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

 

[Scribe]

I remmember them saying there were different canons.... wasn't that a thing? My take is I could care less what is the canon for anything but the game. And even then I care about canon in a sense of them keeping up the spirit and principles of the settings and characters...

So if they changed a bunch of things in Eberron you just roll with it?

 

[Sword of Spirit]

D&D Canon | D&D Studio Blog | Dungeons & Dragons

In this D&D Studio Blog, Chris Perkins describes the D&D Studio's position on canonicity.

dnd.wizards.com

FIFTH EDITION’S CANON BEGINS WITH ITS CORE RULEBOOKS.
Fifth edition’s canon includes every bit of lore that appears in the most up-to-date printings of the fifth edition Player’s Handbook, Monster Manual, and Dungeon Master’s Guide. Beyond these core rulebooks, we don’t have a public-facing account of what is canonical in fifth edition because we don’t want to overload our fellow creators and business partners.

Re-reading that article, it makes less sense.

The first time I read it as a “sequel” to the other comments that had said that 5e canon is whatever is written in the 5e RPG books. If that were intended context, the article makes sense.

But since the article doesn’t actually say that, it doesn‘t make sense. It does not say that only the PHB, DMG, and MM are canon, but that canon begins there. It then gives a few examples of other things that are canonical, which are found in other 5e D&D products. And it even specifically talks about introducing new lore beyond the core books!

It seems to be claiming: “Canon is PHB+DMG+MM+other stuff that we probably know but you have to guess at and generally is inspired by, but not limited to, things which have been true in previous editions.”

I mean, with just that article itself (and since it doesn‘t link to anything, I can only assume it is supposed to stand on its own), I feel like I know less about what they are treating as canon than before I read it.

The best I can derive is that for purposes of “fellow creators and business partners” they need only abide by the core books, but internally WotC has a much bigger body of canon that D&D sourcebooks are intended to present portions of when published, but that sometimes evolves and changes.

 

[Bolares]

So if they changed a bunch of things in Eberron you just roll with it?

Oh we are going for the gut shots are we?

Well, since 3e they made a lot of changes to Eberron... but I'd say they kept the spirit and the principles of the setting intact, so I'm mostly okay with the changes... and even if I'm not, I can ignore what I don't like.

Sure, if they change things to a point where they advance the timeline, answer the questions the game left open, or stuff like that I'd be tilted, but that is strictly changing the spirit and principles of Eberron.

One example that pissed me of is the awfull take in mordenkaine's about all elves comming from Corellon. But later both Rising and Fizban's contradict that, so I chalk it up to lazy writting and omission in MtoF

 

[Scribe]

Oh we are going for the gut shots are we?

Well, since 3e they made a lot of changes to Eberron... but I'd say they kept the spirit and the principles of the setting intact, so I'm mostly okay with the changes... and even if I'm not, I can ignore what I don't like.

Sure, if they change things to a point where they advance the timeline, answer the questions the game left open, or stuff like that I'd be tilted, but that is strictly changing the spirit and principles of Eberron

Sure, but that's a personal judgment call, to you.

Canon doesn't care. It's in writing. It's 'true'.

Without MToF, in 5e for new players, what is the lore for Elves? Gith? The Hell's? Dwarves?

Setting specific only? Fine.

I hope to see a whole lot of settings books.

Oh wait, only the core 3 are canon...

Right.

 

[Bolares]

Oh wait, only the core 3 are canon...

again, I don't read that statement as "only the core three are canon for consumers" obviously setting books are canon for the settings, arguing against that just doesn't make sense to me.

Sure, but that's a personal judgment call, to you.

Well, you asked if I'd roll with it... what did you expect except my judgment call?

 

[Scribe]

again, I don't read that statement as "only the core three are canon for consumers" obviously setting books are canon for the settings, arguing against that just doesn't make sense to me.

Well, you asked if I'd roll with it... what did you expect except my judgment call?

That's the point.

You would be fine, unless it crossed an arbitrary line you have drawn in the sand.

In essence.

There is no canon.
Even settings books are not canon.
But that's OK, because unless they print something you don't like, you'll take it or leave it.

All of which boils down to.

There is no canon in 5e.

Just be thankful your setting isn't old enough to be too much bother to maintain.

 

[Bolares]

Hey, I'm not trying to say how you should feel or that because I would not be bothered with something you should not too. Feel what you have to feel, it's your prerrogative, you just asked me how I would feel.... About the canon, I don't know if we can reach a point where we agree, because our understanding of the article per se is so different. I just don't want to give the impression the because I'm not bothered with it you are not justified.

 

[Scribe]

Hey, I'm not trying to say how you should feel or that because I would not be bothered with something you should not too. Feel what you have to feel, it's your prerrogative, you just asked me how I would feel.... About the canon, I don't know if we can reach a point where we agree, because our understanding of the article per se is so different. I just don't want to give the impression the because I'm not bothered with it you are not justified.

It's all good, this is just one more recent choice by wizards that tells me I don't like their direction.

I don't really understand how we see the canon article differently it seems very clear, but all good.

I'll just buy 3rd party products or use my own if Wizards doesn't care to provide what I'm looking for.

 

[Bolares]

It's all good, this is just one more recent choice by wizards that tells me I don't like their direction.

I don't really understand how we see the canon article differently it seems very clear, but all good.

I'll just buy 3rd party products or use my own if Wizards doesn't care to provide what I'm looking for.

I guess that's the way to do it. Bringing it back to Eberron, while we have Keith Baker's blog and he keeps publishing material in the DM's Guild, I could care less about what WotC says about Eberron. Lucky me I guess.

 

[Scribe]

I guess that's the way to do it. Bringing it back to Eberron, while we have Keith Baker's blog and he keeps publishing material in the DM's Guild, I could care less about what WotC says about Eberron. Lucky me I guess.

Exactly, in this case you have the 'living truth' to point to.

If I liked Dino Halflings I would be right there with you.