log in or register to remove this ad

 

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!

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!



2E56D87C-A6D8-4079-A3B5-132567350A63.png




EEA82AF0-58EA-457E-B1CA-9CD5DCDF4035.jpeg

Fizban the Fabulous by Vera Gentinetta
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Russ Morrissey

Russ Morrissey

Faolyn

Hero
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.

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.
I did. I'm asking how you found it helpful. Because I read it and while it's clear what it means for each alignment.

According to the SRD--I'd really have to go dig out by 3x physical book--"A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him."

So, are all chaotic evil creatures like this? This seems to suggest that all chaotic evil beings are:
  1. greedy
  2. hateful
  3. love destruction
  4. hot-tempered
  5. vicious
  6. arbitrarily violent
  7. unpredictable
  8. ruthless
  9. brutal
  10. poorly organized
(this makes me wonder how there are any orc hordes that remain intact for more than a few months, let alone the generations they're usually assumed to have been existence.)

When I said that, you and others said I'm wrong, that there are multiple ways to play a chaotic evil creature. So are there additional definitions elsewhere? Or are we assuming that you all you need to be is some of those to be classified as chaotic evil? If that so, how many? Because a greedy, unpredictable, poorly-organized creature who loves destruction could be chaotic neutral or neutral evil. A ruthless, brutal, vicious, hot-tempered being could be lawful evil. There's ten items on that list. Should I roll 6d10 to determine the personality of the species? Why not just include those words in the description instead of the alignment, because it would save you time and energy in trying to figure out what exactly it means when a particular monster species is listed as chaotic evil?

I'm not going to explain to you what you can just read in the 3e book. It's too much typing.
You're willing to spend many posts telling me how wrong I am, but not to spend one post trying to make me less wrong? Hmm.

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.

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.
So, you're saying that alignment is in fact useless in determining how a species acts or should be portrayed. Good to know.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

JEB

Hero
@Faolyn, you described for me upthread the many ways in which terms like "aggressive" and "warlike" and "organized" and "impartial" and "rebellious" and "friendly" and "vicious" can be used as prompts for a wide range of character types. Something I agree with, by the way!

But then you suggest that alignment can't be used in the same way, as a prompt from which a variety of more complex characterizations can be derived. Why?
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
I did. I'm asking how you found it helpful. Because I read it and while it's clear what it means for each alignment.

According to the SRD--I'd really have to go dig out by 3x physical book--"A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him."

So, are all chaotic evil creatures like this? This seems to suggest that all chaotic evil beings are:
  1. greedy
  2. hateful
  3. love destruction
  4. hot-tempered
  5. vicious
  6. arbitrarily violent
  7. unpredictable
  8. ruthless
  9. brutal
  10. poorly organized
The bolded part is where you are going wrong. You are still looking for alignment to tell you specifically what something is. It doesn't and never has done that.

One CE creature might love destruction. Another might be hot-tempered, ruthless and vicious, but not be unpredictable or love destruction. Another might have similar, but different personality adjectives. The DM gets to decide within that very loose framework the basics of the CE monster and then go from there.

It's an AID to roleplay, it doesn't dictate it.
Or are we assuming that you all you need to be is some of those to be classified as chaotic evil?
No assumption. From 3.5 PHB

"A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment: lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, neutral, chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, and chaotic evil."

General, not specific.

"Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character."

It's just a tool, not a straightjacket.

"Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two lawful good characters can still be quite different from each other."

It's a broad range, not specifics. So no assumption is being made when I use some, but not all of those traits or even use similar traits that aren't mentioned.
If that so, how many?
Up to the DM.
Because a greedy, unpredictable, poorly-organized creature who loves destruction could be chaotic neutral or neutral evil.
No. An unpredictable and poorly organized one would likely be CN if that were all the traits it had. Greed and a love for destruction are not CN traits.
A ruthless, brutal, vicious, hot-tempered being could be lawful evil.
Not very likely.
Should I roll 6d10 to determine the personality of the species?
If you're CN, sure ;)
Why not just include those words in the description instead of the alignment, because it would save you time and energy in trying to figure out what exactly it means when a particular monster species is listed as chaotic evil?
For reasons already given. The words alone don't help much.
So, you're saying that alignment is in fact useless in determining how a species acts or should be portrayed. Good to know.
It's almost is if you aren't even trying to understand alignment or my responses. Oh, wait.
 

