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

 

[Faolyn]

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.

 

[JEB]

@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]

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]

@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?

 

[Disgruntled Hobbit]

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]

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]

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?

 

[Demetrios1453]

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]

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.

 

[Maxperson]

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

So why do you think that's what we are asking for?