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

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
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.
No I can't. I've shown that to you time and time again.
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.


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.
It's not that someone LE can't be brutal, it's that brutality is not part of the LE alignment. Brutality and viciousness are disorderly things(ie unlawful).
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?
Because they don't. They're disorderly descriptors which is why they were in CHAOTIC evil and not LAWFUL evil.
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?
Because I have no choice. The mechanics are what people complain ago and that complaint got fixed 13 years ago. Alignment in 4e was incomplete, not having multiple alignments in the edition at all, and 5e just has a single sentence and saying that's good enough is like saying that a Hot Wheel is good enough to be a real car. To get to an edition that has all the alignments in detail, I have to go back to 3e.
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?
Alignment is just where the majority of your morality lies, not where it all does.
"[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.
And that plus alignment is better still.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
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.
The average game probably doesn't have a problem changing things, and I've already shown you how WotC portrayed orcs in 3e just like the alignment listed. Often CE. Multiple 3e products had non-evil orcs in them.

You keep harping on a problem that doesn't actually exist.
So serious question: How often do you have non-evil groups of evil monsters in your games?
Maybe 5-10% of the time. Most monsters are there for the PCs to fight and get experience and loot from.
 

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.
I have an entire nation of good to neutrally-aligned goblins in my game, and most of the orcs my PCs have met aren't evil either (although there are plenty of evil orcs they haven't met). Just about all the races I use regularly have good and evil groups, and the evil ones have solid reasons for why they are what they are. Any DM can make those decisions on the fly if need be, and if they dont have a preference, alignment is a good short hand to come up with something quickly. I could honestly care less whether WotC has bands of good hobgoblins roaming the land and healing the sick, but when I have to improvise, I'm happy those two letters are in the statblock.
 

Faolyn

Hero
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.
Yes, I'd say that something like this would be acceptable. They're not evil on their own; they're evil because they were literally made. And honestly, I'd consider truly Tolkienesque orcs to be constructs or aberrations, not humanoids.

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?
Gnolls.

Lamias are all created by Grazz't this edition. I've always liked the idea of lamias as "the mothers of monsters"; that they were beings created by evil in order to produce other evil creatures, but cannot produce more of their own type. It would explain why there are so many different monsters like chimeras and manticores when it would be realistically impossible for any world to support breeding populations of such things. There's no huge numbers of chimeras out there. Just what are occasionally spawned by lamia.

Medusae are created by gods and fiends out of people who beg them for beauty and power.

You could possibly count aboleths, since they only produce reincarnations of themselves. There's no word on whether or not chuul reproduce on their own in this edition or can only be created by aboleths. I'd guess they can reproduce, but it's not quite clear.

Many fey are spawned from mortal emotions.

Banderhobbs are made by hags.

Nothics are what happens to wizards who learned too much of what People Are Not Meant To Know.

Meazels and skulks are both humanoids who were transformed by the Shadowfell. I don't think they can reproduce.
 

It's not that someone LE can't be brutal, it's that brutality is not part of the LE alignment. Brutality and viciousness are disorderly things(ie unlawful).

That depends on if you are on the inside or outside of that race/culture/society. Dictatorships are generally brutal and vicious, but also have their very strict laws and beliefs for their people to live within, and would be Lawful Evil.
 

Faolyn

Hero
The average game probably doesn't have a problem changing things, and I've already shown you how WotC portrayed orcs in 3e just like the alignment listed. Often CE. Multiple 3e products had non-evil orcs in them.
Multiple individuals or multiple groups? Because, as I've already explained, having "all orcs are evil except for that one" is really problematic and very much ties into real-world racist beliefs. Especially when the reason that one isn't evil is because it was raised by or came under the influence of a good person (of a different race).

Maybe 5-10% of the time. Most monsters are there for the PCs to fight and get experience and loot from.
You don't have PCs coming upon villages they can rest in, trade with, or help out?

I wonder what the venn diagram of "DMs who give XP for killing things" and "DMs who use alignment" is like.
 

AcererakTriple6

Autistic DM (he/him)
That depends on if you are on the inside or outside of that race/culture/society. Dictatorships are generally brutal and vicious, but also have their very strict laws and beliefs for their people to live within, and would be Lawful Evil.
Yeah. Ingsoc from 1984 is definitely Lawful Evil, but they use some brutal tactics and are very vicious.

Brutality and Viciousness are tools, not determiners of your alignment.
 

SkidAce

Legend
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.
I have a group of goblins that use the alchemy aspect goblins are sometimes known for, as healing instead of bombs.

There was a goblin NPC gunfighter that adventured with the group. "Bang!" (doh, you said not individuals, my bad).

Also have a species of sahuagin barons (with tails instead of legs) that surface folk call naga that act as guides on the Inner Sea.

I have a merchant trading group of hobgoblin mariners (granted there is another group in the area that are pirates...its more like guidelines.

All of my dragons of all species and color can be any alignment.

The Kromag (orc analogue/Klingons) have varying groups in varying areas that range from CE to NG.

Oh, and my lizardmen clans run the gamut also. There is one group near the main campaign area that sends its best warriors to be the personal body guard of the royal family of the kingdom they are "in".
 

Faolyn

Hero
Are you willing to take this to it's logical conclusion and say demons shouldn't be chaotic evil as a default?
Demons are not humanoids with free will. They are made out of distilled essence of evil, at least in D&D. Thus, that's not a logical conclusion.

Now, if I were running In Nomine, then no, I wouldn't say that demons are evil by default. But In Nomine is a very different type of game.
 


Faolyn

Hero
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!
Five, unless Great Wyrm is a template.

