I got the Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Artifacts and Legends for my birthday, and under the orbs of dragonkind I noticed that the author had Tiamat opposed not by Bahamut but by Apsu. I know that Apsu comes out of the Babylonian creation myth like Tiamat, but in D&D Bahamut has generally been Tiamat's opposite. Has Pathfinder replaced Bahamut with Apsu, or does Bahamut exist too?
Bahamut was claimed as under license by WotC. Like most deities, their Iconics, and Beholder. To name a few.
Ah, thanks Azaelas. I'd wondered if it weren't something like that. It's a shame, especially since Gary Gygax borrowed Bahamut from Arabic mythology. Bahamut.
Ah, thanks Azaelas. I'd wondered if it weren't something like that. It's a shame, especially since Gary Gygax borrowed Bahamut from Arabic mythology. Bahamut.
He took the name, but not the image. Same with the Archdevils (most, if not all of them). And several other creatures.
The name Bahamut could of been used if Paizo wanted. But Bahamut, platinum dragon and lord of the metallics couldn't.
That's a good point, Jeraa. Maybe Paizo could make Bahamut the platinum lord of fish. :-D
Seriously, though, Tiamat doesn't appear in Babylonian mythology as a dragon either, but rather as the salt ocean. While she did give birth to dragons and serpents, she also gave birth to other creatures completely different, and there's nothing in Babylonian mythology to suggest that she looked like any of these. Gygax is the one who popularized Tiamat as a multi-headed dragon. Is the Paizo version multi-headed too?
Bahamut is also a bastardization of Bahar-Mut (Bastard King in Gaeiac Draconic).
Bahar-Mut is also a Celestial Dragon and Human Half-Breed who became the king of dragons after his father (the previous dragon king.) was murdered.
He became a Titan in Gaeiac Lore.
Is the Paizo version multi-headed too?
I don't know. Aside from a few brief mentions, there isn't really any information on Tiamat in Pathfinder. I could find no physical description at all.
Since there was no special mention of multiple heads, one could possibly assume that Tiamat fits the standard dragon appearance, and only have a single head.
Bahamut is also a bastardization of Bahar-Mut (Bastard King in Gaeiac Draconic).
Bahar-Mut is also a Celestial Dragon and Human Half-Breed who became the king of dragons after his father (the previous dragon king.) was murdered.
He became a Titan in Gaeiac Lore.
I've never heard of any of that. Is that something from within Pathfinder?
Is the Paizo version multi-headed too?I don't know. Aside from a few brief mentions, there isn't really any information on Tiamat in Pathfinder. I could find no physical description at all.
Since there was no special mention of multiple heads, one could possibly assume that Tiamat fits the standard dragon appearance, and only have a single head.
That's interesting. So there's no Pathfinder book akin to Deities and Demigods?
Now Dahak or Zahhak does appear to have had associations with draqons from the start, in that the ancient Iranians knew him (or it) as Aži Dahāka, and "azi" is the Avestan (Zoroastrian) word for serpent or dragon. In Zoroastrian literature Aži Dahāka (Dahāg) actually DOES have three heads. James Ward and Rob Kuntz include him under the Babylonian mythos in the original Deities and Demigods, perhaps because the Babylonian Empire at one point overlapped Persian (Iran). They do list Dahak as a monster that appears as a huge three-headed dragon.
Bahamut is also a bastardization of Bahar-Mut (Bastard King in Gaeiac Draconic).
Bahar-Mut is also a Celestial Dragon and Human Half-Breed who became the king of dragons after his father (the previous dragon king.) was murdered.
He became a Titan in Gaeiac Lore.
I've never heard of any of that. Is that something from within Pathfinder?
Real world mythos. The one I personally believe in.
Is the Paizo version multi-headed too?I don't know. Aside from a few brief mentions, there isn't really any information on Tiamat in Pathfinder. I could find no physical description at all.
Since there was no special mention of multiple heads, one could possibly assume that Tiamat fits the standard dragon appearance, and only have a single head.
That's interesting. So there's no Pathfinder book akin to Deities and Demigods?
Now Dahak or Zahhak does appear to have had associations with draqons from the start, in that the ancient Iranians knew him (or it) as Aži Dahāka, and "azi" is the Avestan (Zoroastrian) word for serpent or dragon. In Zoroastrian literature Aži Dahāka (Dahāg) actually DOES have three heads. James Ward and Rob Kuntz include him under the Babylonian mythos in the original Deities and Demigods, perhaps because the Babylonian Empire at one point overlapped Persian (Iran). They do list Dahak as a monster that appears as a huge three-headed dragon.
only Faiths of Purity/Balance/Corruption.
