Candlekeep Forum
Candlekeep Forum
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Active Polls | Members | Private Messages | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Forgotten Realms Journals
 General Forgotten Realms Chat
 Minor Draconic Deities of the Past
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 2

AuldDragon
Senior Scribe

USA
549 Posts

Posted - 07 Jan 2015 :  23:56:12  Show Profile  Visit AuldDragon's Homepage Send AuldDragon a Private Message  Reply with Quote  Delete Topic
The 2nd edition Draconomicon (FOR1) contained this line:
"The draconic pantheon once contained many more gods, including deities dedicated to protecting hatchlings, finding mates, and vengeance upon enemies. Over the millennia, however, these deities have been largely forgotten."

Have these forgotten draconic deities ever been mentioned anywhere?

(Note the deities I know of are: Aasterinian/Hlal/Avachel, Arcanic (from Council of Wyrms), Astilabor, Bahamut/Xymor, Chronepsis/Null, Elemtia (from Council of Wyrms), Faluzure/Null, Garyx, Io/Asgorath, Kalzareinad (dead), kereska, Lendys, Nathair Sgiathach, Rais (from SJR6 Greyspace), Sardior, Tamara, Task, Tiamat, and Zorquan.)

Jeff

My 2nd Edition blog: http://blog.aulddragon.com/
My streamed AD&D Spelljamer sessions: https://www.youtube.com/user/aulddragon/playlists?flow=grid&shelf_id=18&view=50
"That sums it up in a nutshell, AuldDragon. You make a more convincing argument. But he's right and you're not."

hashimashadoo
Master of Realmslore

United Kingdom
1150 Posts

Posted - 08 Jan 2015 :  00:39:49  Show Profile  Visit hashimashadoo's Homepage Send hashimashadoo a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I've never heard of any god named specifically dedicated to the domains you mentioned.

I imagine that they were killed due to lack of worship during or shortly after the Dragonfall War - but that's just an educated guess.

When life turns it's back on you...sneak attack for extra damage.

Head admin of the FR wiki:

https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/
Go to Top of Page

AuldDragon
Senior Scribe

USA
549 Posts

Posted - 08 Jan 2015 :  08:10:38  Show Profile  Visit AuldDragon's Homepage Send AuldDragon a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by hashimashadoo

I imagine that they were killed due to lack of worship during or shortly after the Dragonfall War - but that's just an educated guess.



Yeah, it makes it pretty obvious those gods, and others whose portfolios are not mentioned, died due to lack of worship.

Jeff

My 2nd Edition blog: http://blog.aulddragon.com/
My streamed AD&D Spelljamer sessions: https://www.youtube.com/user/aulddragon/playlists?flow=grid&shelf_id=18&view=50
"That sums it up in a nutshell, AuldDragon. You make a more convincing argument. But he's right and you're not."
Go to Top of Page

Marc
Senior Scribe

657 Posts

Posted - 08 Jan 2015 :  20:08:44  Show Profile Send Marc a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Yaldabaoth from Candlekeep Compendium 4, if you consider it canon

.
Go to Top of Page

LordofBones
Master of Realmslore

1477 Posts

Posted - 09 Jan 2015 :  06:41:34  Show Profile Send LordofBones a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Falazure and Chronepsis are worshipped under the same alias with different aspects in the Realms (Null). I'd wager they're still alive and chilling in Carceri and the Outlands respectively.
Go to Top of Page

AuldDragon
Senior Scribe

USA
549 Posts

Posted - 09 Jan 2015 :  07:28:56  Show Profile  Visit AuldDragon's Homepage Send AuldDragon a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Marc

Yaldabaoth from Candlekeep Compendium 4, if you consider it canon



Looks like she became Tiamat in that fanon, so it doesn't really apply, but thanks.

quote:
Originally posted by LordofBones

Falazure and Chronepsis are worshipped under the same alias with different aspects in the Realms (Null). I'd wager they're still alive and chilling in Carceri and the Outlands respectively.



Yeah, they are. I included them in my list of deities in the first post. :) I'm mostly hoping some of these deceased dragon gods got mentioned in passing in some other product, sort of the way Kalzareinad gets mentioned in one of the Draconomicon adventures rather than the deity list earlier in the book.

Jeff

My 2nd Edition blog: http://blog.aulddragon.com/
My streamed AD&D Spelljamer sessions: https://www.youtube.com/user/aulddragon/playlists?flow=grid&shelf_id=18&view=50
"That sums it up in a nutshell, AuldDragon. You make a more convincing argument. But he's right and you're not."
Go to Top of Page

Baltas
Senior Scribe

Poland
955 Posts

Posted - 09 Jan 2015 :  10:22:43  Show Profile Send Baltas a Private Message  Reply with Quote
There are also the four Dragon Kings of Kara-Tur, Ao Ch'in, Ao Jun, Ao Kuang, and Ao Shun. Apsu, the dead mate of Tiamat alluded in some materials, may be another dead dragon power. The spawn of Tiamat, and Children of Bahamut, can be also seen as weakened, forgotten draconic deities. An-Ur, The Wandering Death, is even mentioned as Tiamat's first child. Because of some similarities, I equated him with Anshar of the Babylonian pantheon, most precisely, An-Ur is the draconic aspect of this god, while Anshar is the humanoid one. Other spawn are Dhrakoth the Corrupter, and Mordukhavar the Reaver. Children of Bahamut are Medrinia, Xathanon, Vanathor, the Golden Harpist. Although Vanator was a originaly a non draconic power, that was saved by Bahamut.
Go to Top of Page

sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist

USA
11686 Posts

Posted - 09 Jan 2015 :  13:03:15  Show Profile Send sleyvas a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Baltas

There are also the four Dragon Kings of Kara-Tur, Ao Ch'in, Ao Jun, Ao Kuang, and Ao Shun. Apsu, the dead mate of Tiamat alluded in some materials, may be another dead dragon power. The spawn of Tiamat, and Children of Bahamut, can be also seen as weakened, forgotten draconic deities. An-Ur, The Wandering Death, is even mentioned as Tiamat's first child. Because of some similarities, I equated him with Anshar of the Babylonian pantheon, most precisely, An-Ur is the draconic aspect of this god, while Anshar is the humanoid one. Other spawn are Dhrakoth the Corrupter, and Mordukhavar the Reaver. Children of Bahamut are Medrinia, Xathanon, Vanathor, the Golden Harpist. Although Vanator was a originaly a non draconic power, that was saved by Bahamut.




Where are the various Ao dragons of Kara-Tur mentioned? Pulling totally out of my ass, would it be interesting if they were children of Ao? Then again, I've conjectured that with so many "hidden ones" that Ao is actually some kind of fractured deity.... maybe one in which the sum knows more than all of its parts. Maybe this is why the "Hidden One" Mystra thought she'd be allowed to ascend the celestial stairway. Not sure if I like the idea.... but the one of the Ao dragons being children might be useful.

Alavairthae, may your skill prevail

Phillip aka Sleyvas
Go to Top of Page

Baltas
Senior Scribe

Poland
955 Posts

Posted - 09 Jan 2015 :  15:00:59  Show Profile Send Baltas a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I think the 4 Dragon Kings were named a few times in the Kara-Tur materials, but I don't remember if their names were exacly told. By the way, their names actualy translate so:

Ao Kuang - Dragon King of the East Sea
Ao Ch'in - Dragon King of the South Sea
Ao-Jun - Dragon King of the West Sea
Ao Shun - Dragon King of the North Sea
Go to Top of Page

AuldDragon
Senior Scribe

USA
549 Posts

Posted - 09 Jan 2015 :  22:56:38  Show Profile  Visit AuldDragon's Homepage Send AuldDragon a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Baltas

There are also the four Dragon Kings of Kara-Tur, Ao Ch'in, Ao Jun, Ao Kuang, and Ao Shun. Apsu, the dead mate of Tiamat alluded in some materials, may be another dead dragon power. The spawn of Tiamat, and Children of Bahamut, can be also seen as weakened, forgotten draconic deities. An-Ur, The Wandering Death, is even mentioned as Tiamat's first child. Because of some similarities, I equated him with Anshar of the Babylonian pantheon, most precisely, An-Ur is the draconic aspect of this god, while Anshar is the humanoid one. Other spawn are Dhrakoth the Corrupter, and Mordukhavar the Reaver. Children of Bahamut are Medrinia, Xathanon, Vanathor, the Golden Harpist. Although Vanator was a originaly a non draconic power, that was saved by Bahamut.



I don't think the Four Dragon Kings from Chinese Mythology exist in Kara-Tur; the boxed set makes no mention of them. It looks like the deities in Kara-Tur are all original creations (albeit inspired by the real mythologies). There are four celestial dragons of the seasons in Kozakura who battle when the seasons change, but they don't appear to be actual deities. The children of Bahamut and Tiamat from Dragon #260 seem to be immortal (but slayable) but non-divine, so I don't think they should be added to the list of deities (plus I don't think everything should revolve around Bahamut and Tiamat, which seems to be the way it has been going).

