D&D 5E Eberron versus Multiverse

[Parmandur]

I think we should take a step back from the Tiamat = Takhisis argument to get some more perspective.

There have been plenty of hints/innuendo that even when the gods appear on different worlds, they often don't manifest in the exact same ways. Meaning, a god can be worshipped on several different worlds, but because they usually aren't worshiped by the exact same type of people in the exact same way, their aspect/avatar on each world will manifest in different ways.

Meaning, practically Tiamat and Takhisis are the same god; the same way that the god in the Torah and the Bible is technically the "same god." But the worshipers don't really agree they're the same (same in real life), which is why for example they have different names, and interact with the world differently, have different goals.

For example, in Dragonlance, Takhisis' is married to the god Sargonnas, who is not mentioned in a non-Dragonlance world. Tiamat in other worlds is mentioned in a constant rivalry with Bahamat, who is not mentioned in Dragonlance.

So, is the underlying god the same, the one who dwells in the Nine Hells? Sure, I guess she can be the same. But the manifestation on each world is going to be different, so in practical terms they're not the same.

TLDR: Everyone is right, stop arguing.

They are also make-believe game objects.

 

[Hriston]

It's a little more complicated than that & a big chunk of your confusion is almost certainly due to the frankly bizarre misinterpretations & misrepresentations of the OP in this thread.

The "concept" of gods, but their existence (or lack of)is a philosophical question rather than an objective provable fact. The exception to this is The Silver Flame/kalok shah, but it has nothing in common with what any setting (including eberron itself) would call a god, The silver flame is more of a force or conflagration of mortal souls/energy of celestial beings akin to the sacred flame cantrip scaled past epic eldritch machine power levels. You can go to the flamekeep (Think the CoSF Vatican analog) to see a piece of it if you want.

Any "evidence" that gods exist in eberron is subjective interpretations & a lot like what certain extremely devout religions people on earth will point at as "evidence" god exists. If you were to cast a spell like augury/gate/planar binding/etc not only would the celestial involved be unable to give any better evidence; but they might not even want to be wasting time interacting with you instead of whatever more important things they could be doing.

Demon Overlords exist & are bound in Khyber, that is a knowable fact. Back in 3.5 they had deific ranks, but mostly that was because 3.5 had mechanics that were tied to those. There's 30 or so overlords & most are left to the gm to define (ie not even a name). The ones that do exist are often forces of nature & concepts given flesh & free will which makes them absurdly powerful should they ever be unbound.... How do you fight the rage of winter, unknowable truths, secrets whispered from shadows, etc when given a vessel of flesh & free will?.. Their existance is extremely important to eberron, but not because they are actively doing anything. They set the foundation for soooo many things from 998yk/present day all the way back to the equivalent of eberron's big bang.

Right, so people in Eberron are familiar with “gods” as a concept, but there’s no verifiable proof that any gods actually exist, so inside the setting it’s left an open question. Unfortunately, this is undermined by the setting book providing an answer: Eberron exists within the Great Wheel cosmology where there are gods, therefore it is true in the setting that gods exist.

 

[Salthorae]

They could have easily said nothing, or if they wanted to include it, put in a sidebar and said: "Here is how you can include Eberron in the wider D&D multiverse if you want to..."

Outside of not using a sidebar, this is exactly what they did do though.

In your campaign, you might decide that the barrier formed by the Ring of Siberys is intact, and contact between Eberron and the worlds and planes beyond its cosmology is impossible. This is the default assumption of this book. On the other hand, you might want to incorporate elements from other realms. Perhaps you want to use a published adventure that involves Tiamat or the forces of the Abyss meddling in the affairs of the world. In such a case, it could be that the protection offered by the Ring of Siberys has begun to fail. You might link the weakening of Siberys to the Mourning — perhaps whatever magical catastrophe caused the Mourning also disrupted the Ring of Siberys, or perhaps a disruption of the Ring of Siberys actually caused the Mourning!

So, while it wasn't a sidebar, they did say, "here is how you can include Eberroon in the wider D&D multiverse if you want to..."

 

[Salthorae]

Unfortunately, this is undermined by the setting book providing an answer:

So?

