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

Bolares

Hero
I want the books to be something I don't have to tack addendums and caveats to so that players can actually make good use of said books. If I'm playing Eberron, I want to know that things like "the gods might not exist, but divine magic definitely does" and "this is not the same cosmology as FR, and you can't get from one to the other via anything like normal means" aren't going to change.
Well, you will never know they aren't going to change. They haven't until now. Rising did not change that. Giving a possible answer if you want it to be in the same cosmology and be accessible is not changing that. But they can change that anytime they want. They did a lot of changes in Ravenloft...
 

log in or register to remove this ad

dave2008

Legend
I hope this thread has finally taught me to stop engaging people on the topic of the relevance of "official" lore/fluff past and present.

PS It just seems to offend some people and that is never my intent.
 
Last edited:

Urriak Uruk

Debate fuels my Fire
I want the books to be something I don't have to tack addendums and caveats to so that players can actually make good use of said books. If I'm playing Eberron, I want to know that things like "the gods might not exist, but divine magic definitely does" and "this is not the same cosmology as FR, and you can't get from one to the other via anything like normal means" aren't going to change.

Well I think everyone wants that. But not everyone plays with that same assumption, so no book will make everyone happy in that respect.

As far as being consistent with prior World building?

Absolutely.

Otherwise, no let's just change foundational aspects of Eberron, or Ravenloft. Who cares right? Your game can ignore it. /s

I simply don't understand why this matters, so have no retort.
 



AcererakTriple6

Autistic DM (he/him)
That is the exact connection I use.
Nice! That's actually how I connect the worlds of M:tG, the ones in the Prime Material Plane, and Eberron. In my cosmology, Xoriat is a small pocket of the Far Realm that can be used to travel into the Far Realm (if you can survive it without going insane), where you can then venture into one of the layers of the Far Realm that's called the Blind Eternities, and travel to the different worlds of the Magic: the Gathering Multiverse, and the Ring of Siberys prevents travel from the Toril, Oerth, Krynn, Exandria and similar worlds to get to Eberron, but there are ways around it (by flying above the Ring of Siberys, destroying the Ring, having Epic Level Magics, etc).
 


Urriak Uruk

Debate fuels my Fire
For what its worth, I cannot grasp the appeal of taking an established setting, and saying 'nah just do what you want' either. ;)

So I guess the opinion you have is simply "I liked the old thing, give me more of the old thing." Which I've never understood, because you have the old books. Use them. Why you even need or want the same lore republished in a new book makes no sense to me.

I think the canon blog strikes a nice balance, essentially saying "do what you want to do" instead of saying "Those old books are poop, all new books are canon!" But I guess some folks just need it printed exactly how they remember it, otherwise it's ruined, even if doesn't matter...
 

Scribe

Hero
So I guess the opinion you have is simply "I liked the old thing, give me more of the old thing." Which I've never understood, because you have the old books. Use them. Why you even need or want the same lore republished in a new book makes no sense to me.

I think the canon blog strikes a nice balance, essentially saying "do what you want to do" instead of saying "Those old books are poop, all new books are canon!" But I guess some folks just need it printed exactly how they remember it, otherwise it's ruined, even if doesn't matter...
Nope, its more like.

"I liked the old thing, give me new stuff that reinforces, expands upon, and is consistent with it."
 

For what its worth, I cannot grasp the appeal of taking an established setting, and saying 'nah just do what you want' either. ;)
I cant either, but since we have (or are going to have) incompatibilities in our established settings, all we can do is pick what we like and run with it.
 

Azzy

KMF DM
For what its worth, I cannot grasp the appeal of taking an established setting, and saying 'nah just do what you want' either. ;)
I thought that that's what you were supposed to do since I started DMing in the late 80s. Published settings are frameworks detailed to varying degrees (c.f. the original Greyhawk Folio and the 3e Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting), with hooks to hang your adventures around. But they are definitely all meant to "just do what you want"—don't like a certain details (no matter how big or how small), change it, replace it, turn it on its ear. The end user is the final arbiter and nothing printed is sacrosanct nor is it going to be enforced by the publisher.
 


dave2008

Legend
Nope, its more like.

"I liked the old thing, give me new stuff that reinforces, expands upon, and is consistent with it."
I get that and it enjoy it too. However, I also like revisions, clarifications, innovation, and improvement more then being consistent and reinforcing. If you can get all those great! I just prefer one over the other. And there is some old lore that I would completely change if I was in charge so I can't really blame others for doing the same when they are in charge (I'm looking at you Asmodeus).
 

dave2008

Legend
For what its worth, I cannot grasp the appeal of taking an established setting, and saying 'nah just do what you want' either. ;)
Isn't it a bit impossible otherwise? I mean I know of groups that had a TPK against Tiamat in RoT. There is no "official" lore that will ever support that result. I just don't see how to reconcile player games with setting lore. Of course I don't use official settings so I may just be inexperienced in that department.
 


Hussar

Legend
Force is a strong word, but for a long time there was a more or less coherent story for D&D. Now there isn't, which means no story (including what they're pushing now) is more important or "true" than any other.
I'm thinking it was a WHOLE lot less than more. The "story" for D&D is anything but coherent. Like, at all.

Quick, tell me what Lolth is in D&D. :D
 

JEB

Hero
Canon still exists, canon still matters.
The only 5E books confirmed to be canon - the "public-facing" canon - are the current printings of the core rulebooks. Every single other 5E book (to include older printings of the core) is at best possibly canon, depending on what's currently part of their internal determination of canon. It also seems very likely at this point that the private canon does not include lore from some published 5E books, since otherwise they would have declared all 5E books to be canon (as was initially suggested, in fact). We can also expect more 5E lore to be retired as it's supplanted by incompatible newer takes in newer books.

We now have a core canon that can change with each new printing, and a whole lot of other products that only might be canon, some of which could cease being canon at any time without notice. So while yes, there is technically a canon, it's pretty hard to say that it matters anymore.
 

Scribe

Hero
We now have a core canon that can change with each new printing, and a whole lot of other products that only might be canon, some of which could cease being canon at any time without notice. So while yes, there is technically a canon, it's pretty hard to say that it matters anymore.
On the plus side, I can now ignore anything clearly shoehorned into a setting that doesnt need it, and not even care.
 

Urriak Uruk

Debate fuels my Fire
Nope, its more like.

"I liked the old thing, give me new stuff that reinforces, expands upon, and is consistent with it."

Fair. I don't really think 5E is the edition for expansion of setting lore, as it largely takes material from previous editions and condenses it into fewer books page count. It's largely meant to recontextualize the old stuff for the newer audience. Even if there weren't retcons, I don't think 5E is going to be adding much more stuff, because of the "one book per setting" format.

I personally don't mind retcons if I actually like the changes (a retcon itself doesn't bother me if I like the change). Never really understood the "retcons are bad because changing established lore is always bad," POV, but that's just my opinion.
 


Visit Our Sponsor

Latest threads

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top