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

Urriak Uruk

Debate fuels my Fire
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.)

Well hold on here; the DMG leaves folks a framework to use any cosmology you like. It says the Great Wheel is a theoretical construct (the most popular one, but still), and may be incorrect. That lets any DM use whatever cosmology they like, and still be "canon." It still adheres to what the DMG says.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Parmandur

Book-Friend
I wouldn't be surprised if the Forgotten Realms is quietly exempt from this in practice. I think it's more likely they're talking about Dragonlance... and justifying a setting reboot that ignores the novels (especially the new novels that they butted heads with Weis and Hickman over).
I dunno, they are pretty laxidasical with FR canon, and I bet this how they move forward across the board.
 

Urriak Uruk

Debate fuels my Fire


Parmandur

Book-Friend
Huh. This might actually hint that a Dragonlance (or Dark Sun) setting book is on the way, that resets the setting back to the War of the Lance (or pre-Prism novels).
They already did that to Dark Sun back in the day, but another reset would be likely. I think we will see the War of the Lance as an Adventure before Dragonlance as a Setting per se.
 

Zeromaru X

Arkhosian scholar and coffee lover
As for what is considered canon in the D&D RPG, Crawford provided a very simple answer. "If you’re looking for what’s official in the D&D roleplaying game, it’s what appears in the products for the roleplaying game," Crawford said. "Basically, our stance is that if it has not appeared in a book since 2014 [the year that Dungeons & Dragons' Fifth Edition core rulebooks came out], we don’t consider it canonical for the games."

Oh, well. That's a good thing, I guess. My experience with my Neverwinter game is still ruined, as the SCAG is still considered canon, lol
 

Dire Bare

Legend
This is an interesting idea, but I don't think it really tracks with how the planes are generally treated in the books.

For instance, in Eberron's plane of Stories, Thelanis, there are an infinite number of potentially infinite "layers". Those layers are understood to be part of Thelanis, and thus ontologically secondary or....subservient (isn't the right word but hopefully it gets the point across) to the Plane of Thelanis.

In dnd as I've ever seen presented in actual published material, when a place is inside of another place, it is considered part of that place, and thus....exisentially less than the place which contains it? Like, surely you wouldn't argue with the statement that the planet of Oerth is, within the fiction of DnD, less than the Prime Material Plane in total? Right? It's part of it, and thus the plane is more than the planet, right?

So, if Eberron goes from being alongside the cosmology of the Greyhawk setting to being a "bubble" or "locked sphere" contained within the ethereal plane which is one plane of many within the "5e multiverse" of the Greyhawk (unless I've got my origins wrong on the great wheel) game/story setting. So, rather than being a universe which is only "inside" the "4e style multiverse" and in all ways equal to and in most ways separate from other universes within that multiverse, it is now merely a part of another universe. Hell, it doesn't even exist as like....a bubble on the outside of the great wheel or somesuch useful visualization, or to view it another way as it's own infinite plane alongside the others, it is a sub-plane within a larger plane.

The issue of things like elves still being the creations of Corellon is a bigger problem, but since it stems from the larger cosmological problem, it's hard to consistently discuss without going back to the cosmological problem.
I don't like the bubble idea, that Eberron is a bubble of different floating within the larger cosmology. I would agree with you there that this kind of diminishes the setting a bit, although again, not on a practical level. I'd rather think of Eberron as simply being different alongside those other worlds, each different in their own ways, to various degrees.

Eberron existing within the D&D multiverse, just as Krynn, Athas, and Toril do . . . to me, that doesn't diminish Eberron at all. Being a part of something larger isn't automatically a demotion, or indicative of a lesser status. Although, when folks first starting theorizing that Earth wasn't the center of the real universe, but just one world among many . . . that got controversial for a bit!
 

Dire Bare

Legend

It seems nothing is canon anymore outside the books
Wow, hot off the presses! Is Crawford reading this thread? Jeremy?

