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).

Takhisis.jpg


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.


 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Russ Morrissey

Russ Morrissey

dave2008

Legend
I was not a big Dragonlance fan (got through six paperbacks and I was all good), so I don't remember exactly. I do know it was in the 1980s that I heard about it first, and at that time, my only real contact with fandom was TSR official publications. I would guess it was in Dragon magazine at some point, since I don't think I owned any Dragonlance game books.
I am similar. I read the original trilogy, 2/3 of the 2nd, and a few other books (Kaz the Minotaur, and a collection of short stories) and that was it for me. I did own some of the original DL modules, but nothing after that.
 

log in or register to remove this ad




dave2008

Legend
I’m a big dragonlance fan (minus anything fifth Avenue and beyond, for the most part). It’s super nostalgia for me, legend of huma was my first fantasy novel read.
I read that one too. It was funny there was a book of short storied published before Legend of Huma, that include a short story about Huma and his battle with Takhisis that is completely different than as presented in Legend of Huma. I read the short story first and it the retelling in Huma always bothered me.

I was a big fan of Kaz the Minotaur back in the day too. That was my favorite after the original trilogy.
 





Alzrius

The EN World kitten
When and where did they start saying that though? I have seen quotes from 2e, 3e, 4e, and 5e that they are one and the same; but I have never seen anything official that said they are different entities. Not saying it doesn't existing, just no one has ever posted it or pointed me to where I can find in any of the recent threads.
I think that's an issue of the inherent presumptions involved, more than anything else. Despite having similar presentations, the various deities have different names and different histories within the overall D&D continuity (though that latter part was stronger back when the D&D multiverse had more continuity), so the default assumption is that they are distinct entities unless we're told otherwise. That's why you don't have statements that say flat-out "they're not the same."

For instance, in the Planescape sourcebook On Hallowed Ground (affiliate link), the entries for Bahamut and Paladine don't refer to each other, nor do the entries for Tiamat and Takhisis. Likewise, they're said to live on the same planes of existence (Mount Celestia for Bahamut and Paladine, Baator for Tiamat and Takhisis), but each has a different divine realm, and in some cases those realms are on different layers. (EDIT: They also indicate that Bahamut and Tiamat are lesser deities, while Paladine and Takhisis are greater deities, so the different levels of divine power are an implication of them being different entities as well.)

None of that is a definitive statement of "they're not the same," but it seems self-evident that that's presumed.
 
Last edited:

I would love it if the First World was one of the two completely new settings they were planning.
My guess at the moment is that the First World is a means to retcon in the 4E Dawn War conflict in some fashion, where chaotic primordial elementals made the world but gods essentially took it from them and refined it into a more stable state. They could be elaborating on that by saying that this was one world that eventually split into many.
 

dave2008

Legend
I think that's an issue of the inherent presumptions involved, more than anything else. Despite having similar presentations, the various deities have different names and different histories within the overall D&D continuity (though that latter part was stronger back when the D&D multiverse had more continuity), so the default assumption is that they are distinct entities unless we're told otherwise. That's why you don't have statements that say flat-out "they're not the same."

For instance, in the Planescape sourcebook On Hallowed Ground (affiliate link), the entries for Bahamut and Paladine don't refer to each other, nor do the entries for Tiamat and Takhisis. Likewise, they're said to live on the same planes of existence (Mount Celestia for Bahamut and Paladine, Baator for Tiamat and Takhisis), but each has a different divine realm, and in some cases those realms are on different layers.

None of that is a definitive statement of "they're not the same," but it seems self-evident that that's presumed.
Of course we do have definitive statements in 3e, 4e, and 5e that says they are the same entity. The 2e comment I was referencing was a bit more vague, basically saying the could be different aspects of the same god or different god - it is up to the DM. It was a general quote about the nature of gods in general that used Tiamat / Takhisis as an example.

