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

Scribe

Hero
Well well well...

Now its MY TIME to say "that's a personal judgment call! :p

I don't know if it's a good decision, I think I'm not invested enough in canon to judge that. But saying there is no canon because of the statement, or that only the 3 are canon is not true by WotC's definition of canon. And obviously WotC wants to ride the fence... its WotC.

Does the 'internal canon' (which I could rant on for hours...) matter if its never public? Of course not. Its meaningless. Its vaporware. Less than nothing.

So the only thing that matters to the external public, Content Creators, DMG, 3rd Party, Players, DMs, is the 'public canon'.

The internal canon is utterly without value. If the only books which are public canon are the 3 core, then that is what is canon.

You cannot have multiple canon, especially if one is just 'the super secret one we wont commit to openly' for...reasons?
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Bolares

Hero
Does the 'internal canon' (which I could rant on for hours...) matter if its never public? Of course not. Its meaningless. Its vaporware. Less than nothing.

So the only thing that matters to the external public, Content Creators, DMG, 3rd Party, Players, DMs, is the 'public canon'.

The internal canon is utterly without value. If the only books which are public canon are the 3 core, then that is what is canon.

You cannot have multiple canon, especially if one is just 'the super secret one we wont commit to openly' for...reasons?
But here's the thing. the "only core books matter" canon id not the public canon. Of course Rising is canon for Eberron, Wildemount is Canon for Exandria. "only core books" is for fellow creators and business partners. You need the whole sentence for the correct context.
 

It changes what the progenitors are. It changes the feel of the world for my whole group. It “berk”s the entire setting and everyone in it.
Obviously you feel what you feel, personally I don’t know why your players would even know this information.

Can you explain why it berks the setting for you? What is important about being the one and only instead of separate and unique?
 


Scribe

Hero
But here's the thing. the "only core books matter" canon id not the public canon. Of course Rising is canon for Eberron, Wildemount is Canon for Exandria. "only core books" is for fellow creators and business partners. You need the whole sentence for the correct context.
Then whats canon for players? You say 'of course' but I dont think thats a given.

Why wouldnt Rising be canon for Creators for Eberron?
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Obviously you feel what you feel, personally I don’t know why your players would even know this information.
Because they've read the setting? Do your players not read the books?

Not only that, but I have had stories in various worlds where the nature of the cosmos matters and is something the PCs gain insight into during the story.
Can you explain why it berks the setting for you? What is important about being the one and only instead of separate and unique?
You really don't see the difference?

And by "berks" I mean that it makes the detestable "berk" dynamic of Planescape canon, even for worlds that didn't used to have anything to do with it.

The idea of elves was invented by Corellon, the idea of dragons exists because of Tiamat and Bahamut, no matter what world you're on. Believing in any part of the lore of the world you come from makes you a clueless berk.

I...dislike it, to say the least.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
But since the article doesn’t actually say that, it doesn‘t make sense. It does not say that only the PHB, DMG, and MM are canon, but that canon begins there. It then gives a few examples of other things that are canonical, which are found in other 5e D&D products. And it even specifically talks about introducing new lore beyond the core books!
It makes sense if you believe that there is non-public facing canon. The paragraph title says "begins with core books," and then explains.

"Fifth edition’s canon includes every bit of lore that appears in the most up-to-date printings of the fifth edition Player’s Handbook, Monster Manual, and Dungeon Master’s Guide. Beyond these core rulebooks, we don’t have a public-facing account of what is canonical in fifth edition because we don’t want to overload our fellow creators and business partners."

The bold is all there is to canon for us. Beyond that, the part that continues after the "begins with" portion, it's all internal. Only the core three are canon for the public.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
again, I don't read that statement as "only the core three are canon for consumers" obviously setting books are canon for the settings, arguing against that just doesn't make sense to me.
I'm not certain that those are canon for those settings. By making it core 3 books only, they leave open a future setting related product that contradicts a piece of setting lore. It's not canon, so it's no so sacred that it can't be changed by them.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
Initially one designer said that. Shortly after another one came and clarified that only the core books are public facing canon. That's an interesting way to put it, because it implies that there is non-public facing canon that is outside of the core books. If the core three were the only canon period, then there wouldn't any reason to specify public facing.
I think the reason he phrased it thst way is that Perkins does hold himself to a fairly high canon standard, because he loves links and allusions, but isn't asking freelancers to do the same to get work, let alone more detached media licensees.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
At this point there is effectively no canon. The core books don't have enough lore to really put coherent canon together. I suppose that only the crunch is really canon now.
Stuff like "Trolls regenerate but are vulnerable to fire" is an important part of "publicly facing canon" to maintain brand identity, whereas the demographics of Amn in the 13th century DR are not.

Though the DMG is actually pretty loaded with high level stuff, between the Plane chapter (with campaign setting details, so Mystara and Birthright are "canon") and the Magic Items.
 

