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

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I do not think the polytheist Plato would agree about the nature of gods, and I'll just leave it at that. I like this approach, and it works.

Good for Plato? His ideas are pretty wild in the context of most of his own culture, much less polytheists more broadly.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

Do you see this as a good thing?

In some ways, sure. In the Star Wars example, I think it's pretty good that the brand has shifted to other hands, as the Prequels are proof that Lucas was not really the sole perfect designer of Star Wars.

In other ways it is not good, as in the Star Wars example we see a large corporation like Disney trying to milk the brand for money, sometimes at the cost of good storytelling, trying to tell stories that please everyone (and sometimes please very few).

So it's a mixed bag. I also think it is the reality we live in, with corporate media companies quick to pick up any brands that look like they can become valuable. Sometimes that leads to good material, sometimes bad.

I really like the MCU for example, but a lot of folks think it's completely soulless film. It's a fair argument, even if I don't feel that way.

 

[Umbran]

If that's your choice, go for it! As I've made clear, for me the order of officialdom for Eberron is:

You'll see pushback, because this is the first time you've used "for me".

 

[Parmandur]

This is a bad reply to an argument about contradictions in lore. It being made up is completely irrelevant.

Not really: the stakes are pretty close to meaningless, because it is fun stuff to use or not use in a game. It is not real, and no version at hand really coheres entirely. It's all fun and games. More exclusive cosmologies are not free of lore contradictions, and the current official approach is fine and works: and honestly is more rooted in the wild and wooley origins of the game.

 

[Morrus]

You'll see pushback, because this is the first time you've used "for me".

Yeah, but the pushback will still be wrong, because the correct order is:

1. Keith Baker
2. WotC
3. Everybody else

 

[Parmandur]

Good for Plato? His ideas are pretty wild in the context of most of his own culture, much less polytheists more broadly.

More representative on the nature of the divine than one might think, but that is getting far afield.

 

[pukunui]

Weiss wrote him into her Deathgate Cycle series as a bit of an easter egg. There is an old befuddled wizard named Banfiz or Bizfan or somesuch who mumbles to someone about how he used to be a god toward the end of the last book.

Zifnab! He first appeared in Elven Star, the one set on the hollow, jungle-covered “fire” world.

From the Wikipedia page on the Death Gate cycle:

Spoiler

The character Zifnab is similar to the character Fizban from Weis and Hickman's Dragonlancenovels. Zifnab makes a few references to Fizban during the series (when he's asked for his name he said "Fiz..., no can't use that one", or such as the importance of a Wizard's Hat) and he is described with a similar appearance. He makes references to the Pern series of books, The Lord of the Rings, Dragonlance, Star Wars, Star Trek, James Bond, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, Arthurian legend, the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, and soul music; within the context of the books, these are historic references to the former Earth. The character type appears again in a similar capacity in the Starshield novels, where the parallel character is known as Zanfib.

Are Zifnab and Fizban the same person? The simplest (and legal) answer, in Hickman's own words, is always: "The answer is that Fizban is a crazed wizard owned by TSR under copyright, while Zifnab is a completely different crazed wizard owned by Margaret and I. Incidentally, neither Fizban nor Zifnab have any relationship whatsoever to Zanfib—a crazed wizard from our Starshield series. I hope I have cleared this up once and for all."[7]

As to the actual nature of Zifnab within the world of the Death Gate Cycle, Hickman wrote: "Zifnab was actually a Sartan wizard who opposed the council's decision to sunder the world. Zifnab is not a god ... indeed, he is actually a chosen and blessed subject of the dragon-avatars of the Death Gate series."

So why does Zifnab seem, at times, to act just like Fizban? How can he remember Tanis and Raistlin, and why does he nearly call himself Fizban? Hickman: "I like to think that Zifnab is very well read." And so, as far as we know, that is all there is to it: the crazy old wizard was a fan of Dragonlance, as well as, apparently, Tolkien and James Bond. The rest is purely speculation.

Hickman has said that the Zifnab/Fizban/Zanfib character is like him in that they are similarly misunderstood and possessed of great depth, and so the character type continues appearing in his works with Weis.[8] On multiple occasions, Hickman has jokingly suggested that the three characters are distinctly different because they are separately owned and appear in separate series.[9][10]

"Zifnab," "Fizban," and "Zanfib" are anagrams.

 

[Parmandur]

Yeah, but the pushback will still be wrong, because the correct order is:

1. Keith Baker
2. WotC
3. Everybody else

No, the objecrively right order is :

1. The DM

 

[Morrus]

No, the objecrively right order is :

1. The DM

Fair.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

To continue with that example, at this point, there are other creators who have had so much influence on Star Wars material and canon, it is working itself into "shared world" territory, and I don't think it fair to say it is only Lucas' take that counts any more. It is... kind of insulting to those other creators who poured their hearts and creativity into their work, too.

Just to build off of this... wouldn't any officially D&D setting, where possibly thousands of tables are telling their own stories with the material, fall into "shared world" territory as well?

Where we have not just the original creators like W&H, Greenwood, Keith Baker, but also the corporate overlord WotC, the deceased creator Gary Gygax, and the thousands of creators who write official material on books, more material on the DMsGuild, and even more material we never see at their own table?

Just noticing a fun concept here, not actually disagreeing with you.