That's interesting. So there's no Pathfinder book akin to Deities and Demigods?
Well, there is Gods and Magic. Not quite the same thing. That is pretty much the only book with mention of Tiamat. Even then, she is only briefly mentioned in the Apsu and Dahak entries, who themselves only have like 2 paragraphs each.
Tiamat just isn't really mentioned in Pathfinder much. She doesn't even have listed domains for clerics.
Faiths of Corruption doesn't even mention Tiamat in the Dahak entry (nor is she mentioned in the Apsu entry in Faiths of Purity), instead saying that "[Dahak] is said to have been the creator of the metallic dragons, inventing them solely so that he might spill their blood in cruel hunts.
So Tiamat might not even exist in the Pathfinder version of Golarion. The only mentions of her I've found seem to be in the 3.5 version of Golarion.
|
@Azaelas Fayth: please enlighten me about 'Gaeiac'.
Is/was it a religion in our world? You sound like you are an adherent, but is it a widespread belief today? When did it arise? From which part of the world does it originate? Briefly, what are it's beliefs?
I've never heard of it, and that bothers me. : /
So Tiamat might not even exist in the Pathfinder version of Golarion. The only mentions of her I've found seem to be in the 3.5 version of Golarion.That's interesting. So there's no Pathfinder book akin to Deities and Demigods?Well, there is Gods and Magic. Not quite the same thing. That is pretty much the only book with mention of Tiamat. Even then, she is only briefly mentioned in the Apsu and Dahak entries, who themselves only have like 2 paragraphs each.
Tiamat just isn't really mentioned in Pathfinder much. She doesn't even have listed domains for clerics.
Faiths of Corruption doesn't even mention Tiamat in the Dahak entry (nor is she mentioned in the Apsu entry in Faiths of Purity), instead saying that "[Dahak] is said to have been the creator of the metallic dragons, inventing them solely so that he might spill their blood in cruel hunts.
I'm looking at the Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Artifacts and Legends, and it does mention her on page 32 as the "chaotic queen." It's interesting because earlier in the same paragraph the text mentions "a chaotic mother deity no dragon willingly names." It's not clear whether the author is referring to two different female dragons, or if the "chaotic queen" and the "chaotic mother deity" as supposed to be the same dragon. Grade school teachers often force their students to write with "elegant variation" in order to example the students' vocabularies, but never explain that in real-world writing elegant variation causes confusion, and sticking with one word for one thing grants clarity. It's possible that the author had originally written the entry for the orbs of dragonkind for 3.5, and then changed the first reference to Tiamat to "a chaotic mother deity no dragon willingly names" in order to avoid copyright issues, but missed the second reference to Tiamat later in the paragraph (where she cries 10 perfect tears that become the 10 orbs of dragonkind after each one is inhabited by the souls of each type of dragon). So maybe they meant to eliminate her and overlooked this one mention.
It is one of the old 3. It has faded today. It has only 1000 registered followers. Though looking at the numbers Christianity only has 1200 registered followers...
It actually was spread throughout the world until after the 1700s.
It is hard to briefly explain Message me and I can try to explain without Threadjacking.
Also it is rare to hear about now a days as most of its followers are like Ghandi.
I think they are intentionally downplaying Tiamat. Even though the name is from mythology, the conception of Tiamat as a 5 headed dragon queen of the chromatics is almost entirely a WOTC invention. Paizo seems to be gunshy of reinventing iconic characters, and they can't use WOTC's Tiamat, hence very little reference to her.
I think they are intentionally downplaying Tiamat. Even though the name is from mythology, the conception of Tiamat as a 5 headed dragon queen of the chromatics is almost entirely a WOTC invention. Paizo seems to be gunshy of reinventing iconic characters, and they can't use WOTC's Tiamat, hence very little reference to her.
No its not. Its a Gygax invention from 1974 (though she wasn't actually given a name until 77). WotC just acquired the rights to it when it bought TSR, they had nothing to do with Tiamat having multiple heads. Tiamat was a multi-headed dragon god 15 years before WotC was founded, and 23 years before WotC bought TSR.
I agree that demogorgon was horrible.
Bahamut is under WotC license.
I think they are intentionally downplaying Tiamat. Even though the name is from mythology, the conception of Tiamat as a 5 headed dragon queen of the chromatics is almost entirely a WOTC invention. Paizo seems to be gunshy of reinventing iconic characters, and they can't use WOTC's Tiamat, hence very little reference to her.
