log in or register to remove this ad

 

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

the Jester

Legend
Thing is, it does have impacts.

Does your Dragonlance have devils, for example? In WotL era, 1e modules, there are no devils appearing. Not one. I cannot think of a single canonical appearance of a devil in any of the fiction I read either. Heck, even Demogorgon has a canonical appearance in Dragonlance, but, not a single Devil. Granted, demons don't make much of an appearance, but, they do appear. Abishai and various other demons are present when we see Takhisis.
Point of order!! Abishai are devils.
 

log in or register to remove this ad



doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
You repeat this line a lot here in this thread. Maybe it's not us . . .
Nah, it definitely is. I can be sure of that both because multiple people in this thread aren’t having any trouble getting it, and I have this issue often here, but almost never anywhere else.
Again, how you prefer to view the D&D worlds and multiverse is fine, how you choose to use it in your games is fine. Not trying to tell you your preferences aren't legit or are somehow lesser. But to be upset that your ideas don't match up with current official canon, and that others actually like the existing canon, or have even other ways of looking at things . . . I mean, it's okay that they don't, but it just isn't something to get so worked up over.
Voicing a preference opposed to the direction the game is going isn’t “upset” or being “worked up”.
But of course... that would just prove our points that the lore doesn't matter, because it would show once again that no lore is official and any lore can be written and re-written on a whim by whomever has the WotC D&D letterhead at the time.
No, it wouldn’t, because one doesn’t even follow from the other.
From what I can see, the language used for the creation portion are "legends say" and "sages agree" and so on. It's rumor that they created the universe, and it's possible that it was true that they created the Eberron universe by isolating it from the rest of the Great Wheel. Or that they never existed at all.

Is there something outside of the 3.5 creation myth that gives the progenitor wyrms objective reality and says definitively that they created everything?
Blinkingman.gif

Okay, let’s try again. The point is not whether the progenitors are real and the story is true. Nitpicking the example does not engage with the point being illustrated by the example, for one thing.

For another, the scenario presupposes that the DM in the example has decided to use them as real, and use them as a vehicle for a cosmic revelation. Therefor, the question of whether they are real is completely irrelevant to the scenario in question.

Lastly, the statement that I made was not about whether they are real. I stated that if they are real, the new lore demotes them from what they would be in a game without the news lore in which they are also real.

I had and have no need to comment on the effect of the lore on games where the cosmology doesn’t matter and the progenitors aren’t treated as/revealed to be real. 🤷‍♂️
Thank you for clarification. I believe I see the issue, but I no longer think I can offer you any help. We are just to different in this respect. I don't think I can explain any better without sounding condescending and that would not be my intent. You will just have to be unhappy I guess (until WotC changes course) - sorry!
I’m not…unhappy? I don’t get it. I don’t assume that someone who dislikes a change or prefers a different model is upset about it.
And how exactly are the people of Eberron supposed to have that happen? If it CAN'T happen... then the "truth" doesn't matter.

Guess what? Maybe we "people" on planet Earth aren't actually on a planet and we are all just computer simulations being run by some advanced species. You and I aren't real. Boom! I've just shattered your worldview.

Oh, but I didn't... because we have no way of knowing whether or not what I just said is true. All we know is what we know. So the "truth" does not matter. You and I are going to just continue to live our lives without any existential brainmelting.

You all keep trying to attribute OUR knowledge of players of the D&D game and our knowledge of how the books wrote all this crap down to the fictional people within all these worlds. But none of them care. None of them know any existential truth. None of them have a complete picture of the entire story. So just because WE meta-players know the so-called "truth"... a "truth" mind you, that was only invented for this edition of the game and can just as easily be retconned by the next shlub that come along... doesn't mean it affects any character within any world.
I mean, you can play the game in a way where cosmic truth is not knowable, but that’s hardly a safe assumption about games broadly, and it certainly isn’t better than the other way, it’s just your preference. 🤷‍♂️
...Unless, you as a player just aren't able to compartmentalize things at all, and keep having these existentials truths of the multiuniverse intrude upon your brain as you roleplay your Shifter in the Eldeen Reaches. If that's the case... I'm sorry you have that problem. But you're not going to get the other 99.999% of the gaming populace to understand.
Ah yes, from “ego” to “bad roleplaying and/or inability to compartmentalize”. Can you make an argument on this topic without insulting the people you disagree with, or no?
That quote is from Rising actually.