While the article directly quotes Crawford on this, I don't think it quite captures how WotC treats D&D canon. Setting, story, and characters from pre-5E, from the novels, and other licensed properties . . . it's not that they aren't canon at all, but more quasi-canon. They kinda-sorta happened . . . if you, as the gamer, want them to in your own game . . . but also if WotC decides to use those elements in a 5E product. Not unlike how Disney treats the now "Legends" canon before they acquired Lucasfilm.

WotC can certainly decide to pull something from an earlier source, or from a novel, and decide to change it . . . but how often does that really happen? The Drizzt novels that Bob Salvatore is still writing adhere pretty closely to current D&D canon, in fact the next novel, Starlight Enclave, is introducing the new drow subraces that are clearly intended to be new D&D canon. On the other hand, I doubt much of the story from the recent Dark Alliance video game is going to become canon.

I think certain aspects of the D&D franchise have a degree of "distance" from canon. The popular Drizzt novels are practically adjacent to full canon. As are the comics featuring Minsc and his adventuring buddies. But older D&D products (of any sort) have a greater distance. Video games probably have the most distance, as they serve such different needs from novels, comics, and RPG books.

But still, I appreciate the official word. That officially only 100% canonical sources are the 5E RPG books, everything else is some degree of maybe. And regardless of even official canon, feel free to toss it all out the window for your home games if you want!
 


Dire Bare

Legend
Huh. This might actually hint that a Dragonlance (or Dark Sun) setting book is on the way, that resets the setting back to the War of the Lance (or pre-Prism novels).
Maybe. The policy certainly gives them the freedom to do so.

I would LOVE a reimagined Dragonlance. I'm pretty cool with a Dark Sun walked back to the original boxed set in metaplot, but not really with changing the setting to any great degree.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Sorry, I don't understand what we are discussing anymore. I think I will move on. I was just trying to be helpful.
Sorry. I didn't intend to be aggro about it, I just didn't really see the benefit of looking at it that way when I'm talking about not liking the general direction of the game as a whole, not any problem I've had in running the game.
None of that changes by putting them int0 the Great Wheel that the DMG says people can ignore. They still all have their own cosmologies isolated from the Wheel.
Being able to change a thing doesn't make that thing not bad. Or bad. Or anything. It has no effect of any kind on the quality of the thing.
Well hold on here; the DMG leaves folks a framework to use any cosmology you like. It says the Great Wheel is a theoretical construct (the most popular one, but still), and may be incorrect. That lets any DM use whatever cosmology they like, and still be "canon." It still adheres to what the DMG says.
As above, okay, that doesn't make it good lore. It just means I can do whatever i want, which I would be doing even if I loved everything about the direction of DnD's lore and the DMG explicitly asked me not to do so. I generally don't view canon as having any authority of any kind in the context of fan interactions, and the very small authority it does have is whatever the IP holder enforces/can enforce on licensed works using that IP.

I don't view the mechanical rules as actual rules, I certainly don't see lore as rules.
Huh. This might actually hint that a Dragonlance (or Dark Sun) setting book is on the way, that resets the setting back to the War of the Lance (or pre-Prism novels).
I am not as opposed to that type of reboot as I used to be, but I'd still rather just let 100 years or so pass (or even longer so that all the old characters are naturally dead in the new era, if it makes things easier, though I'd like for a few to be around to optionally use as advisors and mentors and such) and rewrite the setting in the new era, retconning only what is really needed, like Gully Dwarves, and writing the setting to be in a very similar place, having come full circle, as it was in the first days of he War of The Lance.
I don't like the bubble idea, that Eberron is a bubble of different floating within the larger cosmology. I would agree with you there that this kind of diminishes the setting a bit, although again, not on a practical level. I'd rather think of Eberron as simply being different alongside those other worlds, each different in their own ways, to various degrees.

Eberron existing within the D&D multiverse, just as Krynn, Athas, and Toril do . . . to me, that doesn't diminish Eberron at all. Being a part of something larger isn't automatically a demotion, or indicative of a lesser status. Although, when folks first starting theorizing that Earth wasn't the center of the real universe, but just one world among many . . . that got controversial for a bit!
It being in the same multiverse in the marvel sense I'm fine with. It being a bubbel in the ethereal and elves coming from correlon even though he doesn't exist in Eberron is where the problem lies.
 
