| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| TomCosta |
Posted - 29 Jan 2022 : 16:38:59
So I kinda like the whole multiversal dragons with dragonsight idea for dragons in Fizban's. But it does pose some challenges with established dragon god lore, albeit existing lore was kind of a mess already without Fizban's. At first I thought it was a bigger problem than perhaps it is.
So based on Fizban's the only real dragon gods are Bahamut (and his avatars like Xymor), Tiamat (and her avatars like Tchazzar), and sorta Sardior (perhaps with Zorquan as a former avatar). OK, fine.
The rest are basically great wyrms with incredible dragon sight and of such power that they can basically act as gods (it does beg a whole discussion of what qualifies as a god--is it just an uber powerful being native to the outer planes, leaving primordials of the Inner Planes, darklords of Shadow, great old ones of the Far Realm, archfey of the Feywild, and great wyrms with dragon sight and primal spirits both of the Prime as something relatively equal in power but distinct?). The known "god" great wyrms in Fizban's include:
Aasterinian the brass "god" of invention, chaos, play, pleasure
Astilibor the topaz "god" of wealth and hoards
Chronepsis the black (although him having subsumed Faluzure works quite well with the whole Null concept in established lore so the three are one in the same) "god" of fate and death
Nathair the faerie (this one is odd since faerie dragons don't really have age categories like true dragons, but okay) "god" of humor and msichief
Lendys the silver "god" of justice and balance
Tamara the silver "fod" of life and mercy
That leave a few others that work easily:
Garyx the red "god" of destruction
Hlal the copper, although I could see her just being another aspect of Nathair (in disguise), although at one point she was seen as an aspect of Aasterinian before being separated out as separate again.
Task maybe the crystal? "god" of greed
Kereska/Arcanic (Council of Wyrms) frankly seems like an alias for Mystra/the weave although her having subsumed Kalzarenad opens some stories
Elementa (Council of Wyrms) could be any of a number of primordial beings or ignored
Since we don't really see Io/Asgorath or Zorquan, I'm thinking they fade into the concept of Ao or perhaps Zorquan was an avatar at one time of Sardior.
Then there are the other great wyrms we know about but have not as yet confused with gods, but many of their stories work well with the multiversal echos/dragon sight concepts posed in Fizban's, including
Ashardalon the red
Daurgolhath the black dracolich
Inferno the red
Tamarand the gold
Mauzkryll the black shadow dragon
Palarandusk the unique gold
Raulothim the emerald
You could also add in most of the 4E exarchs from the two 4E Draconomicons to this category.
Thoughts?
|
| 19 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 30 Jan 2022 : 17:10:51
quote:
Originally posted by Gary Dallison
Well having read up on Bahamu and Tiamat in depth using FR sources and core sources, I think the lore on Bahamut and Tiamat lines up much closer to archetypes than it does to gods.
Monster Mythology is a core source, but a lot of it was later specifically included in Realmslore. And Powers & Pantheons is a Forgotten Realms sourcebook. The lore explicitly names them as gods.
quote:
Originally posted by Gary Dallison
If you are looking to change things, rather than use 5e (which ignores most lore anyway), why not consider things that are already established.
Like it's established Realmslore that they're gods? That's what I'm considering -- established, canon Realmslore.
quote:
Originally posted by Gary Dallison
If I remember rightly ogb had Bahamut and Tiamat as quasi deities so not gods, immortal beings you could kill (sounds like an aspect to me). The multiple deaths and return of Tiamat adds supports aspect in my mind. The lack of worship of Bahamut and Tiamat for 30000 years and yet they survived also supports archetype more than deity.
The OGB has one mention of them and does not address their divinity.
quote:
Originally posted by Gary Dallison
It's worth exploration at the very least and it seems thematically similar to 5e stuff anyway, so why reinvent the wheel when it already exists.
That's been my question for a while. Why is this stuff being reinvented?
I'd not say that it's thematically similar to 5E stuff, since 5E has deities.
