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

 

[Parmandur]

This. All of DnD shouldn't have a unified theory of philosophical influence.

"shouldn't" is a normative word, implying an inferiority to the alternative position. Do you see any condescension inherent in that sentiment, particularly in relation to a game of make-believe fun times?

No, I see no problem bringing different parts of Dndlandia together into a united cosmology. That's fun, and I like it.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

I'm personally fine with certain worlds being part of a shared multiverse, but when a setting is created with its own specific cosmology and gods that essentially get invalidated by folding them into a multiverse I have more of a problem. I've never been an Eberron fan, but I dislike that it's unique cosmology was folded into the multiverse in 5E when 3E and 4E kept it separate. Further, it makes it harder to do something like the Ghostwalk campaign setting from 3E which is based on a cosmology that is very divergent from other D&D settings.

Since someone mentioned the Feywild earlier, I also wanted to mention how in 4E Dark Sun the Feywild was also known as The Land Within the Winds and was heavily damaged as a side-effect of defiling magic. Heroes of the Feywild would later claim that there was only one Feywild that all worlds shared, which I believe to be the first sign of the upcoming 5E approach to settings.

I'm also still curious how the MtG planes somehow fit into the 5E Great Wheel cosmology.

Honestly 3rd edition was the best. Different cosmologies and realities, while still allowing travel between them. It may be ok for Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms to share cosmologies (if only because it doesn't conflict with their lore) but the rest? Nope.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

Some worlds might have multiple different aspects, FR had regular Bahumut, Marduk of Unther, and now Grandmaster of Flowers Bahumut.

 

[Zaukrie]

This might be the strongest opinion Morrus has ever posted ..... and it is off topic, of course!

I've always assumed they were one and the same, but one and the same extensions of something else, and those extensions can/do have different personalities, even if they are linked/the same.

 

[Parmandur]

This might be the strongest opinion Morrus has ever posted ..... and it is off topic, of course!

I've always assumed they were one and the same, but one and the same extensions of something else, and those extensions can/do have different personalities, even if they are linked/the same.

Right, because they are gods, not space lizards.

 

[darjr]

Right, because they are gods, not space lizards.

Sus! You Vaaaariant!

 

[Urriak Uruk]

Well, at least you're making statements of quality, not just "this is how it is get used to it". I can respect that. I disagree that it's ever a good thing, but digging into that would derail the thread way past the point of reasonable discussion drift. Thanks for the explanation of your POV!

No problem! Yeah I think it's important to remember that although big corporations (like Disney or WotC) are motivated first and primarily by "What makes money," corporations are also filled by individuals. And individuals are not always primarily motivated by money, and instead have other concerns like actually wanting to make quality content because it makes them look good... and because they want to!

So you can have a big budget project like Lord of the Rings, funded by a big corporation with the intent to make loads of money, but also have it be a passion project of Peter Jackson wanting to create an iconic piece of media. And then later you can see some of that passion has dissipated, and you get the not-at-all iconic Hobbit films.

IE, I view it as a mixed bag.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

Greyhawk is. Dragonlance isn't. Do you see the problem when you try and mash them together?

Dragonlance uses the same basic cosmology as all the other D&D settings

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Eberron doesn't even work as a setting if you have objectively real deities!

Absolutely.

The Allegory of the Cave wasn't even just about Greeks in general, it was about educated Athenians very specifically (the same ones who ended up subsequently juridically murdering Socrates, recall): no shade on "Barbarians" to be found there, so not really sure what you mean by that?

I didn't comment on the purpose for which Plato used the allegory originally, so I've idea what you're even talking about. Like, I know the history you're trying to explain to me, but I'm completely blank on it's relevance to what I said.

In this case, the point isn't "this is how it is," but "please don't yuck our yum."

Seems more like the point is "stop saying you thnk the thing I like is bad" in reference to thing that...people are going to have differing opinions on the quality of. I'm not yucking anyone's yum if I say that the prequel Star Wars trilogy made the Force less interesting.

"shouldn't" is a normative word, implying an inferiority to the alternative position. Do you see any condescension inherent in that sentiment, particularly in relation to a game of make-believe fun times?

No, and your forced attempt at a reversal is completely unconvincing. I get to dislike a thing you like. Meanwhile, the use of the idea that "this group of people over here just don't know how the cosmos actually works, and are ignorant of the nature of god" is a thing that happens in the real world, and at best is a bit of rhetoric heavily associated with violent imperialism and to a lesser extent with classism. The fact that it comes with it's own slur is just...fantastic.

No, I see no problem bringing different parts of Dndlandia together into a united cosmology. That's fun, and I like it.

Okay.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

I'm personally fine with certain worlds being part of a shared multiverse, but when a setting is created with its own specific cosmology and gods that essentially get invalidated by folding them into a multiverse I have more of a problem. I've never been an Eberron fan, but I dislike that it's unique cosmology was folded into the multiverse in 5E when 3E and 4E kept it separate. Further, it makes it harder to do something like the Ghostwalk campaign setting from 3E which is based on a cosmology that is very divergent from other D&D settings.

Since someone mentioned the Feywild earlier, I also wanted to mention how in 4E Dark Sun the Feywild was also known as The Land Within the Winds and was heavily damaged as a side-effect of defiling magic. Heroes of the Feywild would later claim that there was only one Feywild that all worlds shared, which I believe to be the first sign of the upcoming 5E approach to settings.

I'm also still curious how the MtG planes somehow fit into the 5E Great Wheel cosmology.

The Feywild and Shadowfell are mirrors of the Material Plane, so there is only one Feywild the same way there is only one Material Plane, but like the Material Plane, the Feywild has many worlds within it.