Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Einlanzer Jan 04, 2010 4:37:15	Something has me really stumped, I've been looking through lore and backstory to find out.  I can't seem to find any explanations, and the whole story surrounding it is messy indeed. Tiamat, in the FR, originated as an interloper deity of the Untheric pantheon, as in the real-world Tiamat from Ancient Sumeria, that crossed into Faerun when the planar barrier between Toril and Earth weakened along with the rest of the Untheric (Babylonian) pantheon.     Now, the real-world deity Tiamat is characterized a bit differently than the standard D&D version of Tiamat.  In previous editions, Tiamat was more similar to the former than the latter.  If I recall, more emphasis was actually placed on her human form than her dragon form.  Bahamut was rarely mentioned, and I don't recall ever seeing anything about Marduk being an aspect of Bahamut.   Now, my questions: 1.  How are Bahamut and Tiamat the progenators (after Asgaroth/Io) of Dragonkind if they're relative newcomers to Toril? 2.  If in fact their existence in Toril predates Unther, how did they have aspects that traveled from the real world as part of the Untheric pantheon? Something about the backstory with these two in the Forgotten Realms reeks of convolution and failed retroactive continuity.
#2 The_Silversword Jan 04, 2010 7:55:20	I dont think it was ever stated that Bahamut and Tiamat were the progenators of Dragons in the Realms. I dont think they ever gave any real origin story for Dragons, It just started raining Dragon eggs one day, and before you knew it they hatched and grew into the Dragons that we know today. If there is a definite orgin story on the Dragons your best bet would be to get a copy of the orginal Draconomicon. I think i have a copy around here somewhere, if i can find it, I may post more usefull information, but right now thats all I got, raining Dragon eggs. Congrats on 420 posts btw!
#3 ripvanwormer Jan 04, 2010 19:47:26	Bahamut and Tiamat interloped more than once. They interloped about 30,000 years ago when the first dragons appeared, and then interloped again with the Mulan. Dragons of Faerun says that Tiamat's faith was brought to Toril by the Mulan "at least among humans," indicating that her faith might have been brought by dragons much earlier. Dragons of Faerun and A Grand History of the Realms both indicate that the Dragonfall War between Bahamut and Tiamat's followers was fought on Toril beginning approximatley -29,500 DR, so both gods must have been known in that era. It's just that Tiamat didn't begin to be worshiped among humans until the Mulan came to Toril. You ask how, if Bahamut and Tiamat were already known on Toril, it is possible that they had aspects on Earth as well. I don't see the problem here. Why couldn't gods be known on multiple worlds? This is, indeed, the standard assumption. When Tyr made himself known on Toril, he wasn't instantly forgotten on other worlds he was worshiped. Lolth maintains, through the portals on her Demonweb, cults on dozens of worlds at once. The Draconomicon said that there's a draconic creation story known as the Book of the World, which features the creator of the world, Asgoroth, who casts down the otherwise undescribed god Zotha from the heavens and then breathes on the Crystal Sun which Zotha had created. The Crystal Sun shatters, some of the fragments piercing the flesh of Asgoroth; drops of Asgoroth fall down to Toril, where they become the first red dragons. One of these dragons, alone among its kind in not lamenting the wounds of Asgoroth, cuts himself with another shard of the Crystal Sun. This blood falls to the ground and becomes the first metallic dragons. Some sages assume that in this myth Asgoroth is intended to be Tiamat and the unlamenting dragon (called the Renegade in the myth, although the word "renegade" in the ancient Thorass language used to write the book is Bahmat) is Bahamut, but there's no real evidence for this, especially since other groups of dragons believe entirely contradictory things about Asgoroth, each believing that Asgoroth is their own alignment and probably believing that the first dragons were their own kind. The 4th edition Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide purports to tell the "true" version of this story, saying that Asgoroth was actually a primordial released from the prison the gods had put her in by the Batrachi. Asgoroth, doing what primordials do, hurled an ice moon (apparently one of the Tears of Selune) at the planet, wiping out Batrachi civilization, creating the Sea of Fallen Stars (and this would be the Crystal Sun mentioned in the myth). This event, the Tearfall, coincided with a climactic shift in which the proto-dragons who lived in Faerun at the time (the so-called eodraco, which from fossil evidence resembled a wyvern without a tail sting) rapidly evolved in the modern species of lung dragons, metallic dragons, chromatic dragons, gemstone dragons, cloud dragons, drakes, dragonets, etc., but Asgoroth probably didn't actually have anything to do with the creation of the dragons, although the dragons seemed to believe she did simply because her attempt at destroying the world indirectly resulted in their evolution. The Campaign Guide sets this event at -31,000 DR, though the Draconomicon put it at either 10,000,000 years ago or 10,000 years ago. I think it's safe to say the Campaign Guide is far more accurate in this instance. Some believe the meteors that fell from the sky during the Tearfall were actually fallen dragon eggs, but the Campaign Guide seems to indicate that this is a mistake. They were shards of ice from the broken moon. The Draconomicon suggests that the formation of the draconic races on the various worlds might have been guided by Tiamat and Bahamut's existence as archetypal forms. They're not literally all the descendants of Tiamat and Bahamut (though some might be, because both entities have literal children) but their mere existence shapes the draconic races into beings more like them.