Which I kind of hope it is, if only to avoid having 20+ pages on Great Wyrms alone.
 

SkidAce

Legend
I wonder what the venn diagram of "DMs who give XP for killing things" and "DMs who use alignment" is like.
I kinda feel that in your discussion with Max that you are lumping a lot of us together and throwing us under the bus.

Alignment generalizations can be bad, and so can generalizing groups of DMs.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Multiple individuals or multiple groups? Because, as I've already explained, having "all orcs are evil except for that one" is really problematic and very much ties into real-world racist beliefs. Especially when the reason that one isn't evil is because it was raised by or came under the influence of a good person (of a different race).
As I've said multiple times, now, it's groups. Thousands and thousands of non-evil orcs live side by side with humans in a human country, some acting in positions of power and authority. In Eberron orcs aren't even evil as a race. I'm sure that other products have other examples. I don't know why you didn't see that the first time around.
You don't have PCs coming upon villages they can rest in, trade with, or help out?
Not often, no. They encounter non-evil groups often enough that if they come upon some humanoids like orcs and those orcs are not immediately hostile, they will try to talk first.
I wonder what the venn diagram of "DMs who give XP for killing things" and "DMs who use alignment" is like.
Probably a lot of overlap given that "giving xp for killing things" is the default assumption of the game, so like most DMs who don't use alignment, most of those who do use it will give xp for killing things.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Demons are not humanoids with free will. They are made out of distilled essence of evil, at least in D&D. Thus, that's not a logical conclusion.

Now, if I were running In Nomine, then no, I wouldn't say that demons are evil by default. But In Nomine is a very different type of game.
And yet there are official examples of good demons.
 

Faolyn

Hero
No I can't. I've shown that to you time and time again.
No you haven't. You keep claiming you have, but you haven't.

It's not that someone LE can't be brutal, it's that brutality is not part of the LE alignment. Brutality and viciousness are disorderly things(ie unlawful).
Hah!

Because they don't. They're disorderly descriptors which is why they were in CHAOTIC evil and not LAWFUL evil.


Because I have no choice. The mechanics are what people complain ago and that complaint got fixed 13 years ago. Alignment in 4e was incomplete, not having multiple alignments in the edition at all, and 5e just has a single sentence and saying that's good enough is like saying that a Hot Wheel is good enough to be a real car. To get to an edition that has all the alignments in detail, I have to go back to 3e.
So basically, only your preferred interpretation of alignments is the correct interpretation. Everyone who uses any other definition is wrong. Even when your preferred interpretation doesn't use the actual description of the book, because you have decided certain words can only be chaotic and can't be lawful.

Gotcha. Well, in that case, I'll continue to use no alignment because no matter what, I'm going to interpret it wrong. According to you, at least.

Alignment is just where the majority of your morality lies, not where it all does.
So what's the alignment of those example people I gave you?

And that plus alignment is better still.
Why? Because you say so?
 

Faolyn

Hero
As I've said multiple times, now, it's groups.
You haven't said it even once yet. At least not to me. I've been too busy replying to you to read every other post yet.

Thousands and thousands of non-evil orcs live side by side with humans in a human country, some acting in positions of power and authority. In Eberron orcs aren't even evil as a race. I'm sure that other products have other examples. I don't know why you didn't see that the first time around.
Eberron. A setting which very specifically said that any race can be any alignment and allowed (in 3x) clerics to have different alignments than their churches. Read this article by Keith Baker. I get the sneaking suspicion that if he could have, he would have gotten rid of alignments (he said that getting rid of them wasn't an option; I don't think that's how he would have phrased it if he had wanted to keep them). So your defense of alignments is to point out a setting that basically doesn't use them?

Speaking of... what do you do when you play non-D&D games that don't include alignment?
 

AcererakTriple6

Autistic DM (he/him)
So what determines your alignment, then, if not what you do and how you do it?
I guess that it's how other people see your alignment. It's subjective. That's one of my main problems with alignment. One would look at Ingsoc from 1984 and the description of Lawful Evil in the PHB, and see that they match to a t, but their methods of forcing their citizens to love Big Brother are very brutal/vicious, which is typically a Chaotic Evil trait. Many other examples of Lawful Evil nations share similar themes (the Empire from Star Wars, Nazi Germany, etc), where their overall structure is Lawful Evil, but their leaders are typically Neutral Evil (selfishly caring about themselves more than law or the welfare of others), and many of their methods are Chaotic Evil (torture, genocide, disproportionate responses, etc).

There is nuance that the Alignment system just doesn't have. It's subjective, and thus a flawed tool for a "morality system".
 



Remathilis

Legend
Demons are not humanoids with free will. They are made out of distilled essence of evil, at least in D&D. Thus, that's not a logical conclusion.

Now, if I were running In Nomine, then no, I wouldn't say that demons are evil by default. But In Nomine is a very different type of game.
So the qualifer is humanoids of free will.

Are you willing then to a accept species alignment for non-humanoids? Aberrations, Constructs, Monstrosities, Elementals, Celestials, Fiends, Fey, Undead, Giants, and (the topic of this thread) Dragons can all have default alignments (or tendencies toward evil or good)?

Because it's one thing to say orcs or drow shouldn't have a defined alignment based on r type or culture; it's quite another to say the same of mind flayers, gold dragons, wraiths, unicorns, frost giants or efreeti. To be quite honest, I'm not sure I'm ready to accept that a beholder has the same chance and percentage as a human of being Lawful Good (or having the personality traits of law abiding and benevolent).
 

Visit Our Sponsor

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top