D&D General What if the Wind Dukes of Aaqa were actually Djinn?

[Chaltab]

Of course, I was just talking about what the current lore is in D&D. I am all for making your own lore ( I do it myself), but I think it is interesting to know what the current lore is.

Currently in D&D , based on the descriptions in Fizban's and the DMG (at least):

1. What makes a God a God and not something else? "...worshiped by mortal creatures, able to grant cleric spells to their followers, and both ageless and immortal." and "...hail from the Outer Planes." (from FToD)
2. How is Asmodeus a God and an Arch-Devil? He is not. He is just an Archdevil with power like a lesser god: ..."Asmodeus is the supreme ruler of all devils and wields the power of a lesser god." (from 2014 MM & 2024 DMG)
3. Is Orcus a God named Tenebrous? We don't know for sure as I don't think Tenebrous is mentioned in 5e. However, I would guess demon lords fall into a similar category to archdevils and primordial dragons. Potentially god like, but not gods.
4. Were Moradin and Corellon et al mortal beings in the First World who became Gods? That does not appear to be the case based on the 5e lore in Fizban's and the DMG, but I wouldn't say we have definite info on this as I don't think these gods are mentioned by name in the Elegy of the First World. It appears the gods came from somewhere else: "...sing of the outsiders, war-bringer gods with their mortal adherents; Teeming, they came to the First World, seeking a home for their legions of followers." (From FToD). Notice the gods came seeking a home for their followers, not for themselves, and are outsiders to the first world.
5. Or are Gods a species of Celestial just with nigh-omnipotent power? That seems like a pretty good description based on item #1 above. Though it may not be whole accurate.

The First World stuff is still just mythology even in the canon. This is stuff that happened so long ago not even the gods themselves likely remember it clearly--it would be like making a coherent narrative out of a concert you sort of remember visiting when you were 10.

 

[Chaltab]

4e D&D has Zovvuts (former angles that have become elemental-type demons). The angels of Mal Arundak have also become demons.

So it seems that there could be angels that once were elemenal genies.

Zovvuts apparently originated in 3E and were more associated with Orcus.

There's a 5E version in Monster Manual Expanded 2 but it's mechanically pretty weak (only 85 HP at CR7?) and the lore is... uh...

 

[Amphytrion]

I think you are misunderstanding the text. Here is the quote from the DMG:

Bahamut (ba-HA-mutt) is one of the primordial dragons who (along with Tiamat) is said to have created the First World. For practical purposes, he is a god—ageless and immortal—who has dwelled in Mount Celestia (see chapter 6) since the destruction of the First World.

You don't say for "practical purposes, he is a god..." if he is explicitly a god. You would just say he is a god. This is the same language the use in Fizban's were they are even more explicit that they are not gods:

Bahamut and Tiamat, the primordial dragons and the purported creators of the First World, are the closest things to gods among dragonkind. Since they share the same fundamental connection to the Material Plane as their dragon offspring, Bahamut and Tiamat are ontologically distinct from the gods that hail from the Outer Planes. But for practical purposes, they are divine—worshiped by mortal creatures,

I think you are getting caught up on a distinction that both Fizban's and the DMG delineate about how humanoids and dragons see Bahamut and Tiamat. Dragons themselves aren't religious by nature, and see both as monarchs. This does not stop Humanoids from considering Bahamut and Tiamat gods, as the book also makes explicit. Both are (a) worshipped, (b) able to grant spells, and (c) ageless and immortal.

You seem to think that there is an additional requirement that gods must come from the Outer Planes, but that is not so. There is nothing in "Gods and Other Powers" within the DMG that dictates this -- in fact, Greyhawk's table of deities of deities disproves it wholesale (e.g. Beory is a greater goddess, and yet she is a planet in the Material Plane). Bahamut and Tiamat may be distinct from the gods that hail from the Outer Planes, but that doesn't mean they aren't themselves gods. The sentence from Fizban's you quote ("that hail from the Outer Planes") is a restrictive clause and simply qualifies the gods being referred to in that particular line (referred later as "gods of the Outer Planes", instead of simply "gods").

Here's more text from the Lore Glossary has to say about Bahamut and Tiamat:

• For Bahamut: "In the Dragonlance setting, where he is called Paladine (PAL-a-deen), he is the greatest of the gods of good. On other worlds, he is revered as a god of justice and nobility and is favored by Paladins."
• For Tiamat: "In the Dragonlance setting, where she is known as Takhisis (ta-KEE-sis), she is the greatest of the gods of evil. On many worlds, she is known as a god of greed, wealth, and vengeance."