Setting/Rule books tell me that a Dragon has Legendary actions. That doesn't impact the fiction of the world at all.

See the actual text I quoted above.

Just because it's in the Great Wheel doesn't mean anything.

The Ring of Siberys closed off the Eberron "sphere" from any external influence, which means external gods too. So the only "divine action" is that happening with whatever natives beings or forces are granting spells, whether that is gods or not. That is the DEFAULT assumption of Rising.

Whether external gods are real or not, doesn't impact the Eberron settings divinities (or lack thereof) one whit.

WotC's just giving DM's who want to have that other stuff in their Eberron, or vice versa, a printed option that lets them point to it for their players who might whinge about it "not being canon".

 

[Umbran]

They are also make-believe game objects.

True.

But the point has some interesting cosmological implications. In effect, D&D gods across the various official worlds... are the same entity in one sense, but have independent existence in another sense. The old "blind men and an elephant" analogy is apt - the elephant's trunk is part of the whole elephant, but moving the trunk doesn't really impact the left rear leg - they can do different things.

 

[Hriston]

So?

Setting/Rule books tell me that a Dragon has Legendary actions. That doesn't impact the fiction of the world at all.

See the actual text I quoted above.

Just because it's in the Great Wheel doesn't mean anything.

The Ring of Siberys closed off the Eberron "sphere" from any external influence, which means external gods too. So the only "divine action" is that happening with whatever natives beings or forces are granting spells, whether that is gods or not. That is the DEFAULT assumption of Rising.

Whether external gods are real or not, doesn't impact the Eberron settings divinities (or lack thereof) one whit.

WotC's just giving DM's who want to have that other stuff in their Eberron, or vice versa, a printed option that lets them point to it for their players who might whinge about it "not being canon".

External gods are still gods, and their existence makes anyone inside of Eberron who says there are no gods wrong.

 

[Parmandur]

True.

But the point has some interesting cosmological implications. In effect, D&D gods across the various official worlds... are the same entity in one sense, but have independent existence in another sense. The old "blind men and an elephant" analogy is apt - the elephant's trunk is part of the whole elephant, but moving the trunk doesn't really impact the left rear leg - they can do different things.

True, but the larger point from my point of view is that WotC is approaching "Canon" with a super casual methodology. For the purposes of, say, cartoons and video games, Eberron is by default assumed to be accessible if hard to reach, and Tiamat is trying to break into Krynn. But WotC doesn't care about dictating what anyone is doing at their table with any metaplot or simillar device, either. Taking it too seriously will lead to heartbreak inevitably, because WotC is being casual.

 

[Parmandur]

External gods are still gods, and their existence makes anyone inside of Eberron who says there are no gods wrong.

Yet there are those on world's with "activist" deities who say the gods are just jumped up planar beings and not "gods" as such. Faith still plays the same part, thanks to Planescape.

I like the Eberron approach because, yes, it creates more versimillitude in religious practice. However, the "fact" that activist gods exist in world's the inhabitants can't know exist doesn't have any material effect on PCs and NPCs, and has no formal effect on any Eberron game I would run, because my Sovereign Host would definitely be real.

 

[Salthorae]

External gods are still gods, and their existence makes anyone inside of Eberron who says there are no gods wrong.

If the Ring of Siberys is intact (which is the default assumption of the setting), and the Ring seals everyone in Eberron off from everything/one outside of it and vice versa, then functionally, no external gods don't exist as they cannot be verified or discovered by anyone inside the Ring.

Ergo... it means nothing for the setting that they are in the Great Wheel. At all.

Seriously though, there are things way more important to be upset about in the meta-setting and ficiton of Eberron with Rising.

Like the fact that you can no longer have a non-caster with Greater Dragonmark abilities despite Lore and Fiction to the contrary in the past.

 

[Seramus]

For example, in Dragonlance, Takhisis' is married to the god Sargonnas, who is not mentioned in a non-Dragonlance world. Tiamat in other worlds is mentioned in a constant rivalry with Bahamat, who is not mentioned in Dragonlance.

1992 Tales of the Lance states that Takhisis was called Tii'Mhut (p117) and Paladine was called Bah'mut (p113) by the people of Istar. That would be firmly 2E territory.