Faolyn

Hero
@Faolyn, you described for me upthread the many ways in which terms like "aggressive" and "warlike" and "organized" and "impartial" and "rebellious" and "friendly" and "vicious" can be used as prompts for a wide range of character types. Something I agree with, by the way!

But then you suggest that alignment can't be used in the same way, as a prompt from which a variety of more complex characterizations can be derived. Why?
Because alignments have morals attached. You can say an entire race is organized, vicious, or friendly without also saying the entire race is good or evil, i.e., if they can be killed with impunity or not. By removing the morality, it also opens up more possibilities of having the creature be allies or enemies or neutral parties. With the morality, you often have to rewrite the entire creature's personality if you want one that isn't evil or isn't good--and sometimes, those rewrites are of dubious value, especially when they boil down to "this creature is totally different because it was raised by creatures of another race."

And also, because "chaotic evil" isn't actually all that useful a term by itself. As you say, it can be a prompt, but that just makes it an additional step. Why not cut the prompt out and actually use what terms you want right away?
 

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?
It tells me that they're evil (selfish and less concerned with others or morality) and also chaotic (disorganized or purposely opposed to societal rules and laws). That they're treacherous and untrustworthy
It tells me that they're not lawful evil, which might be honorable or have a code of conduct. Or neutral evil, which is just ammoral or nihilistic
It tells me that they're more like the Joker than Lex Luthor or Doctor Doom

And it tells me all that in two words

That's why alignment is cool. We all know it and have a vague personal idea what it means. We might disagree with specific examples, but it's a shared language that instantly conveys information
Replacing alignment means a much larger paragraph of text

It's not perfect. As you note, very different creatures that act very differently are all CE. But it means I can tell at a glance how a monster might act in a random encounter without having to read a page of flavor
It especially helps with monsters like the werewolf who do only get a couple small paragraphs of flavor, because they're sharing space with other lychanthropes. Otherwise you might think the default werewolf is LE and a loyal pack hunter, or an unaligned creature like a wolf
 

Faolyn

Hero
The bolded part is where you are going wrong. You are still looking for alignment to tell you specifically what something is. It doesn't and never has done that.

One CE creature might love destruction. Another might be hot-tempered, ruthless and vicious, but not be unpredictable or love destruction. Another might have similar, but different personality adjectives. The DM gets to decide within that very loose framework the basics of the CE monster and then go from there.
So why not cut out the alignment and just include the actual adjectives in the monster description or based on what role you need the creature to take in your adventure?

Why not just decide your bandits are greedy, ruthless, and violence-prone instead of looking up a a monster that's chaotic evil or say that they're chaotic evil but they only fill these particular parts of the chaotic evil descriptor?

It's an AID to roleplay, it doesn't dictate it.
And you still won't show me how you use it to aid your roleplay.

No assumption. From 3.5 PHB

"A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment: lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, neutral, chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, and chaotic evil."
But you just said that that alignment isn't used except in general terms and not the creature doesn't actually have all of the aspects of that alignment.

"Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two lawful good characters can still be quite different from each other."
Sure. So then why not just describe them by those personality traits instead of using the LG descriptor, which doesn't actually say anything and is, as you call it, a tool for further figuring out what adjectives to use?

Right now, you're making alignment look like the index of the 5e PH. You look up "Lawful Good" and all you get a note that says "see how a good person is expected or required to act" without a page number attached.

No. An unpredictable and poorly organized one would likely be CN if that were all the traits it had. Greed and a love for destruction are not CN traits.
So how many traits from any particular alignment are required before you count as that alignment?

Not very likely.
Why not? What's not lawful evil about being ruthless, brutal, vicious, or hot-tempered?