As for Abzu (Apsu in Akkadian), it was originally a place/thing: The underground source of fresh water that fed all rivers/springs/etc, and the place where Enki dwelt. In the Babylonian Enuma Elish the Abzu became personified as a deity, consort to Tiamat, the personification of the chaotic salt water ocean that encircled the world. Tiamat from the Enuma Elish bears little resemblance to the Draconic Tiamat (especially as the original was primarily a chaos entity and the Chromatic Dragon is a lawful entity). Personally, I think the Chromatic Dragon stole the name in order to try and usurp the power of the Mesopotamian entity, rather than them being one and the same, at least in the scheme of the multiverse. Obviously the Chromatic Dragon has always been the Tiamat of the Realms. Also, Anshar is another personified force that was in the backstory of the Enuma Elish and likely not an actual deity who was worshipped. Honestly, don't get me started on how badly the Mesopotamian dieties were done up in D&D. :)

On a side note, the origin of the word "abyss" appears to be Abzu, through Greek.

quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas

Where are the various Ao dragons of Kara-Tur mentioned? Pulling totally out of my ass, would it be interesting if they were children of Ao? Then again, I've conjectured that with so many "hidden ones" that Ao is actually some kind of fractured deity.... maybe one in which the sum knows more than all of its parts. Maybe this is why the "Hidden One" Mystra thought she'd be allowed to ascend the celestial stairway. Not sure if I like the idea.... but the one of the Ao dragons being children might be useful.



Ao the Overgod is pronounced "Ay-oh" while the Ao of the Dragon Kings is pronounced more like "Ow." I doubt native Chinese speakers would see the names as connected the way we do based on spelling alone.

Jeff

My 2nd Edition blog: http://blog.aulddragon.com/
My streamed AD&D Spelljamer sessions: https://www.youtube.com/user/aulddragon/playlists?flow=grid&shelf_id=18&view=50
"That sums it up in a nutshell, AuldDragon. You make a more convincing argument. But he's right and you're not."
Go to Top of Page

sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist

USA
11686 Posts

Posted - 10 Jan 2015 :  00:15:12  Show Profile Send sleyvas a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by AuldDragon

quote:
Originally posted by Baltas

There are also the four Dragon Kings of Kara-Tur, Ao Ch'in, Ao Jun, Ao Kuang, and Ao Shun. Apsu, the dead mate of Tiamat alluded in some materials, may be another dead dragon power. The spawn of Tiamat, and Children of Bahamut, can be also seen as weakened, forgotten draconic deities. An-Ur, The Wandering Death, is even mentioned as Tiamat's first child. Because of some similarities, I equated him with Anshar of the Babylonian pantheon, most precisely, An-Ur is the draconic aspect of this god, while Anshar is the humanoid one. Other spawn are Dhrakoth the Corrupter, and Mordukhavar the Reaver. Children of Bahamut are Medrinia, Xathanon, Vanathor, the Golden Harpist. Although Vanator was a originaly a non draconic power, that was saved by Bahamut.



I don't think the Four Dragon Kings from Chinese Mythology exist in Kara-Tur; the boxed set makes no mention of them. It looks like the deities in Kara-Tur are all original creations (albeit inspired by the real mythologies). There are four celestial dragons of the seasons in Kozakura who battle when the seasons change, but they don't appear to be actual deities. The children of Bahamut and Tiamat from Dragon #260 seem to be immortal (but slayable) but non-divine, so I don't think they should be added to the list of deities (plus I don't think everything should revolve around Bahamut and Tiamat, which seems to be the way it has been going).

As for Abzu (Apsu in Akkadian), it was originally a place/thing: The underground source of fresh water that fed all rivers/springs/etc, and the place where Enki dwelt. In the Babylonian Enuma Elish the Abzu became personified as a deity, consort to Tiamat, the personification of the chaotic salt water ocean that encircled the world. Tiamat from the Enuma Elish bears little resemblance to the Draconic Tiamat (especially as the original was primarily a chaos entity and the Chromatic Dragon is a lawful entity). Personally, I think the Chromatic Dragon stole the name in order to try and usurp the power of the Mesopotamian entity, rather than them being one and the same, at least in the scheme of the multiverse. Obviously the Chromatic Dragon has always been the Tiamat of the Realms. Also, Anshar is another personified force that was in the backstory of the Enuma Elish and likely not an actual deity who was worshipped. Honestly, don't get me started on how badly the Mesopotamian dieties were done up in D&D. :)

On a side note, the origin of the word "abyss" appears to be Abzu, through Greek.

quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas

Where are the various Ao dragons of Kara-Tur mentioned? Pulling totally out of my ass, would it be interesting if they were children of Ao? Then again, I've conjectured that with so many "hidden ones" that Ao is actually some kind of fractured deity.... maybe one in which the sum knows more than all of its parts. Maybe this is why the "Hidden One" Mystra thought she'd be allowed to ascend the celestial stairway. Not sure if I like the idea.... but the one of the Ao dragons being children might be useful.



Ao the Overgod is pronounced "Ay-oh" while the Ao of the Dragon Kings is pronounced more like "Ow." I doubt native Chinese speakers would see the names as connected the way we do based on spelling alone.

Jeff



If they aren't actually named such in canon Kara-Tur resources, yeah, I'd agree we probably shouldn't include them. If however they had been and had been named Ao, then I'd say let's play with it (because we have nothing indicating which way it would be said in a given culture).

Alavairthae, may your skill prevail

Phillip aka Sleyvas
Go to Top of Page

Baltas
Senior Scribe

Poland
955 Posts

Posted - 10 Jan 2015 :  02:38:17  Show Profile Send Baltas a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by AuldDragon


I don't think the Four Dragon Kings from Chinese Mythology exist in Kara-Tur; the boxed set makes no mention of them. It looks like the deities in Kara-Tur are all original creations (albeit inspired by the real mythologies). There are four celestial dragons of the seasons in Kozakura who battle when the seasons change, but they don't appear to be actual deities. The children of Bahamut and Tiamat from Dragon #260 seem to be immortal (but slayable) but non-divine, so I don't think they should be added to the list of deities (plus I don't think everything should revolve around Bahamut and Tiamat, which seems to be the way it has been going).

As for Abzu (Apsu in Akkadian), it was originally a place/thing: The underground source of fresh water that fed all rivers/springs/etc, and the place where Enki dwelt. In the Babylonian Enuma Elish the Abzu became personified as a deity, consort to Tiamat, the personification of the chaotic salt water ocean that encircled the world. Tiamat from the Enuma Elish bears little resemblance to the Draconic Tiamat (especially as the original was primarily a chaos entity and the Chromatic Dragon is a lawful entity). Personally, I think the Chromatic Dragon stole the name in order to try and usurp the power of the Mesopotamian entity, rather than them being one and the same, at least in the scheme of the multiverse. Obviously the Chromatic Dragon has always been the Tiamat of the Realms. Also, Anshar is another personified force that was in the backstory of the Enuma Elish and likely not an actual deity who was worshipped. Honestly, don't get me started on how badly the Mesopotamian dieties were done up in D&D. :)

On a side note, the origin of the word "abyss" appears to be Abzu, through Greek.


Jeff



I don't know why people want to disconnect Tiamat the Dragon Queen, and Tiamat the primordial goddess. Multible materials suggest they are the same being, and that Apsu was actualy her consort. I mean, the Norse and Giant pantheon have a strong connection, so why not the Babylonian, and Draconic one. As Yaldabaoth, Tiamat has especialy strong similarities with her mythological counterpart.
And Deities can change very much, the Vedic Rudra was originaly Lawfull Neutral, but was slain by his Neutral Evil aspect, and because of that, Rudra is now Neutrall Evil. Zeus switched from True Neutral, to Chaotic Good. Set from Lawfull Evil, to Chaotic Evil. Gruumsh and the majority of the Orc pantheon, also switched from Lawfull Evil, into Chaotic Evil.
And about the Spawn of Tiamat and Children of Bahamut, Vanathor was oprecisely described as a god from a forgotten pantheon, which suggest the spawn and children are at least divine in some way(at least divine rank 1, or something)
About the Four Dragon Kings, yeah I confused two types of beings in the Kara-Tur boxed set. First are the Dragons of the Seasons, and another is the Lord of the Sea. The Lord of the Sea is described as draconic, and as a deity of sorts. And I think the Dragons of the Seasons are meant to be at least demigods of sorts.

[EDIT]

Also, I know of Apsu/Abzu's origins, but he was mentioned in d&d as a personified deity. Pathfinder even detailed him as their god of good dragons. And ripvanwormer did an excelent take on the mesoptomian gods, and their relationship with dragons, Torill, Uther and other stuff here.
To qoute the bit about the relationship between Apsu, Tiammat, Mummu, and Nammu :
quote:

Lahmu & Lahamu (the Lahama)
(The Wraithworms)
Demipowers of Arborea, N
Portfolio: Words, Number, Guardianship
Realm: Pelion/Amun-thys
Symbol: Two intertwined serpents

The firstborn of Tiamat and Apsu, Lahmu and Lahamu are serpentine creatures, parents of all the gods of Babylon. Older than the titans of Olympus, older than Gaea and Uranus, almost unimaginably old in one of the most ancient assemblages of divinities known, they were the first creatures of comparative order to exist in their pantheon; it was their perception that caused Tiamat, Apsu, and Mummu to separate into independent entities capable of being imprisoned or destroyed.