Last edited:

Dire Bare

Legend
Good. The books constant changes got a bit absurd. I've never treated novels, movies or video games as canon anyway.
For Dragonlance, at least, the sword cut both ways. The "Chaos War" storyline, and later the "War of Souls" storyline, were novel centric plots that had major metaplot/canon impacts on the setting. But the "Dragon Overlords" storyline was all about shifting the game away from AD&D and to the new Saga system. At the time, the novels supported the changes in the game! Ugh, what a disaster that was.

Dark Sun is interesting, because the Prism Pentad novels were part of the plan before launch. Not unlike the original Dragonlance novels and adventure modules. It was just a weird decision to present the world of Athas, and then immediately break it with the first set of novels.

I suspect part of the reason novels aren't canon now . . . is because WotC isn't really in the business of publishing novels anymore. It used to be a BIG part of the D&D franchise, but no more. Salvatore's Drizzt books continue despite WotC's reluctance because they are so popular. Weis & Hickman's upcoming new Dragonlance trilogy almost didn't happen, WotC actively tried to kill the project. And that's it, there aren't any other current novels, other than a new YA series coming up soon . . .
 


Urriak Uruk

Debate fuels my Fire
As above, okay, that doesn't make it good lore. It just means I can do whatever i want, which I would be doing even if I loved everything about the direction of DnD's lore and the DMG explicitly asked me not to do so. I generally don't view canon as having any authority of any kind in the context of fan interactions, and the very small authority it does have is whatever the IP holder enforces/can enforce on licensed works using that IP.

I don't view the mechanical rules as actual rules, I certainly don't see lore as rules.

I'm so confused by this... first, it is lore, as it literally says;

Sages have constructed a few such theoretical models to make sense of the jumble of planes, particularly the Outer Planes. The three most common are the Great Wheel, the World Tree, and the World Axis, but you can create or adapt whatever model works best for the planes you want to use in your game.

I don't know how that's a rule, it's referencing Sages... that seems like lore to me.

And it's literally giving you a permission structure to do whatever you want. So I'm confused why you don't seem to like that, even though you say that's what you're going to do... you even mention how even if the DMG made good lore that you like, you wouldn't use it. But it doesn't do that! It lets you do whatever you want!

I should really disengage, that comment is scrambling my mind trying to read and understand.
 

I get at least some solace in that even WotC doesn't particularly care about the Outer Planes of the Great Wheel beyond the Abyss and the Nine Hells except as a way to get all their IP under the same D&D Multiverse (TM) umbrella. The Blood War used to range across the Lower Planes in 3E and earlier, but in 5E the demons just skip all the other Lower Planes and get straight to Avernus. The yugoloths didn't even get their old lore back and just became a special commission Asmodeus requested of some night hags.
 

dave2008

Legend
Sorry. I didn't intend to be aggro about it, I just didn't really see the benefit of looking at it that way when I'm talking about not liking the general direction of the game as a whole, not any problem I've had in running the game.
It is not that, i just don't think we are in the same mind space where we are talking about the same things.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
I'm so confused by this... first, it is lore, as it literally says;

Sages have constructed a few such theoretical models to make sense of the jumble of planes, particularly the Outer Planes. The three most common are the Great Wheel, the World Tree, and the World Axis, but you can create or adapt whatever model works best for the planes you want to use in your game.

I don't know how that's a rule, it's referencing Sages... that seems like lore to me.

And it's literally giving you a permission structure to do whatever you want. So I'm confused why you don't seem to like that, even though you say that's what you're going to do... you even mention how even if the DMG made good lore that you like, you wouldn't use it. But it doesn't do that! It lets you do whatever you want!

I should really disengage, that comment is scrambling my mind trying to read and understand.
You’re overthinking it, I think. I didn’t say that the lore is a rule. I was trying to make it clear that I am not coming from a perspective of viewing the lore as binding, I am criticizing what I see as bad lore, a bad direction for the lore, and a change in lore that will affect any game that is run mostly from the books.