Bolares

Hero
I'm not certain that those are canon for those settings. By making it core 3 books only, they leave open a future setting related product that contradicts a piece of setting lore. It's not canon, so it's no so sacred that it can't be changed by them.
They were always open to change whatever they wanted… they are going to change the core 3 in 3 years….
 


Micah Sweet

Legend
Sure, and I do not mean this to be offensive to you, I understand this is what they are saying by way of 'internal' vs 'public' canon, but to be blunt.

That's complete trash. :D

Its just more of Wizards 'we want to ride the fence and have it both ways without taking a stance that could later get us in trouble.'
This. There is no canon, because WotC no longer wants to be held responsible for how people play D&D. Even the core book exception is suspect, because there are going to make significant lore changes in 2024, which will render the current core invalid. Honestly, I can't even imagine how they're going to rewrite the Monster Manual...
 

Scribe

Hero
This. There is no canon, because WotC no longer wants to be held responsible for how people play D&D. Even the core book exception is suspect, because there are going to make significant lore changes in 2024, which will render the current core invalid. Honestly, I can't even imagine how they're going to rewrite the Monster Manual...
"It could be this, or it could be that, but sometimes they are like this, only not when they are like that. Just remember, they can be whatever you want them to be!"
 

It makes sense if you believe that there is non-public facing canon. The paragraph title says "begins with core books," and then explains.

"Fifth edition’s canon includes every bit of lore that appears in the most up-to-date printings of the fifth edition Player’s Handbook, Monster Manual, and Dungeon Master’s Guide. Beyond these core rulebooks, we don’t have a public-facing account of what is canonical in fifth edition because we don’t want to overload our fellow creators and business partners."

The bold is all there is to canon for us. Beyond that, the part that continues after the "begins with" portion, it's all internal. Only the core three are canon for the public.
How would you contextually interpret the statements in the article that the last two sentences you quoted from me allude to? I'm not sure how to interpret them as anything other than continuing past the "beginning" of their "public-facing" canon to acknowledge that there are other things they have told us that are also canon.

If they had wanted to imply the core 3 are the be all and end all of published 5e canon, I have a hard time seeing why the section title was "begins with the core" rather than "begins and ends with the core". The latter is the expression you use if you intend to say that. Leaving it out seems intentional.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
How would you contextually interpret the statements in the article that the last two sentences you quoted from me allude to? I'm not sure how to interpret them as anything other than continuing past the "beginning" of their "public-facing" canon to acknowledge that there are other things they have told us that are also canon.

If they had wanted to imply the core 3 are the be all and end all of published 5e canon, I have a hard time seeing why the section title was "begins with the core" rather than "begins and ends with the core". The latter is the expression you use if you intend to say that. Leaving it out seems intentional.
Those other examples touch on canon.

It's canonical for Strahd to sleep in a coffin, because vampire. Vampire is canon in the MM(Core 3) and says that they sleep in a coffin.

It's canonical for Zariel to be the ruler of Avernus, because that's what it says in the DMG(Core 3).

Menzoberranzan is the only iffy one there. It is mentioned in the DMG, so it's canonical that way, but the DMG doesn't say that it's underground or mention Lolth. It's possible that he knew it was mentioned and didn't realize how limited that information was.

It's pretty clear that they want the Core 3 to be the public canon and that they have an internal canon for themselves to follow.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
How would you contextually interpret the statements in the article that the last two sentences you quoted from me allude to? I'm not sure how to interpret them as anything other than continuing past the "beginning" of their "public-facing" canon to acknowledge that there are other things they have told us that are also canon.

If they had wanted to imply the core 3 are the be all and end all of published 5e canon, I have a hard time seeing why the section title was "begins with the core" rather than "begins and ends with the core". The latter is the expression you use if you intend to say that. Leaving it out seems intentional.
My interpretation is that anything beyond the core 3 books is usable material for WotC, but not anything that the need to adhere to or not contradict. Fizban's appears to contradict some elements of other 5E books, but in future books they will not work to "resolve" any such contradiction, but just use what they want or make up something new as needed.
 
Last edited:

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
My interpretation is that anything beyond the core 3 books is usable material for WotC, but anything that the need to adhere to or not contradict. Fizban's appears to contradict some elements of other 5E books, but in future books they will not work to "resolve" any such contradiction, but just use what they want or make up something new as needed.
My feeling on it is that WotC is basically going to be telling 3rd parties something like, "Hey, we'd appreciate it if you are as consistent as you can be with stuff beyond the core 3, but if you miss something don't sweat it, and don't kill yourself trying to double check things."
 

Scribe

Hero
My feeling on it is that WotC is basically going to be telling 3rd parties something like, "Hey, we'd appreciate it if you are as consistent as you can be with stuff beyond the core 3, but if you miss something don't sweat it, and don't kill yourself trying to double check things."
Which is fine, but not the extent of 'Yeah MToF isnt canon.'
 

Visit Our Sponsor

Latest threads

Dungeon Delver's Guide

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top