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.