And the description in 3x says that lawful good creatures hate to see evil beings go unpunished, and that lawful neutral creatures acts as "law, tradition, or a personal code directs them". Couldn't a lawful neutral or lawful good creature be ruthless and brutal in ensuring that evil beings get punished and get hot-tempered when an evil creatures avoid justice?

For reasons already given. The words alone don't help much.
So please explain how "chaotic evil" tells you more about the creature in an encounter than "ruthless and vicious". I've asked; you won't answer.

Unless you do play The Sims and you expect chaotic evil creatures to take Evil Showers.

It's almost is if you aren't even trying to understand alignment or my responses. Oh, wait.
It's almost as if you are refusing to actually explain anything about why alignment is useful to you. Oh wait.
 

Faolyn

Hero
It tells me that they're evil (selfish and less concerned with others or morality) and also chaotic (disorganized or purposely opposed to societal rules and laws). That they're treacherous and untrustworthy
It tells me that they're not lawful evil, which might be honorable or have a code of conduct. Or neutral evil, which is just ammoral or nihilistic
It tells me that they're more like the Joker than Lex Luthor or Doctor Doom

And it tells me all that in two words
OK. So you're saying that you don't want to read a couple of extra sentences.

So, why is it OK to say that an entire race of creatures is chaotic evil?
 

Soooo... Going back to the original subject, we know that 20 dragon types will be getting lore deep dives. But will dragon types not on that list still get stat blocks in the bestiary section? Say out 20 deep dives are chromatic, metallic, gem, dragon turtle, deep (all of the preceding have been confirmed) moonstone, steel, and dracolich. Obviously those not in the MM will get stat blocks, but will other dragons like song or brown dragons get stat blocks even though they don't get a deep dive?
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
So why not cut out the alignment and just include the actual adjectives in the monster description or based on what role you need the creature to take in your adventure?

Why not just decide your bandits are greedy, ruthless, and violence-prone instead of looking up a a monster that's chaotic evil or say that they're chaotic evil but they only fill these particular parts of the chaotic evil descriptor?
I'm not going to answer that again. I've already told you three times.
And you still won't show me how you use it to aid your roleplay.
I have.
Sure. So then why not just describe them by those personality traits instead of using the LG descriptor, which doesn't actually say anything and is, as you call it, a tool for further figuring out what adjectives to use?
See above.
Right now, you're making alignment look like the index of the 5e PH. You look up "Lawful Good" and all you get a note that says "see how a good person is expected or required to act" without a page number attached.
No. That's you, not me. And of course you're failing, because you don't understand alignment and aren't trying to.
So how many traits from any particular alignment are required before you count as that alignment?
Why do you keep making the mistake of trying to pin alignment down to specifics? Is it because you aren't trying to understand it?
Why not? What's not lawful evil about being ruthless, brutal, vicious, or hot-tempered?
Read lawful evil.
And the description in 3x says that lawful good creatures hate to see evil beings go unpunished, and that lawful neutral creatures acts as "law, tradition, or a personal code directs them". Couldn't a lawful neutral or lawful good creature be ruthless and brutal in ensuring that evil beings get punished and get hot-tempered when an evil creatures avoid justice?
Sure. Not only can you have traits from outside your alignment, but context matters, though. A LG person isn't going to be arbitrarily ruthless and brutal, but would instead temper that with the LG alignment, going after blatantly evil beings ruthlessly. So he's not going to be brutal and ruthless as a whole, like someone who is CE might be, but instead those would be minor traits that only come out in some very specific and rare circumstances. The major part of his alignment would still be LG.

That by the way is why your one word descriptors like "Ruthless" and "brutal" fail to be as useful as alignment is. You still need to either create a detailed background to give context to those words.................................or have two letters that represent alignment to give that context. It's a hell of a lot more work to do it your way and mine is just as good.
So please explain how "chaotic evil" tells you more about the creature in an encounter than "ruthless and vicious". I've asked; you won't answer.
I have three times already and a fourth time right above.
 