Although they were allies of their descendents Marduk and Ea during the war against their mother Tiamat, they felt they had little place in the new order the gods created. They bowed gracefully out and volunteered to protect the True Words that they believed they had been the first to perceive. To aid them they created beasts in their own image, the wraithworms, descendents of whom are still found in the Beastlands and beyond. The first wraithworms, however, remain with their parents beneath the sands of Amun-thys.

Unfortunately, as the eons stretched on, as their realm crumbled to nothing, as the entire layer turned to waste, as the first eladrins spawned from snow and dust, the Lahama began to dwindle and fade. Without worship to sustain them they began to forget themselves, and to forget the purpose for which they had come to this place so long ago. As their power declined from the rank of greater gods to mere demigods, they fell into a deep sleep. Their children have not yet been able to wake them up. Most likely it is only the power of the True Words that sustains them at all.



Edited by - Baltas on 10 Jan 2015 04:06:35
Go to Top of Page

AuldDragon
Senior Scribe

USA
549 Posts

Posted - 10 Jan 2015 :  10:41:18  Show Profile  Visit AuldDragon's Homepage Send AuldDragon a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas

If they aren't actually named such in canon Kara-Tur resources, yeah, I'd agree we probably shouldn't include them. If however they had been and had been named Ao, then I'd say let's play with it (because we have nothing indicating which way it would be said in a given culture).



Well, they're historical deities, so we know how their names are pronounced. If they're pronounced differently in a campaign setting, I'd expect that to get called out specifically. I don't have much material on Kara-Tur besides the boxed set, but they don't appear to be any of the other specified entites under other names (although there is plenty of room to insert them with no trouble).

quote:
Originally posted by Baltas

I don't know why people want to disconnect Tiamat the Dragon Queen, and Tiamat the primordial goddess. Multible materials suggest they are the same being, and that Apsu was actualy her consort. I mean, the Norse and Giant pantheon have a strong connection, so why not the Babylonian, and Draconic one. As Yaldabaoth, Tiamat has especialy strong similarities with her mythological counterpart.


I can't speak for anyone but myself, but a big part of it is because Mesopotamian mythologies are handled very poorly in D&D (it's not the only one that is, but it's the one I'm most interested in personally). Tiamat as a serpent/dragon is a later interpretation, and today is heavily influenced by the extended association with that form in D&D. The names Tiamat and Bahamut were co-opted from mythology without any real interest for their original uses, and applied to unrelated entities, which is not what was done for Surtr and Thrym (incidentally, Thrym is only featured in a non-mythological comic skaldic story).

I think Tiamat co-opting the name of an existing god as an attempt to gain power reflects the Chromatic Dragon's personality better than trying to shoehorn the mythology of Mesopotamia onto her very different being.

quote:
Originally posted by Baltas

And Deities can change very much, the Vedic Rudra was originaly Lawfull Neutral, but was slain by his Neutral Evil aspect, and because of that, Rudra is now Neutrall Evil. Zeus switched from True Neutral, to Chaotic Good. Set from Lawfull Evil, to Chaotic Evil. Gruumsh and the majority of the Orc pantheon, also switched from Lawfull Evil, into Chaotic Evil.


Most of these changes reflect different authors' views on the matter, sometimes with added backstory (as in the case of Rudra's backstory in On Hallowed Ground) or mythological information while others are retcons, as with the orcs and their deities and/or done for game rules purposes (such as the change of the Great Mother of the beholders from CE to LE).

In my opinion, the Chromatic Dragon's alignment has been too firmly entrenched as LE to change, and Chaos is too vital a component of the Mesopotamian Tiamat to jettison, so for me that only leaves one option: Making them two separate beings.

quote:
Originally posted by Baltas

And about the Spawn of Tiamat and Children of Bahamut, Vanathor was oprecisely described as a god from a forgotten pantheon, which suggest the spawn and children are at least divine in some way(at least divine rank 1, or something)
About the Four Dragon Kings, yeah I confused two types of beings in the Kara-Tur boxed set. First are the Dragons of the Seasons, and another is the Lord of the Sea. The Lord of the Sea is described as draconic, and as a deity of sorts. And I think the Dragons of the Seasons are meant to be at least demigods of sorts.


Dragon #260 states "Some sages say that this creature is actually a dead power from an ancient pantheon, given new life by Bahamut's magic." In other words, it is presented specifically so it can go either way equally, depending on what a DM wants. For me, I prefer him to be non-divine. I don't know if later products firmed that up one way or the other, but either way, it's not really what I'm looking for. :)

With regards to Kara-Tur, many dragons and spirits have positions in the natural world that are immovable, even though the occupant of the position is; they can be slain, re-assigned, etc., and another spirit/dragon will be assigned to that place.

quote:
Originally posted by Baltas

Also, I know of Apsu/Abzu's origins, but he was mentioned in d&d as a personified deity. Pathfinder even detailed him as their god of good dragons. And ripvanwormer did an excelent take on the mesoptomian gods, and their relationship with dragons, Torill, Uther and other stuff here.


I've discussed various aspects of this with Rip elsewhere; he and I have different focuses, though. He wants to work strictly within the canon, and I want the real-world pantheons to be as accurate to the source material as possible, while still being playable in D&D.

Jeff

My 2nd Edition blog: http://blog.aulddragon.com/
My streamed AD&D Spelljamer sessions: https://www.youtube.com/user/aulddragon/playlists?flow=grid&shelf_id=18&view=50
"That sums it up in a nutshell, AuldDragon. You make a more convincing argument. But he's right and you're not."
Go to Top of Page

Baltas
Senior Scribe

Poland
955 Posts

Posted - 10 Jan 2015 :  10:58:36  Show Profile Send Baltas a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Well, about Tiamat and Dragons, she got allready draconic, by being conflated with the Cananite Water god Yam/Lotan, that was presented as multiheaded Dragon. Also, Tiamat has a connection to Chaos as her strongest spawn, the Red Dragons, are chaotic evil. And as Yaldabaoth, she was originaly Chaotic Neutral deity of sea.
I also like to connect them as -
- It really shows how ancient he Draconic pantheon is.
- Gives Tiamat a more sympathetic backstory, and personality, beyond "Haha, I'm evil!". Her greed could be even traced as not wanting to loose more, as she lost a lot in her early life(husband, children, etc).
And the Spawn of Tiamat monsters. are based on how Tiamat produced an army of monsters to fight the gods. Not to mention An-Ur is a definite connection to the Mesopotamian pantheon.

Also, what do you think about the Lord of the Sea, could he be one of draconic deities you search for? He could be still alive, but only remembered by mortals and dragons in Kara-Tur, but not Faerun.

[Edit]

Also

quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas

Where are the various Ao dragons of Kara-Tur mentioned? Pulling totally out of my ass, would it be interesting if they were children of Ao? Then again, I've conjectured that with so many "hidden ones" that Ao is actually some kind of fractured deity.... maybe one in which the sum knows more than all of its parts. Maybe this is why the "Hidden One" Mystra thought she'd be allowed to ascend the celestial stairway. Not sure if I like the idea.... but the one of the Ao dragons being children might be useful.


quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas

Where are the various Ao dragons of Kara-Tur mentioned? Pulling totally out of my ass, would it be interesting if they were children of Ao? Then again, I've conjectured that with so many "hidden ones" that Ao is actually some kind of fractured deity.... maybe one in which the sum knows more than all of its parts. Maybe this is why the "Hidden One" Mystra thought she'd be allowed to ascend the celestial stairway. Not sure if I like the idea.... but the one of the Ao dragons being children might be useful.



Nice theories sleyvas, but as I wrote, I sadly confused some stuff, and the Dragon Kings aren't referenced in Kara-Tur material, at least directly. Although one could theorize the 4 Dragons of Seasons are the Torill equivalent of the 4 Dragon Kings.
This also reminds me of some theories that connected Ao to Io. But many doubt credibility of such theories.

[Edit2]

quote:
Originally posted by AuldDragon


With regards to Kara-Tur, many dragons and spirits have positions in the natural world that are immovable, even though the occupant of the position is; they can be slain, re-assigned, etc., and another spirit/dragon will be assigned to that place.




Well, even if that's the case, one could say that original/first 4 Dragon of Seasons, and the Lord of Sea, are the lost/forgotten dragonic deties, that got replaced in the Celestial Bureaucracy. Or like Dream in the Sandman comics, and even Mystra in Forgotten Realms, the new bearers of the position, still have their predecesor within them, and the change of occupant, is aking to a change of perspective.

[Edit3]

Also, you can be interested by the children of Tiamat/Yaldabaoth mentioned in "Reign of Dragons", from Candlekeep Compendium 4. At least Nagamat from them, is fully canon, being mentioned in the official Grand History of the Realms. Other are Lotan, child of Sekolah and Yaldabaoth, mother of the Tarrasque, Serpens/T'ien Lung/the Celestial Dragon, and Kaliyet.