Really, the folks at WotC need to get away from this fixation on entities that are similar to but not exactly gods. All it does is complicate matters, especially when these entities can be so wildly different yet still fall into the same broad category. I've no objection to entities of different power levels and abilities; I'm just tired of this thing of "well, they can do X like a god, and Y like a god, and basically do everything a god can do -- but they're not a god." Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck -- but it's actually a snake.  |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 30 Jan 2022 : 17:08:53
quote:
Originally posted by TomCosta
That said, I'd kind of argue that the parallel dimension thing has always been there. All the multiversal gods who were the same but not the same like FR Tyr (god of justice)/Norse Tyr (god of war) or for that matter Bahamut/Paladine and Tiamat/Takhisis, and more recently FR Bane/4E Bane, not to mention whether the Mulhorandi are actually ancient Egyptians from our Earth or another version of our Earth. On top of that there are all the multispheric primarily nonhuman powers like the Seldarine or Mordinsammen. Then you get weirdness with creatures that cross the definitional streams if they matter. Is Lolth a goddess, a demon, an archfey or all three? Is Ghaunadaur a god, Great Old One, or something else even more multispheric. To me the game's multiverse/planes has always embraced these conundrums leaving us to sort out the apparent contradictions.
-It may just be semantics and splitting hairs based on our own personal understandings, but I would say there is a major difference between different worlds and different material planes. Standard default thinking, the Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Earth, they're all on the same plane, the same planar wavelength. An entity that exists on different worlds, and is different to varying degrees (how the Seldarine is presented in FR as opposed to Greyhawk, FR Tyr and Norse Tyr), no problems; The overarching god-like entity is the same glob of energy but is perceived differently in different places by the people there.
-Different material planes, you get stuff like what Marvel does with their What If? and Reality+Number stuff. Spider-Man, but he is a she; Spider-Man, but he's beloved; Spider-Man, but he's evil; Spider-Man, but he's a pig. They're the same entity, but different spins on the entity due to everyone existing on different planar wavelengths. Darkvision used the concept, and it got real weird. Ususi and Qari were the same individual but from different realities, Qari being Ususi from an alternate reality who was unequipped to confront Pandorym. In trying to manipulate time and make Qari the one that it would encounter instead of Ususi, Pandorym inadvertently caused the different realities to converge, causing Qari to be born and exist in the "default" Forgotten Realms in addition to Ususi.
-As I am understanding Dragonsight, it would be basically this, an entity existing on the "default" Material Plane interacting with an entity on an "alternate" Material Plane (who as it is described is actually him/her/itself technically). The one example we have of that in the Forgotten Realms that I can think of stuck out like a sore thumb (and personally, did not work at all). |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 30 Jan 2022 : 16:50:34
Well having read up on Bahamu and Tiamat in depth using FR sources and core sources, I think the lore on Bahamut and Tiamat lines up much closer to archetypes than it does to gods.
If you are looking to change things, rather than use 5e (which ignores most lore anyway), why not consider things that are already established.
If I remember rightly ogb had Bahamut and Tiamat as quasi deities so not gods, immortal beings you could kill (sounds like an aspect to me). The multiple deaths and return of Tiamat adds supports aspect in my mind. The lack of worship of Bahamut and Tiamat for 30000 years and yet they survived also supports archetype more than deity.
It's worth exploration at the very least and it seems thematically similar to 5e stuff anyway, so why reinvent the wheel when it already exists. |
| TomCosta |
Posted - 30 Jan 2022 : 16:25:17
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
Personally, I'd rather it that dragons DO NOT send their souls to the outer planes, or the plane of shadow, or even the elemental planes (which might make the most sense). I would prefer their spirits bond with the prime material to be reborn. To note, I say "the prime material" not "the crystal sphere". Though all these crystal spheres are separate, they are still a part of one prime material. How EXACTLY that connection occurs, we could probably postulate for years. Now I say that I would rather dragons spirits bond with the prime, and I would add a caveat... SOME dragons end up linking themselves to another plane. For instance, shadow dragons and dracoliches. When they become snuffed, something else happens to their spirits. They might, for instance, empower Null in the case of undead dragons. Shadow Dragons may just get reborn in another prime's mirror/shadowfell.
