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

 

[dave2008]

Again, this point doesn’t affect the problem I’m pointing out. However you organize the Great Wheel, World Axis, or World Tree, it did not contain within it the cosmology of Eberron, and now it does. That is the source of the issue, not what shape the cosmology takes in a given planar orrery.

I can't be sure because of the medium, but when you say "shape the cosmology takes" implies to me that either I am not explain my point well (most likely) or you are not understanding. There is no shape to the Great Wheel. Is is simply a name used to provide an organization in the minds of those who use it. It is really nothing, it does not have the "shape" assigned to it. So, Eberron being "in" the Great Wheel is the same as Eberron being "outside" the Great Wheel. The Great Wheel is not a thing, it is a way of understanding a thing, albeit poorly.

So when one says: Eberron is within the Great Wheel cosmology. That doesn't mean it is physically within the Great Wheel (since the GW is not a thing), it simply means: It means I understand the relationship of Eberron to the rest of reality within the context of my understanding of the Great Wheel.

Hmm. I finding this hard to explain.

 

[Bolares]

but when you say "shape the cosmology takes" implies to me that either I am not explain my point well (most likely) or you are not understanding.

I think doc is trying to say that the shape of the cosmology (or the lack of shape) is not the issue.

 

[Bolares]

I think doc's issue is that Eberron (and other planes) are "inside" the great wheel in a metaphisical way. That planes that before weren't affected by how the great wheel's cosmology work now have to be affected by it. I don't know if I agree the new cosmology is so imposing, but I can see how someone would feel like that.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

I can't be sure because of the medium, but when you say "shape the cosmology takes" implies to me that either I am not explain my point well (most likely) or you are not understanding. There is no shape to the Great Wheel. Is is simply a name used to provide an organization in the minds of those who use it. It is really nothing, it does not have the "shape" assigned to it. So, Eberron being "in" the Great Wheel is the same as Eberron being "outside" the Great Wheel. The Great Wheel is not a thing, it is a way of understanding a thing, albeit poorly.

So when one says: Eberron is within the Great Wheel cosmology. That doesn't mean it is physically within the Great Wheel (since the GW is not a thing), it simply means: It means I understand the relationship of Eberron to the rest of reality within the context of my understanding of the Great Wheel.

Hmm. I finding this hard to explain.

A literal wheel isn't so much the problem as it is there are a finite and unchanging number of true planes that make up the Great Wheel or whatever other cosmological model the 5E DMG paid lip service to. There's still an assumption that the planes described as part of the Great Wheel and their gods must not only be present, but cannot be added to. Settings that don't normally include those planes or gods but are now in default 5E canon considered part of that same cosmology have to invent reasons why the planes traditionally considered part of the setting (Eberron) are separate from the true planes.

It would be one thing if all the planes of Eberron were given equal status as the Outer Planes described in the 5E DMG and Eberron was very closely linked to its particular set of planes. However, the planes described in the 5E DMG have been presented as the only true planes, that by default cannot be added or subtracted from. Every setting has to have the planes commonly described as part of the Great Wheel as existing in their cosmology.

For another example, despite largely being based on 4E lore that had it's own separate cosmology, the 5E Explorer's Guide to Wildemount has to conform to the planes described in the 5E DMG. This means that the deities Erathis, Ioun, and Zehir have been demoted from the 4E lore where they had their own planes (Hestavar for the prior two, Tytherion for the latter) to having small realms in the Astral Sea that are explicitly not true planes. The Pathfinder import, Raei, similarly has a realm that is stated to be "alongside" and not actually part of Elysium. This is an example of the homogenized cosmology pushed by 5E forcing elements of other settings that don't fit neatly into the planes described in the 5E DMG to be demoted to lesser Realms.

