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

 

[Demetrios1453]

"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.

So, you are seeming to define any alignment, such as "chaotic evil", as a single, precisely defined behavior, that will cause any creature defined as such to behave in the exact same manner as any other so defined. However, most of the rest of us in this thread see any particular alignment as a quite large spectrum of behaviors that fall under a big tent (or nine big tents in this case), so that creatures defined as such would behave similarly, but with a lot of room for individuality, which may indeed even bleed into neighboring alignments.

So, as these viewpoints are incompatible with each other and you seem very set on your POV, I'm not sure exactly what more I (or anyone else agreeing with my viewpoint) can add to this conversation, so I must regretfully drop out of this part of this thread's conversation...

 

[Faolyn]

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.

You've said those things.

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."

I've asked you and many others to describe how alignment is actually useful. So far, the answer has always just been "I find it useful." Which is not an answer.

So go on. Show me what Chaotic Evil means to you with three different monsters.

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.

I don't care about those mechanics at all. You and others keep bringing it up like it means something.

 

[Faolyn]

So, you are seeming to define any alignment, such as "chaotic evil", as a single, precisely defined behavior, that will cause any creature defined as such to behave in the exact same manner as any other so defined. However, most of the rest of us in this thread see any particular alignment as a quite large spectrum of behaviors that fall under a big tent (or nine big tents in this case), so that creatures defined as such would behave similarly, but with a lot of room for individuality, which may indeed even bleed into neighboring alignments.

So if chaotic evil, or any other alignment, can't or shouldn't be precisely defined, then what do you find useful in it when determining the behavior of individuals and races, and what do you do when there's two monsters that act in similar ways but are given different alignments?

And more importantly, why should entire races be defined using a single primary alignment?

 

[Parmandur]

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.

That, and Adventures and Settings. It's the helpful to know if King is Lawful Neutral or Neutral Good, 8fthe Bishop is Lawful Good or Neutral Evil, if the Captain of the Guard is Lawful Evil or True Neutral. It helps populate a Dramatis Personae with few words and leaving plenty of room for DM interpretation.

 

[Maxperson]

You've said those things.

So have most others in the threads, as well as liking my posts when I say it.

I've asked you and many others to describe how alignment is actually useful. So far, the answer has always just been "I find it useful." Which is not an answer.

It's actually WE find it useful, which is an answer. We've also specifically said to you that we use it as a loose tool to guide us as a stepping off point for running monsters. that's an explicit answer for how we find it useful.

What you're asking for is a very specific, "CE means exactly this and nothing more." and you aren't going to get it, because alignment isn't meant to be specific like that. It's not a straightjacket, but instead is just a general tool to AID in roleplay, not dictate it.

 

[Faolyn]

Save have most others in the thread, as well as liking my posts when I say it.

So it's more than a "few individuals."

Almost like all y'all have the alignment "chaotic obstructionist."

It's actually WE find it useful, which is an answer. We've also specifically said to you that we use it as a loose tool to guide us as a stepping off point for running monsters. that's an explicit answer for how we find it useful.

What you're asking for is a very specific, "CE means exactly this and nothing more." and you aren't going to get it, because alignment isn't meant to be specific like that. It's not a straightjacket, but instead is just a general tool to AID in roleplay, not dictate it.

No, what I'm asking for is for you to tell me what about any particular alignment is actually useful, what about it guides you, what provides a stepping-off point.

Right now, your answer is "it's useful because it's useful," which is not a useful answer and doesn't actually do anything to make alignment actually seem worthwhile.

So, seriously. Pick three different monster species with the same alignment. Preferably living, mortal monsters, not monsters that can be described as being preprogramed by dint of being alien-minded entities or beings corrupted by negative energy. Then describe how that alignment provides you with a tool to aid in how you roleplay those three species. Teach me, since you keep saying I'm doing it wrong. Show me the right way.

