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]

There is no "official lore". There is only lore that has been written by some people and published in a book at a moment in time. But in another year, that "official lore" can and will be changed... probably arbitrarily.... just like past "official lore" was changed by the people writing the books right now. The lore from the Red Box about the characters, monsters, and worlds were all changed when AD&D was made. That stuff changed when 2E was made. 3E then changed the "official lore" again. And again. And again. And when 6E gets written... all this "official lore" that Jeremy et. al. has written these past couple years will change as well.

So there is absolutely zero reason to care about THIS lore in THESE books as anything more than the same nebulous stories that have been written over the last 40 years and will continue to be written over the next forty. Use it for your games if it is useful... but don't get your panties in a bunch if what you want is different than what appears in print. Because in six months, it's going to change anyway.

If my Deadlands table decides to be vile human beings and lead a revival of the Confederacy to conquer and subjugate the USA, that has no bearing on any future Deadlands books or lore.

If my Mage: the Awakening table decides to blow the Masquerade wide open and democratize knowledge of magic, that has no bearing on any future Mage books or lore.

If my Cyberpunk RED table decides to assassinate all the leading members of Arasaka and run it into the ground via stock market manipulation, so that they never rise to the dominance they have in Cyberpunk 2077, that has no bearing on any future Cyberpunk books or lore.

If my The One Ring table decides to assassinate Denethor and install in his place a steward who is much more willing to work with Rohan and with Aragorn and company, that has no bearing on any future One Ring books or lore.

If my Avatar Legends table decides to lead a strike team deep into Fire Nation territory and assassinate Ozai before Aang gets out of the ice, that has no bearing on any future Avatar books or lore.

See my point yet?

There is a (in my opinion obstinate and bullheaded) tendency among players of the Traditional, Story Before style of game (though perhaps among OSR players as well, don't have as much experience) to refuse to ever take the book at its word and analyze it as a discrete text. This is part of the reason why every time me or other people try to discuss racist themes within the text, or elements of the text's design that mechanically conflict with each other, we always end up in effect banging our heads against the wall, because to the other side, the text does not exist. There is the expectation, nay, the demand, that modifications be made from the word go; and in my mind, that demand for modification, that rejection of engaing with the text in its base state, only serves as an obfuscation of what the text really is, and a way to divert any and all criticism of the text.

That also applies to less serious discussions, such as the one about lore we are having right now. Criticism of the lore always gets this kind of response, because to these people the lore does not exist. Except it does; it exists just as much as novel or TV show or video game lore exists.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

D&D is a game, not a novel. There is no real "canon." To put D&D lore in that category is inappropriate IMO.

The many Forgotten Realms novels undermine that a bit by all taking place in the same world yet changing along with the shifting cosmology (which, among other things, means the fact that the primordials were established to exist as Dawn Titans in FR has ensured those creations of 4E persist into 5E, such as Maegara in Storm King's Thunder).

 

[PsyzhranV2]

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.

I actually like the Great Wheel for the most part, but yeah, this. This is a huge issue. Despite all its issues, I actually really do want to do something with Kara-Tur, but trying to add in Buddhist, Hindu, Islamic, and Taoist themes into my reinterpretation of the setting always runs up against this issue, because D&D already has pretty hard assumptions about cosmology and ontology baked in that are really Western and don't play nice with Asian religious traditions and mythologies.

 

[Bolares]

I actually like the Great Wheel for the most part, but yeah, this. This is a huge issue.

I kind of agree with this, not because I think it will make other cosmology lesser or anything like that. But because choosing to make ONE TRUE REALITY in such a rich multiverse seems so boring to me...

 

[Maxperson]

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.

In what way, though? Eberron's entirely isolated cosmology has its own rules. What about the Great Wheel could affect that?

 

[Bolares]

In what way, though? Eberron's entirely isolated cosmology has its own rules. What about the Great Wheel could affect that?

I.... agree with you? I was just explaining how I understood another poster's point of view

 

[Maxperson]

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.

The great wheel is the positioning of the planes in the cosmology.

 

[DEFCON 1]

That also applies to less serious discussions, such as the one about lore we are having eight now. Criticism of the lore always gets this kind of response, because to these people the lore does not exist. Except it does; it exists just as much as novel or TV show or video game lore exists.

And if you care about the lore in the text as a discrete thing, that's fine. More power to you.

But apparently the rest of us see a different picture (not necessarily larger, just different.) I see the lore in any one book as something that used to be different in a different book at a different time... and will be different again once that book gets remade (for a new edition, a revamp or whatever.) So it is a waste of my time to get up in arms about the lore in this one book.

Why? Because the book is already written. In THAT book, the lore isn't going to change. I will have to wait for another book to change it again, or go back and use an older book for the lore I want to use. Or really... the truth of the matter... I will just use my own lore. What is in the books be damned.

So go ahead... complain that the lore has changed. That's cool. That's fine. Knock yourself out. But if you do so here on EN World... just know that people are going to argue with you about it. If you're cool with that, then we're all good! After all... that's why I'm posting here in this thread today, because I like arguing with people I disagree with about unimportant things.

 

[Maxperson]

I think it is important to realize official lore is not official.

1. The lore is intentionally vague in many places and users terms like "envision" and "visualize" to describe cosmologies; as well as often hinting that the lore presented is one opinion and not a definitive declaration.
2. Lore changes at a whim. RPG lore (and particularly D&D) changes quite a bit. In some cases this goes back to point #1.
3. D&D is a game, not a novel. There is no real "canon." To put D&D lore in that category is inappropriate IMO.

Yes and no. Some lore is definitive. King Azoun Obarskyr IV officially and definitively died during the Goblin Wars. That's official lore and canon. With setting cosmology lore that intentionally uses vague language, there is no official lore canon since the truth isn't definitively set down.

 

[Maxperson]

I.... agree with you? I was just explaining how I understood another poster's point of view

I wasn't saying you agreed or disagreed. You were saying you understood his point of view and I was hoping you'd be able to tell me in what way it actually does what he's worried about, because I can't see it.