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

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Why should your preference for separate settings prevent me from having a unified cosmology? It goes both ways.

The great thing is that doesn’t matter what is in the books. We can run our games however we want. I am sure if Krynn and Eberron were separate from the D&D multiverse he would make it so they where part of it. in fact he has already done so with the MtG planes and that is not canon (yet). And you know what, that has had 0 effect on our games.

Good for you.

 

[Parmandur]

That's not quite fair.

While I am in the middle of this topic, when WotC changes settings it creates feedback from players and their assumptions. Especially anyone new to your group or just met.

This feedback isn't a showstopper, the DM's world is what it is and WotC will not burn our settings for violating canon, but it creates a resistance, a pushback. It has inertia, and sometimes a DM may get tired of consistently running headlong into an assumption.

Now that's on the DM for creating a world that defies some expectations. But some expectations gather weight in the community, and to say "It literally doesn't matter" while true, isn't seeing the implications.

IMHO.

And that's fair as far as it goes.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Good for you.

Thanks! I wish the best for you too!

 

[Parmandur]

You and I are done interacting for now.

Well, we agree on something then.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Good for you.

Though I note you did not explain why your preferences should eclipse mine?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Though I note you did not explain why your preferences should eclipse mine?

I don’t owe you a debate. I’m not going to keep engaging in a discussion where I’m being dismissed and told that what matters to me doesn’t actually matter.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

I don’t owe you a debate. I’m not going to keep engaging in a discussion where I’m being dismissed and told that what matters to me doesn’t actually matter.

I’m not trying to tell you that it doesn’t matter to you. I’m just trying to point out that the opposite matters to me. We can’t both have what we want in the official lore. So dismissing the official lore is just a natural. And quite frankly expected.

I total believe it matters to you, but we are better served if we place less value in “official” lore and more ownership of the lore ourselves

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

But you can still have all of that. This story changes nothing with the stories you want to tell. Everything is as you want it. This just adds another layer that can be compelling ignored with no consequences. It doesn’t affect your games at all

I don’t see how; however, if care to explain please do. Thanks!

Official lore is what all of the future official content such as adventures and sourcebooks will be based around, and will be the base assumptions that people will often be bringing into the setting. A fundamental shift in the setting concepts is going to have knock-on effects not only for the DM having to fight against the official materials, but even for the type of person to whom the setting appeals.

And these are far-reaching and fundamental changes to the setting that DrBadWolf is talking about.

Take the first potential change that they were hoping would not happen: Dol Arrah is Paladine.
- This establishes at least one of the Eberron gods as having an objective, material existence. Currently the gods of Eberron are very much a matter of faith: There has never been any proof of their existence like the FR gods for example.
This was one of the things that drew me to Eberron, and so a change at that level reduces its appeal to me. Even though I am able to say that in my game, the Sovereign Host don't have an objective existence, the official stance is going to be the one that newcomers will see, discussions will be based on, and all official rules and information will assume.
Not to mention that this would be going against one of the main concepts that the setting creator wanted to express. This could affect their relationship with WotC, with potential to seriously impact the existence of future Eberron content from both WotC and on the DM's guild.

So saying "It doesn't matter" and "Just don't change your home game" not only came across as patronising, it also ignored several of the realities of the situation, and how they affect the actual people involved.

Likewise the other issue DrBadWolf had: merging Eberron's cosmology with that of all the other settings: Currently Eberron's cosmology is unique: Risia for example is distinct not only conceptually and thematically, but also mechanically from the Elemental Plane of Fire. Having someone from Planescape declare that the inhabitants of Eberron are provincial yokels for relying on replicable observed and recorded phenomena is one thing. Retconning the rules to ensure that the snobbish intellectual from Sigil is superior and correct isn't going to be viewed with approval by many fans of the setting.

What if they want Eberron to be connected to the wheel? There is nothing wrong with that. Just like there’re is nothing wrong with there not even being a great wheel. I mean I think a very small fraction of players really have any interaction with the great wheel or outer planes at all. In fact, I can’t remember the last time we discussed the “cosmolgy” in the games I’ve played in.

You think it might be more important for a world in which the cosmology has active, observable, and important effects on the material plane?
Like the one you were discussing?

 

[Maxperson]

I don’t owe you a debate. I’m not going to keep engaging in a discussion where I’m being dismissed and told that what matters to me doesn’t actually matter.

I'm not trying to tell you what matter to you doesn't matter. All I'm saying is that from an officiality rules standpoint, Settings sit on the same level as the optional rules in the DM's Toolbox in the DMG. They're things that you have to opt into.

I haven't even looked a smidge into the MTG settings, because I'm never going to use them, so anything they say about the cosmology or anything else isn't a part of my game.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I’m not trying to tell you that it doesn’t matter to you. I’m just trying to point out that the opposite matters to me. We can’t both have what we want in the official lore. So dismissing the official lore is just a natural. And quite frankly expected.

I total believe it matters to you, but we are better served if we place less value in “official” lore and more ownership of the lore ourselves

So I guess I’m not being clear enough on why it matters to me.

In my DL, Paladine is genderfluid and in the current era (about 100 years after the last books I read, when there were big ass dragons eating other dragons for their power or whatever) they have been seen walking the land as a young female half-elf himbo Paladin named Istara, or as a Kender acrobat/performer named Cook.

Canon isn’t important in my game right now. If we get a bunch of new 5e DL lore, that lore will impact any new DL game I start, or play in. It will effect conversations about DL. It will effect the baseline assumptions within the D&D community about DL.

And here’s the thing. My preference doesn’t impact yours, but your preference does impact mine.

Because if the worlds are separate, you can just say, “no they’re not, there is this whole layer outside of the cosmology presented in the DL books.” And you aren’t even actually contradicting anything, just adding to it. Likewise, they could present DL as a just as separate from the Great Wheel as Theros or Ravnica is, and still tell all the same stories they want to tell.

But the DL cosmology is unlikely to even survive translation into the “one multiverse with one material plane” model.