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).

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.

D&D 5E - Check out Fizban's Alternate Cover!

WotC's James Wyatt talked to Polygon about Fizban's Treasury of Dragons, which also revealed the alternate cover, which you can only get from hobby stores. https://www.enworld.org/threads/fizbans-treasury-the-dragon-book-now-has-a-description-and-a-feat.681399/

www.enworld.org

D&D 5E - Fizban's Treasury: The Dragon Book Now Has A Description... And A Feat

Courtesy of Amazon, we now have a description for Fizban's Treasury of Dragons, the October D&D hardcover. The book introduces gem dragons, dragon-themed player options, and plenty of draconic lore! This joins September's The Wild Beyond the Witchlight, and November's Strixhaven: Curriculum of...

www.enworld.org

 

[Maxperson]

They are no called to be part of the material plane, or demiplanes either. Even inside the great wheel, Eberron planes are still planes, that influence the material plane, but are not part of it.

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.

I'm not seeing how the existence of the still unique Eberron cosmology is affected in any way by being within the Great Wheel(which the DMG says can be ignored or changed).

 

[PsyzhranV2]

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.

I'm not seeing how the existence of the still unique Eberron cosmology is affected in any way by being within the Great Wheel(which the DMG says can be ignored or changed).

I'm pretty sure everybody in the thread agrees that the Eberron cosmology exists and is real within the setting. It's that the very idea of Eberron existing within the Great Wheel rather than being an independent universe has metaphysical and ontological implications for that setting that people don't like.

 

[Dire Bare]

I didn't make this up. Look at the below, from Eberron's book;

Eberron is part of the Great Wheel of the multiverse, as described in the Player's Handbook and the Dungeon Master's Guide. At the same time, it is fundamentally apart from the rest of the Great Wheel, sealed off from the other planes even while it's encircled by its own wheeling cosmology. Eberron's unique station in the multiverse is an important aspect of the world: its planes have profound and shifting influences on the Material Plane, and it is sheltered from the influences and machinations of gods and other powers elsewhere on the Great Wheel.

The planet of Eberron is the heart of its own Material Plane. It is surrounded by the Ring of Siberys. Beyond this band of dragonshards, twelve moons orbit the world. To date, no creature from Eberron has explored the moons, and none can say whether they are lifeless rocks or thriving worlds. Some sages believe that the moons are connected to the planes, or that they might even be physical extensions of the planes, but the truth of these assertions remains unknown.


Jeremy Crawford then clarifies the above text in this video, at about 24:30. At around 28, Crawford specifically mentions how Keith Baker devised how the Ring of Siberys separates Eberron from the multiverse with "little planes" to call their own. The Ring encircles the crystal sphere of Eberron, that shields it from the Great Wheel.

My above comment with images was my best attempt at collating the above two sources. If you don't consider this Crawford interview as serious that is your prerogative, but he does say this was devised jointly with Keith Baker, and it does seem like just a clarification of the text from Rising from the Last War.

To me, what's in print is "canon", and interviews with authors and designers are interesting and useful to get the intent behind the canon, but are not canon themselves. Of course ultimately, what is or isn't canon is decided by WotC. Which we are then free to use, ignore, or adapt as we feel!

But still, thanks for the links, the conversation between Tito and Crawford was interesting and informative on how WotC views Eberron in 5E!

However . . . I'm not pulling the same conclusions from that blub and interview that you are.

The Ring of Siberys protects and isolates Eberron from the greater D&D multiverse, Eberron has no direct connections to the planes of the Great Wheel. We can probably agree on that point. Crawford relates the ring to Eberron's crystal sphere, but IS the ring Eberron's crystal sphere? The 13 planes of Eberron were described in the interview as "mini-planes" and unique to Eberron's universe, while they could be finite (they are certainly more focused in theme), that doesn't necessarily mean they exist within Eberron's crystal sphere and exist within the material plane. There isn't really anything in the interview (at least, that I got) that changes the idea that Eberron's planes are outer planes floating in the Astral, but they are different planes than those on the Great Wheel.

Of course, whichever model you prefer is good. I personally don't care for the idea of outer planes within the material plane within more outer planes, it seems unnecessarily complicated and inelegant. And I'm not convinced this is how Baker, Crawford, and WotC view Eberron's place in the greater D&D cosmology.

And ultimately . . . I don't think it matters. You and I could play in an Eberron campaign together for years, and not realize we have different views on how exactly Eberron's cosmology is or isn't connected to the other D&D worlds. Heck, we could play in a Planescape campaign with the same result.

I don't think this is a problem that really needs an answer. The vague statement from Wayfinder's that you quoted is enough for me, really even more than I needed.

 

[DEFCON 1]

And if a person from Eberron learns the truth of their existence and place within the universe, whether by communing with the Progenitors or by being shown the truth by an interloper from another world, that would shatter their entire worldview.

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.

...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.

 

[Bolares]

It's that the very idea of Eberron existing within the Great Wheel rather than being an independent universe has metaphysical and ontological implications for that setting that people don't like.

Yeah, but our point is that it doesn't have to have those implications if the barrier never breaks.

 

[DEFCON 1]

stuff that happened on the novels interfered with tomb of anihilation... Artus Cimber, the ring of winter and all of that

Heh... well, I could get nitpicky and say that the Tomb of Annihilation isn't a "campaign guide" it's an adventure so I was still "technically" correct... but I'll willingly concede the point.