It's not an invention of WOTC, but of Gary Gygax. Gary introduced the idea of a 5-head queen of chaotic dragons in the Greyhawk, the first supplement to original D&D, in 1976. (In those days the D&D alignment system had only one dimension, the law-chaos axis, with law as good and chaos as evil, as per Michael Moorcock's Elric series.) So far as I know, he didn't give her a name in publication until the AD&D Monster Manual, where she appeared as Tiamat in 1977. (It's possible he used the name previously in Dragon Magazine, as it was called in those days.)
You're right though about the larger points, that Tiamat as the 5-headed queen of dragons is associated specifically with D&D.
Is the mention in Artifacts and Legends the only actually Pathfinder reference to her? Do all the other Paizo mentions come from 3.5?
I've always loved Demogorgon. He's always been appropriate scary and creepy. If anything he started out as a little too powerful what with his whole "rot your limbs off in 1-4 rounds) attack. No PC wanted to fight THAT. :-D
Yes I misspoke...what I meant to say is that the DnD brand owns the appearance of Tiamat (which is currently a property of WOTC). Either way WOTC can't touch it without significantly reworking the creature, and breaking with established game tradition.
Demogorgon...is silly looking. I am cool with them not using the WOTC version.
The FF licensed their description of Bahamut. But WotC is only licensing the description of him under that name. meaning they can make Bahamut a Silver Great Wyrm but not a Platinum dragon king.
Technically, Paizo can even use the name Beholder for a Monster. So long as it isn't a Floating Eyeball with Eye Stalks. Just like they can use the Floating Eyeball with Eye Stalks under a different name.
Gotta Love Technicalities. Just like a Ship flying the American Flag Technically classifies as being American Soil when it comes to a baby being born and a few other key events.
P.S.: A 5-Headed Hydra(A Type of dragon in Babylonian Myth) was Tiamat's Avatar in Babylonian Myths. That was also her appearance when she made a deal with Gilgamesh in the Original Epic. It even had a Dragon King under the name of Bahiumat.
P.S.: A 5-Headed Hydra(A Type of dragon in Babylonian Myth) was Tiamat's Avatar in Babylonian Myths. That was also her appearance when she made a deal with Gilgamesh in the Original Epic. It even had a Dragon King under the name of Bahiumat.
The hydra comes from Greek mythology, not Babylonian mythology, and as I indicated before, there's no evidence at all that Tiamat was ever depicted as any sort of dragon, much less as a 5-headed dragon, in Babylonian mythology. Bahamut, as I also indicated before, comes from Arabian mythology, not Babylonian mythology.
WotC claimed Bahamut as their IP? But what about Square-Enix and the general name comes from mythology?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is one of the old 3. It has faded today. It has only 1000 registered followers. Though looking at the numbers Christianity only has 1200 registered followers...
It actually was spread throughout the world until after the 1700s.
It is hard to briefly explain Message me and I can try to explain without Threadjacking.
Also it is rare to hear about now a days as most of its followers are like Ghandi.
How about a link then?
The hydra comes from Greek mythology, not Babylonian mythology, and as I indicated before, there's no evidence at all that Tiamat was ever depicted as any sort of dragon, much less as a 5-headed dragon, in Babylonian mythology. Bahamut, as I also indicated before, comes from Arabian mythology, not Babylonian mythology.
P.S.: A 5-Headed Hydra(A Type of dragon in Babylonian Myth) was Tiamat's Avatar in Babylonian Myths. That was also her appearance when she made a deal with Gilgamesh in the Original Epic. It even had a Dragon King under the name of Bahiumat.
Can't disagree with most of this, however DnD didn't invent the "draconic" Tiamat, as some later legends or interpretations did depict her as a dragon, which is likely where Gygax got part of the inspiration from. But nothing is present in the original description to obviously identify her a dragon other than a tail, and she certainly didn't have more than 1 head.
WotC claimed Bahamut as their IP? But what about Square-Enix and the general name comes from mythology?
WotC did not claim Bahamut, the name. Or even Bahamut the dragon. They claimed Bahamut the platinum dragon, lord and god of the metallic dragons, Lord of the North Wind, son of the dragon god Io; brother of Aasterinian, Chronepsis, Faluzure, and Tiamat. He who grants the Air, Cold, Dragon, Good, Law, Luck, Nobility, Protection, Storm domains to clerics. He who dwells in a wondrous, glittering fortress with windows made from gems set in silver and gold, walls of inlaid copper and ivory, and floors of beaten mithril, and is attended by 7 magnificient golden great wyrm dragons.
WotC owns a very specific version of Bahamut. They have no control over other versions of Bahamut. As long as those other versions are different somehow, they are fine.
WotC owns a very specific version of Bahamut. They have no control over other versions of Bahamut. As long as those other versions are different somehow, they are fine.