Love this idea Phillip. |
| TomCosta |
Posted - 30 Jan 2022 : 16:21:36
quote:
Originally posted by Gary Dallison
Bahamu and Tiamat have been described as archetypes multiple times over the editions. They are not nor ever were gods.
They were both made into gods or beings of divine power in 1e Deities and Demigods intro to nonhuman deities. While there was a little back and forth in 1e and 2e, but they've been gods more often than not. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 30 Jan 2022 : 15:32:43
quote:
Originally posted by Gary Dallison
Bahamu and Tiamat have been described as archetypes multiple times over the editions. They are not nor ever were gods. Hell Bahamut and Xymor are probably not the real name, nor is Tiamat or Nagamat, they were random dragons that exemplified everything about the archetypes and became a living representation of that archetype on toril.
Dragons dont worship, not in any numbers or devotion strong enough to sustain a god.
I'm happy with the dragon gods being little more than celestial servants of other beings. Tamar and Lendys are even described as platinum in colour so chances are they were just other representations of the archetype that were remembered.
The thing is that these representations (aspects) can be killed. So their soul goes to the outer planes and they can become celestial servants.
Humans are probably interpreting dragon activities from their own perspective so when a dragon honours the most famous examples of its race or those that identify with it, then humans think that is worship and these must therefore be gods.
Archetypes, not gods. Aspects, not avatars. It's always been that way. Perhaps there are more dragon archetypes than we know of and some of the other other remaining dragon gods are aspects of those archetypes (we have several death dragon gods so there is at least on candidate there, and I think several dragon magic gods).
Why do dragons have archetypes. Well that might be down to their link to the prime. They existed in the prime and so will always exist in all other material versions, and thus the archetype is from the prime and it's his job to propagate dragons of his type and creed. Not for worship but because the universe was supposed to have dragons
Except Bahamut and Tiamat have been EXPLICITLY stated to be gods. The first Draconomicon doesn't say whether they are deities or not, but it doesn't rule it out. However, Monster Mythology and Powers & Pantheons do call them gods.
So it has not "always" been that they are archetypes. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 30 Jan 2022 : 15:19:32
Personally, I'd rather it that dragons DO NOT send their souls to the outer planes, or the plane of shadow, or even the elemental planes (which might make the most sense). I would prefer their spirits bond with the prime material to be reborn. To note, I say "the prime material" not "the crystal sphere". Though all these crystal spheres are separate, they are still a part of one prime material. How EXACTLY that connection occurs, we could probably postulate for years. Now I say that I would rather dragons spirits bond with the prime, and I would add a caveat... SOME dragons end up linking themselves to another plane. For instance, shadow dragons and dracoliches. When they become snuffed, something else happens to their spirits. They might, for instance, empower Null in the case of undead dragons. Shadow Dragons may just get reborn in another prime's mirror/shadowfell. |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 30 Jan 2022 : 12:43:46
Bahamu and Tiamat have been described as archetypes multiple times over the editions. They are not nor ever were gods. Hell Bahamut and Xymor are probably not the real name, nor is Tiamat or Nagamat, they were random dragons that exemplified everything about the archetypes and became a living representation of that archetype on toril.
Dragons dont worship, not in any numbers or devotion strong enough to sustain a god.
I'm happy with the dragon gods being little more than celestial servants of other beings. Tamar and Lendys are even described as platinum in colour so chances are they were just other representations of the archetype that were remembered.
The thing is that these representations (aspects) can be killed. So their soul goes to the outer planes and they can become celestial servants.
Humans are probably interpreting dragon activities from their own perspective so when a dragon honours the most famous examples of its race or those that identify with it, then humans think that is worship and these must therefore be gods.
Archetypes, not gods. Aspects, not avatars. It's always been that way. Perhaps there are more dragon archetypes than we know of and some of the other other remaining dragon gods are aspects of those archetypes (we have several death dragon gods so there is at least on candidate there, and I think several dragon magic gods).