Edited by - Baltas on 11 Jan 2015 00:27:09
Go to Top of Page

AuldDragon
Senior Scribe

USA
549 Posts

Posted - 11 Jan 2015 :  07:16:13  Show Profile  Visit AuldDragon's Homepage Send AuldDragon a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Baltas

Well, about Tiamat and Dragons, she got allready draconic, by being conflated with the Cananite Water god Yam/Lotan, that was presented as multiheaded Dragon. Also, Tiamat has a connection to Chaos as her strongest spawn, the Red Dragons, are chaotic evil. And as Yaldabaoth, she was originaly Chaotic Neutral deity of sea.
I also like to connect them as -
- It really shows how ancient he Draconic pantheon is.
- Gives Tiamat a more sympathetic backstory, and personality, beyond "Haha, I'm evil!". Her greed could be even traced as not wanting to loose more, as she lost a lot in her early life(husband, children, etc).
And the Spawn of Tiamat monsters. are based on how Tiamat produced an army of monsters to fight the gods. Not to mention An-Ur is a definite connection to the Mesopotamian pantheon.


Combining aspects of deities to make a completely new one is fine with me; such as the case with Stronmaus's Thor-like aspects. Combining the actual deities, especially when there are substantial/notable differences, does not sit well with me, however. I don't think Tiamat needs a sympathetic background, and I don't think her personality is "haha, I'm evil!"; in particular, I think adding in what you suggest anthropomorphizes her too much and makes her less draconic. I don't see An-Ur as a real connection, as nothing in Dragon #260 makes any reference to Mesopotamian mythology. The name simply combines the chief Sumerian god with one of the most important city-state names.

quote:
Originally posted by Baltas

Also, what do you think about the Lord of the Sea, could he be one of draconic deities you search for? He could be still alive, but only remembered by mortals and dragons in Kara-Tur, but not Faerun.


Seems unlikely to me. IIRC, in Kara-tur mythology, he was petrified and his body fell to earth forming the Dragonwall, complete with towers, fortresses, and gates. I think that should stay a myth (not every myth has to be, or should be, real).

quote:
Originally posted by Baltas

Although one could theorize the 4 Dragons of Seasons are the Torill equivalent of the 4 Dragon Kings.
This also reminds me of some theories that connected Ao to Io. But many doubt credibility of such theories.


If anything, I think the seasonal dragons were a case of "let's see how we can use the real mythology to inspire something reminiscent, but different, for this setting." Connecting such things to their inspiration defeats the purpose IMO.

I'm very leery of connecting things solely on name; there needs to be more than just that. Honestly, *if* I were going to connect Ao to an existing god, it would be Annam. There are more similarities between those two than Ao and Io (just as I wouldn't connect the Draconic Io to the Greek Io based on the name); that said, I wouldn't actually connect Ao and Annam, as they have fundamentally different positions in the cosmos.

quote:
Originally posted by Baltas

Well, even if that's the case, one could say that original/first 4 Dragon of Seasons, and the Lord of Sea, are the lost/forgotten dragonic deties, that got replaced in the Celestial Bureaucracy. Or like Dream in the Sandman comics, and even Mystra in Forgotten Realms, the new bearers of the position, still have their predecesor within them, and the change of occupant, is aking to a change of perspective.


It's possible, but there are no names mentioned, and even with names, they'd be irrelevant to my interests since as part of the Celestial Beauracracy, they aren't part of the draconic pantheon.

quote:
Originally posted by Baltas

Also, you can be interested by the children of Tiamat/Yaldabaoth mentioned in "Reign of Dragons", from Candlekeep Compendium 4. At least Nagamat from them, is fully canon, being mentioned in the official Grand History of the Realms. Other are Lotan, child of Sekolah and Yaldabaoth, mother of the Tarrasque, Serpens/T'ien Lung/the Celestial Dragon, and Kaliyet.



Right, but if they aren't explicitly mentioned as being gods (preferably with at least one portfolio) then I'd assume they're just powerful non-divine creatures, which isn't what I'm interested in right now.

Jeff

My 2nd Edition blog: http://blog.aulddragon.com/
My streamed AD&D Spelljamer sessions: https://www.youtube.com/user/aulddragon/playlists?flow=grid&shelf_id=18&view=50
"That sums it up in a nutshell, AuldDragon. You make a more convincing argument. But he's right and you're not."
Go to Top of Page

Baltas
Senior Scribe

Poland
955 Posts

Posted - 11 Jan 2015 :  09:13:09  Show Profile Send Baltas a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Then sorry man/gal, I don't really know any more obscure dragon god-beings that could live on Toril. Aside from maybe the Dragon King from the Marco Volo adventures, but I think he was later mentioned as Far Realm entity.


quote:
Originally posted by AuldDragon

quote:
Originally posted by Baltas

Also, what do you think about the Lord of the Sea, could he be one of draconic deities you search for? He could be still alive, but only remembered by mortals and dragons in Kara-Tur, but not Faerun.


Seems unlikely to me. IIRC, in Kara-tur mythology, he was petrified and his body fell to earth forming the Dragonwall, complete with towers, fortresses, and gates. I think that should stay a myth (not every myth has to be, or should be, real).


Jeff



You confuse the Lord of the Sea, with the Dragon that became the Dragonwall. They are two diffrent beings, as far I know from re-reading the Kara-tur book now. And the Lord of Sea is mentioned as active.

quote:
Originally posted by AuldDragon

quote:
Originally posted by Baltas

Well, even if that's the case, one could say that original/first 4 Dragon of Seasons, and the Lord of Sea, are the lost/forgotten dragonic deties, that got replaced in the Celestial Bureaucracy. Or like Dream in the Sandman comics, and even Mystra in Forgotten Realms, the new bearers of the position, still have their predecesor within them, and the change of occupant, is aking to a change of perspective.


It's possible, but there are no names mentioned, and even with names, they'd be irrelevant to my interests since as part of the Celestial Beauracracy, they aren't part of the draconic pantheon.

quote:
Originally posted by Baltas

Also, you can be interested by the children of Tiamat/Yaldabaoth mentioned in "Reign of Dragons", from Candlekeep Compendium 4. At least Nagamat from them, is fully canon, being mentioned in the official Grand History of the Realms. Other are Lotan, child of Sekolah and Yaldabaoth, mother of the Tarrasque, Serpens/T'ien Lung/the Celestial Dragon, and Kaliyet.



Right, but if they aren't explicitly mentioned as being gods (preferably with at least one portfolio) then I'd assume they're just powerful non-divine creatures, which isn't what I'm interested in right now.

Jeff



Well, you search for forgotten draconic deities, so I thought that powers that could leave the draconic pantheon, to join the Celestial Beauracracy, would interest you. Being forgotten powers, their exact names can be forgotten.
Lotan, Kaliyet and Nagamat, all had both divine parents, and such entities are usualy at least demigods. Sekolah and Tiamat were Lotan's parents, and Lendys was the father of both Nagamat, and Kaliyet. And Serpens is very interesting, as she could start the Celestial Beauracracy in first place.

[Edit]

Also, I detail here some ideas about the Lord of the Sea, as he seems to fit your standarts the best. No offence AuldDragon, but you are quite picky about the suggestions.

His name could be Ryujin, after Japanese god he seems to be partialy based of, or Hai zhu zhu/Haizhuzhu, a translation of "The Lord of the Sea" into Chinese. A lot of Dragon gods, like Tamara, Io, Bahamut and Tiamat have reall world names, so I don't think this would be a problem.
The Lord's of the Sea portfolio, could be based on the portfolios of the Dragon Kings of Four Seas, or Ryuijin's. Ryujin was detailed in Dragon Magazine #13.

Edited by - Baltas on 11 Jan 2015 13:29:03
Go to Top of Page

Barastir
Master of Realmslore

Brazil
1600 Posts

Posted - 11 Jan 2015 :  18:00:14  Show Profile Send Barastir a Private Message  Reply with Quote
If you think you can use it, the Nine Immortals of Kara-Tur also manifest as Nine Great Dragons. Being divine beings of the Celestial Bureaucracy, it is possible that the draconic form is their original shape. Or they existed as deities since the beginning of times, and they are simply divine, not human or draconic originally. But they are certainly respected, and possibly worshipped by the dragons of the Bureaucracy.

"Goodness is not a natural state, but must be
fought for to be attained and maintained.
Lead by example.
Let your deeds speak your intentions.
Goodness radiated from the heart."

The Paladin's Virtues, excerpt from the "Quentin's Monograph"
(by Ed Greenwood)

Edited by - Barastir on 11 Jan 2015 19:46:44
Go to Top of Page

Baltas
Senior Scribe

Poland
955 Posts

Posted - 11 Jan 2015 :  19:27:07  Show Profile Send Baltas a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Very interesting suggestion Barastir, although it seems that at least Kwan Ying may had been originaly a human woman, if the Horde Campaign book is to be believed.

