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

 

[PsyzhranV2]

Another idea that I had but didn't know where to put it in:

Why are we assuming the gods are bound by linear time?

Perhaps the personal chronology of their lives involves a lot of time travel, sometimes even with different stages of their lives occupying the same point in time (The Doctor). Perhaps they don't experience time in a linear fashion, but instead can shift their awareness to the past or future at will, or experience it all at once (Dr. Manhattan, the Heptapods). Perhaps they can experience all possibilities simultaneously (the Daelkyr). Or maybe perhaps cause and effect just doesn't apply to them the same way it applies to mortals (Slaanesh).

 

[Hexmage-EN]

In the end, I think the easiest answer is to say that there are theoretically infinite variations on every setting and cosmology, the 5E "canon" is just the one WotC is focusing on, and the official canon ten, twenty, or thirty years from now will almost certainly contradict what is official canon now just as sources from ten, twenty, and thirty years ago do.

 

[Dire Bare]

So much easier if they’re just wholly separate entities in parallel universes with their own distinct and unique cosmologies.

We're dealing with Schrodinger's deities here, Tiamat is simultaneously a unique being compared to Takhisis, and at the same time they are aspects of the same cosmic being. Quantum states, so to speak. Everybody is right, everybody is wrong.

I'm interested to see how Fizban's explains things, but I'm really liking the idea that dragons have "echoes" on different worlds throughout the multiverse. Or, "variants" in MCU terminology. Perhaps Tiamat/Takhisis existed as a wholly unfractured being in the First World, but when that world shattered into the multiverse, Tiamat and Takhisis became echoes of one another. With additional echoes on Exandria, Eberron, and other material worlds. Some of these echoes ascended into godhood at various levels (lesser, greater), others are simply big, multi-headed dragons. Some of these echoes exist on the outer planes, in Baator, the Abyss, and other places. Each Tiamat is aware of the others, and probably considers herself the "prime" dragon, the others all lesser copies to eventually be subsumed into her being.

The argument here I find somewhat silly, or at least, I find it silly how passionate some folks are getting on the subject. The fictional metaphysics of it I find interesting. If you are playing a Dragonlance campaign . . . it likely shouldn't matter what the relationship is between Tiamat and Takhisis. If you're playing a Planescape campaign, it might. If you prefer to think of the Queen of Evil Dragons as separate, unrelated beings . . . or aspects/echoes of the same being . . . it makes no practical difference at the table.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

We're dealing with Schrodinger's deities here, Tiamat is simultaneously a unique being compared to Takhisis, and at the same time they are aspects of the same cosmic being. Quantum states, so to speak. Everybody is right, everybody is wrong.

I'm interested to see how Fizban's explains things, but I'm really liking the idea that dragons have "echoes" on different worlds throughout the multiverse. Or, "variants" in MCU terminology. Perhaps Tiamat/Takhisis existed as a wholly unfractured being in the First World, but when that world shattered into the multiverse, Tiamat and Takhisis became echoes of one another. With additional echoes on Exandria, Eberron, and other material worlds. Some of these echoes ascended into godhood at various levels (lesser, greater), others are simply big, multi-headed dragons. Some of these echoes exist on the outer planes, in Baator, the Abyss, and other places. Each Tiamat is aware of the others, and probably considers herself the "prime" dragon, the others all lesser copies to eventually be subsumed into her being.

This whole First World thing....ugh. Exactly what I have been hoping wouldn't happen since I realised that the designers where treating the default setting as Planescape.

The argument here I find somewhat silly, or at least, I find it silly how passionate some folks are getting on the subject. The fictional metaphysics of it I find interesting. If you are playing a Dragonlance campaign . . . it likely shouldn't matter what the relationship is between Tiamat and Takhisis. If you're playing a Planescape campaign, it might. If you prefer to think of the Queen of Evil Dragons as separate, unrelated beings . . . or aspects/echoes of the same being . . . it makes no practical difference at the table.

Again, it isn't about Tiamat and Takhisis as such, it's about what it means for the worlds involved. Dragonlance doesn't get to breathe and just be it's own thing. Eberron's cosmology isn't allowed to be a full cosmology, it's a pocket plane that contains other planes sat like a soap bubble on/in the Great Wheel. Etc.

DnD Multiverse should not = The Great Wheel. The Great Wheel should be one cosmology of many.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

In the end, I think the easiest answer is to say that there are theoretically infinite variations on every setting and cosmology, the 5E "canon" is just the one WotC is focusing on, and the official canon ten, twenty, or thirty years from now will almost certainly contradict what is official canon now just as sources from ten, twenty, and thirty years ago do.