Awe, they own the cool one...
WotC claimed Bahamut as their IP? But what about Square-Enix and the general name comes from mythology?WotC did not claim Bahamut, the name. Or even Bahamut the dragon. They claimed Bahamut the platinum dragon, lord and god of the metallic dragons, Lord of the North Wind, son of the dragon god Io; brother of Aasterinian, Chronepsis, Faluzure, and Tiamat. He who grants the Air, Cold, Dragon, Good, Law, Luck, Nobility, Protection, Storm domains to clerics. He who dwells in a wondrous, glittering fortress with windows made from gems set in silver and gold, walls of inlaid copper and ivory, and floors of beaten mithril, and is attended by 7 magnificient golden great wyrm dragons.
WotC owns a very specific version of Bahamut. They have no control over other versions of Bahamut. As long as those other versions are different somehow, they are fine.
Also, Japan has some, how shall I say, looser interpretations of foreign IP rights (or had back then, I don't know about it now). For instance, the original Evil Eye had a beholder sprite, which was changed for the international release. Most of the monsters in the original Final Fantasy were essentially D&D monsters, and probably were only renamed thanks to space limitations and localizers who may not have been familiar with D&D.
Creative Director
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As far as I know, WotC has not claimed the name Bahamut as their IP.
His incarnation as a platinum dragon, though, IS the intellectual property of Wizards of the Coast, just as Tiamat as a chromatic five headed dragon is.
We could have used both of them significantly in Pathfinder/Golarion as deities, but they'd have to be something other than a platinum lawful good dragon and a lawful evil devil five-headed dragon.
And they're iconic enough that I didn't want to do that.
So we went with two other real-world mythological deities—Apsu and Dahak.
Pathfindder is not D&D. This is one of the ways that statement is true.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bahamut is also a bastardization of Bahar-Mut (Bastard King in Gaeiac Draconic).
Bahar-Mut is also a Celestial Dragon and Human Half-Breed who became the king of dragons after his father (the previous dragon king.) was murdered.
He became a Titan in Gaeiac Lore.
I've never heard of any of that. Is that something from within Pathfinder?
Real world mythos. The one I personally believe in.
I respect your right to believe whatever. But in actual fact, there is no language called "Gaeiac Draconic" or "Gaelic Draconic," if that was what you were trying to spell. And the name Bahamut in all likelihood is related to the word/name Behemoth, both from related language roots from the Middle East.
I only mention this, because historically, people here are getting information. And to allow your post to go un-clarified would be to let some people come away with false historical information.
I respect your right to believe whatever. But in actual fact, there is no language called "Gaeiac Draconic" or "Gaelic Draconic," if that was what you were trying to spell. And the name Bahamut in all likelihood is related to the word/name Behemoth, both from related language roots from the Middle East.
I only mention this, because historically, people here are getting information. And to allow your post to go un-clarified would be to let some people come away with false historical information.
Yeah, I can't seem to find anything on this. The fact that it might be a really obscure thing only makes me want to know more.
Post a link or PM me one.
As far as I know, WotC has not claimed the name Bahamut as their IP.
His incarnation as a platinum dragon, though, IS the intellectual property of Wizards of the Coast, just as Tiamat as a chromatic five headed dragon is.
We could have used both of them significantly in Pathfinder/Golarion as deities, but they'd have to be something other than a platinum lawful good dragon and a lawful evil devil five-headed dragon.
And they're iconic enough that I didn't want to do that.
So we went with two other real-world mythological deities—Apsu and Dahak.
Pathfindder is not D&D. This is one of the ways that statement is true.
Wow! I'm honored to have James Jacobs pop into my thread! You probably don't remember me as CelestialBarbarian over on the Wizards website during 3rd Ed days, but thank you for clarifying the legal status. Was the mention of Tiamat in Artifacts and Legends an accident as I hypothesized above?
Artifacts and Legends is really my first Pathfinder book (the alpha and beta downloads don't count in my mind) and despite being identical in some respects to D&D, it did drive home for me that Pathfinder isn't D&D. :-(
I knew Dahak from the AD&D Deities and Demigods (and from Xenia), but I confess I had to look up Apsu. I think you made the right choice under the circumstances.
Bahamut is also a bastardization of Bahar-Mut (Bastard King in Gaeiac Draconic).
Bahar-Mut is also a Celestial Dragon and Human Half-Breed who became the king of dragons after his father (the previous dragon king.) was murdered.
He became a Titan in Gaeiac Lore.
I've never heard of any of that. Is that something from within Pathfinder?
Real world mythos. The one I personally believe in.
