| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| chargerrich |
Posted - 07 Jan 2024 : 16:27:26
I have completed my history profile on the Tearfall event, thank you to everyone that gave such great insight on the Spellplague impacts.
Now I am moving on to the Dawn Age/Time of Dragons and my first desire is to fully and completely understand the relationship of Asgorath to Io and his proper place in the draconic pantheon now that 5e seems to be taking the path of least resistance in their "First World" principle.
I think Asgorath/Io was really done dirty by 4e... so mishandled.
But I digress... I seek to to answer five questions:
1. Did Io exist as a separate entity before Asgorath and Io were conflated in the 1998 resource Cult of the Dragon?
And I am aware Asgorath was introduced as the world shaper in 2e Draconomicon (1990), did Io exist as a god/entity before their 1998 conflation and if so can you point me to any info or sources to review? I know the "canon" now says they are one and the same but I get the sneaking suspicion that they have been merged at some point as a retcon.
2. According to 4e retcon, Io (and by proxy Asgorath?) the "Creator of Dragonkind and the Universe" (from the lens of dragons) was unceremoniously cut in half by a primordial, giving rise to Tiamat and Bahamut.
The sheer laziness of this 4e lore aside... How does one reconcile that Asgorath (who were are told "officially" is an alias for Io used by non-dragonkind) is named as present millennia later during the Tearfall but now as a primordial (and as a female now... smh).
The Tearfall lore does not provide any direct fate for Asgorath after his impact on the event (pun intended), but perhaps one can indirectly and logically project/assume unofficially that Asgorath "the primordial" was shipped off to Abeir where the former draconic deity now enslaved dragons as a primordial, only to be killed by the uprising as part of the "War of Fang and Talon".
3. If somehow number 2 can be resolved, does it make any logical sense to use the "by design bias of religious dogma" to posit that Io was not killed in the Dawn War by Erek-Hus, that was his Avatar/Aspect and the origin story for Tiamat and Bahamut is simply false, allowing one to fall back to the much more plausible official origin story that they were children born/created by Asgorath/Io along with Null (or Vorel if you choose)?
4. Are we to assume with the "First World" principal first introduced in Tasha's Cauldron and now fleshed out in Fizban's Treasury that Asgorath/Io is simply being erased by Wizards in favor of the - again lazy - retcon that Bahamut and Tiamat created everything?
I know that we can do whatever we wish in our own world building but I really feel like 5e is tired of paying for the sins of 4e and just gave up trying to reconcile properly and instead just white washed the whole thing. I'd like to be wrong, but suspect I am not. |
| 10 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Zeromaru X |
Posted - 08 Jan 2024 : 19:41:23
quote:
Originally posted by ericlboyd
Io was first introduced in Monster Mythology (May 1992).
Asgoroth was first introduced in Draconomicon (October 1990).
Cult of the Dragon was published after both (January 1998). Since they were so similar, I combined them into one deity. My bias was towards using the name Asgoroth, as that's the more Realmsian name.
Oh, so, it was you. I was under the impression it was Ed Greenwood. Sorry. I also think that idea is good. If gods are supposed to be real, it's only logical that they may be known with different names across different cultures, not to talk about different worlds. |
| Zeromaru X |
Posted - 08 Jan 2024 : 19:24:05
quote:
Originally posted by chargerrich
That said, if anyone is willing I would still like to confirm a few things:
Question 1. Confirm that Io was first "introduced" in the Cult of the Dragon 1998 where he was conflated with Asgorath and that there are no previous official mentions of him.
Question 4. Confrm that Asgorath/Io as part of the 5e "First World" is mentioned as sacrificing himself to create Tiamat and Bahamut but is now a "dead god" who is retconned to not create dragonkind as was canonical across many past sourcebooks?
Which I guess also means the previous lore of the First Void and Shadow Void creation mythology would be further relegated to draconic fables/views (which they mostly always were... so no harm)
Thank you.
Sure, we can agree to disagree. As for your questions:
Q1: Io was first introduced to D&D in Monster Mythology (1992), but seems to have been conflated with Asgorath when Ed became involved in Planescape (so, around 1994-1995) [Edit: Eric Boyd has already clarified the issue]. The Io/Asgorath equivalency became canon Realmslore in Cult of the Dragon (1998).