#4 JudgeDookie Jan 04, 2010 22:35:09
#5 Aegeri Jan 05, 2010 1:29:23	Though, I definitely fall behind the Draconomicon and how the two influence the shaping of dragonkind/kin. But, of course, 4e sort of destroys that now, doesn't it. Which Draconomicon? There are 2 current 4E Draconomicons or if you mean a previous editions Draconomicon. Both Dragons in the core world still have similar goals - but not the same origin as those in FR. Metallic Dragons follow Bahamut and seek the general destruction of Chromatics, while Tiamat generally has Chromatics at her command (with the odd twisted Metallic). I can't see how 4E "destroys" this at all (even given the differences in origins, they are so similar there isn't even a problem using stats or anything else - or even general behaviour). I have no idea why people on these boards are so confused that core 4E books do not strictly apply (except where the DM wants) to a campaigns specific books. The fluff in said books is discardable for a campaign setting if desired and is often easily changed or similar. In most ways the core goals and general methods of both Bahamut and Tiamat are in fact pretty similar (with inherent differences in origin - and that in FR Timat was technically killed at one point then they forgot they killed her).
#6 ukplayerx Jan 05, 2010 7:16:01	The original writers probabaly thought 'what cool names, most people have NEVER heard of them. We'll use them' en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiamat en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahamut ...even though i loathe wiki for it's inconsistancies!
#7 ripvanwormer Jan 05, 2010 10:15:42
#8 Qmark Jan 05, 2010 10:27:04	The original writers probabaly thought 'what cool names, most people have NEVER heard of them. We'll use them' Pretty much all of the stuff from the 1970's had names stolen from somewhere else.
#9 ukplayerx Jan 05, 2010 14:24:27	The original writers probabaly thought 'what cool names, most people have NEVER heard of them. We'll use them' Pretty much all of the stuff from the 1970's had names stolen from somewhere else. ...and without well hidden plagiarism we wouldn't have D&D (RIP Gary Gygax)
#10 Einlanzer Jan 05, 2010 18:24:23	The original writers probabaly thought 'what cool names, most people have NEVER heard of them. We'll use them' Pretty much all of the stuff from the 1970's had names stolen from somewhere else. I appreciate all the information from everyone, it helps clear thigns up a little, but it still seems awfully messy. The problem, I think, lies with this statement.  Tiamat essentially exists in the FR as two separate deities rolled into one.  The real Tiamat from Babylonian mythology, and the purely fictional Tiamat of generic D&D mythology.  From my POV, this collision seems to have been accidental.  Bahamut, meanwhile is a completely fictional deity incorporated from standard D&D to match Tiamat. His identity is reliant upon Tiamat's fictional D&D identity, while Realms history is reliant upon Tiamat's real identity.  I suppose I can buy a story that Tiamat and Bahamut are multi-faceted deities that have various aspets and incarnations throughout time and the planes, but it seems like a ham-fisted retcon explanation.  My biggest issue with the whole story, I think, is that Marduk was merely an aspect of Bahamut. Marduk is too cool a deity to simply be an aspect of another deity, no matter how cool the other deity is as well.  I'm going to have to come up with my own version of those events.
#11 The_Silversword Jan 05, 2010 18:56:00	Bahamut isnt entirely fictional. Hes from Arabian Mythology, He wasnt a Dragon, but a Giant Fish.
#12 Einlanzer Jan 06, 2010 0:11:51	Bahamut isnt entirely fictional. Hes from Arabian Mythology, He wasnt a Dragon, but a Giant Fish. This I realize.  What I meant by that is that the FR's Tiamat is a real-world deity plucked directly out of Earth's history and planted into the realms along with her entire pantheon; while Bahamut, as well as the core version of Tiamat,  like most other deities, are fictional creations with only vague ties to real world mythology.
