss that one chair.

So if some people could follow the instructions just fine - or at least were satisfied with the results, warts and all - they don't deserve to have it anymore because other people did it wrong? How is that fair?

Here's another analogy for you: a hammer can be used to build. It can also be misused to hurt other people. Do you take hammers away from builders - all hammers, from all builders - because other people misuse them? Or do you accept that while it can be misused, it also has value to others, and you simply try to mitigate its potential for harm?

Also, saying it's an evil culture isn't better than saying that all the members of that culture are evil.

Sure it is. I can reasonably describe Nazism as an evil culture, but no one assumes I mean all Germans, or all humans, are evil. (Or at least, I hope no one assumes that.) The same nuance could be used for monster cultures, and reinforced further by explicitly including alternatives or exceptions. And that could have happened without removing alignment from the entire game.

Yes, it could be improved that way. However, that has exactly the same result as if you remove alignment.

Was the meenlock in Candlekeep Mysteries automatically improved in the ways I described because it didn't have "neutral evil" in the statblock? Did removing "lawful good" from the wereraven statblock in Van Richten's suddenly change their portrayal? They seem the same to me...

Nor does it seem the gem dragons in Fizban's will have multiple cultures or clear indicators that those behaviors aren't essentialist defaults. They're even still described as tending towards neutrality!

Removing alignment doesn't actually change anything. And any changes that would actually address the problem of biological essentialism could have been achieved without removing alignment.

So why not have the bad guys be mindless automatons like constructs, zombies, or skeletons; undead creatures where the taint of negative energy or hatred of the living has completely and irrevocably overwhelmed any mortal mindset they might once have had, like ghouls, wights, or wraiths; creatures made of pure, distilled evil like fiends; creatures that inherently inimical to life, like mind flayers (who reproduce by parasitically taking over other creature's bodies against their will); or creatures that have been transformed into something dangerously violent and can't be cured, like lycanthropes or sea spawn? (And that's not including things like slavers, bandits, raiders, or puppy-sacrificing cultists.)

There's plenty of bad guys that can be killed without a second thought or moral implication even if you remove alignments.

I'm sure DMs who like a simple game of "kill the bad guy" quite happily use constructs, undead, fiends, etc. as foes.

But here's where it gets interesting. "Bandit" is OK to use without deep motivations, but "goblin" is not? Why? What if the "bandit" was called "halfling bandit"? What if the "goblin" was called "goblin raider"? Would that fix it?

Not in the same way, because there's no morality arbitrarily attached to that description. A warlike creature can fight because it loves bloodshed, or because it wants to see great tyrannies ended, or because someone paid it. "Warlike" can also be interpreted in other ways: in 3x, sapphire dragons were described as loving to talk about military history and tactics--you can play one as a historian, a professor, or even as a wargamer (Wormy lives!) if you wanted.

Fair enough. I also see topaz dragons are described as "aggressive". That can be taken neutrally as well, yes?

So the problem, you're saying, isn't "biological essentialism". That's actually perfectly fine. It's just the specific five words "lawful", "neutral", "chaotic", "good", or "evil"?

What if I called a species "organized" or "impartial" or "rebellious" or "friendly" or "vicious"? Is that any different than using the alignment words?

What if Wizards described orcs as "warlike" or "aggressive"? Is that OK?

 

[PsyzhranV2]

Sure it is. I can reasonably describe Nazism as an evil culture, but no one assumes I mean all Germans, or all humans, are evil. (Or at least, I hope no one assumes that.) The same nuance could be used for monster cultures, and reinforced further by explicitly including alternatives or exceptions. And that could have happened without removing alignment from the entire game.

Nazism is a political ideology, not a culture in the sense that "German" is a culture. Would you call Republicanism, or Hindutva, or Marxism-Leninism cultures?

And yes, "monster cultures" aren't monoliths. No culture is. So emhasize that. No culture should be defined by its worst elements. That's just fuel for propaganda. Every culture has progressive and positive elements; they may be subversive towards the dominant cultural myth, but they exist. For every negative element of a given culture, there are people who willingly participate in it but also people who are subjected to and oppressed by it, even if they belong to the ostensible "in-group". Highlight that.

But here's where it gets interesting. "Bandit" is OK to use without deep motivations, but "goblin" is not? Why? What if the "bandit" was called "halfling bandit"? What if the "goblin" was called "goblin raider"? Would that fix it?

"Bandit" and "raider" tell me enough already; just by using those words, we know that they're people who attack farmers, merchants, and other civilians to steal their goods. Now, there may be underlying reasons for that; maybe they've been forced to turn to banditry due to poor economic conditions, or maybe they're part of an insurgent group for whom banditry is their main way of procuring supplies. But no matter the reason, we know from the word "bandit" that they are people who steal from others using force.

Meanwhile, "goblin" tells us that... the person is a goblin. That's it. Useful if we need a visual descriptor, but it doesn't really give any info beyond that.