Q4: Seems to be the idea, yes. Or at least, that's how the Oerthian sages interpreted the "Elegy for the First World" myth. We don't exactly know how he created Bahamut and Tiamat in this myth, however. If Io/Asgorath is the creator of Bahamut and Tiamat in this myth, then we can say that he created dragons as well, even if indirectly. Notice that Sardior seems to be Bahamut and Tiamat's child in this myth, nodding to the myth of Vorel and how Io intended for Bahamut and Tiamat to reproduce, lol
On the other hand, notice that the "Elegy for the First World" it's also presented as draconic myth/view in the book. Just older (lorewise) than the most commonly known traditions. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 08 Jan 2024 : 17:14:08
Still reading through this thread, but I will add one thing that over time I've pretty much decided that I like the best.
We're told that Primordials used dragons as "mounts" and then the dragons on Abeir turned on the Primordials. Then the primordials in Abeir started to "go to sleep".
Deities use avatars. Avatars are NOT all alike, which people have started to forget. During the ToT, an "avatar" was PRIMARILY a mortal being who allowed (at least I do believe it required consent... someone correct if wrong) a deity to have primary control of their body. At other times, an "avatar" is a magically made body using divine power that a god creates in order to enact some goal. At other times, an "avatar" may even reside in an artifact (such as what Mask did with the sword Godsbane). We also have this concept of "incarnations" of gods (ala the Mulan godkings) which are seemingly similar to the magically created avatar bodies, except that they become wholly separate from their outer planar presence that originally created them.
From 4e we also know that primordials can also have followers, just like gods... so within the same edition that primordials were released (this was in Heroes of the Elemental Chaos)
Some primordials are revered as deities by mortals and are counted as members of pantheons. Even though these entities are not divine in nature, they bestow elemental powers on their priests and are venerated by hosts of mortal followers. Primordials that have been wholly transformed or consumed by the Abyss are not included in this list. Creatures such as Demogorgon, Orcus, and Baphomet are more properly described as demon lords, not primordials.
Our natural inclination is to picture these primordials using dragons as mounts literally. So, a dragon with some great being of fire on its back, as an example. But, this could easily be said to be a bad interpretation of language after literally thousands of years of time passing. What if there were great dragons who were being "ridden" like a ToT "avatar" by a primordial..... in some respects like Tyranthraxus "the Possessing Spirit" that took control of a dragon for the Pool of Radiance ... and is sometimes noted as one of the Seven Lost Gods.
So, it very much could have been a thing that primordials were inhabiting dragons... and the conflation of Asgorath/Asgoroth with Io may have been the result of there being a primordial named Asgorath/Asgoroth inhabiting the "body" of Io (and this body of Io may have even been an "incarnation" similar to the mulan gods... nothing says that an incarnation can't be hijacked by a powerful entity as well... some even wonder if Gilgeams changes were due to Bane hijacking him). I know we think of primordials as physical beings only that walk around, but that does NOT mean that they can't put their intellect into another being while their "body" lies elsewhere. For instance, it could easily be a primordial of cold lying in the underdark or the ocean and inhabiting the body of say a white dragon. Also, the batrachi "releasing" the primordials just might have been breaking some kind of thing that prevented primordials from doing this and them suddenly reaching out and seizing control of dragons or somesuch.
If this were the case, then the "war of fang and talon" on Abeir might have been "freed dragon attacking still controlled dragon". Then perhaps in Abeir there was some restriction placed that prevented the primordials from using this power to seize control of new beings if the prior dies ... or some other sort of handwavium. |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 08 Jan 2024 : 15:06:29
Eric also published the last released book on all things divine (Faiths and Pantheons) which clearly stated gods from different spheres where completely unrelated despite any similarities in name or form.
Which lends itself to either the spontaneous creation of similar gods at different times in different worlds, or that elder beings have seeded different worlds with their likeness using aspects.
Or at least thats my interpretation for how such a scenario could be possible |
| ericlboyd |
Posted - 08 Jan 2024 : 13:17:51
Io was first introduced in Monster Mythology (May 1992).
Asgoroth was first introduced in Draconomicon (October 1990).