#13 JudgeDookie Jan 06, 2010 1:02:34
#14 Aegeri Jan 06, 2010 1:44:57	My agreement applied to the statement that derived from wherever the OP intended it to be from—2e, 3e, 4e. I care not.  I found it to be apt. Edited: I finally figured out what you were talking about and it was the 2E Draconomicons origin and the FR one. Now I'm with you and yes, I prefer the 2E origin for Dragons in FR but only just as it's a bit silly as well. Minding I don't mind the core worlds version. There is something inherently silly about Dragons following a primordial that "accidentally" created them of all things.
#15 Einlanzer Jan 06, 2010 1:47:05
#16 Aegeri Jan 06, 2010 2:00:57	He is in Complete Divine (2004) from 3.5 and an adventure called "The Throne of Bloodstone" has Tiamat killed by a party of adventurers, ostensibly because Bahamut told them they needed her heart to destroy the Wand of Orcus. I believe Tiamat actually being dead was ignored though (But oddly, I think that the Wand of Orcus had been destroyed remained true).
#17 ripvanwormer Jan 06, 2010 21:30:41	The problem, I think, lies with this statement.  Tiamat essentially exists in the FR as two separate deities rolled into one.  The real Tiamat from Babylonian mythology, and the purely fictional Tiamat of generic D&D mythology.  From my POV, this collision seems to have been accidental.  I wouldn't go so far as to associate any part of FR's Tiamat with the "real" world. Nowhere is it explicitly stated that the world the Mulan originated from is our Earth. It was a world where Babylonian deities were worshiped; however, it may not have been exactly our own (personally, I'd associate it with the "Gothic" Earth from the Masque of the Red Death campaign setting). I feel comfortable assuming that the Tiamat known to the Mulan on their home world before they were enslaved by the Imaskar was identical to the D&D Tiamat. Thomas Costa's original fan-made Faiths & Avatars-style writeup for Bahamut opined that Marduk and Bahamut were separate beings, but when Marduk left Toril with most of the other Untheric deities, he reluctantly allowed Bahamut to assume his name on Toril. Dragons of Faerun preserved a connection with Marduk, but for some reason made it seem like he and Bahamut were originally the same being, rather than Bahamut merely assuming his name. If you go by 2nd edition sources, Bahamut and Marduk are definitely different entities.
#18 ripvanwormer Jan 06, 2010 21:59:35	1.  I  don't remember Bahamut ever really being mentioned in pre-4e realms materials (in fact, neither he nor Tiamat's history predating her migration from Earth with the Mulan are mentioned in either 2e's Faiths and Avators or 3e's Faiths and Pantheons). The earliest FR supplement where Bahamut and Tiamat took a large role was Throne of Bloodstone (published in 1988). Bahamut and Tiamat are mentioned extensively in the 2nd edition Draconomicon. A draconic deity called Xymor is also described in that book; Cult of the Dragon established that Bahamut and Xymor were one and the same (they were almost identical anyway). And they're both mentioned extensively in Dragons of Faerun. 2.  Tiamat first belonged to the Untheric pantheon, and then the greater Faerunian pantheon.  I have never noticed her being considered part of FR Draconic pantheon (neither are Io or Bahamut).  Retroactively applying core elements by saying that Bahamut = Marduk, Io = Asgaroth and Tiamat = Tiamat only complicates the issue further.  That's not how it happened. The 1990 Draconomicon makes it clear that Bahamut and Tiamat had a long history with dragonkind, possibly since they first evolved from the primitive eodraco. Bahamut and Tiamat were not described as deities in that sourcebook (only as immortal archetypal beings), however (Xymor was called a deity, but it wasn't established that Bahamut and Xymor were the same until 1998, when Cult of the Dragon came out). Dragons of Faerun justifies this by saying that Bahamut and Tiamat lost their divine status during long periods of history (after Marduk and Tiamat slew each other in -1,071 DR), becoming reduced to the status of archfiend/celestial paragon, and have only recently regained their lesser deity status following the events of Throne of Bloodstone. This explains why the Draconomicon lists them in a separate section of the book. Anyway, all those books are pre-4e. Tiamat's association with the Untheric pantheon is actually a retcon too (although it's an obvious one, and connections between D&D's Tiamat and Marduk appear as early as 1980's Deities & Demigods). But Bahamut and Tiamat were associated with the Realms before the Untheric pantheon even existed, in-game or metagame. The Untheric pantheon wasn't detailed until the publication of Old Empires in 1990. As the Babylonian pantheon, it appeared in 1980's Deities & Demigods, but it wasn't part of the Forgotten Realms until ten years later. Tiamat is described in Old Empires as well, and though she has approximately the same role in Untheric myth that her namesake has in Babylonian myth (nemesis of the gods, banished from the Realms by Marduk), she is clearly the D&D Tiamat, as described. So the association between the Babylonian Tiamat and the D&D Tiamat was established both 20 and 30 years ago. So the timeline is basically: 1988: Bahamut and Tiamat appear in Throne of Bloodstone. 