Why do dragons have archetypes. Well that might be down to their link to the prime. They existed in the prime and so will always exist in all other material versions, and thus the archetype is from the prime and it's his job to propagate dragons of his type and creed. Not for worship but because the universe was supposed to have dragons |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 30 Jan 2022 : 01:54:15
quote:
Originally posted by Seethyr
I get the feeling that this whole “First World” concept (First introduced in Tasha’s, I believe) is really being pushed in D&D as the new unifying theory of the Prime. Since it doesn’t conflict all that much with Planescape-isms I don’t despise it but I think they are having issues shoehorning 50 years of lore into it. It’s coming out as wonky and like trying to force a square block into a round hole. I do appreciate the attempt though, I’ve always hoped for some type of consolidated theory of the multiverse.
I mean, over the last decades it is certainly weird that concepts that appear on one world also appear in another with such frequency. Dragons are just one of these things.
The theory I came up with a while ago -- long before this multiversal thing was thrown into the D&D mix -- was that there were many, many layers of the Prime Material Plane, much like a lot of other planes have multiple layers. And somewhere, there is -- or was -- the original, first layer of the Prime. A lot of layers of the Prime share features -- and critters -- because these things were all in that original, first layer, which became sort of a template for all the other layers.
Thus, you have dragons and elves and magic in most layers of the Prime, because they were part of the first layer.
This follows existing Planescape models, and also gives us an explanation for how Toril and Oerth and Krynn could all be part of the Prime, and yet have different physical and magical laws. It also explains how almost every campaign world connects to the same planes as every other campaign world: because all those planes touch the Prime, and each campaign world is its own layer of the Prime.
And it doesn't require bolting on a sci-fi/comic book concept and incorporating the plot of a Jet Li movie. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 30 Jan 2022 : 01:39:51
quote:
Originally posted by TomCosta
Wooly, you dislike it so much you posted twice! :-)
Oops! 
Not sure how that happened... |
| Zeromaru X |
Posted - 30 Jan 2022 : 00:25:58
quote:
Originally posted by TomCosta
Since we don't really see Io/Asgorath or Zorquan, I'm thinking they fade into the concept of Ao or perhaps Zorquan was an avatar at one time of Sardior.
Io is mentioned in the Greyhawk section on the first chapter, as having sacrificed his existence to the creation of the multiverse. This comes from the 3.x myth that Io shed his blood to give "potential" to the creation of things (the First Void myth mentioned in Monster Mythology from 2e, IIRC).
Then we have the Dawn War myth, in which Io is killed by Erek-Hus the King of Terror (one of the primordials), who cleaved Io in twain. However, from the halves of Io, Bahamut and Tiamat were created. While this myth originated in 4e, the myth is also mentioned in the SCAG (in the dragonborn section), making it not only canon for 5e but also Realmslore. So, in the new 5e lore, Io is dead and reborn as Bahamut and Tiamat. I guess this could explain the origins of those two, that are left in the air in Fizban's.
|
| TomCosta |
Posted - 30 Jan 2022 : 00:09:19
Agree Philip. Definitely them. I'd probably include other great wyrms that had CRs above 30 in 3E too. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 29 Jan 2022 : 21:38:06
I'd say take anyone that had the dragon ascendant prestige class in Dragons of Faerun for 3.5e and say they're on this path. That would include Maldraedior the Millenium Dragon, who ironically may have gone to Abeir in the spellplague and "Met his other self". We might even find that his attempt to ascend helped transfer Unther. |
| TomCosta |
Posted - 29 Jan 2022 : 20:23:40
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
-I did not know what this ability was until I looked it up a few second ago. I am wondering now, why was this given to them? What is the point? Aboleth or Mindflayers, OK I can see it, but Dragons? However powerful, being able to break planar rifts (or whatever you'd call it) doesn't really come to mind when you think Dragons.
-That said, I agree with Wooly in that I'm not too big of a fan of parallel dimension kinda stuff. Darkvision got super weird because of that. In a setting where that kinda stuff is more common/accepted/built in, like comics, cool, it works, but in the Forgotten Realms specifically, it sticks out like a sore thumb since parallel dimensions and "what if" realities aren't really something that were ever really featured in any kind of meaningful way in the settling.
FWIW, in Fizban's it suggests the dragons are tied to the Prime such that there may be echos of them across multiple Primes not to across other planes.
