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

Faolyn

(she/her)
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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

SkidAce

Legend
Supporter
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

(she/her)
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

(she/her)
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?
 

Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
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).
 

Remove ads

Latest threads

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top