I am also pointing out places where the lore is detrimental if used as written, as with the “cosmic revelation” example.

I don’t get why it’s hard to grok that I can both;

Not feel beholden to canon

And

Care about the direction of the game’s lore.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
You’re overthinking it, I think. I didn’t say that the lore is a rule. I was trying to make it clear that I am not coming from a perspective of viewing the lore as binding, I am criticizing what I see as bad lore, a bad direction for the lore, and a change in lore that will affect any game that is run mostly from the books.

I am also pointing out places where the lore is detrimental if used as written, as with the “cosmic revelation” example.

I don’t get why it’s hard to grok that I can both;

Not feel beholden to canon

And

Care about the direction of the game’s lore.
The exact same "cosmic revelation" would have occurred during 3e and 4e, though. In both of those editions all settings, regardless of individual cosmologies, were part of the D&D multiverse along with all of the other settings. That meant that even if a setting like Eberron had a unique cosmology, there was still an overarching cosmology that it was a part of. All 5e did was name it the Great Wheel. Nothing actually changed other than knowing the name.

I think that's where a lot of us are having the disconnect with you. You're seeing this as a major change when it was just the slight revelation of a name.
 

The exact same "cosmic revelation" would have occurred during 3e and 4e, though. In both of those editions all settings, regardless of individual cosmologies, were part of the D&D multiverse along with all of the other settings. That meant that even if a setting like Eberron had a unique cosmology, there was still an overarching cosmology that it was a part of. All 5e did was name it the Great Wheel. Nothing actually changed other than knowing the name.

I think that's where a lot of us are having the disconnect with you. You're seeing this as a major change when it was just the slight revelation of a name.
That's sort of correct, but it requires another level of planar dimensionality.

In 3e, different multiverses existed, and it was theoretically possible to get to them through the Plane of Shadow. But each of those was an entirely distinct multiverse, with its own planes and personalities that were completely unconnected to those planes and personalities in others, even if they shared the same name. Forgotten Realms was at the center of it's own World Tree cosmology multiverse, Greyhawk at the center of its gutted (er, excuse me, "revised") Great Wheel cosmology, Eberron with it's thing, etc.

In 2e (and 5e) Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, and every other setting exists within the same Great Wheel multiverse in some way, even if it may be cut off from certain parts of it. (It's possible that the MtG worlds exist in an entirely different multiverse, and I'm not sure the designers have weighed in on that part yet.) There is only one Abyss, one Nine Hells of Baator, etc, and your world either does or doesn't interact with it, but it's still up there interacting with all the other planes that your world might be interacting with.

Now, personally, I greatly prefer the unified 2e/5e presentation, but I absolutely understand where @doctorbadwolf is coming from. I'm of the other cosmological preference, but of the same mindframe in believing that such presentations are meaningfully different and do effect my game even if indirectly.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
That's sort of correct, but it requires another level of planar dimensionality.

In 3e, different multiverses existed, and it was theoretically possible to get to them through the Plane of Shadow. But each of those was an entirely distinct multiverse, with its own planes and personalities that were completely unconnected to those planes and personalities in others, even if they shared the same name. Forgotten Realms was at the center of it's own World Tree cosmology multiverse, Greyhawk at the center of its gutted (er, excuse me, "revised") Great Wheel cosmology, Eberron with it's thing, etc.

In 2e (and 5e) Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, and every other setting exists within the same Great Wheel multiverse in some way, even if it may be cut off from certain parts of it. (It's possible that the MtG worlds exist in an entirely different multiverse, and I'm not sure the designers have weighed in on that part yet.) There is only one Abyss, one Nine Hells of Baator, etc, and your world either does or doesn't interact with it, but it's still up there interacting with all the other planes that your world might be interacting with.

Now, personally, I greatly prefer the unified 2e/5e presentation, but I absolutely understand where @doctorbadwolf is coming from. I'm of the other cosmological preference, but of the same mindframe in believing that such presentations are meaningfully different and do effect my game even if indirectly.
Very well said. Thank you.
 

Visit Our Sponsor

Latest threads

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top