So the problem, you're saying, isn't "biological essentialism". That's actually perfectly fine. It's just the specific five words "lawful", "neutral", "chaotic", "good", or "evil"?

Cultural essentialism is also a negative thing that should be avoided, even when decoupled from biological essentialism.

 

[JEB]

Nazism is a political ideology, not a culture in the sense that "German" is a culture. Would you call Republicanism, or Hindutva, or Marxism-Leninism cultures?

Sorry, I meant "Nazi Germany", as in the culture of Germany while Nazism was the dominant ideology. (That said, there's a whole debate to be had from your second sentence... but that would also get into real-world politics and would be radically off-topic, so I'll pass.)

"Bandit" and "raider" tell me enough already; just by using those words, we know that they're people who attack farmers, merchants, and other civilians to steal their goods. Now, there may be underlying reasons for that; maybe they've been forced to turn to banditry due to poor economic conditions, or maybe they're part of an insurgent group for whom banditry is their main way of procuring supplies. But no matter the reason, we know from the word "bandit" that they are people who steal from others using force.

Right, bandits and raiders can have sophisticated motivations. But it's also fine if they're treated as automatically bad, right? Because you can assume from the label that they're hostile.

So a band of halfling bandits and goblin raiders could safely be treated as bad guys without deeper thought? And it wouldn't mean anything essentialist?

Cultural essentialism is also a negative thing that should be avoided, even when decoupled from biological essentialism.

So you're opposed to any default traits being described for monsters, be they species traits or cultural traits? I assume you'd prefer blank slates beyond the statblocks? (You wouldn't be the first person I've seen with that view on these boards.)

 

[JEB]

@Maxperson they just dropped an updated Issue 38 of Dragon+: Alignment is still in, but in the chapter with Traits/Bonds/Ideals tables.for.each Drsgon type, they went out of their way to include one option in the table that bucks the trend: a Good Black Dragon or a Chaotic Silver Dragon, for example. To show that each Dragon is an individual.

Well, there we go. Typical alignments remain available, but they also avoid essentialism by including variations and exceptions, and encourage you to design individuals as, well, individuals. The folks who want an easy approach have it, the folks who want a complex approach have it too. Guess you can have it both ways after all!

 

[Faolyn]

So if some people could follow the instructions just fine - or at least were satisfied with the results, warts and all - they don't deserve to have it anymore because other people did it wrong? How is that fair?

Or more likely, they were half-following the instructions and half-making it up on their own.

Sure it is. I can reasonably describe Nazism as an evil culture, but no one assumes I mean all Germans, or all humans, are evil. (Or at least, I hope no one assumes that.) The same nuance could be used for monster cultures, and reinforced further by explicitly including alternatives or exceptions. And that could have happened without removing alignment from the entire game.

I saw where you meant Nazi Germany, not the party… but yes, if you were to say that Nazi Germany was evil, I would likely assume that you thought anyone who considered themselves part of that culture at that time to be evil.

Cultures don’t exist on their own. They’re made up of people.

Was the meenlock in Candlekeep Mysteries automatically improved in the ways I described because it didn't have "neutral evil" in the statblock? Did removing "lawful good" from the wereraven statblock in Van Richten's suddenly change their portrayal? They seem the same to me...

Well, meenlocks are fey (alien creatures, alien mindset) spawned by fear. So that’s a pretty poor example.

And as for wereraven: again, they just started removing alignments. I don’t expect perfection. But in my opinion, yes, having were ravens not be all lawful good is an improvement, even if the text doesn’t reflect that—because it shows that eventually the text will reflect that, in some future book.

But here's where it gets interesting. "Bandit" is OK to use without deep motivations, but "goblin" is not? Why? What if the "bandit" was called "halfling bandit"? What if the "goblin" was called "goblin raider"? Would that fix it?

Bandit is a motivation. You know that person engages in banditry, which in the context of the game is usually a fairly evil pursuit. So yes, both halfling bandits and goblin raiders would be perfectly decent bad guys. I had a Big Bad who was a halfling cultist of Vecna.

Fair enough. I also see topaz dragons are described as "aggressive". That can be taken neutrally as well, yes?

Yes. You can aggressively defend the weak and helpless. You can aggressively toss out on their keister anyone who tries to sell you insurance. You can aggressively murder anyone who looks at you funny. (Edit: you can spend 200+ pages aggressively defending halflings...)

Also, animals can be quite aggressive and aren’t considered evil.

So the problem, you're saying, isn't "biological essentialism". That's actually perfectly fine. It's just the specific five words "lawful", "neutral", "chaotic", "good", or "evil"?

What if I called a species "organized" or "impartial" or "rebellious" or "friendly" or "vicious"? Is that any different than using the alignment words?

Hmm. Let’s see. People who like things neat can be organized. Being impartial is a necessity for anyone who needs to judge between two things. A teenager can be rebellious. A sociopath can be friendly. Someone fighting off an attacker can be vicious.