1990: Bahamut and Tiamat appear as powerful, unique, archetypal planar dragons in Draconomicon. Xymor also appears in the Draconomicon, along with many other draconic deities (Hlal, Astilabor, Asgorath, Garyx, Hlal, Kereska, Lendys, Null, Tamara, Task, and Zorquan). Tiamat appears in Old Empires as a lesser goddess; it's noted that she was banished by Marduk long ago, but that she has been able to send an incarnation of herself into the Realms due to summoning rituals cast by her priests. This incomplete incarnation only has three heads (red, blue, and green), rather than her normal five. 1997: Tiamat is described in Powers & Pantheons. Bahamut is mentioned among her enemies, as is the history of the two entities in Throne of Bloodstone. 1998: Cult of the Dragon establishes that Bahamut and Xymor are one and the same, that both Bahamut and Tiamat are deities known to the Realms, that Io and Asgorath are the same, and that Null is a combination of Faluzure and Chronepsis. Other draconic deities are mentioned as well. 2006: Dragons of Faerun tries to make sense of the varying ways Bahamut and Tiamat have been presented over the years, and establishes that Marduk was an aspect of Bahamut. Tiamat's death in Throne of Bloodstone wasn't ignored, really, although it was retconned that it had only been an avatar of hers that Gareth Dragonsbane killed (see Dragons of Faerun, page 9, Powers & Pantheons, page 133, and Faiths & Avatars, page 14).
#19 ripvanwormer Jan 06, 2010 22:06:37
#20 JudgeDookie Jan 06, 2010 22:25:20	I thought that was apparent.... I'm not sure of what you are asking really. Dragons (at least from the beginning) have always been about good and evil. The nonalignment thing destroys that concept.
#21 Aegeri Jan 06, 2010 22:34:48	No it doesn't.
#22 ripvanwormer Jan 06, 2010 22:34:50	I thought that was apparent.... I'm not sure of what you are asking really. Dragons (at least from the beginning) have always been about good and evil. The nonalignment thing destroys that concept.   I don't understand what a "nonalignment thing" is. Oh! You mean metallic dragons being listed as "unaligned" in the 4th edition monster books. No, I don't think that destroys any concepts. If you look through the 4e books, metallic dragons are still portrayed as generally good (though less universally so than in previous editions), and chromatic dragons are still described as evil. And in the Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide, Bahamut is listed as Good and Tiamat as Evil. The 4e Player's Handbook says that metallic dragons worship Bahamut as the "first of their kind." The 4e Dungeon Master's Guide says that Tiamat is the patron of chromatic dragons. Really, the only difference is a change in the monster statblock, not in the lore surrounding the monsters or gods.
#23 JudgeDookie Jan 06, 2010 23:55:07	More or less. All the same, regardless of where the respect may fall,  I have an issue with the whole "unaligned" thing--and more so where it falls unto dragons.
#24 Aegeri Jan 07, 2010 0:12:18	Really, the only difference is a change in the monster statblock, not in the lore surrounding the monsters or gods. Making the point even more irrelevant is that Metallic Dragons (Draconomicon II) have an intense hatred of chromatic dragons (the exception are probably Mithril dragons) and many types of metallics follow Bahamut. The difference is that metallic dragons even if they follow Bahamut are not inherently benevolent. Some types like Silver and Gold dragons even in 4E definitely lean more towards good, but other types do not. No metallic dragons are inherently evil (but some can be very mercenary in their outlooks). They still despise Tiamat and attempt to oppose her at all times. What actually makes them interesting is the variety and approaches they could take in this opposition. Not all of which consider what might happen to lesser creatures caught in the middle if they view it as a "greater good". Edit: Not to mention it is more up to the DM in 4E to decide what alignment a creature can be. Given the complete lack of effects that care about alignment in 4E at all, changing alignment does not do anything mechanically to the balance of a monster. So an unaligned pit fiend doesn't become immune to powers ordinarily designed to stop it (minding, you probably wouldn't bother making an unaligned pit fiend and nothing in the rules, indeed it's even supported by Draconomicon II prevents you from making any good dragons alignment "good").