This idea that "it'll be different in twenty years" should matter is odd to me. I may not even be playing DnD anymore by then, why should I care that it will likely change again?

 

[Dire Bare]

This idea that "it'll be different in twenty years" should matter is odd to me. I may not even be playing DnD anymore by then, why should I care that it will likely change again?

Well, here's to hoping you'll still be playing D&D in your nursing home, or perhaps with your hospice nurses!! A buddy of mine has this semi-serious fantasy of all of his nerd buddies ending up in the same elder care facility when we're in our venerable ages, and playing D&D until the very end . . .

 

[Dire Bare]

This whole First World thing....ugh. Exactly what I have been hoping wouldn't happen since I realised that the designers where treating the default setting as Planescape.

Again, it isn't about Tiamat and Takhisis as such, it's about what it means for the worlds involved. Dragonlance doesn't get to breathe and just be it's own thing. Eberron's cosmology isn't allowed to be a full cosmology, it's a pocket plane that contains other planes sat like a soap bubble on/in the Great Wheel. Etc.

DnD Multiverse should not = The Great Wheel. The Great Wheel should be one cosmology of many.

I don't see how the Great Wheel, the Planescape setting, or the current 5E model of all worlds being loosely connected detracts from the Dragonlance or Eberron campaign. Again, it makes no practical difference at the table. And besides, in official lore, that ship sailed a long time ago. A very long time ago.

When I play Dragonlance, not only does it not matter how Tiamat and Takhisis may or may not be connected cosmically, it doesn't matter if Krynn is one of many material worlds all connected through the planar orrery, or a completely separate setting. It just has no impact. The only impact it could have is if I'm not really playing a Dragonlance campaign, but a plane-hopping or spelljamming campaign that simply starts on Krynn, or visits.

Note that I'm not saying your preference doesn't matter. If you love the idea of a connected D&D multiverse, or would prefer to ignore that and focus on each individual setting as it's own thing . . . it's all good. But the upset over TSR, and now WotC, decided that the many not-all-that-different settings created for the game are part of a connected D&D multiverse . . . I just don't get it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I don't see how the Great Wheel, the Planescape setting, or the current 5E model of all worlds being loosely connected detracts from the Dragonlance or Eberron campaign. Again, it makes no practical difference at the table. And besides, in official lore, that ship sailed a long time ago. A very long time ago.

When I play Dragonlance, not only does it not matter how Tiamat and Takhisis may or may not be connected cosmically, it doesn't matter if Krynn is one of many material worlds all connected through the planar orrery, or a completely separate setting. It just has no impact. The only impact it could have is if I'm not really playing a Dragonlance campaign, but a plane-hopping or spelljamming campaign that simply starts on Krynn, or visits.

Note that I'm not saying your preference doesn't matter. If you love the idea of a connected D&D multiverse, or would prefer to ignore that and focus on each individual setting as it's own thing . . . it's all good. But the upset over TSR, and now WotC, decided that the many not-all-that-different settings created for the game are part of a connected D&D multiverse . . . I just don't get it.

What do you gain by repeatedly challenging me on it, if you don’t care?

It doesn’t affect you…okay? Cool for you? Obv it does affect my games.

Besides which, it changes the setting. So unless your games just never interact with the cosmology or gods of the setting, it does impact your game, you just don’t notice it because it isn’t a thing that bothers you.

 

[dave2008]

So much easier if they’re just wholly separate entities in parallel universes with their own distinct and unique cosmologies.

Yet so mundane - these a deities, they should be outrageous!

 

[Urriak Uruk]

What do you gain by repeatedly challenging me on it, if you don’t care?

It doesn’t affect you…okay? Cool for you? Obv it does affect my games.

Besides which, it changes the setting. So unless your games just never interact with the cosmology or gods of the setting, it does impact your game, you just don’t notice it because it isn’t a thing that bothers you.

I will say, I think the current 5E multiversal model is the closest D&D can get to a system that satisfies most people; there are a bunch of tables that want a consistent multiversal theory to make it simpler for games to jump from setting to setting. At the same time, there are tables than want to keep them distinct.

Those are two incompatible models, however the current setup does allow independent cosmologies to be be self-contained or shielded from the greater cosmology, as it is from Eberron. So it's like a little umbrella under a much bigger umbrella.

That's not going to satisfy everyone, but it provides enough leeway for folks to create their own cosmology (or use one like Dragonlance's) and not contradict official lore. That, combined with the DMG saying the Great Wheel is just a popular theoretical framework which may not be truth, gives DMs a lot of flexibility.

TLDR: No solution will satisfy everyone, but the 5E one tries to give backdoors for everyone's table to work.