Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="dave2008" data-source="post: 9701000" data-attributes="member: 83242">I agree, and you are as well. Almost all, likely all, references&nbsp; were Tiamat and Bahamut are described as &quot;gods&quot; (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 &quot;ontologically distinct.&quot; 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:[ATTACH=full]410890[/ATTACH]</blockquote>

[QUOTE="dave2008, post: 9701000, member: 83242"] 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: [ATTACH type="full" alt="1752077736213.png"]410890[/ATTACH] [/QUOTE]

Verification