JEB

Hero
Soooo... Going back to the original subject, we know that 20 dragon types will be getting lore deep dives. But will dragon types not on that list still get stat blocks in the bestiary section? Say out 20 deep dives are chromatic, metallic, gem, dragon turtle, deep (all of the preceding have been confirmed) moonstone, steel, and dracolich. Obviously those not in the MM will get stat blocks, but will other dragons like song or brown dragons get stat blocks even though they don't get a deep dive?
I assume the only new dragons we'll get stat blocks for are those dragon types that got a deep dive. Keep in mind that's four stat blocks per new dragon already - and look how much space the two existing dragon types already get in the MM!
 

So, why is it OK to say that an entire race of creatures is chaotic evil?

I would say yes, but only in very strict, limited situations. Look at Tolkien and the Orcs created by Saruman. Evil beings created by Evil, that can only increase their numbers through that creation, will all be evil. Now, the regular orcs, while originally created by corrupting elves, can procreate on their own and would have more free will, and I think would have the chance of groups of them breaking away and becoming non-evil after decades or centuries of being away from their evil cousins. This can be translated to other worlds. No free will and needing to be directly created by an Evil source equals no chance of any of them ever being non-evil. Free will and all that other stuff? A non-evil society could develop, but it needs to be built into the setting, not just thrown out into a vacuum. I would say the same for Neutral or Good when it comes to becoming another alignment.

On that note, are there any official D&D races or monsters, that are not undead, that fit the description of not procreating on their own and needing that Evil or Good source to be given life?
 

RoughCoronet0

Dragon Lover
Soooo... Going back to the original subject, we know that 20 dragon types will be getting lore deep dives. But will dragon types not on that list still get stat blocks in the bestiary section? Say out 20 deep dives are chromatic, metallic, gem, dragon turtle, deep (all of the preceding have been confirmed) moonstone, steel, and dracolich. Obviously those not in the MM will get stat blocks, but will other dragons like song or brown dragons get stat blocks even though they don't get a deep dive?
The beastiary from my understanding will have brief descriptions and stat blocks for the different entries, they just won’t be getting sections for more in-depth lore, example hoards and lairs, or tables for determining traits and personalities like the 20 main dragons chosen. I believe Volo’s and Mordenkainen's did something similar though I could be mistaken.
 
Last edited:

Parmandur

Book-Friend
Soooo... Going back to the original subject, we know that 20 dragon types will be getting lore deep dives. But will dragon types not on that list still get stat blocks in the bestiary section? Say out 20 deep dives are chromatic, metallic, gem, dragon turtle, deep (all of the preceding have been confirmed) moonstone, steel, and dracolich. Obviously those not in the MM will get stat blocks, but will other dragons like song or brown dragons get stat blocks even though they don't get a deep dive?
Depends: I think the D
ELDER brain Dragon won't be getting a deep dive, but will get stat blocks.
 




Faolyn

Hero
I'm not going to answer that again. I've already told you three times.

I have.
No you haven't. You've just said "it's useful." That is not an explanation of how it's useful.

No. That's you, not me. And of course you're failing, because you don't understand alignment and aren't trying to.

Why do you keep making the mistake of trying to pin alignment down to specifics? Is it because you aren't trying to understand it?
Because if it doesn't have an actual meaning to it, then what's the purpose of using it? You can get the same results you want by using adjectives that don't declare an entire race good or evil and therefore determine whether or not that race can be killed off.

Read lawful evil.
OK. So here what you are saying is that your interpretation of an alignment is the correct one, and that it's somehow wrong to describe a lawful evil being as ruthless, brutal, vicious, or hot-tempered being despite your claim that alignments are general descriptors and not straightjackets.

Heck, let's look at the 3x description of lawful evil.

A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises.
This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds. Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains.
Some lawful evil people and creatures commit themselves to evil with a zeal like that of a crusader committed to good. Beyond being willing to hurt others for their own ends, they take pleasure in spreading evil as an end unto itself. They may also see doing evil as part of a duty to an evil deity or master.
So, the dictionary definition of ruthless is "having no pity," and right up there it says LE beings have no mercy or compassion. I'd say that brutality and viciousness easily go hand-in-hand with pursuing evil with crusader-like zealotry and taking pleasure in hurting others. And the example they give of a LE being having a taboo against killing someone in cold blood would certainly seem to suggest that LE beings can be hot-tempered.

