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

 

[Maxperson]

What data does "Chaotic Evil" tell you? And more specifically, how does it help you differentiate between a chaotic evil orc and a chaotic evil red dragon and a chaotic evil werewolf? Do they all perform the exact same type of evil? Do they all think the same sort of evil thoughts? Do they all have the exact same goals and motivations?

So those questions show a fundamental lack of understanding of alignment. It's a loose tool to help with personalities. That's it. You could have 3 different orcs who are CE evil in different ways. All CE orcs are not the same. If this tool doesn't help you, that's okay. You don't have to use it. Those of us who do understand it make great use of it.

 

[Bolares]

I can't believe I'm gonna defend alignment, as I basically don't use it anymore. But alignment doesn't need to differentiate between an chaotic evil orc and dragon. It's just shorthand, just a guide for the DM to start roleplaying that NPC. I don't think it's necessary, but it is a tool for those who like it

 

[Maxperson]

I can't believe I'm gonna defend alignment, as I basically don't use it anymore. But alignment doesn't need to differentiate between an chaotic evil orc and dragon. It's just shorthand, just a guide for the DM to start roleplaying that NPC. I don't think it's necessary, but it is a tool for those who like it

Exactly.

 

[Demetrios1453]

What data does "Chaotic Evil" tell you? And more specifically, how does it help you differentiate between a chaotic evil orc and a chaotic evil red dragon and a chaotic evil werewolf? Do they all perform the exact same type of evil? Do they all think the same sort of evil thoughts? Do they all have the exact same goals and motivations?

But you could say the same thing about "orc", "red dragon", or "werewolf" as well. What does "orc" tell you about that particular orc's motivations? Do they all do the same orc actions, etc? Any collective description comes at the expense of describing the individual, whether it be alignment, race, or anything else for that matter. It's all just shorthand so that they don't need to publish unique stats and lengthy backstories for each and every individual. Exceptions and nuances are up to the DM, should they wish to include them...

 

[Faolyn]

If you read and understood my prior post, then you know that "because they're evil" isn't a reason at all. You would have understood that alignment is simply a method(if you opt in) for the DM to interpret HOW they are warlike and aggressive.

Which makes "evil" a useless descriptor.

I have enough to worry about. I'll sit down and do in depth thinking for important NPCs and Monsters, but not for run of the mill monster encounters. If YOU want to worry about them all, you can opt into that. Alignment should be there for those of us like me who don't want to do that kind of thing for a group of orcs or whatever for the party to fight.

So you're saying that, if you want the PCs to fight some bad guys, you'd rather go through the MM to determine which monsters are evil, in the right terrain, and of the appropriate CR, rather than grab any monster that's in the right terrain and of appropriate CR?

Determining alignment makes you go through a whole 'nother step there. If you have enough to worry about, then make it easier on yourself by removing alignment and opening up more options.

Like when you say that it's up to the DM to determine how a creature is warlike, then also saying the monster is evil is an unnecessary step and puts unnecessary limits on how the DM can play those monsters, especially if there's another monster with a similar description but is given the neutral or good alignment. As an example, elves. A lot of people have pointed out the rather awful things elves have canonically done. According to the 5e MM, elves tried to genocide quaggoths in order to seize their lands, and quaggoths only survived by fleeing underground. I've seen people suggest that Mystaran elves caused unnecessary ecological problems by controlling the weather in a way to make Alfheim into an elven paradise (and thus creating a rainshadow). I admit I don't know if that's canon, but the Mystaran maps I've seen seem to support that idea. Elves in most settings are fairly bigoted, and those in Spelljammer were outright fascist. But elves, as a D&D race, are most often chaotic good.

(Is it because elves are pretty and orcs aren't?)

And by putting an alignment there, it makes it difficult to DMs to have a race be different on their own world without having to repeatedly remind people that no, on this world, orcs are mostly neutral and get their aggressions out by becoming mercenaries or playing orcball.

It was actually "often" that was 40-50%. That's what orcs were. "Usually" was simply a majority, so as low as 50.01%. I misremembered.

