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

 

[Scribe]

Well well well...

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

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?

 

[Azzy]

I just dont understand how that can be the reading.

Its not saying, get the core 3 + setting. Its not about prior lore at all.

"The Core 3 are the only public facing canon."

For their "fellow creators and business partners". Context is key.

 

[Bolares]

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.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

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?

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

That's complete trash.

Or complete genius depending on your POV.

 

[Scribe]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.