Also about Tiamat, when I wrote she was conflated with the Canaanite god Yam/Lotan, I meant that she was conflated with him allready in ancient times. Yam/Lotan was described as a multiheaded dragon, like Tiamat in D&D. And while the ancient Tiamat is a being of chaos, she did give Kingu the Tablet of Destinies, and may be the creator of them. The Tablet of Destinies, make the laws of the univere, so the Mesopotamian Tiamat, also had some connection with order.

[EDIT]

Although Yam himself is agreed to be derived of the Mesopotamian Tiamat, and Yam may be a shortened version of her name. The most notable diffrence is that Yam is male, and more draconic. Yam is also refered as "Judge Nahar", in spite of being a force of chaos. This may related to piece that I once read on Middle Eastern and Egyptian gods, that they were complex entities, that had many parts and aspects, sometimes seemingly incompatible. Inanna(Ishtar), was refered as both a virgin and harlot at the same time. Nergal and Shamash, were though as possibly two faces of the same god. In fact,the compound Nergal-Shamash, actualy ultimately evolved into the Greek god Apollo.

Edited by - Baltas on 12 Jan 2015 11:50:31
Go to Top of Page

Barastir
Master of Realmslore

Brazil
1600 Posts

Posted - 11 Jan 2015 :  19:54:33  Show Profile Send Barastir a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Well, I've just checked my Kara-Tur PDF and the great-great-grandfather of Mei Lung, the historian dragon that describes Shou Lung in the first booklet of the boxed set, is named Chih Shih Chen-Shan-Tien-Kung-Te, the Immortal of History. Curiouslym Chih Shih is the name of one of the Nine Immortals, the Lord of the Sages, God of History, Lore and Tradition.

"Goodness is not a natural state, but must be
fought for to be attained and maintained.
Lead by example.
Let your deeds speak your intentions.
Goodness radiated from the heart."

The Paladin's Virtues, excerpt from the "Quentin's Monograph"
(by Ed Greenwood)
Go to Top of Page

Baltas
Senior Scribe

Poland
955 Posts

Posted - 12 Jan 2015 :  01:23:29  Show Profile Send Baltas a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Nice find, especialy that the Draconic pantheon rather lacks a deity of this portfolio.
Go to Top of Page

AuldDragon
Senior Scribe

USA
549 Posts

Posted - 13 Jan 2015 :  12:30:57  Show Profile  Visit AuldDragon's Homepage Send AuldDragon a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Baltas

No offence AuldDragon, but you are quite picky about the suggestions.



None taken; I *am* being very picky, as I have pretty specific criteria. I guess my first post wasn't as clear on that point as I thought it was. I do appreciate the suggestions and ideas, though, even if they don't fit my criteria, so please don't take offense if I don't take the suggestions. I'm specifically looking for any deities mentioned in passing that WERE part of the pantheon, rather than anything that could possibly be construed as a divine dragon (that said, I am interested in hearing any ideas anyone has).

quote:
Originally posted by Barastir

If you think you can use it, the Nine Immortals of Kara-Tur also manifest as Nine Great Dragons. Being divine beings of the Celestial Bureaucracy, it is possible that the draconic form is their original shape. Or they existed as deities since the beginning of times, and they are simply divine, not human or draconic originally. But they are certainly respected, and possibly worshipped by the dragons of the Bureaucracy.



I see that more as a reflection of the high status those in Kara-Tur place on dragons; the deities aren't actually draconic powers (even if they may appear in those forms sometimes) and Dragon is essentially a title.

quote:
Originally posted by Baltas

Also about Tiamat, when I wrote she was conflated with the Canaanite god Yam/Lotan, I meant that she was conflated with him allready in ancient times. Yam/Lotan was described as a multiheaded dragon, like Tiamat in D&D. And while the ancient Tiamat is a being of chaos, she did give Kingu the Tablet of Destinies, and may be the creator of them. The Tablet of Destinies, make the laws of the univere, so the Mesopotamian Tiamat, also had some connection with order.


Tiamat definitely did not create the Tablet of Destinies; it was a tablet of great power that in the Sumerian writings granted the holder supreme power over the pantheon. It was originally held by An and given to Enlil when An abdicated supreme power. The Enuma Elish doesn't describe how Tiamat got it, probably because it was immaterial to the story (which was primarily to place Babylon's patron Marduk above the previous deities). I don't recall if there is any story of its creation, although I suspect it would either be seen as always having existed, or it was created by An.

As for Lotan being a dragon, the problem is that virtually *every* mythological reptile (moreso outside historic Indo-European mythologies) becomes a dragon through translation. That doesn't mean they should all be dragons when ported into D&D, in my opinion.

quote:
Originally posted by Baltas

Although Yam himself is agreed to be derived of the Mesopotamian Tiamat, and Yam may be a shortened version of her name. The most notable diffrence is that Yam is male, and more draconic. Yam is also refered as "Judge Nahar", in spite of being a force of chaos. This may related to piece that I once read on Middle Eastern and Egyptian gods, that they were complex entities, that had many parts and aspects, sometimes seemingly incompatible. Inanna(Ishtar), was refered as both a virgin and harlot at the same time. Nergal and Shamash, were though as possibly two faces of the same god. In fact,the compound Nergal-Shamash, actualy ultimately evolved into the Greek god Apollo.



The difference between Yam and Tiamat can perhaps be attributed to the wholesale adoption of the Sumerian religion by the Akkadians; their version may have been male before merging with the Sumerian Nammu, who was female. It may have diverged earlier, perhaps with some form of language change where in one language the non-divine word related to the deity took a female gender while in the other language it took the male gender (something similar can be seen in the Germanic Nerthus versus the Nordic Njordr). The complexity of historic deities is also due in part to the lengthy time of worship; through the ages, they frequently merge and diverge with other deities or gain or lose control over various aspects of daily life. Any conversion to D&D tends to require picking a specific point in time to draw the deity from.

This plays a major part in Greek Mythology due to Interpretatio Graeca. Oftentimes, if God A in a foreign culture is associated with Zeus, and that deity has a firstborn son in the local mythology, the attributes of that son, no matter what they are, become associated with Apollo. This is very likely the origins of near-eastern attributes of Apollo, who most likely was introduced to the pan-Hellenic mythology by the Dorian Greeks.

Also, regarding Inana, I'm not certain, but I'd suspect references to her being a virgin are misinterpretations of her being childless; her oldest attribute is as that of a goddess of sexual love, but she is never portrayed as a mother goddess.

quote:
Originally posted by Baltas

quote:
Originally posted by Barastir

Well, I've just checked my Kara-Tur PDF and the great-great-grandfather of Mei Lung, the historian dragon that describes Shou Lung in the first booklet of the boxed set, is named Chih Shih Chen-Shan-Tien-Kung-Te, the Immortal of History. Curiouslym Chih Shih is the name of one of the Nine Immortals, the Lord of the Sages, God of History, Lore and Tradition.


Nice find, especialy that the Draconic pantheon rather lacks a deity of this portfolio.



Arcanic is only mentioned in a single line in the Council of Wyrms setting as a LN demigod of magic, but Kereska already holds that portfolio. As such, since the CoW book-form reprint contained an appendix with a new kit for the Dragon-Sage, I gave portfolios related to sagecraft to him. It was the best way to make him fit into the overall pantheon without overlap.

Jeff

My 2nd Edition blog: http://blog.aulddragon.com/
My streamed AD&D Spelljamer sessions: https://www.youtube.com/user/aulddragon/playlists?flow=grid&shelf_id=18&view=50
"That sums it up in a nutshell, AuldDragon. You make a more convincing argument. But he's right and you're not."
Go to Top of Page

Baltas
Senior Scribe

Poland
955 Posts

Posted - 13 Jan 2015 :  16:29:16  Show Profile Send Baltas a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by AuldDragon


Tiamat definitely did not create the Tablet of Destinies; it was a tablet of great power that in the Sumerian writings granted the holder supreme power over the pantheon. It was originally held by An and given to Enlil when An abdicated supreme power. The Enuma Elish doesn't describe how Tiamat got it, probably because it was immaterial to the story (which was primarily to place Babylon's patron Marduk above the previous deities). I don't recall if there is any story of its creation, although I suspect it would either be seen as always having existed, or it was created by An.

As for Lotan being a dragon, the problem is that virtually *every* mythological reptile (moreso outside historic Indo-European mythologies) becomes a dragon through translation. That doesn't mean they should all be dragons when ported into D&D, in my opinion.

quote:
Originally posted by Baltas

Although Yam himself is agreed to be derived of the Mesopotamian Tiamat, and Yam may be a shortened version of her name. The most notable diffrence is that Yam is male, and more draconic. Yam is also refered as "Judge Nahar", in spite of being a force of chaos. This may related to piece that I once read on Middle Eastern and Egyptian gods, that they were complex entities, that had many parts and aspects, sometimes seemingly incompatible. Inanna(Ishtar), was refered as both a virgin and harlot at the same time. Nergal and Shamash, were though as possibly two faces of the same god. In fact,the compound Nergal-Shamash, actualy ultimately evolved into the Greek god Apollo.