Rising has another section that more explicitly details possible interactions between Eberron and the rest of the multiverse.

Eberron and the Multiverse​

It is theoretically possible to travel between Eberron and other worlds in the multiverse by means of the Deep Ethereal or various spells designed for planar travel, but the cosmology of Eberron is specifically designed to prevent such travel, to keep the world hidden away from the meddling of gods, celestials, and fiends from beyond.

The three progenitor wyrms worked together to form Eberron and its planes as a new cosmic system in the depths of the Ethereal Plane. They recreated the elves, orcs, dragons, and other races found throughout the multiverse and placed them in their new world, but allowed them to develop beyond the reach of Gruumsh, Corellon, Lolth, and other influences for good and ill.

In your campaign, you might decide that the barrier formed by the Ring of Siberys is intact, and contact between Eberron and the worlds and planes beyond its cosmology is impossible.
This is the default assumption of this book. On the other hand, you might want to incorporate elements from other realms. Perhaps you want to use a published adventure that involves Tiamat or the forces of the Abyss meddling in the affairs of the world. In such a case, it could be that the protection offered by the Ring of Siberys has begun to fail. You might link the weakening of Siberys to the Mourning — perhaps whatever magical catastrophe caused the Mourning also disrupted the Ring of Siberys, or perhaps a disruption of the Ring of Siberys actually caused the Mourning!

If contact between Eberron and the wider multiverse is recent and limited, consider the implications for everyone involved.
In the Great Wheel, Asmodeus is an ancient threat, with well-established cults, lines of tieflings, and a long history of meddling that sages might uncover in dusty old tomes hidden in remote libraries. But if Asmodeus has only just discovered Eberron and begun to influence it for the first time, there is no lore about him to be discovered on Eberron. He has no power base and needs to recruit new followers. Unusual alliances might form against him, as celestials and fiends join forces to expel this hostile outsider.
Thank you. Honestly I’d forgotten just how far Rising goes to make Eberron explicitly a sub domain of the Great Wheel.

Like, DMs who do stick to canon now have origin revelations about the various races cut off from them as options, as do writers putting works on DMsGuild. Now, Eberron DMs who modify from canon have to contend not just with Eberron lore, but also with Great Wheel lore. I’m very glad that my group pretty much agrees that the lore change is silly and/or bad, and we continue to use the same lore we used when starting the campaign, but future games of Eberron, for many groups, will be different.

Like, the only thing I’m “upset” by in this thread is people acting like no campaigns interact with the cosmology enough for this stuff to impact a campaign, or try to claim that there literally hasn’t been a change. There objectively has been. You prefer it, great. At least admit it’s a change!
 


Parmandur

Book-Friend
Okay, let’s try again. The point is not whether the progenitors are real and the story is true. Nitpicking the example does not engage with the point being illustrated by the example, for one thing.

For another, the scenario presupposes that the DM in the example has decided to use them as real, and use them as a vehicle for a cosmic revelation. Therefor, the question of whether they are real is completely irrelevant to the scenario in question.

Lastly, the statement that I made was not about whether they are real. I stated that if they are real, the new lore demotes them from what they would be in a game without the news lore in which they are also real.

I had and have no need to comment on the effect of the lore on games where the cosmology doesn’t matter and the progenitors aren’t treated as/revealed to be real. 🤷‍♂️
But the current model being used for D&D doesn't effect this scenario at all: DM's world, DM's rules. The Enerron books supply for multiple possible interpretations, none of which are effected by a general assumption of a multiverse which includes Eberron. Use it, don't use it, they are all tools to be used or ignored.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Right. We have a situation where even if the Progenitor Wyrms were real, they still could have carved out a portion of the astral plane, isolating it. Then brought in or created the other planes, making them unique, creating that universe.
So, just to try to be as clear as possible, the issue isn’t the reality or lack thereof of the progenitors. It is with the idea that they (or a consciousness cosmic force, or happenstance, or whatever the Prophecy is, or whatever) picked a spot in the Deep Ethereal (not astral) plane, and took stuff from around the multiverse to make their own isolated playground.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
But the current model being used for D&D doesn't effect this scenario at all: DM's world, DM's rules. The Enerron books supply for multiple possible interpretations, none of which are effected by a general assumption of a multiverse which includes Eberron. Use it, don't use it, they are all tools to be used or ignored.
You really cannot see any implications that could effect storytelling in Eberron from Eberron’s entire cosmology being a pocket dimension in the Deep Ethereal of he great wheel rather than genuinely it’s own universe?
 

