D&D 5E Is Paladine Bahamut? Is Takhisis Tiamat? Fizban's Treasury Might Reveal The Answer!

According to WotC's James Wyatt, Fizban's Treasury of Dragons introduces a new cosmology for dragon gods, where the same beings, including Fizban, echo across various D&D campaign settings with alternate versions of themselves (presumably like Paladine/Bahamut, or Takhisis/Tiamat). Also... the various version can merge into one single form.

Takhisis is the five-headed dragon god of evil from the Dragonlance setting. Paladine is the platinum dragon god of good (and also Fizban's alter-ego).

Additionally, the book will contain psychic gem dragons, with stats for all four age categories of the five varieties (traditionally there are Amethyst, Crystal, Emerald, Sapphire, and Topaz), plus Dragonborn characters based on metallic, chromatic, and gem dragons.

D&D 5E - Check out Fizban's Alternate Cover!

WotC's James Wyatt talked to Polygon about Fizban's Treasury of Dragons, which also revealed the alternate cover, which you can only get from hobby stores. https://www.enworld.org/threads/fizbans-treasury-the-dragon-book-now-has-a-description-and-a-feat.681399/

www.enworld.org

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

 

[Morrus]

Wizards owns Eberron and can do what they want. He doesn't have a position at Wizards, right?

Doesn't matter. The order of officialdom remains. Nothing can ever change that. The creator is the most official source.

WotC can legally do what they want, but if it contradicts Keith Baker, they're wrong.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

... Unless you want there to be. He always finishes his statements with, "Unless you want it to be different in your setting. That's completely fine!" He also likes to state that his opinions are completely unofficial, and mean nothing when it comes to official Wizards products and storyline directions.

If you want Bahamut and Paladine to be the same in your games go ahead. It makes no sense from a lore perspective and clashes with the themes of Dragonlance but it's your game.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I'm sorry, I don't understand what this means. Can you clarify?

Sure. I was talking about the gods being part of a given world, you said they aren't part of the world they influence it. My response is meant to indicate that I was using world to refer to the setting, not the planet. They're part of Dragonlance, not just Krynn. And that setting should be separate from the setting of Forgotten Realms, except in a sort of loose "multiverse" where each cosmology is true within it's 'verse, and the Nine Hells aren't a single place that is accessed from every dnd setting.

This idea that there is one Nine Hells, one Abyss, one Feywild, etc, is a planescape model of the multiverse. IMO, it's bad for the game as a whole and especially for the settings, in which the people of Eberron are now "berks" who only think that they're cosmology and history are true, and even immortal sages and such cannot both describe the cosmology and it's history as originally presented and be correct in their knowledge, where elves still somehow ultimately come from Correlon, and if we are very unlucky we are soon to find out that Dol Arrah is really just an aspect of Bahamut.

I guess Dragonlance fans are salty, so to speak, because the strange hard-on non-DL designers has had for this conflation does nothing for Dragonlance except undermine the key themes and personality of the setting?

I'd dig out my old post on this board but I can't really be bothered searching for it. Suffice it say, these deities share nothing except that they have a dragon form. In personality and goals there is nothing particularly "draconic" about Paladine. Even less so in his Fizban form - he even says he prefers kender! (And what's with the bizarre idea that Fizban is a prominent identity? Paladine has many avatars, incl a warrior (appeared as such in the ancient eras), the priest Brother Jendle (his preferred avatar during the cataclysm). Fizban was just his war of the Lance era avatar. Tellingly, when he became mortal he didn't become Fizban, he became an elf named Valthonis (not a dragon either, notice something there?) He doesn't even exist in a dragon form when he's talking to his wife and children (weird how they are not dragons, right?)

Someone brought up Keith Baker - you know he sees Eberron and similarly existing without any interactions from other worlds right, and has explicitly said that the Tiamat in Eberron has nothing to do with the other Tiamat? (Same with the Eberron Levistus)

Nothing is gained from these nonsensical and ridiculous retcons except to hollow out and destroy the original setting, but since they did it for Ravenloft already, I guess that's what they're going to do going forward.

Exactly.

Paladine is a really weird Bahamut, if they're the same. And Takhisis is The greater god of evil in a pantheon of balance. None of the lore of DL matters or makes sense if it's all just variant aspects of other gods.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

He can say that, but when it comes to Eberron, here is the official order of officialdom, officially:

1. Keith Baker
2. WotC
3. Everybody else

Uh... I mean, I agree with the sentiment here, but if George Lucas did a press release that said, "Hey guys, only my Star Wars movies are canon. Those Disney movies, and the Mandalorian? That's completely unofficial, none of that happens," I can't exactly take it seriously.