 

[Dire Bare]

Imagine you're at a coffee shop, enjoying your latte, minding your own business, when suddenly somebody runs up to you and starts proselytizing to you. You tell them that you're not interested in whatever religion they're selling, but then they reveal that they're Baha'i and argue that whatever you believe, Baha'i's got that covered, because really, all religions are just different stages of the revelation of Baha'ism, and are fundamentally the same in their reverence of God, and all the world's major religious icons were prophets of that God.

Except that you're a Buddhist and thus don't even believe in the existence of a capital-G God, much less the idea that Gautama Buddha was a misinterpreted prophet of said God rather than a perfectly enlightened being above all gods. And so you stare at them going "What the actual hell are you talking about?" Only for said God to have been the barista the entire time, watching your conversation and silently laughing at you, before showing you a vision with incontrovertible proof that everything you believed about the universe was wrong.

Doctorbadwolf's example of the Progenitor Dragons being "demoted" by being shoved into the Great Wheel is similar. If we take Eberron as standalone, the Progenitors created everything. They may have been literal god dragons, or they may be personifications of the abstract forces of creation, destruction, and transformation; but point is, they're top of the heap. But if we take Eberron as being one universe among many in the Great Wheel... well, we don't have the solid story of who created the universe; maybe it was Ahriman and Jazirian, maybe it was the interplay of the purest essences of Law, Chaos, Good, and Evil mixing together and reacting with each other, or maybe WotC's gonna retcon it in Fizban's as being Bahamut and Tiamat who created not just the Material Plane but everything; but point is, it wasn't the Progenitors. The Progenitors are now three powerful, but not all-powerful beings who rather than creating the entire universe decided to go to an existing, if empty corner of the universe and turn it into their playground. The story largely plays out the same as before: the Progenitors create the 13 planes, Siberys and Khyber argue, eventually Khyber kills Siberys but then Eberron imprisons Khyber, creating the planet Eberron; but the Progenitors in this scenario still have been demoted to a lower class of being. And if a person from Eberron learns the truth of their existence and place within the universe, whether by communing with the Progenitors or by being shown the truth by an interloper from another world, that would shatter their entire worldview.

So . . . this discussion is like being proselytized to? Um, okaaaay . . . .

Now, if I was having a conversation with a Baha'i friend about religion (and I do have a few), and we discussed how they view the universality of religion and how that differs from my own religious point of view . . . nah, I'd be okay. They can go on following and believing in their deal, and I'll go on believing in mine. Nothing to get upset or worked up over.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

To me, what's in print is "canon", and interviews with authors and designers are interesting and useful to get the intent behind the canon, but are not canon themselves. Of course ultimately, what is or isn't canon is decided by WotC. Which we are then free to use, ignore, or adapt as we feel!

But still, thanks for the links, the conversation between Tito and Crawford was interesting and informative on how WotC views Eberron in 5E!

However . . . I'm not pulling the same conclusions from that blub and interview that you are.

The Ring of Siberys protects and isolates Eberron from the greater D&D multiverse, Eberron has no direct connections to the planes of the Great Wheel. We can probably agree on that point. Crawford relates the ring to Eberron's crystal sphere, but IS the ring Eberron's crystal sphere? The 13 planes of Eberron were described in the interview as "mini-planes" and unique to Eberron's universe, while they could be finite (they are certainly more focused in theme), that doesn't necessarily mean they exist within Eberron's crystal sphere and exist within the material plane. There isn't really anything in the interview (at least, that I got) that changes the idea that Eberron's planes are outer planes floating in the Astral, but they are different planes than those on the Great Wheel.

Of course, whichever model you prefer is good. I personally don't care for the idea of outer planes within the material plane within more outer planes, it seems unnecessarily complicated and inelegant. And I'm not convinced this is how Baker, Crawford, and WotC view Eberron's place in the greater D&D cosmology.

And ultimately . . . I don't think it matters. You and I could play in an Eberron campaign together for years, and not realize we have different views on how exactly Eberron's cosmology is or isn't connected to the other D&D worlds. Heck, we could play in a Planescape campaign with the same result.

I don't think this is a problem that really needs an answer. The vague statement from Wayfinder's that you quoted is enough for me, really even more than I needed.

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.

 

[Bolares]

Heh... well, I could get nitpicky and say that the Tomb of Annihilation isn't a "campaign guide" it's an adventure so I was still "technically" correct... but I'll willingly concede the point.

WHAT? No nitpicking and technicalities to win an argument? Is this even enworld anymore???!

 

[Dire Bare]

I wouldn't even really agree with that... because any idea that novels were "metaplot" would imply that it should affect the game itself. But they don't... nothing that happens in any Forgotten Realms novel changes whatever the current campaign setting guide that people would use for their games. It wouldn't be until a follow-up setting guide got published that maybe something that happened in a novel would get referenced in the new book. But even that's unlikely. I mean take a look at the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide... how many of Elminster's exploits from all the novels he has been in are referenced even tangentially to what appears in that book? So for all intents and purposes... almost nothing Elminster has done has impacted the game's so-called "canon" or "metaplot". Thus it might as well not even exist.

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 . . .