Mirtek

Adventurer
Tortured explanations of how Athas (Dark Sun) and Krynn (Dragonlance) fit into D&D cosmology existed during the 2E era .
Tortured maybe for Athas, but Krynn was pretty well connected. There was a lot of traffic between Krynn and Toril

You really cannot see any implications that could effect storytelling in Eberron from Eberron’s entire cosmology being a pocket dimension in the Deep Ethereal of he great wheel rather than genuinely it’s own universe?

Thing is that we can, but we just have different tastes. For us that's a good thing, because we want to see those implications pop up in offical products. It brings us joy to read about that in offical novels (sadly no more) and splatbooks
The idea that a world with a unique cosmology (Eberron), that it's entire cosmology exists within it's crystal sphere (inner, outer, mirror planes and all),
Since it's all only for a single world, none of those are that big. So they fit within their larger than usual crystal sphere
 

Urriak Uruk

Debate fuels my Fire
You really cannot see any implications that could effect storytelling in Eberron from Eberron’s entire cosmology being a pocket dimension in the Deep Ethereal of he great wheel rather than genuinely it’s own universe?

He didn't say any of that... he said that it can be interpreted that way, or another way. Or you can use the DMG to just throw the Great Wheel away entirely and use your own home-made cosmology. There isn't really canon at all, the DMG allows you to make anything.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
You really cannot see any implications that could effect storytelling in Eberron from Eberron’s entire cosmology being a pocket dimension in the Deep Ethereal of he great wheel rather than genuinely it’s own universe?
Nothing that can't be easily ignored, since what happens at a given table is the only thing that matters. The general assumptions are just baseboards upon which to build a LEGO set. They don't dictate anything.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
So, just to try to be as clear as possible, the issue isn’t the reality or lack thereof of the progenitors. It is with the idea that they (or a consciousness cosmic force, or happenstance, or whatever the Prophecy is, or whatever) picked a spot in the Deep Ethereal (not astral) plane, and took stuff from around the multiverse to make their own isolated playground.
3.5 has them create their cosmology as well, and it wasn't as if it existed and no other settings in D&D did. WotC didn't release a press release saying that with the release of Eberron, no other settings or cosmologies exist in the D&D multiverese any longer. It was always a part of the greater D&D community, but it was an isolated one that nobody could get to. And that remains with 5e.
 



DEFCON 1

Legend
Some novels have smaller stories that don't overly impact the larger setting. At least not to the degree that it needs to be mentioned in the next iteration of the campaign guide. But some stories most certainly are that big. The Realms is known for it's RSEs (Realms-Shaking-Events), some of which are detailed in game products, others are detailed in novels, others in both. The Avatar trilogy springs to mind . . .
I want to say though that the Avatar trilogy was written to explain the changes to the Realms from changes made to the game, and not the other way around. Game impacted those novels, not that those novels impacted the game. Could be mistaken on that though, admittedly...
 

dave2008

Legend
I’m not…unhappy? I don’t get it. I don’t assume that someone who dislikes a change or prefers a different model is upset about it.
Maybe a poor word choice, but for this discussing dislike = unhappy in my mind. So if you don't like the word unahppy, you can replace that sentence with the following:

"...You will just have to dislike the current direction I guess (until WotC changes course) - sorry!"
 

Dire Bare

Legend
Tortured maybe for Athas, but Krynn was pretty well connected. There was a lot of traffic between Krynn and Toril.
Athas definitely came packaged with an unnecessary explanation of how it's a part of, but isolated from, the multiverse. I remember reading it back in the day and thinking, "Why?" Just let Dark Sun be it's own thing without worrying about how it is connected to the multiverse. If tables want to play cross-planar games with Athas, let them. And of course, at some point, the githyanki invade the planet anyway (unless I'm remembering that wrong).