So that means that WotC itself didn't use its own metrics, which means they're utterly pointless and unsupported--especially since as pro-alignment people frequently like to say, DMs can decide that a particular monster is any alignment they want. Just like, if there's no alignment listed

That was up to the DM. If the DM didn't do that, that's the DM's fault.

That's... a really stupid argument. It's like saying that if WotC put out a broken spell or archetype, it's the DM's fault for not homebrewing a solution.

 

[Remathilis]

I can't believe I'm gonna defend alignment, as I basically don't use it anymore. But alignment doesn't need to differentiate between an chaotic evil orc and dragon. It's just shorthand, just a guide for the DM to start roleplaying that NPC. I don't think it's necessary, but it is a tool for those who like it

One of it's biggest uses was random encounter tables, where they would give the DM in a small amount of words the tendencies of the encounter.

Imagine a forest rain encounter table with the following encounters: unicorn, orc, dryad, green dragon. If told you nothing else about these encounters, you could use alignment as a starting point for each encounter. The unicorn is probably going to be a benevolent encounter (assuming the PCs aren't evil), the dryad may or may not be, the orcs will most likely be a violent one, while the dragon will likewise be antagonistic. The DM can fill in details or subvert expectations, but if they're not in the mood, you have a decent starting point to determine what this encounter might look like.

 

[Faolyn]

But you could say the same thing about "orc", "red dragon", or "werewolf" as well. What does "orc" tell you about that particular orc's motivations? Do they all do the same orc actions, etc? Any collective description comes at the expense of describing the individual, whether it be alignment, race, or anything else for that matter. It's all just shorthand so that they don't need to publish unique stats and lengthy backstories for each and every individual. Exceptions and nuances are up to the DM, should they wish to include them...

"Orc" isn't a descriptor. You can say that orcs tend to act in a particular way and that's fine if you aren't using moralistic language with those ways. You don't need to publish unique descriptors for each and every individual.

If you say that orcs are chaotic evil, even if it's only "usually", then you are saying that all orcs act the same way. Except for that one orc over there, he's the exception.

 

[Maxperson]

Which makes "evil" a useless descriptor.

But only to you and those who don't understand alignment.

So you're saying that, if you want the PCs to fight some bad guys, you'd rather go through the MM to determine which monsters are evil, in the right terrain, and of the appropriate CR, rather than grab any monster that's in the right terrain and of appropriate CR?

No.

Determining alignment makes you go through a whole 'nother step there. If you have enough to worry about, then make it easier on yourself by removing alignment and opening up more options.

No it doesn't. I don't determine the alignment. It's already in the book as the default for me to choose to use if I want to. Having short descriptors like "warlike" and "aggressive" causes me to go through multiple additional steps, though.

Like when you say that it's up to the DM to determine how a creature is warlike, then also saying the monster is evil is an unnecessary step and puts unnecessary limits on how the DM can play those monsters, especially if there's another monster with a similar description but is given the neutral or good alignment. As an example, elves. A lot of people have pointed out the rather awful things elves have canonically done. According to the 5e MM, elves tried to genocide quaggoths in order to seize their lands, and quaggoths only survived by fleeing underground. I've seen people suggest that Mystaran elves caused unnecessary ecological problems by controlling the weather in a way to make Alfheim into an elven paradise (and thus creating a rainshadow). I admit I don't know if that's canon, but the Mystaran maps I've seen seem to support that idea. Elves in most settings are fairly bigoted, and those in Spelljammer were outright fascist. But elves, as a D&D race, are most often chaotic good.

Elves were "usually" CG, which meant that 50.01% or more of them were, yes.

(Is it because elves are pretty and orcs aren't?)

Nope. Lots of elves were not CG and lots of orcs were not CE. Both races were treated the same.

And by putting an alignment there, it makes it difficult to DMs to have a race be different on their own world without having to repeatedly remind people that no, on this world, orcs are mostly neutral and get their aggressions out by becoming mercenaries or playing orcball.

If by difficult you mean that it takes all of less than a second to make that decision, then sure. Otherwise that's just flat out wrong.

It takes less than a second to make the decision to have your orcs be LG and a few seconds to tell the players, "Orcs in this setting are LG." Unless your players are dumb as a stump, they're going to understand what LG orcs mean.

