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!"

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

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...

www.enworld.org

 

[Scribe]

Cam was responding to a bunch of awful responses to the new Dragonlance art.

We haven't even seen a bunch, have we?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

My point is that there are limits to the economics of media,

I will not argue that there are not limits, one of them is the IP holder, removing 1 limit doesn't remove ALL limits, but will still increase the number of things that can be made.

 

[Micah Sweet]

that was NOT my qustion if YOU PERSONALLY liked or disliked... have you ever heard a fan of the realms that complained one or more of those messed up the setting?

I liked the novels Prism Pentad not the adventures.

I have certainly heard of fans who didn't like those things. It doesn't change my stance. Again, value is subjective.

I never read or played the adventures, so I can't speak to the.. I assume there are fans who have problems with them.

 

[darjr]

We haven't even seen a bunch, have we?

I have. And I guess so has Cam.

Not here though.

Or is that what you meant?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I have certainly heard of fans who didn't like those things. It doesn't change my stance. Again, value is subjective.

again, so to THOSE fans that felt those changes messed up the setting they would have MUCH preferred a non additive setting

I never read or played the adventures, so I can't speak to the.. I assume there are fans who have problems with them.

I tried to play through the 1st one and on rails in an understatement, and I read the 2nd maybe 3rd and didn't like them either. Then again the 4e reimagining was great in my mind.

 

[Stormonu]

I liked the Time of Troubles (the Avatar trilogy and its sequels are the only FR novels I've read). I didn't care for the 4th ed changes or the Spellplague, but I accept that they happened.

I liked the Prism Pentad too, for the record. You can always start a DS campaign before that if you don't like it.

Conversely, I hate the Kenobi series. It may be additive, but I don't like what it adds. Same with things like the Time of Troubles (and all the subsequent Realm disasters) and the changes invoked upon Dark Sun by the Prism Pentad. I feel the same way about Greyhawk Wars, The Great Conjuction/The Grim Harvest for Ravenloft, and most especially The Chaos War and aftermath for DL.

In D&D, I don't like campaign worlds being changed out from underneath me and expecting me to incorporate those changes into my game - when my players have already taken things in a different direction. Especially when subsequent products are published that EXPECT you to have incorporated those events.

The only exception to that has been the recent Van Richten's, and only because I run Ravenloft as a "weekend in hell" and disconnecting the different realms made that easier for the way I run things (though I'm still disappointed with the changes to Lamordia).

 

[Micah Sweet]

Conversely, I hate the Kenobi series. It may be additive, but I don't like what it adds. Same with things like the Time of Troubles (and all the subsequent Realm disasters) and the changes invoked upon Dark Sun by the Prism Pentad. I feel the same way about Greyhawk Wars, The Great Conjuction/The Grim Harvest for Ravenloft, and most especially The Chaos War and aftermath for DL.

In D&D, I don't like campaign worlds being changed out from underneath me and expecting me to incorporate those changes into my game - when my players have already taken things in a different direction. Especially when subsequent products are published that EXPECT you to have incorporated those events.

The only exception to that has been the recent Van Richten's, and only because I run Ravenloft as a "weekend in hell" and disconnecting the different realms made that easier for the way I run things (though I'm still disappointed with the changes to Lamordia).

I get that, but to me, you can always set a game during a time period that didn't include the things you don't like, such FR pre-Time of Troubles, or Dark Sun pre-death of Kalakaua. Then your campaign can rocket off into its own alternate universe and everyone gets what they want.

The Ravenloft issue was that WotC suddenly said, "it used to be like this, but actually it's like this, and all that other stuff never happened". That a person might prefer the new way is immaterial to that objection.

 

[Umbran]

I will not argue that there are not limits, one of them is the IP holder, removing 1 limit doesn't remove ALL limits, but will still increase the number of things that can be made.

Yes, now the next step - the remaining limits are still stringent enough that Sturgeons Law does not guarantee a notable stream of good content on a single property, for any particular person's definition of "good".

The statistics of "90% of everything is crap," and the converse, "10% of everything is good" can be deceiving.

Sturgeon's law does not mean that, if you have 10 things, one of them will be good. It means that out of thousands or tens of thousands of things, maybe 10% are good. You need that population size of thousands to make the thing work out, to let the cream float to the top. If you have a dozen or twenty things, they can still easily all be crap. You are not going to get thousands of Batman movies just because the copyright runs out...

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes, now the next step - the remaining limits are still stringent enough that Sturgeons Law does not guarantee a notable stream of good content on a single property, for any particular person's definition of "good".

The statistics of "90% of everything is crap," and the converse, "10% of everything is good" can be deceiving.

Sturgeon's law does not mean that, if you have 10 things, one of them will be good. It means that out of thousands or tens of thousands of things, maybe 10% are good. You need that population size of thousands to make the thing work out, to let the cream float to the top. If you have a dozen or twenty things, they can still easily all be crap. You are not going to get thousands of Batman movies just because the copyright runs out...

Sounds like the Gambler's Ruin.

 

[Umbran]

Sounds like the Gambler's Ruin.

It has aspects of both the Gambler's Ruin, and the Gambler's Fallacy.

Most basically, you cannot apply statements made about large numbers, and apply them to situations with small numbers, and expect things to turn out.