I imagine it's also a hindrance to the possibilities that the new settings in development could have. All these settings will have to have the planes of the 5E DMG, which is an inherit limitation if a designer would rather use an alternate afterlife and cosmology in the vein of Eberron or Ghostwalk. It also reduces the chance of these new settings being patterned after non-Western cultures, as a D&D setting patterned after India (for example) would still have to have the Great Wheel as the truth of the cosmos, as opposed to something more akin to a Hindu view of the afterlife and cosmology. 3E and 4E's take on cosmology, in contrast, granted more freedom to create distinct sets of planes more in line with a given meeting's identity. 5E would only allow it if they went the 5E Eberron route of saying that said hypothetical India-inspired setting's views of the afterlife and cosmology were just a segregated bubble contained within the cosmology as described in the 5E DMG (or perhaps tiny sections of the various "true" Outer Planes).

Finally, I can just imagine the reaction if an adherent of a real world religion died and found that another religion's version of the afterlife was the real one, but a tiny pocket of the true afterlife had been carved out to accommodate the people who had a different idea of cosmology. This is essentially what adherence to a single set of true Outer Planes does, whether it's called the Great Wheel or not. 2E Planescape demonstrated this by stating that certain Japanese and Chinese gods had pocket realms in Celestia that neighbored the realms of Bahamut and Moradin.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Where exactly inside the "Great Wheel" is Eberron in your opinion? Is the suggestion here that the entirety of the Eberron cosmology is within the Prime Material plane? You have the planet Eberron, its sky Siberys, and the thirteen orbiting "planes" of Eberron... all within the "Eberron bubble" within the Prime? So that Eberron's "planes" are not actual planes at all (at least not on the same level as the the elemental planes, the Astral plane, Mount Celestia, the Abyss, Ysgard, Carceri, etc. etc.?) that the Greyhawkian sages imagine the cosmology to be?

That seems... silly, to me.

So Fernia in the Eberron setting... which is essentially the Elemental Plane of Fire for Eberron... isn't actually a part of the Elemental Plane of Fire, but instead just a pocket of hot gas within the Prime Material plane that "sages" from other Prime worlds say aren't the same? Who gives them the authority to make that declaration? That their opinion on how the "inner" and "outer" planes are set up is the "true" way the universe/multiverse is set up? I mean it seems to me that Fernia is just as much the same "plane" as the Elemental "Plane" of Fire... it's just a metaphysical space of intense heat. They are one and the same from a conceptual point of view of the people in these worlds who are observing them.

It's just that the one thing they are not is just ONE location. You can't use the Elemental Plane of Fire / Fernia or whatever a sage might call that metaphysical space to go to other worlds. You can't enter the Elemental Plane of Fire from a portal in Faerun... walk a couple miles in the plane, that plane turns itself into "Fernia", and then walk out through a Manifest Zone and enter Khorvaire. That's not how any of this works. Especially considering how any of this "works" is mutable and changes all the time.

Now... if that isn't the suggestive argument, and the actual argument is that Jeremy Crawford and the WotC staff are declaring from a meta level how all of this multiverse stuff "works" and thus all of our worlds are beholden to their declarations... that isn't true either. Jeremy et. al. are unreliable narrators about ALL of this.

How do we know? Because they are re-writing things that have come before. And what they are writing is no more "correct" or "real" about the D&D Multiverse that what had been written by people for editions past... because in 10 years time when a new staff comes in to write 6E... there's a pretty good chance that those people are going to "re-write" what Jeremy and the 5E staff have "declared" about the truth of the D&D Multiverse. Heck... the 6E staff might very well REMOVE all references to the D&D Multiverse for all we know. Which means it is silly to think that Jeremy has changed anything "real" in D&D. If what he writes can also be changed... then nothing is "real". Nothing is "true". He can write down whatever he wants... and while many players might go along with it and turn their pocket of the D&D Multiverse to match what Jeremy says... there are going to be a crap-ton of people who don't.