The difference between Yam and Tiamat can perhaps be attributed to the wholesale adoption of the Sumerian religion by the Akkadians; their version may have been male before merging with the Sumerian Nammu, who was female. It may have diverged earlier, perhaps with some form of language change where in one language the non-divine word related to the deity took a female gender while in the other language it took the male gender (something similar can be seen in the Germanic Nerthus versus the Nordic Njordr). The complexity of historic deities is also due in part to the lengthy time of worship; through the ages, they frequently merge and diverge with other deities or gain or lose control over various aspects of daily life. Any conversion to D&D tends to require picking a specific point in time to draw the deity from.

This plays a major part in Greek Mythology due to Interpretatio Graeca. Oftentimes, if God A in a foreign culture is associated with Zeus, and that deity has a firstborn son in the local mythology, the attributes of that son, no matter what they are, become associated with Apollo. This is very likely the origins of near-eastern attributes of Apollo, who most likely was introduced to the pan-Hellenic mythology by the Dorian Greeks.

Also, regarding Inana, I'm not certain, but I'd suspect references to her being a virgin are misinterpretations of her being childless; her oldest attribute is as that of a goddess of sexual love, but she is never portrayed as a mother goddess.




Well, about Inanna, it's complex, as she did have at least two daughters, Lulal and Shara. And her priestes tended to either sacred prostitutes or virginal priestess. So I think just like Nergal/Shamash, she she had a complex personality. Nerthus, by the way, may be Njord's lost sister-wife, like Freya and Frey were. Although it's also possible, that Frey/Freya and Njord/Nerthus were originaly hermaphroditic deities. Lotan himself, influenced the Biblical Leviathan and Satan(as the red dragon in Revelation) so he's definitely draconic, and had large impact on what we understand today as a 'dragon'. Tiamat herself was presented on some latter Akkadian reliefs, as serpent, or lion-dragon, although as I said, that may be Lotan's influence. But again, Yamm Lotan's other self/name, has a name that's a corruption of Tiamat, T'Yamm'at.

Nammu, could be whatever is left of Tiamat goodness and chaos, but very weak, barely a deity. This split, may have innitiated the split between Sumerian, and the Babylonian pantheon, but you seem not like this theory. But I still think that they would enemies, with Nammu trying to regain the power she lost to Tiamat durring the split.
In such way, you could use Pathfinder's Apsu, as a draconic deity that was once worshipped on Toril, but his aspect in Faerun died, and his worship, and memory along with it.

Also, the original Draconomicon, suggested that Tiamat is/can be merely an avatar of Asgorath. the myth in the "Book of the World", also has some paralells to the myth of the Mesopotamian Tiamat.
It's obviously non-canon now, but there is a precedence of Tiamat, being part of a neutral, force of creation, like her Mesopotamian counterpart, or Nammu.

Also, AuldDragon, you complained that a lot revolves around Tiamat and Bahamut, but it has sense. They are basicaly the two most active members of the pantheon, so it has sense they have a lot revolve around them, or even create divine, or semi-divine spawn.

So what do you think about the Lord of the Sea? He, or the first bearer of his position, could be a lost dragon god of seas, and water dragons. Or at least after Tiamat/Yaldabaoth lost this position.

And what about Nagamat? He was a child of both Tiamat, and Lendys, and such children are pretty much allways gods of some kind, with at least divine rank 1.

[Edit]

I think that Nagamat's portfolio could include rulership, chromatic dragons, and maybe even the mentioned vengence uppon enemies(in this case, mostly the giants with which dragons rivalized).

Edited by - Baltas on 14 Jan 2015 09:53:56
Go to Top of Page

AuldDragon
Senior Scribe

USA
549 Posts

Posted - 14 Jan 2015 :  11:46:39  Show Profile  Visit AuldDragon's Homepage Send AuldDragon a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Baltas

Well, about Inanna, it's complex, as she did have at least two daughters, Lulal and Shara. And her priestes tended to either sacred prostitutes or virginal priestess. So I think just like Nergal/Shamash, she she had a complex personality. Nerthus, by the way, may be Njord's lost sister-wife, like Freya and Frey were. Although it's also possible, that Frey/Freya and Njord/Nerthus were originaly hermaphroditic deities. Lotan himself, influenced the Biblical Leviathan and Satan(as the red dragon in Revelation) so he's definitely draconic, and had large impact on what we understand today as a 'dragon'. Tiamat herself was presented on some latter Akkadian reliefs, as serpent, or lion-dragon, although as I said, that may be Lotan's influence. But again, Yamm Lotan's other self/name, has a name that's a corruption of Tiamat, T'Yamm'at.


Yeah, Inana has a complex personality; all major gods did regardless of the pantheon, and they're not constrained by having to follow the alignment system or having specific portfolios. When they get imported into D&D, they need to be distilled down to a usable form, and that often is a reflection on the individual author's views on the deity. Lulal and Shara were males, and it is likely they were made her sons in local interpretations of the mythology to improve the importance of the local cities; this is exactly what was done with Asshur and Marduk. As for the "lion-dragon," they're as much dragons as griffons are, because that's essentially what they are, but in reverse. The term "dragon" when applied to most pre-medieval writing is essentially a purely modern translation term, much as ogre is the translation term for Japanese oni. That doesn't mean they should be seen as anything like D&D dragons, especially when imported into the game.

quote:
Originally posted by Baltas

Nammu, could be whatever is left of Tiamat goodness and chaos, but very weak, barely a deity. This split, may have innitiated the split between Sumerian, and the Babylonian pantheon, but you seem not like this theory. But I still think that they would enemies, with Nammu trying to regain the power she lost to Tiamat durring the split.
In such way, you could use Pathfinder's Apsu, as a draconic deity that was once worshipped on Toril, but his aspect in Faerun died, and his worship, and memory along with it.


She could, but I prefer to keep them wholly separate. One of the problems with Tiamat being a Mesopotamian god (as well as Abzu), is that she would have had to travel to Toril on the Matet with the other deities, and she would have been completely cut off from her planar self, or she'd have had no access at all, while Bahamut would have had no problems in the Realms at all. That's yet another reason to keep them separate; indeed, if the Draconic Tiamat is a usurper, it puts her position substantially better, as the lack of the Mesopotamian deity on Toril would allow her to easily slip right in. Add in that Abzu has virtually *no* reptilian elements and making him a dragon is based solely on his relation to Tiamat, who in D&D was a name used without a real connection to the original mythology, and to me, it makes no sense. I prefer the real world mythologies to be as authentic as possible within the bounds of the restrictions upon detailing deities in D&D.

quote:
Originally posted by Baltas

Also, the original Draconomicon, suggested that Tiamat is/can be merely an avatar of Asgorath. the myth in the "Book of the World", also has some paralells to the myth of the Mesopotamian Tiamat.


I really don't see any substantial similarities with Mesopotamian mythology in that one.

quote:
Originally posted by Baltas

Also, AuldDragon, you complained that a lot revolves around Tiamat and Bahamut, but it has sense. They are basicaly the two most active members of the pantheon, so it has sense they have a lot revolve around them, or even create divine, or semi-divine spawn.


They're the most well known, are very easy to use, and they're the oldest in the history of the D&D game. That essentially creates a self-perpetuating cycle. Personally, any time I can use one of the other deities in the pantheon, I jump at it; in addition, the pantheon should revolve around Io, not two of his lesser-deity children.

quote:
Originally posted by Baltas

So what do you think about the Lord of the Sea? He, or the first bearer of his position, could be a lost dragon god of seas, and water dragons. Or at least after Tiamat/Yaldabaoth lost this position.


I don't think there would be any substantial connection between the draconic pantheon and the celestial beauracracy. Their nature is very different. I also don't think any draconic deities would leave the pantheon and completely isolate themselves from the old pantheon amongst a new one; even Nathair Sgiathach hasn't done so, he simply spends a lot of time with the Seelie Court because of shared interests.

quote:
Originally posted by Baltas

And what about Nagamat? He was a child of both Tiamat, and Lendys, and such children are pretty much allways gods of some kind, with at least divine rank 1.

I think that Nagamat's portfolio could include rulership, chromatic dragons, and maybe even the mentioned vengence uppon enemies(in this case, mostly the giants with which dragons rivalized).



There's very little mentioned in the Grand History of the Realms (and I don't have any other sources on him), but the clear inference to me is that he was a mortal dragon. If you look at Annam, the overwhelming majority of his children are mortal, so it's certainly not the case that divine parents always spawn divine children. Now-dead dragon deities who were a part of the original pantheon would have existed prior to dragons appearing on Toril, not been spawned (and died) during mortal dragon reigns.

Jeff

My 2nd Edition blog: http://blog.aulddragon.com/
My streamed AD&D Spelljamer sessions: https://www.youtube.com/user/aulddragon/playlists?flow=grid&shelf_id=18&view=50
"That sums it up in a nutshell, AuldDragon. You make a more convincing argument. But he's right and you're not."
Go to Top of Page

Baltas
Senior Scribe

Poland
955 Posts

Posted - 14 Jan 2015 :  12:11:47  Show Profile Send Baltas a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by AuldDragon


quote:
Originally posted by Baltas

Also, the original Draconomicon, suggested that Tiamat is/can be merely an avatar of Asgorath. the myth in the "Book of the World", also has some paralells to the myth of the Mesopotamian Tiamat.