And then please explain what you do when you have two monsters with similar MOs but drastically different alignments, because clearly I'm not understanding them. Like, why elves are usually chaotic good even when shown as to be bigots willing to commit genocide over land grabs, but orcs are usually chaotic evil when they do the same thing. You didn't answer that. You just went back to talking about percentages, which I don't care about.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I would be perfectly happy if every future monster source used the "typical" alignment idea coupled with the personality aspects, like they're doing in Fizban's. Seems like a great compromise, and adding is always better than subtracting in RPG material.

 

[Demetrios1453]

So if chaotic evil, or any other alignment, can't or shouldn't be precisely defined, then what do you find useful in it when determining the behavior of individuals and races, and what do you do when there's two monsters that act in similar ways but are given different alignments?

And more importantly, why should entire races be defined using a single primary alignment?

Sigh. It's like colors. A book says a creature is green. As an analogy on how you are attempting to define alignment, you would be saying "green" is one specific pantone, only that pantone, and all creatures described as green must conform to that exact pantone. While the rest of us understand that green covers thousands of different, but still similar hues, and that some of those monsters might be olive green, or forest green, or sea foam green. Some of them might even bleed over to adjacent colors, and be blue-green or yellow-green! The fact that "green" as a descriptor covers thousands of possibilities doesn't invalidate it as a tool, nor does it make it any less useful...

 

[Maxperson]

So it's more than a "few individuals."

Almost like all y'all have the alignment "chaotic obstructionist."

Yes. More than "a few individuals" are saying what I am saying, and only a very few individuals come anywhere close to that claptrap you posed above about circular reasoning.

No, what I'm asking for is for you to tell me what about any particular alignment is actually useful, what about it guides you, what provides a stepping-off point.

Open up the 3e PHB and read the alignment section and it should be clear. The 5e alignment section is a pile of poo. One sentence isn't much help to anyone.

Right now, your answer is "it's useful because it's useful," which is not a useful answer and doesn't actually do anything to make alignment actually seem worthwhile.

I'm not going to explain to you what you can just read in the 3e book. It's too much typing.

So, seriously. Pick three different monster species with the same alignment. Preferably living, mortal monsters, not monsters that can be described as being preprogramed by dint of being alien-minded entities or beings corrupted by negative energy. Then describe how that alignment provides you with a tool to aid in how you roleplay those three species. Teach me, since you keep saying I'm doing it wrong. Show me the right way.

Each alignment gives a variety of ways that fit within it. Those ways are written vaguely enough that I can extrapolate other similar ways that would also fit within the alignment. Since I know what those ways are, it's easy for me to drum up a quick personality for a monster, which I can then add to or tweak.

And then please explain what you do when you have two monsters with similar MOs but drastically different alignments, because clearly I'm not understanding them. Like, why elves are usually chaotic good even when shown as to be bigots willing to commit genocide over land grabs, but orcs are usually chaotic evil when they do the same thing. You didn't answer that. You just went back to talking about percentages, which I don't care about.

That's easy. An alignment isn't a straightjacket and nobody fits entirely within one. You can be a generally good individually who is also a bigot. Genocides don't taint a race forever. Perhaps those that engaged in them were evil, but that doesn't make all elves evil now.

 

[Faolyn]

Sigh. It's like colors. A book says a creature is green. As an analogy on how you are attempting to define alignment, you would be saying "green" is one specific pantone, only that pantone, and all creatures described as green must conform to that exact pantone. While the rest of us understand that green covers thousands of different, but still similar hues, and that some of those monsters might be olive green, or forest green, or sea foam green. Some of them might even bleed over to adjacent colors, and be blue-green or yellow-green! The fact that "green" as a descriptor covers thousands of possibilities doesn't invalidate it as a tool, nor does it make it any less useful...

Except that you shouldn't be killing people because they're green. But you can kill people for acting in an evil manner. So I need a bit more of a definition than just "it's like color."

(Also, pantone is a brand; you want words like hue when you're discussing color.)

(Also, green has a specific definition, defined partially by its wavelength in the visible spectrum. Everything else is green plus one or more additional color.)