Dragonlance WotC Officially Confirms Takhisis and Tiamat Are The Same

It's been an issue in dispute for decades, over various editions of D&D, but WotC has officially confirmed that - at least in 5E - Dragonlance's Takhisis is, indeed, currently Tiamat. In previous editions, Tiamat has varied from being a big dragon to a minor goddess, while Takhisis has been a greater god on Krynn. At times they've been the same entity, and at others different entities. Today, WotC is putting its foot down and saying that Takhisis and Tiamat are, indeed, the same being.

Of course, this is not an opinion universally held. Dragonlance co-creator Margaret Weis emphatically stated that "TAKHISIS IS NOT TIAMAT, DAMN IT!"

Screen Shot 2022-11-17 at 12.19.14 AM.png

Fizban's Treasuryof Dragons confirms that the beings echo across various settings.

Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Russ Morrissey

Russ Morrissey

log in or register to remove this ad

Is this about Takhisis and Tiamat being one and the same (and Paladine and Bahamut)? Pretty sure that was mentioned back in 1e. I tend to keep them separate but officially, they've been the same for ages.
Yeah, this isn't anything new.

They said it in both 1e and 2e works repeatedly.

They downplayed it/ignored it in 3e and later, as the broader D&D multiverse got downplayed in official works, but indeed they've said it before.

If anything, this is the first time in about a quarter century they've said it.


I think it really got confusing in 2e, when I was getting into planescape and how gods could be multisphere but different power levels, and if defeated and driven out of one crystal sphere, they were unaffected in other spheres. It was hard for me to wrap my head around since in Krynn they're greater gods, everywhere else they were lesser gods.

I also think that, while Takhisis and Paladine were taken from Tiamat and Bahamut as the basis for their gods, Dragonlance very much had its own cosmology which was unrelated to the standard great wheel (or whatever it was called in 1e). You could see that they were based on the original dragon gods based on their appearance and also (in 2e at least) their alternate names, Tii'mhut and Bah'mut.

Micah Sweet

Yes, cause it was clearly based on Tiamat. Also pretty sure Tracey Hickman had just as much involvement. Now he also would probably not agree with Tiamat and Takhisis being the same being. But the official story is that they are.
Legally, they definitely are. And I like Planescape, which equated the two, so it doesn't really matter to me. But it does seem unnecessary for WotC to make a definite stand over the wishes of one of the creators of the setting. What exactly do they hope to gain by this?

Micah Sweet

Perhaps provide an evergreen, unified and cohesive cosmology and/or mythology. Their present multiverse focus, Spelljammer and Planescape and "one d&d" all point to it, no?
So marketing. That's definitely worth irritating the co-creator of a setting they're currently trying to re-sell to its fans.

Visit Our Sponsor

An Advertisement