So yes, I’d say they’re quite different than using alignment words.

What if Wizards described orcs as "warlike" or "aggressive"? Is that OK?

These orcs can be aggressively warring against cruel tyrants who seek to enslave the world, or they can be aggressively warring against elves for the crime of having pointy ears.

By not labeling them good or evil, you open up the options enormously without having to also say “most orcs are evil but these ones aren’t”

 

[hopeless]

From what I recall Corellon took out one of Grumsh's eyes after the latter ambushed him with the aid of Lloth.
That might explain the animosity towards elves a bit more better!

 

[JEB]

@Faolyn: So to make sure I understand you correctly... if they changed the quick descriptor to "violent and selfish" instead of "chaotic evil", or "scrupulous and kind" instead of lawful good, you'd be perfectly fine with it?

If so, it sounds like it's not essentialism that turns you off to alignment, because describing all members of an intelligent species as "warlike" or "aggressive" or "friendly" - as they have the gem dragons - can still be deemed essentialist. (Unless you stress that that's just "typical" and/or provide variations - which Wizards could also have done while keeping alignment. And which it sounds like they may have done, based on the Dragon+ preview.)

Basically, it sounds like you just don't like alignment.

Or is it even more specific? You don't like "good" and "evil"? If so, what did you think of 0E and BECMI's lawful-neutral-chaotic alignments? In my experience "lawful" was synonymous with "good" and "chaotic" was synonymous with "evil" under those systems, but you can argue that they encompassed a wider range of options.

 

[Faolyn]

@Faolyn: So to make sure I understand you correctly... if they changed the quick descriptor to "violent and selfish" instead of "chaotic evil", or "scrupulous and kind" instead of lawful good, you'd be perfectly fine with it?

Non-alignment words--yes, even words like violent and selfish--don't have intrinsic morality to them. You can have a creatures that are violent or selfish to good ends (like most adventurers, especially those that demand payment for their services) just like you can have them that are violent and selfish to evil ends. Ditto, a kind person can have other traits that could be good or not good.

Plus, what actually tells you something about the creature? "These creatures tend hang on to their possessions selfishly, rarely using them or giving them away even when when doing so could possibly benefit them" or "neutral evil"?

If so, it sounds like it's not essentialism that turns you off to alignment, because describing all members of an intelligent species as "warlike" or "aggressive" or "friendly" - as they have the gem dragons - can still be deemed essentialist. (Unless you stress that that's just "typical" and/or provide variations - which Wizards could also have done while keeping alignment. And which it sounds like they may have done, based on the Dragon+ preview.)

I dislike labeling all members of a species as evil or good except for those few over there that are almost never actually used in anything. Especially since that smacks of real-world racism wherein people say, yeah, that minority group is just awful. But not Bob. I know Bob. He's a good one.

For instance, in 3x, goblins were "usually neutral evil." I can't remember what percentage "usually" meant--let's say it was 80%--but in all the 3x books, how often were non-evil groups of goblins actually presented? Individuals, sure, I'm sure there were neutral and good goblins every now and then. But were there any neutral or good goblin tribes? Were 20% of all depicted goblin tribes non-evil? And if so, were there more than one example? I think there's been one known non-evil orc tribe.

To me, it seems like saying that goblins are "usually" evil, or that evil is their "default" alignment doesn't actually mean they're ever going to be depicted as anything other than evil. Except for "that one good one."

Which is one of the problems I have with alignment.

Also, I find the reasons given for why a monster is evil are usually lacking. In 5e, lots of them are evil because some gods or demons made them that way (e.g., goblinoids, lamias, merrow, ghouls), or because a singular individual performed an evil act which changed them, and so now there's a whole race of evil monsters (e.g., harpies, vampires if you use the story that Strahd is the very fist vampire). So what does that mean for their alignment? Can any of them become not-evil without defying the gods or overcoming a racial curse? And anyway, "the gods did it" isn't really satisfying to me.

And to be honest, there is some actual, real-world essentialism. Animal species have very distinct and often very strong behavioral traits--and in the case of domestic animals, those traits were often bred into them. Go to any pet site and read up on the temperament of different purebred cats and dogs. Considering how many animalistic traits most D&D monsters have, I don't have a problem with saying that a type of dragon "tends to be enjoy military history."

Basically, it sounds like you just don't like alignment.

I really, really don't like alignments. This is not a secret.

Or is it even more specific? You don't like "good" and "evil"? If so, what did you think of 0E and BECMI's lawful-neutral-chaotic alignments? In my experience "lawful" was synonymous with "good" and "chaotic" was synonymous with "evil" under those systems, but you can argue that they encompassed a wider range of options.

No, I'm not really fond of those alignments either partially for the reasons you mentioned, and partially because they make no sense without also including Law and Chaos as cosmic forces, like they were in the original source.