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

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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

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

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
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

Legend
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

Legend
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.'
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top