Same with your neutral orcball orcs. You're selling your players short in an effort to make alignment seem bad when it's really not.

So that means that WotC itself didn't use its own metrics, which means they're utterly pointless and unsupported--especially since as pro-alignment people frequently like to say, DMs can decide that a particular monster is any alignment they want. Just like, if there's no alignment listed

They did, though. I've shown in thread after thread that in the 3e Forgotten Realms, there were thousands of non-evil orcs living side by side with humans in a human country, including being in positions of power and authority. And then there were the orcs in 3e Eberron. I suspect if we combed through, we'd find even more examples.

That's... a really stupid argument. It's like saying that if WotC put out a broken spell or archetype, it's the DM's fault for not homebrewing a solution.

The tool isn't broken, though. Misuse is the fault of the person, not the tool. There was no "solution" as there was no problem. Nor did it require homebrew as it was RAW.

 

[Faolyn]

So those questions show a fundamental lack of understanding of alignment.

Of your interpretation of alignment. I've seen probably dozens of interpretations of alignments over the years. Why is yours better.

It's a loose tool to help with personalities. That's it. You could have 3 different orcs who are CE evil in different ways. All CE orcs are not the same.

Then how does that alignment help you determine their personality?

If this tool doesn't help you, that's okay. You don't have to use it. Those of us who do understand it make great use of it.

I'm still waiting for people to tell me how they make any use of it. So far, it always seems to be used as an circularly-reasoned afterthought. Basically every single conversation I've had on this goes as follows:

"I want there to be a bad guy race. Orcs are evil. Therefore, I will use orcs as the bad guy race."

Why are orcs evil?

"The books say that it's because they're warlike and aggressive."

Why are they warlike and aggressive?

"Because they're evil. Anyway, if you want there to be one or two orcs that aren't warlike and aggressive, you can make them. Even though everyone else in the entire world will think they're warlike and aggressive."

But why are they warlike and aggressive? What makes them that way? And why are there other races that are warlike and aggressive but listed as being neutral or good?

"Look, I just want to kill some orcs. Are you telling me my fun is wrong?"

No, but why not have zombies, constructs, demons, bandits, slavers, and cultists as bad guys? Why not have orcs be like humans, in that some are good, some are neutral, some are evil, and some are "it's complicated"?

"Because orcs are evil!" This last statement may also take the form of "Oh, well, we might as well make demons good now!" or "so now all people who murder travelers for their money are evil, hmm?" or "You're using alignment wrong! You have to use it exactly like I do to use it right"

 

[Maxperson]

Of your interpretation of alignment. I've seen probably dozens of interpretations of alignments over the years. Why is yours better.

I don't care if it's better or worse than other interpretations and misinterpretations. You made an absolute declaration that "evil" was useless and since it's not useless to those great many of us who understand alignment, your declaration is objectively wrong. It's only useless to YOU.

Then how does that alignment help you determine their personality?

As a loose tool describing the possible ways to play that alignment.

I'm still waiting for people to tell me how they make any use of it. So far, it always seems to be used as an circularly-reasoned afterthought. Basically every single conversation I've had on this goes as follows:

"I want there to be a bad guy race. Orcs are evil. Therefore, I will use orcs as the bad guy race."

Why are orcs evil?

"The books say that it's because they're warlike and aggressive."

Why are they warlike and aggressive?

"Because they're evil. Anyway, if you want there to be one or two orcs that aren't warlike and aggressive, you can make them. Even though everyone else in the entire world will think they're warlike and aggressive."

But why are they warlike and aggressive? What makes them that way? And why are there other races that are warlike and aggressive but listed as being neutral or good?

"Look, I just want to kill some orcs. Are you telling me my fun is wrong?"

Meh. A few individuals say that. Most of the arguments, and I know you see them because you are in the many alignment threads, simply go like this.

Our side: "Alignment is useful as a loose tool to help DMs roleplay monsters and NPCs by providing a starting point to jump off of. Oh, and new players and less creative players also make use of it. If you don't like it, you don't have to use it."

Your side" "But alignment is always bad, because I hate it due to mechanics that haven't been present for 13 years, and there is no use for it, because I don't understand it. It has to be gotten rid of so that you guys can't use it, either.