D&D General Fallback: Dealing With Dragons Review from dungeonsanddragonsfan.com [[spoilers]]

[Henadic Theologian]

Let's remember the famous king Arthur Pendragon and the knights of the round table of Camelot appeared like "demigods" or legendary heroes in "Deities & Demigods".

The inmortals from Mystara were technically deities. And in 3rd Ed there was a 0 rank deity, the quasi-gods or hero-deities. In 5e the vestiges are quasi-gods, but in 3.5 the vestiges could be ordinary mortals.

Some times I wonder how would be the heroes from Dark Sun if these became quasi-gods.

Even in 5e Empyreans, Empyrean Iotas, Kraken, Atropals, Colossus, Tarrasque, Ooze of Annihilation are all Quasi deities as Titans.

 

[dave2008]

Deity

For a complete list of deities, see Portal:Deities A deity was a divine being of great power.[1] Most deities, particularly those that were of intermediate ranks, controlled some aspect of mortal affairs, referred to as the god's portfolio. True gods were called Estelar and differed from the...

forgottenrealms.fandom.com

Thank you for the citation!

It is noteworthy, IMO, that calling gods Estelar only pertains to the Forgotten Realms setting from what I can tell (it never seems to have appeared outside the 4e FR Campaing Guide). In fact, the source of the citation referenced notes that though this is considered the true by most Abeirans, the actual history is "...hidden from most mortals alive today." Also, the same source notes that dragons were the steeds of the Dawn Titans, which is very different from the standard 4e mythology.

 

[dave2008]

We've had this discussion before, and I find your position equally puzzling.

The sentence doesn't stop at "from the gods", as your quoting would indicate. The full sentence goes on to add a restrictive clause: "Bahamut and Tiamat are ontologically distinct from the gods that hail from the Outer Planes.", which they are. In no part of that sentence is it ever stated that all gods come from the Outer Planes.

That is not how the English language works. The whole paragraph is explaining that though primordial dragons may look and act similar to gods, and may in fact even be called gods, they are of a different essential nature than the gods.

Bahamut and Tiamat are gods from the Material Plane,...

Then why not state that instead of calling them primordial dragons? Why are other gods with a connection to the material plan not called primordial gods? Because primordial dragons are not gods and vice versa.

Anyway, we have had this discussion, and I will admit my bias as it does fit my preferred view of "divine" entities, so I don't see the need to retread this ground further.

 

[Amphytrion]

That is not how the English language works.

But it is how the English language works, and I can delve into the grammar if you'd like -- it is the same difference between the following two statements:

1. Bob gets along with my students that come from Europe.
2. Alice gets along my students, who come from Europe.

(1) is a restrictive clause (a.k.a. defining clause), and in that sentence, I have many students, only some of which come from Europe. The sentence tells us that Bob gets along with the subgroup that does come from Europe and offers no information on other students except that they exist. (2) is a nonrestrictive clause, and it just explains that my students (all of them) come from Europe. In that scenario, Alice gets along with all my students.

English inherited this feature from its Latin/French influences and it shares it with other European languages. You can read the grammar here, here (Oxford) or here (Wikipedia), as well as in any other grammar manual of your choice.

"Bahamut and Tiamat are ontologically different from the gods that hail from the Outer Planes" is clearly an example of (1), a restrictive clause. The lack of comma communicates that, and the use of "that" confirms it.

The whole paragraph is explaining that though primordial dragons may look and act similar to gods, and may in fact even be called gods, they are of a different essential nature than the gods.

No, that is not what it is doing. It is telling you that they are different from the gods that come from the Outer Planes, which are, again, not all the gods (and we have plenty of evidence for that; evidence that you've thus far simply not addressed).

The planar origins of dragons are very important to the metaphysics of Fizban's, which are all about how dragons are intrinsically tied to the Material Plane in a way that other creatures aren't. This does not diminish the divinity of Bahamut and Tiamat.

Then why not state that instead of calling them primordial dragons? Why are other gods with a connection to the material plan not called primordial gods? Because primordial dragons are not gods and vice versa.

The book does call Bahamut and Tiamat gods! Multiple times! And there is no mutual exclusivity to a primordial dragon and a god, or a dragon god. This isn't a tag of creature type on a statblock.

And we have other examples of gods who are also other things. Tharizdûn, for example, is both god and an elder evil--the fact that a paragraph refers to him as an elder evil does not render him less of a god. The same applies to Bahamut and Tiamat.

Anyway, we have had this discussion, and I will admit my bias as it does fit my preferred view of "divine" entities, so I don't see the need to retread this ground further.

I agree that it is unlikely we will see eye to eye on this; I was simply responding to your assertion on the prior page, among other responses about mortal greatwyrms. I also agree that it is better to return to the topic at hand (the book, or at the very least, Ashardalon) before we derail the thread.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

But it is how the English language works, and I can delve into the grammar if you'd like -- it is the same difference between the following two statements:

1. Bob gets along with my students that come from Europe.
2. Alice gets along my students, who come from Europe.

(1) is a restrictive clause (a.k.a. defining clause), and in that sentence, I have many students, only some of which come from Europe. The sentence tells us that Bob gets along with the subgroup that does come from Europe and offers no information on other students except that they exist. (2) is a nonrestrictive clause, and it just explains that my students (all of them) come from Europe. In that scenario, Alice gets along with all my students.