Cult of the Dragon was published after both (January 1998). Since they were so similar, I combined them into one deity. My bias was towards using the name Asgoroth, as that's the more Realmsian name. |
| chargerrich |
Posted - 08 Jan 2024 : 13:03:13
quote:
Originally posted by chargerrich
I know that we can do whatever we wish in our own world building but I really feel like 5e is tired of paying for the sins of 4e
Well, my post confirms that you didn't actually read the 4e sources and just invented your own "actual 4e facts (they are true because I say so)" just to shit on 4e, but sure, whatever you say, champion.
[/quote]
I seem to have touched a nerve... and for that I apologize.
It was not my intent, although I will concede my bias against 4e was pretty obvious in my OP it was more a stream of thought than an active and pre-planned attack.
While you clearly seem to be a SME on 4e, I do own most of the books and have read many cover to cover. In fact I just finished re-reading the Last Bastion story (Mahalarak) from Planes Above last week for some world building in my campaign setting.
I was well aware that 4e (as well as 2e/3e) has the draconic deity alive, I was simply positing some alternative/logical theories with respect to the War of Fang and Talon following the Sundering of Abeir-Toril but thank you for your responses nonetheless.
In any event, I do not recall ever "inventing my own actual 4e facts" as you say, I was simply stating that as a world builder at your table, you can address the many changes and retcons (from any version) to build your own lore to fit your campaign, which I can confidently say is not an original idea or an abnormal practice for the vast majority of builders, GMs and lore fans.
I came to the forum to ask 4 questions so that I could best understand the pretty obscure and tangled history of Asgorath/Io, not get in a pissing match over a version of the game that clearly you and I would disagree on.
Regardless I thank you for the non snarky parts of your response, have apologized for any inflammatory bias against 4e and hope we can agree to disagree on its status in the pantheon of D&D and move on. 
That said, if anyone is willing I would still like to confirm a few things:
Question 1. Confirm that Io was first "introduced" in the Cult of the Dragon 1998 where he was conflated with Asgorath and that there are no previous official mentions of him.
Question 4. Confrm that Asgorath/Io as part of the 5e "First World" is mentioned as sacrificing himself to create Tiamat and Bahamut but is now a "dead god" who is retconned to not create dragonkind as was canonical across many past sourcebooks?
Which I guess also means the previous lore of the First Void and Shadow Void creation mythology would be further relegated to draconic fables/views (which they mostly always were... so no harm)
Thank you.
|
| Zeromaru X |
Posted - 07 Jan 2024 : 20:19:20
quote:
Originally posted by chargerrich
1. Did Io exist as a separate entity before Asgorath and Io were conflated in the 1998 resource Cult of the Dragon?
And I am aware Asgorath was introduced as the world shaper in 2e Draconomicon (1990), did Io exist as a god/entity before their 1998 conflation and if so can you point me to any info or sources to review? I know the "canon" now says they are one and the same but I get the sneaking suspicion that they have been merged at some point as a retcon.
Well, the earliest mention of Io I could find in official sources was Monster Mythology (1992), which means that the concept of Asgorath may predate the concept of Io. However, notice that the Asgorath mentioned in Draconomicon (2e) seems to be another name for Tiamat (page 4), and wasn't yet associated to the creator of dragonkind.
To have also into consideration, the concept of Asgorath/Io being a single entity was a creation of Ed Greenwood for Planescape, were Asgorath/Io represent the concept of the multiverse. You can read more here: https://twitter.com/TheEdVerse/status/1225010688743084032
quote:
Originally posted by chargerrich
2. According to 4e retcon, Io (and by proxy Asgorath?) the "Creator of Dragonkind and the Universe" (from the lens of dragons) was unceremoniously cut in half by a primordial, giving rise to Tiamat and Bahamut.
The sheer laziness of this 4e lore aside... How does one reconcile that Asgorath (who were are told "officially" is an alias for Io used by non-dragonkind) is named as present millennia later during the Tearfall but now as a primordial (and as a female now... smh).
The Tearfall lore does not provide any direct fate for Asgorath after his impact on the event (pun intended), but perhaps one can indirectly and logically project/assume unofficially that Asgorath "the primordial" was shipped off to Abeir where the former draconic deity now enslaved dragons as a primordial, only to be killed by the uprising as part of the "War of Fang and Talon".