Krynn, at first, was simply it's own thing. Takhisis both was and wasn't Tiamat, Paladine was/wasn't Bahamut, the Abyss was . . . maybe the Abyss, or maybe what Krynn-folk call Baator/Hell, or maybe it's own evil plane. It was all good. At some point though, some fans (and designers) started to think defining exactly how Krynn was related to the greater D&D multiverse was important, and we're still arguing about it today. I get a little more annoyed by the Dragonlance world-building by omission trope. This world is different because no orcs, no drow! Like somehow that truly defines what makes Dragonlance different. But Dragonlance was the first setting consciously designed by the D&D team at TSR (previous settings came from adventure authors, including Gygax and Arneson), so I give some slack there. :)

I'm totally fine with a setting being a part of the D&D multiverse, but also being it's own thing and not really fitting in to the Great Wheel. I don't need the details on how that works, it's a problem that doesn't need solving.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
He didn't say any of that... he said that it can be interpreted that way, or another way. Or you can use the DMG to just throw the Great Wheel away entirely and use your own home-made cosmology. There isn't really canon at all, the DMG allows you to make anything.
Which is irrelevant to a discussion of whether the direction of the canon (and yes, it exists, it just isn't binding in a game. Canon just refers to the lore published by the IP holder. What they publish is DnD, what I run at my table is my DnD. I don't need to feel beholden to the official DnD in order to care about what direction it is going with the lore.)

As I've said at least a half dozen times in this thread, I don't follow any published setting's canon, and my homebrew worlds don't use any published dnd cosmology at all. In Islands World, death doesn't even work remotely like it does in published DnD, gods aren't what they are in any published world, and there aren't any "planes of existence", there is just the one universe. Even the "spirit world" isn't a world, it's just that spirit beings are, by default, invisible and ethereal. They don't inhabit a different space than everything else.

In Space Fantasy, The Nine Hells are literal planets in a solar system that orbits the Abyss, which is a black hole. The Feywild is a region of space with pockets and tendrils reaching deep into other regions, and the Shadowfell is just the darker places within the Feywild.

In both, Devils and Demons aren't distinct from eachother in any way, those are just interchangable terms for the same thing, which all MM "fiends" are part of. Most people use the term Demon, while Devil and Fiend are more esoteric/academic terms.

None of that has any impact whatsoever on whether "is the direction the lore of dnd is going good, bad, or ambivelent" is a valid topic of discussion, or a valid thing to care about.
Nothing that can't be easily ignored, since what happens at a given table is the only thing that matters. The general assumptions are just baseboards upon which to build a LEGO set. They don't dictate anything.
I would posit that most people buy a given game not just for the mechanics, but also for the lore. The lore matters, regardless of it's lack of binding nature. What direction the lore is going is a thing worthy of discussion and criticism. Trying to invalidate the perspective of other people by telling them the thing they are trying to discuss doesn't matter is condescending, at best.
3.5 has them create their cosmology as well, and it wasn't as if it existed and no other settings in D&D did. WotC didn't release a press release saying that with the release of Eberron, no other settings or cosmologies exist in the D&D multiverese any longer. It was always a part of the greater D&D community, but it was an isolated one that nobody could get to. And that remains with 5e.
Can you explain what relevance the part I bolded has to the discussion? It doesn't connect to anything I've ever seen anyone say in any discussion, much less anything I've said in this discussion.
 

dave2008

Legend
You really cannot see any implications that could effect storytelling in Eberron from Eberron’s entire cosmology being a pocket dimension in the Deep Ethereal of he great wheel rather than genuinely it’s own universe?
Why do you assume a "pocket dimension" couldn't also be its own universe? That seems entirely plausible. Just like the great wheel could be a pocket dimension of another reality. There are not constraints applied to what is or isn't a dimension, a plane of existence, or a universe. At least not that I am aware of.
 

DEFCON 1

Legend
Ah yes, from “ego” to “bad roleplaying and/or inability to compartmentalize”. Can you make an argument on this topic without insulting the people you disagree with, or no?
I've made plenty. You just won't accept them. You believe everything should be a certain way, others have said why that way is unnecessary, and you don't want to agree. And I have made my own inferences from that for why you won't agree. C'est la vie.
 

Visit Our Sponsor

Latest threads

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top