Also, I always felt the presumption was that they were the same. Now, I pretty much skipped 2e and 3e, so I missed a lot that could have said otherwise.
 

dave2008

Legend
My guess at the moment is that the First World is a means to retcon in the 4E Dawn War conflict in some fashion, where chaotic primordial elementals made the world but gods essentially took it from them and refined it into a more stable state. They could be elaborating on that by saying that this was one world that eventually split into many.
Possibly, though it seems to suggest that the First World was actually destroyed in the conflict.
 



doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
I'm sure they will discuss how Eberron relates to everything else in the multiverse, considering how primal Dragons are in Eberron.
Yeah, I'm sure they will. Just, hopefully they won't decide that any of the Sovereigns are actually avatars of Paladine. They've muddied the Eberron cosmology enough.
Why not? It seems very odd to have two sets of essentially the same dragon deities and not have them be related in some form. I never realized it was even a thought that they were different entities until hear about on these forums in recent years. When I got Dragonlance back in the day, my first thought was: oh, that is a cool name for Tiamat!
Why would they be related? They're from completely separate worlds. This is like assuming that bats and owls must surely be closely related since they both fly at night. And I've never seen any depiction of Tiamat as such that remotely reminded me of Takhisis beyone "is evil" and the silhouette. Hell, I cant recall Tiamat ever appearing to anyone as a dark haired femme fatale with a dope crown. Paladine and Bahamut I can kinda see, at least in Paladine's guise as a human paladin and the fact they both like to wander in unassuming human forms and are heavily worshipped by paladin types, etc.

But even if they were more similar in presentation, my stance would be to differentiate them more clearly, not to combine them.
I'm really not a fan of mashing together characters from different settings just because they have some similarities. It makes both settings worse IMHO.
Exactly. If I had my way, the worlds of DnD would stay an actual multi-verse, rather than a shared universe that gets called a multiverse even though all the worlds you make characters in are on the same plane of existence. Dragonlance should be in it's own cosmology, as should FR, and Greyhawk, and Athas, and Eberron, and whatever they come up with next. Let Planescape and the like present an alternate cosmology that combines all the worlds. No one in 2021 under the age of 50 is confused by AUs.
Yea I don’t get the upset
Why try to make it about "upset"? People have preferences. Literally no one has expressed any strong emotions about the topic.

Or do you not know that the idea of being upset is commonly used to invalidate the opinions of others?
 

Alzrius

The EN World kitten
Of course we do have definitive statements in 3e, 4e, and 5e that says they are the same entity. The 2e comment I was referencing was a bit more vague, basically saying the could be different aspects of the same god or different god - it is up to the DM. It was a general quote about the nature of gods in general that used Tiamat / Takhisis as an example.
I believe you're referring to a particular section in the introduction of Faiths & Avatars (affiliate link) - "Multispheric Powers, or Is Tiamat Dead or Not?" pg. 14-15 - which ultimately doesn't settle the question either way (and is all the more ironic because it posits that Takhisis was rumored to have died; a reference to Dragons of Summer Flame, which came out almost a year prior to F&A, while Dragonlance aficionados know that none of the gods actually died in that novel; it's doubly ironic because Takhisis eventually would die in 2002 at the conclusion of Dragons of a Vanished Moon).

That said, I'm curious what 3E, 4E, and 5E statements you're referring to? I've heard mention of them before, but can't quite place them now.
 


Maybe they are like "Aspects" from 3.5 Miniature handbook. Paladine and Bahamut would be something like Peter Parker(Spiderman) and Scarlet Spider(Ben Reilly), both are the same but different, or like Logan/Wolwerine and Laura Kinney/X-23, or Jean Grey and Madeline Prior. Or the döppleganger characters from a mirror universe or parallel earth.


76928_CN.jpg


76936_CN.jpg
 

dave2008

Legend
I believe you're referring to a particular section in the introduction of Faiths & Avatars (affiliate link) - "Multispheric Powers, or Is Tiamat Dead or Not?" pg. 14-15 - which ultimately doesn't settle the question either way (and is all the more ironic because it posits that Takhisis was rumored to have died; a reference to Dragons of Summer Flame, which came out almost a year prior to F&A, while Dragonlance aficionados know that none of the gods actually died in that novel; it's doubly ironic because Takhisis eventually would die in 2002 at the conclusion of Dragons of a Vanished Moon).

That said, I'm curious what 3E, 4E, and 5E statements you're referring to? I've heard mention of them before, but can't quite place them now.
Yes, I believe that was the one.

I will see what I can find. The 3e comment is a post by WotC (can remember who) on their website. So some people say that it is not "official" because it was not in a product, despite the source. The 4e one I honestly don't remember, but the 5e one is actually in the DMG (and now this book it seems). The Orb of Dragonkind entry says:

"The dragon essence within the orb might want many things: the annihilation of a particular people, freedom from the orb, to spread suffering in the world, to advance the worship of Takhisis (Tiamat’s name on Krynn), or something else the DM decides."
 

Visit Our Sponsor

Latest threads

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top