Well, if you had actually read the 4e lore, something that going by what you say, it's clear you didn't, you may have noticed that the lore is more complicated that what you think. However, to be fair, the real problem of 4e lore is that it is scattered in a lot of sources and you have to do an exhaustive research to piece stuff together.
First thing first: Take into account that this all mythology and legends, and we aren't really sure of what it's actually true and what was distorted by legends and generations of passing down those legends, with the broken phone effect that this entails. Even Ed Greenwood has said that (https://imgur.com/a/g5bT6gh).
With that out of the way, let's go by pieces, as Jack the Ripper used to say:
1. Why is Io conflated with Asgorath? (from the Watsonian 4e PoV).
While the actual origins of Io are not referred to in 4e, Io is always seen as one of the original gods (4e Monster Manual and Draconomicons). However, some sages believe that the fact that Io created the dragons with a balance favoring elemental power instead of astral essence, is a sign of Io claiming authority over the primordials (Heroes of the Elemental Chaos, p.17), something that fomented hatred among the primordials, who were already pissed at the gods for their interference in the creation of the mortal reality, and all this helped to brew the conflict later known as the Dawn War (the conflict that predates the Tearfall by many eons).
So, this may be the reason later Realms sages considered Asgorath as one of the primordials, as Io may have claimed authority (and perhaps even kinship) with them, according to some interpretations of the legends.
2. In 4e, Io/Asgorath is still alive.
Not only Asgorath is stated as "alive" in the chart about the current status of the primordials (Heroes of the Elemental Chaos, page 32), but also the lore of mythral dragons states they still commune with Io, and recieve visions and stuff from him, eons after his presumed dead (4e Draconomicon 2, p.34). Also, Draconomicon 2 also states that Io dying and its corpse becoming Bahamut and Tiamat is just one legend about the rise of Bahamut and Tiamat, but there are many legends about that, not just that one. Other legends state Io created Bahamut and Tiamat way before the Dawn War (4e Draconomicon 2, p.6).
Notice that this is not the only edition where Io dies to create something and resurrects later as if nothing. Draconomicon 2e has Asgorath dying to destroy Zotha and create dragons, resurrecting later; Council of Wyrms (2e) has Io killing himself to create the Blood Chain Islands and then returning to life later to check what the dragons were doing with the islands; while one of the legends presented in Races of the Dragon (3.5e) also implies Io killed himself to give potential to then multiverse to be created and later resurrected. This legend is referenced in Fizban's Treasury of Dragons (5e), in the section about Greyhawk's interpretation of the "Elegy of the First World". Death and rebirth seems to be a common theme of Io's mythology in all editions.
quote:
Originally posted by chargerrich
3. If somehow number 2 can be resolved, does it make any logical sense to use the "by design bias of religious dogma" to posit that Io was not killed in the Dawn War by Erek-Hus, that was his Avatar/Aspect and the origin story for Tiamat and Bahamut is simply false, allowing one to fall back to the much more plausible official origin story that they were children born/created by Asgorath/Io along with Null (or Vorel if you choose)?
Yes, indeed. Even the 4e sources present this as mythology, not as actual truth.
quote:
Originally posted by chargerrich
4. Are we to assume with the "First World" principal first introduced in Tasha's Cauldron and now fleshed out in Fizban's Treasury that Asgorath/Io is simply being erased by Wizards in favor of the - again lazy - retcon that Bahamut and Tiamat created everything?
As I said before, Io is mentioned in Fizban's, but yes, this is an obvious retcon on WotC's part. Notice that they may want to give more relevance to Bahamut and Tiamat because they are the original gods of D&D, predating any other D&D gods since the origins of the game (they debuted in Suplement I: Greyhawk, from 1975).
quote:
Originally posted by chargerrich
I know that we can do whatever we wish in our own world building but I really feel like 5e is tired of paying for the sins of 4e
Well, my post confirms that you didn't actually read the 4e sources and just invented your own "actual 4e facts (they are true because I say so)" just to shit on 4e, but sure, whatever you say, champion. |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 07 Jan 2024 : 17:27:34
For 2 I think io could have sent an aspect yo torilspace a long time before the tearfall. He would have had no indication of what was happening in that universe because he had no connection to it and no worshippers.