Like it or not, WotC owns the IP and decides what is official. The creations outlasts its creator in some ways.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

Sure. I was talking about the gods being part of a given world, you said they aren't part of the world they influence it. My response is meant to indicate that I was using world to refer to the setting, not the planet. They're part of Dragonlance, not just Krynn. And that setting should be separate from the setting of Forgotten Realms, except in a sort of loose "multiverse" where each cosmology is true within it's 'verse, and the Nine Hells aren't a single place that is accessed from every dnd setting.

This idea that there is one Nine Hells, one Abyss, one Feywild, etc, is a planescape model of the multiverse. IMO, it's bad for the game as a whole and especially for the settings, in which the people of Eberron are now "berks" who only think that they're cosmology and history are true, and even immortal sages and such cannot both describe the cosmology and it's history as originally presented and be correct in their knowledge, where elves still somehow ultimately come from Correlon, and if we are very unlucky we are soon to find out that Dol Arrah is really just an aspect of Bahamut.

This was the dumbest aspect of Planescape in 2E. Everyone on Krynn was dumb for believes Takhisis lived in the Abyss rather than Baator, even though in Dragonlance Raistlin went to the Abyss and fought Takhisis there. Both a powerful wizard and god were unaware of where they were?

It was stupid, it added nothing and to see it perpetuated is madness.

 

[Parmandur]

If you want Bahamut and Paladine to be the same in your games go ahead. It makes no sense from a lore perspective and clashes with the themes of Dragonlance but it's your game.

They are Platonic Ideas more than physical beings. Gods are gods, not big lizards.

You can do what you want in your game, but I prefer the official Lore for this.

 

[Morrus]

Uh... I mean, I agree with the sentiment here, but if George Lucas did a press release that said, "Hey guys, only my Star Wars movies are canon. Those Disney movies, and the Mandalorian? That's completely unofficial, none of that happens," I can't exactly take it seriously.

Like it or not, WotC owns the IP and decides what is official. The creations outlasts its creator in some ways.

"Official" doesn't mean anything. But inasfar as it means anything, the order remains:

1. Keith Baker
2. WotC
3. Everybody else

 

[Morrus]

This was the dumbest aspect of Planescape in 2E. Everyone on Krynn was dumb for believes Takhisis lived in the Abyss rather than Baator, even though in Dragonlance Raistlin went to the Abyss and fought Takhisis there. Both a powerful wizard and god were unaware of where they were?

It was stupid, it added nothing and to see it perpetuated is madness.

It's just a name. On Krynn they call the planes different names. On Earth, we call places different names, too. Don't worry about it.

 

[Parmandur]

Sure. I was talking about the gods being part of a given world, you said they aren't part of the world they influence it. My response is meant to indicate that I was using world to refer to the setting, not the planet. They're part of Dragonlance, not just Krynn. And that setting should be separate from the setting of Forgotten Realms, except in a sort of loose "multiverse" where each cosmology is true within it's 'verse, and the Nine Hells aren't a single place that is accessed from every dnd setting.

This idea that there is one Nine Hells, one Abyss, one Feywild, etc, is a planescape model of the multiverse. IMO, it's bad for the game as a whole and especially for the settings, in which the people of Eberron are now "berks" who only think that they're cosmology and history are true, and even immortal sages and such cannot both describe the cosmology and it's history as originally presented and be correct in their knowledge, where elves still somehow ultimately come from Correlon, and if we are very unlucky we are soon to find out that Dol Arrah is really just an aspect of Bahamut.

THe idea that a god isn't transcendent of a world is odd to my brain. If they are not transcedental beings, then are they even gods in any meaningful sense?

I like the idea that everyone is a bit of a berk, that makes sense based on my experience of the actual world. We are all berks.

 

[Morrus]

, but if George Lucas did a press release that said, "Hey guys, only my Star Wars movies are canon. Those Disney movies, and the Mandalorian? That's completely unofficial, none of that happens," I can't exactly take it seriously.

But if he made a Star Wars movie under some license which contradicted the Disney ones (somehow), his version is canon. Same thing. If Keith Baker's book contradicts WotC's, Keith Baker's is 'official'.