I really don't see any substantial similarities with Mesopotamian mythology in that one.





Well, Asgorath is named as the World-Shaper, and Tiamat is callede very similary "Ummu-Hubur who formed all things". Asgorath's fight with Zotha and his Crystal Sun(both may be same thing) paralell Tiamat's fight with Marduk. Just like in Enuma Elish, the act of creation, is initiated by the death of the creatrix(Asgorath/Tiamat). The 'Renegade', resembles the younger gods, who first fough against Apsu, and latter, Tiamat.

quote:
Originally posted by AuldDragon


She could, but I prefer to keep them wholly separate. One of the problems with Tiamat being a Mesopotamian god (as well as Abzu), is that she would have had to travel to Toril on the Matet with the other deities, and she would have been completely cut off from her planar self, or she'd have had no access at all, while Bahamut would have had no problems in the Realms at all. That's yet another reason to keep them separate; indeed, if the Draconic Tiamat is a usurper, it puts her position substantially better, as the lack of the Mesopotamian deity on Toril would allow her to easily slip right in. Add in that Abzu has virtually *no* reptilian elements and making him a dragon is based solely on his relation to Tiamat, who in D&D was a name used without a real connection to the original mythology, and to me, it makes no sense. I prefer the real world mythologies to be as authentic as possible within the bounds of the restrictions upon detailing deities in D&D.



Well, it's possible that only a part/aspect of Tiamat, that was worshipped by humans, was barred by the Imaskari, and latter slipped that aspect along with the Mulan deities. There is a precendence of Tiamat having multiple aspects and avatars active on a single world, as seen with the Bloodstone adventure.

quote:
Originally posted by AuldDragon
There's very little mentioned in the Grand History of the Realms (and I don't have any other sources on him), but the clear inference to me is that he was a mortal dragon. If you look at Annam, the overwhelming majority of his children are mortal, so it's certainly not the case that divine parents always spawn divine children. Now-dead dragon deities who were a part of the original pantheon would have existed prior to dragons appearing on Toril, not been spawned (and died) during mortal dragon reigns.

Jeff



Still, Nagamat is your best candidate, at least I think so. And he was strong enough to stand up to Annam, and his forces. And while he died, gods also die, quite often actualy on Toril. And you do search for a dead and forgotten gods. Not to mention, Nagamat was killed by a god in the Reign of Dragons, from which he originates.

[EDIT]
Also, about Lion-Dragons, they argubly resemble fantasy dragons, more than most other dragons from the antique, who were mostly serpentine in apperance. And What about what I wrote with Lotan? Lotan definitely influenced the medival, and todays definition of what is a 'dragon', if indirectly through Leviathan, and The Great Red Dragon. Also, I suggested Apsu as a draconic deity, as Pathfinder made him one. An I consider Pathfinder a part of D&D lore, as much as 4th and 5th edition stuff. Many actualy people consider it even a more canon continuation of d&d, than 4th and 5th edition.

[EDIT2]
Also, I have an idea with Null, Faluzure, and Chronepsis. Null is on the Toril version of both Faluzure, and Chronepsis.
Let's say, that Faluzure and Chronepsis, were originaly one god, which fragmented. On Toril Null(Chronepsis), managed to reabsorb Faluzure, but gained because of that a somewhat more malevolent aspect(The Reaver). This would be also the reason why on other worlds, Faluzure fears Chronepsis so much - he fears Chronepsis can reabsorb him on all worlds. And with this, Falazure could be among the forgotten draconic deities.

Edited by - Baltas on 14 Jan 2015 12:46:58
Go to Top of Page

Barastir
Master of Realmslore

Brazil
1600 Posts

Posted - 14 Jan 2015 :  14:06:28  Show Profile Send Barastir a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by AuldDragon
(...)

I see that more as a reflection of the high status those in Kara-Tur place on dragons; the deities aren't actually draconic powers (even if they may appear in those forms sometimes) and Dragon is essentially a title.

(...)


The only problem with this point of view is that an actual dragon (Mei Lung, which is more than 2000 years old) declares himself being a direct descendant of the immortal Chih Shih (it seems to be the same). Once again, maybe being a deity he could assume any form, and this one specifically had offspring with a female dragon.

"Goodness is not a natural state, but must be
fought for to be attained and maintained.
Lead by example.
Let your deeds speak your intentions.
Goodness radiated from the heart."

The Paladin's Virtues, excerpt from the "Quentin's Monograph"
(by Ed Greenwood)

Edited by - Barastir on 15 Jan 2015 15:03:29
Go to Top of Page

Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
Moderator

USA
36779 Posts

Posted - 14 Jan 2015 :  16:07:53  Show Profile Send Wooly Rupert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Barastir

quote:
Originally posted by AuldDragon
(...)

I see that more as a reflection of the high status those in Kara-Tur place on dragons; the deities aren't actually draconic powers (even if they may appear in those forms sometimes) and Dragon is essentially a title.

(...)


The only problem with this point of view is taht an actual dragon (Mei Lung, which is more than 2000 years old) declares himself being a direct descendant of the immortal Chih Shih (it seems to be the same). Once again, maybe being a deity he could assume any form, and this one specifically had offspring with a female dragon.



Or Mei Lung was lying, to make himself look good... Or flat out mistaken about his heritage.

Candlekeep Forums Moderator

Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com
-- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct

I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!
Go to Top of Page

Brian R. James
Forgotten Realms Game Designer

USA
1098 Posts

Posted - 14 Jan 2015 :  17:04:25  Show Profile  Visit Brian R. James's Homepage Send Brian R. James a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Garyx is mentioned, very briefly, in the Ironfang Keep article: http://archive.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/drrl/20071107a As far as I know, it's the only time he's been referenced in Realmslore outside of the Cult of the Dragon accessory.

Brian R. James - Freelance Game Designer

Follow me on Twitter @brianrjames
Go to Top of Page

George Krashos
Master of Realmslore

Australia
6638 Posts

Posted - 14 Jan 2015 :  17:11:33  Show Profile Send George Krashos a Private Message  Reply with Quote
And you put him into GHotR (p.8).

-- George Krashos

"Because only we, contrary to the barbarians, never count the enemy in battle." -- Aeschylus
Go to Top of Page

Baltas
Senior Scribe

Poland
955 Posts

Posted - 14 Jan 2015 :  17:47:56  Show Profile Send Baltas a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Brian R. James

Garyx is mentioned, very briefly, in the Ironfang Keep article: http://archive.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/drrl/20071107a As far as I know, it's the only time he's been referenced in Realmslore outside of the Cult of the Dragon accessory.



Interesting, I thought he appeared in more Realm sourcebooks...I must have confused something.
By the way Brian, did you design Nagamat as a very powerfull, but non-divine dragon, or a divine entity(if of a low level, like demigod)?
Go to Top of Page

AuldDragon
Senior Scribe

USA
549 Posts

Posted - 15 Jan 2015 :  05:42:38  Show Profile  Visit AuldDragon's Homepage Send AuldDragon a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Baltas

Well, Asgorath is named as the World-Shaper, and Tiamat is callede very similary "Ummu-Hubur who formed all things". Asgorath's fight with Zotha and his Crystal Sun(both may be same thing) paralell Tiamat's fight with Marduk. Just like in Enuma Elish, the act of creation, is initiated by the death of the creatrix(Asgorath/Tiamat). The 'Renegade', resembles the younger gods, who first fough against Apsu, and latter, Tiamat.


It's pretty loose, and has none of the core concepts of creation in the Enuma Elish. In fact, I'd say the story in the Draconomicon is much closer to the elven creation story.

quote:
Originally posted by Baltas

Well, it's possible that only a part/aspect of Tiamat, that was worshipped by humans, was barred by the Imaskari, and latter slipped that aspect along with the Mulan deities. There is a precendence of Tiamat having multiple aspects and avatars active on a single world, as seen with the Bloodstone adventure.


I think that's a real stretch. If she's the same deity, she should be either entirely blocked or not at all; it doesn't matter who/what is worshiping her. If she is not blocked, she'd have a tremendous advantage over the other deities, and would have exploited that. If Tiamat has had multiple avatars active on Toril, that indicates she was not blocked, as the Mesopotamian/Egyptian deities had to send individual avatars with substantial extra power invested in them, and those avatars could not make other avatars.

quote:
Originally posted by Baltas

Still, Nagamat is your best candidate, at least I think so. And he was strong enough to stand up to Annam, and his forces. And while he died, gods also die, quite often actualy on Toril. And you do search for a dead and forgotten gods. Not to mention, Nagamat was killed by a god in the Reign of Dragons, from which he originates.