So if alignment doesn't have a single meaning and it's wrong to insist that it does, why are you saying that I'm wrong when I pointed out that at least four of the ten descriptors given for Chaotic Evil work perfectly fine with Lawful Evil beings as well?

Also, you said I was wrong to dislike alignment because of 13-year-old mechanics attached to them. So why are also you referencing a 13-year-old definition of what the alignments mean?

Sure. Not only can you have traits from outside your alignment, but context matters, though. A LG person isn't going to be arbitrarily ruthless and brutal, but would instead temper that with the LG alignment, going after blatantly evil beings ruthlessly. So he's not going to be brutal and ruthless as a whole, like someone who is CE might be, but instead those would be minor traits that only come out in some very specific and rare circumstances. The major part of his alignment would still be LG.
What if you had a person who was a generally nice guy who gave heavily to charity, helped little old ladies across the street, and beat his spouse when he was drunk? Or someone who was a total jerk, cheated and robbed everyone they came across, and gave all the profits to the orphanage where they grew up?

People are more complex than alignments allow them to be, unless you make so many exceptions and insist on so much "context" that the alignment is all but worthless.

That by the way is why your one word descriptors like "Ruthless" and "brutal" fail to be as useful as alignment is. You still need to either create a detailed background to give context to those words.................................or have two letters that represent alignment to give that context. It's a hell of a lot more work to do it your way and mine is just as good.
I never said one word.

"[Monsters] take pride in their hunting skills and are known for ruthlessly tracking their prey, no matter the circumstances. Most enjoy the hunt more than the kill, and are often willing to let interesting prey go--usually after taking a token from them as memorabilia. Those that do kill their prey usually do so brutally, throwing themselves fully into the blood and guts of it."

This makes for an interesting monster, either as an individual, a sub-culture, or an entire race, and no one alignment could cover all of that. These monsters aren't nice people, but they can be honorable or treacherous, they can be allies, they can be mercenaries you can hire or possibly bribe, they can be enemies. Then you, the DM, decide what they should be in that particular adventure, based on what role you want them to have and how you want the PCs to interact with them. You want the PCs to just kill them with no second thoughts? They become implacable foes. You want to leave it up to the PCs how they deal with them? Then put [monster] on the track of another creature, and the PCs can decide if that other creature deserves to be hunted or not. And because those three sentences use words like "known as," "most," and "usually," you still leave plenty of leeway for [monsters] that aren't like that at all.
 

OK. So you're saying that you don't want to read a couple of extra sentences.
A couple LONG sentences
That come at the cost of other sentences, since there's only so much page space
And when my players are waiting and I'm in the middle of the game you bet I don't wanna read a paragraph
So, why is it OK to say that an entire race of creatures is chaotic evil?
An entire race? Mandated with no variance?
Probably not
Call them out as "typically chaotic evil" or "frequently chaotic evil" or "commonly chaotic evil" is different

Give me the norm and let me decide if an individual is typical or atypical. If they match stereotypes or defy them
(If all the different fantasy races are just bumpy headed humans then why bother including them?)

I'd rather have more tools at my disposal and have the option not to use them, then fewer tools just because someone doesn't personally like socket wrenches
 

Faolyn

Hero
So why do you think that's what we are asking for?
Because you want to keep alignments, and no amount of "the DM can change it" or "usually/often this alignment" will change how the average gamer or WotC themselves portrays the creatures in their products.

So serious question: How often do you have non-evil groups of evil monsters in your games? How many tribes of neutral or good goblins or orcs or bullywugs or whatever do you have? Not individuals who for some reason are not like all the other monsters, but actual groups? You said it's up to the DM, so I want to know what you do.
 

Visit Our Sponsor

Latest threads

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top