This is almost word-for-word content from Fizban's ("Gods and Religion" section), which also refers to both as gods multiple times. Here are a few more instances:

Spoiler: Excerpts

• "Chapter 6 includes [...] aspects of the dragon gods" from the first page.
• "Various creation myths told on different worlds echo some of the themes and notions of this poem, particularly when they describe dragons or draconic gods being involved in creating the world." from the "The First World" section.
• "I revere and draw my power from one of the dragon gods—most likely Bahamut or Tiamat, but possibly Sardior" from the "Heroes of the Dragon" section;
• "To some dragons, this closing couplet of "Elegy for the First World" is [...] a call to recreate the original world of the dragon gods", from the "Inheritors of the First World" section.
• "Bahamut has made his home in the Seven Heavens of Mount Celestia and is often numbered among the gods of that plane", from Aspect of Bahamut.
• "a powerful follower of Bahamut who makes a tremendous sacrifice [...] might convince the god to send aid to the world in the form of a divine aspect", from Aspect of Bahamut.
• "Dragonborn champions advance the cause of their dragon god among draconic creatures and other folk alike.", from Dragonborn Champions.

The book explicitly traces that other greatwyrms are not gods ("Dragonsight" section), and could have done the same to Bahamut and Tiamat if it so wished.

The most recent release of 2024, Dragon Delves, does the same when referring to Bahamut in the "Creating a Campaign" section: "...the companions of the dragon god Bahamut, which is the patron's true identity"

Is Orcus a God named Tenebrous? We don't know for sure as I don't think Tenebrous is mentioned in 5e. However, I would guess demon lords fall into a similar category to archdevils and primordial dragons. Potentially god like, but not gods.

A separate issue, but Tenebrous is a Vestige, a remnant of a dead god, lying trapped in an amber sarcophagus according to Curse of Strahd, which also makes him a Dark Power (confirmed by name in Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft). We do know, however, that he was/is a god. The category of Vestiges was defined once more in the new DMG ("Vestiges are deities who have lost nearly all their worshipers").

 

[dave2008]

I think you are getting caught up on a distinction that both Fizban's and the DMG delineate about how humanoids and dragons see Bahamut and Tiamat. Dragons themselves aren't religious by nature, and see both as monarchs. This does not stop Humanoids from considering Bahamut and Tiamat gods, as the book also makes explicit. Both are (a) worshipped, (b) able to grant spells, and (c) ageless and immortal.

I agree, and you are as well. Almost all, likely all, references were Tiamat and Bahamut are described as "gods" (post FToD) are describing them from the humanoid perspective. In Fizban's (which we are free to ignore of course) it states that gods and primordial dragons are "ontologically distinct." Which, by definition, means they are beings of a different nature. Furthermore, that book explains the reason for that is their connection to the Outer Planes and the Material Plan respectively.

So we can of course disregarded what FToD says (I don't because it aligns with BECMI and how I view dragons in my home game world), but it clearly states primordial dragons and gods are different types of beings that are functionally the same (like convergent evolution). All references to them as gods, are in fact (per FToD) a simplification or misunderstanding of what they truly (ontologically) are. For me that is not only OK, but preferable. That doesn't mean it is for you or anyone else of course.

From FToD:

 

[dave2008]

A separate issue, but Tenebrous is a Vestige, a remnant of a dead god, lying trapped in an amber sarcophagus according to Curse of Strahd, which also makes him a Dark Power (confirmed by name in Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft). We do know, however, that he was/is a god. The category of Vestiges was defined once more in the new DMG ("Vestiges are deities who have lost nearly all their worshipers").

Thank you for that update. I didn't bring up Tenerbrous, but I am thankful to hear where he stands in the 5e lore.

 

[SkidAce]

I agree, and you are as well. Almost all, likely all, references were Tiamat and Bahamut are described as "gods" (post FToD) are describing them from the humanoid perspective. In Fizban's (which we are free to ignore of course) it states that gods and primordial dragons are "ontologically distinct." Which, by definition, means they are beings of a different nature. Furthermore, that book explains the reason for that is their connection to the Outer Planes and the Material Plan respectively.

So we can of course disregarded what FToD says (I don't because it aligns with BECMI and how I view dragons in my home game world), but it clearly states primordial dragons and gods are different types of beings that are functionally the same (like convergent evolution). All references to them as gods, are in fact (per FToD) a simplification or misunderstanding of what they truly (ontologically) are. For me that is not only OK, but preferable. That doesn't mean it is for you or anyone else of course.

From FToD:
View attachment 410890

In my mythos (as i think we've discussed before @dave2008 ) Tiamat (sumerian) is fundamentally connected to the original chaos, in which the elemental/inner planes formed, from which the material is formed, therefore connected to the Material, same as all dragons/primordials.

Gods formed with their connection to the Astral after the Chaos/Law war. The Astral was formed/created then because the creator being/god knew that gods (divine power) would be needed to help defend against the Void.

So for me the Vaati predate the Astral and having them be celestials (even potentially the first) wont fit.

I need to tweak their rise and empire to fit before gods, and have it include the formation/creation of genies, to which we have determined they are related. They acknowledge gods but don't worship them.

 

[Amphytrion]

I agree, and you are as well. Almost all, likely all, references were Tiamat and Bahamut are described as "gods" (post FToD) are describing them from the humanoid perspective. In Fizban's (which we are free to ignore of course) it states that gods and primordial dragons are "ontologically distinct." Which, by definition, means they are beings of a different nature. Furthermore, that book explains the reason for that is their connection to the Outer Planes and the Material Plan respectively.
So we can of course disregarded what FToD says (I don't because it aligns with BECMI and how I view dragons in my home game world), but it clearly states primordial dragons and gods are different types of beings that are functionally the same (like convergent evolution). All references to them as gods, are in fact (per FToD) a simplification or misunderstanding of what they truly (ontologically) are. For me that is not only OK, but preferable. That doesn't mean it is for you or anyone else of course.