And this leads into another point about the whole "D&D Multiverse" thing that I don't think Jeremy et. al. really delve into (or just ignore), and thus most players don't tend to think about. The whole point of calling this a "Multiverse" is to get across the idea that there IS NO ONE set thing. Despite claims to the contrary... there is not ONE Tiamat. There just isn't. There is one Tiamat for every player of D&D past, present and future. And in fact, actually MANY Tiamats for those players past, present, and future.

How do I know? If my players played the Tyranny of Dragons adventure and KILLED Tiamat... Tiamat doesn't suddenly disappear from the entirety of the D&D game. My game in my pocket of the "D&D Multiverse" has absolutely no effect on anything else. If in my game the Astral plane just ceased to exist for some reason... that also would have no effect on the D&D Multiverse. Likewise... even if Jeremy et. al. wrote in an upcoming book "Demogorgon has canonically been eradicated from existence and is no longer a demon lord in D&D"... that has NO EFFECT on anyone's else's pocket of the D&D Multiverse. Because I could the very next day run an adventure and have Demogorgon show up. Heck... I could have SIX copies of Demogorgon show up. Because that all happens in MY PART of the D&D Multiverse. And what I do in my game does not impact anyone else's game in any way, shape, or form. Just like what is written down in any of the books does not impact anyone else's game in any way, shape, or form. That's entirely why we call it a Multiverse in the first place.

So for anyone to get mad that Jeremy et. al. have written down supposed "truths" about the Great Wheel or any cosmology in a book is just as much a waste of time as it is for all the players who are getting bent out of shape that Jeremy et. al. are starting to not put default alignments in monster statblocks anymore. What are written in these books do not matter, and do not impact your game. All they do is change how other players might now look at their own game... which will increase the number of games looking that way. And thus YOUR way of looking at the game probably becomes less popular. But you know what? Who cares? It doesn't matter how many people share your worldview on how D&D "works", because none of those millions of other people play in your game.

"No one is taking your books away" is a common refrain we hear regarding this kind of stuff. But what it really should be is "No one is changing your corner of the D&D Multiverse". You can make your corner however the heck you want, and NOTHING anyone else ever says, declares, re-writes, invents etc. etc. etc. in the past or in the future will ever change that.

 

[dave2008]

I think doc is trying to say that the shape of the cosmology (or the lack of shape) is not the issue.

My point is that if you are think of cosmologies as shapes you are in the wrong mindset.

 

[Bolares]

My point is that if you are think of cosmologies as shapes you are in the wrong mindset.

yeah, but we are not arguing otherwise. The point I was trying to make is that if the wheel has or doesn't have a shape doesn't mather. That's not the beef doc seems to have with it

 

[Bolares]

To me, as long as setting books still represent that setting's cosmology (as Rising did with Eberron) I don't really care what other books say. I will treat the multiverse as the loki series treated the MCU. Tiamat has a lot of variants. Most of them are alike, trapped somewhere. But sometimes there is a variant that is different, like Takhisis...

 

[Hexmage-EN]

My point is that if you are think of cosmologies as shapes you are in the wrong mindset.

I'm assuming "Great Wheel" is short hand for saying that the following:

• Mechanus
• Arcadia
• Celestia
• Bytopia
• Elysium
• The Beastlands
• Arboreal
• Ysgard
• Limbo
• Pandemonium
• The Abyss
• Carceri
• Hades
• Gehenna
• The Nine Hells
• Acheron

are the Planes that all settings were expected to share in 2E and and are now expected to share in 5E. In contrast, 3E and 4E allowed for each setting to have it's own unique set of planes and gods. 5E, as evidenced by official published material, does not allow this and denotes the unique planes established in 3E and 4E as being inherently inferior and separate from the true Outer Planes.

 

[Bolares]

5E, as evidenced by official published material, does not allow this and denotes the unique planes established in 3E and 4E as being inherently inferior and separate from the true Outer Planes.

I really don't get this "inherently inferior" stuff...