GHotR indicates followers of Xymor killed Nagamat. That says to me mortal dragons. I just don't see him being anything more than a very powerful mortal dragon. I'm not in a position where I *need* more deities, I just want to make sure I haven't missed something like "there used to be a shrine to the dragon god Zorblat in these mountains" in some text unrelated to dragons; i.e. something very specific regarding a dragon god that I am unaware of.

quote:
Originally posted by Baltas

Also, about Lion-Dragons, they argubly resemble fantasy dragons, more than most other dragons from the antique, who were mostly serpentine in apperance. And What about what I wrote with Lotan? Lotan definitely influenced the medival, and todays definition of what is a 'dragon', if indirectly through Leviathan, and The Great Red Dragon. Also, I suggested Apsu as a draconic deity, as Pathfinder made him one. An I consider Pathfinder a part of D&D lore, as much as 4th and 5th edition stuff. Many actualy people consider it even a more canon continuation of d&d, than 4th and 5th edition.


It is important to differentiate between what is a D&D dragon, and what is a mythological "dragon." Mythology makes no differentiation between all sorts of serpentine, reptilian, or other dangerous creatures (even Huwawa gets translated as dragon, but later depictions gave him a very non-reptilian face); if we followed that in D&D then behir, wyverns, basilisks, cockatrices, hydra, couatl, the terrasque, etc. would all be dragons. D&D makes distinctions, however, and so should we when importing new things from mythology. In the case of the "lion-dragon," it should probably be seen as related to creatures like griffons, hippogriffs, or chimerae. Also, Lotan did not directly influence depictions of dragons, and likely had relatively little actual effect. Monstrous serpents, reptiles, and winged beasts fill a significant number of mythologies around the world, so saying one particular one definitely influenced medieval and modern views is simply inaccurate. Medieval dragons were direct offshoots of the descriptions of monstrous serpents and reptiles (all of which were called dragons) in Greek and Latin writings; while some near-east stories and ideas almost certainly influenced them, it is difficult to tell what the exact effects were due to the near-universality of such sorts of beasts.

quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

quote:
Originally posted by Barastir

quote:
Originally posted by AuldDragon
I see that more as a reflection of the high status those in Kara-Tur place on dragons; the deities aren't actually draconic powers (even if they may appear in those forms sometimes) and Dragon is essentially a title.

The only problem with this point of view is taht an actual dragon (Mei Lung, which is more than 2000 years old) declares himself being a direct descendant of the immortal Chih Shih (it seems to be the same). Once again, maybe being a deity he could assume any form, and this one specifically had offspring with a female dragon.


Or Mei Lung was lying, to make himself look good... Or flat out mistaken about his heritage.



Both good possibilities, but even if Mei Lung is telling the truth, genetics doesn't matter with divine/semidivine creatures (or really, even with fantasy). Echidna was mother of the hydra, the chimera, Cerberus, and many others. Tiamat in the Enuma Elish is said to have borne the scorpion men (girtablullu), the bull men (kusarikku), Mesopotamian merfolk, multiple serpentine beasts, and various others. A god could easily bear a mortal dragon.

Jeff

My 2nd Edition blog: http://blog.aulddragon.com/
My streamed AD&D Spelljamer sessions: https://www.youtube.com/user/aulddragon/playlists?flow=grid&shelf_id=18&view=50
"That sums it up in a nutshell, AuldDragon. You make a more convincing argument. But he's right and you're not."
Go to Top of Page

Baltas
Senior Scribe

Poland
955 Posts

Posted - 15 Jan 2015 :  06:53:49  Show Profile Send Baltas a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by AuldDragon

quote:
Originally posted by Baltas

Well, Asgorath is named as the World-Shaper, and Tiamat is callede very similary "Ummu-Hubur who formed all things". Asgorath's fight with Zotha and his Crystal Sun(both may be same thing) paralell Tiamat's fight with Marduk. Just like in Enuma Elish, the act of creation, is initiated by the death of the creatrix(Asgorath/Tiamat). The 'Renegade', resembles the younger gods, who first fough against Apsu, and latter, Tiamat.


It's pretty loose, and has none of the core concepts of creation in the Enuma Elish. In fact, I'd say the story in the Draconomicon is much closer to the elven creation story.




Sorry, but it's a bit nonsense to say the elven myth is more similar, when at best, it equaly similar(and even that's acrually a stretch). In both "Enuma Elish", and "Book of World", we have:
-Death of the Creator(no such thing in the elven myth)
-Motive of rebelion of the younger generation(again, no such thing in the story of Gruumsh and Corellon)
-There is no motive of Corelon being a creator of a world. Tiamat, or Nammu, dicrectly, or indirectly, creates the world.

Also, while both all three myths use the motive of creating life, out of blood, is all three myths, but appears first in Enuma Elish, and I think that the creators of Draconomicon, rather took inspiration from Enuma Elish, if anything. The Myth in the "Book of The World", could be seen as an echo, or relation of the same occurence, which inspired human myth of Enuma Elish. Neither version would be really 100% true, and there are some obvious intentional, or unintentional mistakes(like merging in this story, Io,and Tiamat into one character. Again, it's a red dragon myth).

quote:
Originally posted by AuldDragon

It is important to differentiate between what is a D&D dragon, and what is a mythological "dragon." Mythology makes no differentiation between all sorts of serpentine, reptilian, or other dangerous creatures (even Huwawa gets translated as dragon, but later depictions gave him a very non-reptilian face); if we followed that in D&D then behir, wyverns, basilisks, cockatrices, hydra, couatl, the terrasque, etc. would all be dragons. D&D makes distinctions, however, and so should we when importing new things from mythology. In the case of the "lion-dragon," it should probably be seen as related to creatures like griffons, hippogriffs, or chimerae. Also, Lotan did not directly influence depictions of dragons, and likely had relatively little actual effect. Monstrous serpents, reptiles, and winged beasts fill a significant number of mythologies around the world, so saying one particular one definitely influenced medieval and modern views is simply inaccurate. Medieval dragons were direct offshoots of the descriptions of monstrous serpents and reptiles (all of which were called dragons) in Greek and Latin writings; while some near-east stories and ideas almost certainly influenced them, it is difficult to tell what the exact effects were due to the near-universality of such sorts of beasts.




Well, the Great Red Dragon of Revelation, definitely had a major influence on dragons, as we understand them in d&d, and Lotan, in turn influenced the Great Red Dragon. Also, Lotan also probably was adapted by Greeks as Ladon, the dragon guarded the golden apples. And the origin of the word dragon, is Greek, and they described Ladon, as a dragon. Lotan's influence might be indirect, but nonetheless, it's still pretty large.
And what about Pathfinder making Apsu a dragon deity, what do you think about that?

[Edit]
Also, Ladon is the constalation Draco/Dragon, and was often treated as the archetypal dragon in Greek mythology.
[End Edit]

Also, again about Tiamat and Bahamut being so important. The Draconomicon, suggests that they can be the two most imortant, and core archetypal forms of dragons, responcible for the existence of draconic species through the multiverse. I think that many editions, having Bahamut and Tiamat as merely lesser gods, is something of an mistake in d&d, conected to it's human, and humanoid centric nature, just like when they wanted to have Io as a Intermediate god in third edition.

quote:
Originally posted by AuldDragon


I think that's a real stretch. If she's the same deity, she should be either entirely blocked or not at all; it doesn't matter who/what is worshiping her. If she is not blocked, she'd have a tremendous advantage over the other deities, and would have exploited that. If Tiamat has had multiple avatars active on Toril, that indicates she was not blocked, as the Mesopotamian/Egyptian deities had to send individual avatars with substantial extra power invested in them, and those avatars could not make other avatars.





Well, the Mulan Tiamat, was somewhat diminished from her core counterpart, having only three heads. The ability of Tiamat, to have more than one manifestation, may be connected to her having many heads. It may suggest she allready has a fragmented nature(like fellow d&d multiheaded entity, Demogorgon), and it makes creating aspects, that are still connected to each other, easier for her.Not to mention, sages are still puzzled, how Tiamat could easily not only survive her death in the Bloodstone adventure, but also seemingly not being harmed by it at all, or allmost at all.
This may be also connected to Tiamat being connected visibly to two major inter-spheric pantheons(Babylonian and Draconic, maybe three with sumerian). And the Mulan Tiamat was very similar to the d&d Tiamat, if lesser. Tiamat is also mentioned in connection to the Babylonian patheon in the original Deities and Demigods book, and we even have there a
pic of her and Marduk fighting, as the representatation of the mythological conflict in Enuma Elish.

[EDIT]
Also about Kara-Tur, my argument to include Lord of The Sea, as a patron of Sea Dragons and possibly Kara-Tur dragons, as it would explain why Eastern Dragons, are so strongly connected to the Celestial Bureaucracy. Keeping Kara-Tur, and the Asian stuff, completely(and artificialy) separated, makes it seem like from a completely diffrent franchaise, than D&D. Oriental Dragons, have to have some common origin with the rest of D&D dragons. If one, or few members of the draconic pantheon, joined, or helped in the creation of the Celestial Bureaucracy, it would make it feel much more integrated. And all Oriental Dragons, start out as as Carp Dragons/Yu Lung, so it would make a great amount of sense, if the Lord of the Sea was their patron deity, or somehow connected to them.

Edited by - Baltas on 15 Jan 2015 11:32:14
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 2 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
Candlekeep Forum © 1999-2024 Candlekeep.com Go To Top Of Page
Snitz Forums 2000