From FToD:
View attachment 410890

I think you misinterpreted what I was saying (which may have been my fault, by making the response too long). I’m not ignoring Fizban’s at all. Fizban’s states:

“Bahamut and Tiamat are ontologically different from the gods that hail from the Outer Planes”.

Notice that the text does not say “Bahamut and Tiamat are ontologically different from gods”, period. It adds a qualifier, a restrictive clause, “the gods that hail from the Outer Planes”.

The text does not imply that all gods hail from the Outer Planes. We know for a fact that is not the case, and have plenty of evidence for this beyond just the dragon gods (Greyhawk’s table has plenty of examples).

This also does not mean that Bahamut and Tiamat aren’t gods — they evidently are, based on the abundance of language we have (including from Fizban’s itself, see quotes in prior response, but also from more recent material). We know humanoids worship them as gods, and that is the same language used in Corellon and Moradin’s respective entries.

What the text does tell us is that there is a subset of gods — again, not the entire swath of the divine — that hail from the Outer Planes. Bahamut and Tiamat are ontologically different from those that come from there, because they originate in the Prime Material, and this difference will lead to a series of metaphysical concepts Fizban’s introduces (e.g. dragonsight).

Of course, as you mention, we are free to ignore or change things as we’d like, but I don’t think that’s what either of us is doing — my impression is that we’re disagreeing on the meaning of the printed text.

EDIT: to fix some bizarre double quoting.

In my mythos (as i think we've discussed before @dave2008 ) Tiamat (sumerian) is fundamentally connected to the original chaos, in which the elemental/inner planes formed, from which the material is formed, therefore connected to the Material, same as all dragons/primordials.

Gods formed with their connection to the Astral after the Chaos/Law war. The Astral was formed/created then because the creator being/god knew that gods (divine power) would be needed to help defend against the Void.

So for me the Vaati predate the Astral and having them be celestials (even potentially the first) wont fit.

I need to tweak their rise and empire to fit before gods, and have it include the formation/creation of genies, to which we have determined they are related. They acknowledge gods but don't worship them.

SkidAce, does your cosmology allow for outsiders to change nature? (e.g. Zariel used to be a celestial, but is now a fiend, or Graz’zt used to be a devil, but is now a demon)

If so, maybe your Wind Dukes originated with the Elemental Planes, but were later “converted” to the cause of the Seven Heavens or its equivalent.

If you have Tharizdun/Elemental Evil as the stand in for the Void, that could have been the inciting cause for their realignment — a perversion of the Elemental Planes towards Chaotic Evil necessitates a balancing towards Lawful Good.

 

[dave2008]

I think you misinterpreted what I was saying (which may have been my fault, by making the response too long). I’m not ignoring Fizban’s at all. Fizban’s states:

“Bahamut and Tiamat are ontologically different from the gods that hail from the Outer Planes”.

Notice that the text does not say “Bahamut and Tiamat are ontologically different from gods”, period. It adds a qualifier, a restrictive clause, “the gods that hail from the Outer Planes”.

I disagree with your interpretation, but it ultimately doesn't matter and I will just agree to disagree. Thank you for taking the time to reply!

 

[dave2008]

In my mythos (as i think we've discussed before @dave2008 ) Tiamat (sumerian) is fundamentally connected to the original chaos, in which the elemental/inner planes formed, from which the material is formed, therefore connected to the Material, same as all dragons/primordials.

Gods formed with their connection to the Astral after the Chaos/Law war. The Astral was formed/created then because the creator being/god knew that gods (divine power) would be needed to help defend against the Void.

So for me the Vaati predate the Astral and having them be celestials (even potentially the first) wont fit.

I need to tweak their rise and empire to fit before gods, and have it include the formation/creation of genies, to which we have determined they are related. They acknowledge gods but don't worship them.

Traditionally I had adopted the Dawn War model with Primordials coming from the EC and Gods coming from AS and between them was the Void. The Primordials started to create in the void, the gods became fascinated, and eventual war broke out that resulted in the defeat of most of the primoridals and gods becoming rulers of the cosmos.

However, I always like how BECMI had dragons / dragon gods as something different from gods / immortals but never really thought about how to fit them in to the god vs primordials dichotomy.

Then Fizban's came with the Elegy of the First World which had a strong resemblance to the Dawn War, but from a draconic point of view. It also fit somewhat into the BECMI view of dragons and the Sumerian / Chaos idea of Tiamat. So currently I am developing a cosmos that incorporates all of these ideas, but I don't have it fully fleshed out. I am also debating if I should flesh it out or just leave it a bit mysterious and contradictory.

 

[SkidAce]

However, I always like how BECMI had dragons / dragon gods as something different from gods / immortals but never really thought about how to fit them in to the god vs primordials dichotomy.
. I am also debating if I should flesh it out or just leave it a bit mysterious and contradictory.

Both.