English inherited this feature from its Latin/French influences and it shares it with other European languages. You can read the grammar here, here (Oxford) or here (Wikipedia), as well as in any other grammar manual of your choice.

"Bahamut and Tiamat are ontologically different from the gods that hail from the Outer Planes" is clearly an example of (1), a restrictive clause. The lack of comma communicates that, and the use of "that" confirms it.


No, that is not what it is doing. It is telling you that they are different from the gods that come from the Outer Planes, which are, again, not all the gods (and we have plenty of evidence for that; evidence that you've thus far simply not addressed).

The planar origins of dragons are very important to the metaphysics of Fizban's, which are all about how dragons are intrinsically tied to the Material Plane in a way that other creatures aren't. This does not diminish the divinity of Bahamut and Tiamat.



The book does call Bahamut and Tiamat gods! Multiple times! And there is no mutual exclusivity to a primordial dragon and a god, or a dragon god. This isn't a tag of creature type on a statblock.

And we have other examples of gods who are also other things. Tharizdûn, for example, is both god and an elder evil--the fact that a paragraph refers to him as an elder evil does not render him less of a god. The same applies to Bahamut and Tiamat.



I agree that it is unlikely we will see eye to eye on this; I was simply responding to your assertion on the prior page, among other responses about mortal greatwyrms. I also agree that it is better to return to the topic at hand (the book, or at the very least, Ashardalon) before we derail the thread.

Ashardalon in the article I referred to is straight up referred to as a Dragon God, not just Primordial Dragon or Great Wyrm, so either way I think the point is moot anyways.

I'll also point out that in Planescape Slipcase there is another Dragon God, a God of Time, that has a Divine Domain in the Outlands so if these Great Wyrms can provide an afterlife, provide divine magic, and collect souls, they are Gods in all the ways that matter most in D&D.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

If we are talking about draconic gods I would like to say again I imagine Io's blood islands from "Councyl of Wyrms" like a cluster of demiplanes style dark domains (Ravenloft) or domains of delight (Witchlight) but set in the elemental limbo. Technically "visitors" aren't wellcome but Io allows their arrival because the dragon-slayer intruders and the way to stop the conflict between dragons and make these to united against the invaders. Let's imagine it, each true dragon from all the editions could enjoy its own draconic realm. For example a realm would be ruled by a cobra-dragon overlord who is the leader of a rogue yuan-ti cult. This "Jurasic Park" for dragons would allow enough dragons to add all kind of dragons.

Sorry, forgive me this little off-topic.

WotC is interested into iconic characters what could be used in all or most of canon settings, for example Vecna. Some characters are right not only to be the final boss in a campaing but also to be the leader of antagonist factions what could be operating in different wildspaces.

We shouldn't be too surprised if some time in the future Nico Bolas (from Magic: the Gathering) was officially a character within D&D multiverse although the last time he was "nerferd".

Ashardalon was officialy a vestige in 3.5 Ed.

ISN'T YET A DRAGON PATRON FOR WARLOCKS?!

Sadior was officially a deity in 1e and 2nd ed. This should mean Sadior could be a vestige and maybe the origin of the mystics like psionic-spellcasters whose goal is the balance between primal, divine and arcane spellcasters (who have got their own reasons to untrust the others).

Are fire and frost dragons created by Chaos (Dragonlance) true dragons? these could create fire and frost dragonborns.

 

[Parmandur]

Deity

For a complete list of deities, see Portal:Deities A deity was a divine being of great power.[1] Most deities, particularly those that were of intermediate ranks, controlled some aspect of mortal affairs, referred to as the god's portfolio. True gods were called Estelar and differed from the...

forgottenrealms.fandom.com

The FR Wiki is somewhat problematic as a source, not least because WotC has a different "canon" approach entirely.

 

[Parmandur]

Ashardalon in the article I referred to is straight up referred to as a Dragon God, not just Primordial Dragon or Great Wyrm, so either way I think the point is moot anyways.

I'll also point out that in Planescape Slipcase there is another Dragon God, a God of Time, that has a Divine Domain in the Outlands so if these Great Wyrms can provide an afterlife, provide divine magic, and collect souls, they are Gods in all the ways that matter most in D&D.

It isnworth noting that Fizban's provides a flawed in-world narrator...namely Fizban. So 5E Bahumut does not really consider himself a god, nor does he consider Hreatwyrms gods...but the man on the street might be inclined to think otherwise.

 

[Misanthrope Prime]

I wonder if "Estelar" has anything to do with the astral sea, by dint of "astral" and "stellar" meaning "of stars"

 

[Amphytrion]

ISN'T YET A DRAGON PATRON FOR WARLOCKS?!

James Wyatt, head designer for Fizban's, said in an interview back when the book was being released that they seriously considered a Dragon-themed Warlock subclass, but it became quickly mechanically redundant. To use a few of the examples he highlighted:

• A player who chooses Ashardalon as a patron is well served by the Fiend Patron subclass.
• A player who chooses one of Bahamut's seven Great Goldwyrms as a patron is well served by a Celestial Patron subclass.

We can extrapolate and imagine that Chronepsis and Dragotha would grant powers similar to an Undead Patron, etc.

These statements are a few years old, but you can probably find them on YouTube still. I can see James's reasoning, I think the flavor is doable without any homebrew even if we do not have a subclass titled "Dragon Warlock".