That said, I'd kind of argue that the parallel dimension thing has always been there. All the multiversal gods who were the same but not the same like FR Tyr (god of justice)/Norse Tyr (god of war) or for that matter Bahamut/Paladine and Tiamat/Takhisis, and more recently FR Bane/4E Bane, not to mention whether the Mulhorandi are actually ancient Egyptians from our Earth or another version of our Earth. On top of that there are all the multispheric primarily nonhuman powers like the Seldarine or Mordinsammen. Then you get weirdness with creatures that cross the definitional streams if they matter. Is Lolth a goddess, a demon, an archfey or all three? Is Ghaunadaur a god, Great Old One, or something else even more multispheric. To me the game's multiverse/planes has always embraced these conundrums leaving us to sort out the apparent contradictions. |
| TomCosta |
Posted - 29 Jan 2022 : 20:13:25
More seriously, it boils down (to me at least) to the distinction between the definition of god and not god. In D&D we've been able to kill gods from pretty much the beginning as they've been given stats and have died, often being replaced by mortals, whether the Dead Three, Midnight, Kelemvor, Finder, or whomever. Not to mention those that ascended with or without help or became nearly gods like Fzoul and Obould (which I hated in 4E but taken in the scope of all the other deific shenanigans should probably be fine.) So gods or primordials or primal spirits or archfey or shadowlords or demon princes or archdevils or great old ones, or great wyrms (we even had the ascended prestige class for dragons in 3E), etc. are all gods to regular folk, so this change seems less obtrusive to the lore than I originally thought of it.
I like the idea of Ao as the primal spirit (one of the only 4E lore additions I liked) of Realmspace, so Ao as also Asgorath (at least among dragons), the world shaper in FR (and even for that matter Elementa from Council of Wyrms) and to the extent there are echos, as Io, creator of the multiverse, works oddly well.
Also the idea that Sardior could also be Zorquan works. In Fizban's Sardior is created by Bahamut and Tiamat together and in turn helps them create the metallic and chromatic dragons. Zorquan as the god of dragonness works in this case.
That's my two cents at least, but totally get some hate this lore addition. As with most editions (especially 4th), can't say I love some of the changes, but this one I can get behind.
|
| TomCosta |
Posted - 29 Jan 2022 : 19:42:03
Wooly, you dislike it so much you posted twice! :-) |
| Seethyr |
Posted - 29 Jan 2022 : 18:22:10
I get the feeling that this whole “First World” concept (First introduced in Tasha’s, I believe) is really being pushed in D&D as the new unifying theory of the Prime. Since it doesn’t conflict all that much with Planescape-isms I don’t despise it but I think they are having issues shoehorning 50 years of lore into it. It’s coming out as wonky and like trying to force a square block into a round hole. I do appreciate the attempt though, I’ve always hoped for some type of consolidated theory of the multiverse.
I mean, over the last decades it is certainly weird that concepts that appear on one world also appear in another with such frequency. Dragons are just one of these things. |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 29 Jan 2022 : 17:36:29
-I did not know what this ability was until I looked it up a few second ago. I am wondering now, why was this given to them? What is the point? Aboleth or Mindflayers, OK I can see it, but Dragons? However powerful, being able to break planar rifts (or whatever you'd call it) doesn't really come to mind when you think Dragons.
-That said, I agree with Wooly in that I'm not too big of a fan of parallel dimension kinda stuff. Darkvision got super weird because of that. In a setting where that kinda stuff is more common/accepted/built in, like comics, cool, it works, but in the Forgotten Realms specifically, it sticks out like a sore thumb since parallel dimensions and "what if" realities aren't really something that were ever really featured in any kind of meaningful way in the settling. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 29 Jan 2022 : 17:08:56
I utterly abhor the multiversal dragons and dragonsight ideas. I don't think it fits a fantasy setting, and it certainly isn't something that should only apply to dragons. Dragons are already the most prominent non-divine entities, as it is -- why bolt on an ill-fitting sci-fi/comic book concept on top of the magic and near-immortality and breath weapons and claws and armor-like scales and all that? |
|
|