It's like the old gods sent out little versions of themselves to far flung universes to populate them with potential worshippers. After that point they don't really care what happens until the point that the aspect ascends to godhood. If the original deity then finds out about his aspect he gobbles him up and gains access to that world and all the power he acquired.
It's one way to explain why tiamat existed as nagamat, tiamat, and the dark lady at different times but also with some overlap (specifically between tiamat and the dark lady)
There is some support for the idea of an ancient universe in the old original dnd boxed sets, which is then backed up by 5e and its first world concept.
I just take it further. The first world was destroyed, some of these elder gods survived and seeded the now fractured multiverse with their aspects to propagate themselves and gain access to worlds in which they were unknown (no worshippers, no power). That's why so many worlds have different but similar origin stories for the different races and why they have a similar but not identical mix of races.
The dawn War happened in the first world, but bits of it carried on when the universe fractured into the multuverse.
Just my theory though |
| chargerrich |
Posted - 07 Jan 2024 : 17:12:09
quote:
Originally posted by Gary Dallison
If you've read into 4e then you will note the use of the word aspects in relation to tiamat and bahamut.
Aspects are independent free willed entities that are born of the original deity and may resemble the original deity but are otherwise completely disconnected.
Apply the concept of aspects to primordials and any other super powerful being and the whole divine soap opera of 4e dawn war not matching up to forgotten realms ancient history becomes more messy but also more possible.
You can have multiple entities with the same name at the same time that are unconnected but otherwise behave in the same way. This can be repeated over the millennia and across the multiverse.
What I'm getting at is that the dawn War predates abeir toril and took place in a different universe . It had its own set of gods, some of which resemble torillian gods. Events played out similarly (they do in many other worlds) and similar or identical races were created.
Io died in the dawn War and created dragons in this other universe. Asgoroth died in torils ancient history and created dragons in toril.
Just my theory, some believe that dragons across the entire multiverse had a single origin world and spread out from there. I believe the ancient gods of some old universe created aspects and sent them to other universes to seed them, these aspects created the various races again and again on different worlds in similar but not identical events.
Excellent feedback, thank you!
So applying that logic to two of my questions, we have:
1. N/A
2. One could now say that Asgorath hurling the ice moon upon Toril was the act of his aspect.
And perhaps going further into homebrew territory, given that this is "ancient history" fraught with the fallacies and bias of the mortal hands that wrote it, Asgorath was only "assumed" to be a released primordial because he manifested himself upon the world during a war between gods and primordials.
As the god he has always been up to this 4e lore, as well as being the "nine-fold" dragon of all alignments, it would not be out of character for him to cause the Tearfall in order to stop the war, not so different from what Ubtao did back at the dawn war.
3. It is plausible that an aspect of Io died to Erek-Hus and that the Tiamat/Bahamut arising from his two halves were also aspects, allowing - should one so choose - to fall back on the "pre-4e" origin stories for Tiamat and Bahamut.
4. N/A |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 07 Jan 2024 : 16:56:40
If you've read into 4e then you will note the use of the word aspects in relation to tiamat and bahamut.
Aspects are independent free willed entities that are born of the original deity and may resemble the original deity but are otherwise completely disconnected.
Apply the concept of aspects to primordials and any other super powerful being and the whole divine soap opera of 4e dawn war not matching up to forgotten realms ancient history becomes more messy but also more possible.
You can have multiple entities with the same name at the same time that are unconnected but otherwise behave in the same way. This can be repeated over the millennia and across the multiverse.
What I'm getting at is that the dawn War predates abeir toril and took place in a different universe . It had its own set of gods, some of which resemble torillian gods. Events played out similarly (they do in many other worlds) and similar or identical races were created.
Io died in the dawn War and created dragons in this other universe. Asgoroth died in torils ancient history and created dragons in toril.
Just my theory, some believe that dragons across the entire multiverse had a single origin world and spread out from there. I believe the ancient gods of some old universe created aspects and sent them to other universes to seed them, these aspects created the various races again and again on different worlds in similar but not identical events. |
|
|