I respect your right to believe whatever. But in actual fact, there is no language called "Gaeiac Draconic" or "Gaelic Draconic," if that was what you were trying to spell. And the name Bahamut in all likelihood is related to the word/name Behemoth, both from related language roots from the Middle East.
I only mention this, because historically, people here are getting information. And to allow your post to go un-clarified would be to let some people come away with false historical information.
I nearly said the same thing, Brunnwald, but the strange reference to "registered" members of religions made me not want to encourage him, so ignored him until he started spreading misinformation about ancient real-world religions.
By the way, the research I did agrees with Azaelas Fayth's point that although there's no evidence in Babylonian religion of Tiamat as a dragon, the idea of her as a dragon does seem to predate Gary's use of her as the five-headed queen of chaotic dragons in 1977, although I couldn't track down any specific depictions of her as a dragon before 1977. Can anyone find any?
|
Creative Director
|
Wow! I'm honored to have James Jacobs pop into my thread! You probably don't remember me as CelestialBarbarian over on the Wizards website during 3rd Ed days, but thank you for clarifying the legal status. Was the mention of Tiamat in Artifacts and Legends an accident as I hypothesized above?
Nope; it wasn't an accident.
We CAN still mention the name "Tiamat" in our publications—we just have to leave the details to each individual GM to fill in. Using material from the various editions of D&D through the ages for Tiamat works fine, as does going to the real-world mythological source for her.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think of the Golarion Tiamat as more of a Golarion-equivalent to the Midgard Serpent/Jormungandr or Apep/Apophis 'serpent of elder chaos and darkness' sort of figure. The primordial fecund darkened world-ocean made manifest, slumbering fitfully through this too-bright phase of creation and dreaming of the death of stars and the return to darkness.
I always found Dahak, from the old Dieties & Demigods, to be fascinating, so I'm glad that PF is exploring that figure.
Apsu? I got nothing. I don't mind that he's not Bahamut, because Bahamut never really did anything for me, but Apsu doesn't seem to have really been developed yet, to any great degree.
I liked five-headed cartoon D&D Tiamat, and Graz'zt and Wee Jas and displacer beasts, and various other things I'll never see canonically in Golarion, but that's okay. I can use them anyway, if I want, and even play Pathfinder in Greyhawk, if that suits my mood!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Grade school teachers often force their students to write with "elegant variation" in order to example the students' vocabularies, but never explain that in real-world writing elegant variation causes confusion, and sticking with one word for one thing grants clarity.
I don't know what 'grade school' is but, as a teacher of English, I can tell you that you have misunderstood the motivations of teachers.
You have also made the mistake of using a noun as a verb.
Most strikingly, you have criticised an array of the great writers in English for their supposed lack of clarity.
However, I am impressed by the wheedling sophistry of the word 'force'.
I think "example" was meant to be "expand" but got auto-corrected. Just a guess.
The same is true of Paladine and Takihisis.
Much like how Arthaus/White Wolf had to refer to Lord Soth only obliquely during their time making Ravenloft...
It is what it is.
Wow! I'm honored to have James Jacobs pop into my thread! You probably don't remember me as CelestialBarbarian over on the Wizards website during 3rd Ed days, but thank you for clarifying the legal status. Was the mention of Tiamat in Artifacts and Legends an accident as I hypothesized above?
Nope; it wasn't an accident.
We CAN still mention the name "Tiamat" in our publications—we just have to leave the details to each individual GM to fill in. Using material from the various editions of D&D through the ages for Tiamat works fine, as does going to the real-world mythological source for her.
So in Artifacts and Legends is Tiamat the "chaotic queen" mentioned the same as "a chaotic mother deity no dragon willingly names" mentioned earlier in the same paragraph, or is that supposed to be two different female dragons?
Could you have used Bahamut too and left the details for the GM to fill in or not, since the Bahamut of Arabian myth was a giant fish, not a dragon, and Gary seems to have been the first to use the name for a dragon?
Well, there's the Asian tradition that carp can get transformed into dragons, so if you're going with a unified dragon theory, it's only reasonable that other fish might figure out the the trick too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, there's the Asian tradition that carp can get transformed into dragons, so if you're going with a unified dragon theory, it's only reasonable that other fish might figure out the the trick too.
Well explains the whole Magikarp evolving into Gyarados thing. :-D
Well, there's the Asian tradition that carp can get transformed into dragons, so if you're going with a unified dragon theory, it's only reasonable that other fish might figure out the the trick too.
That could make for one seriously bad Christmas in Czech households.
Well, there's the Asian tradition that carp can get transformed into dragons, so if you're going with a unified dragon theory, it's only reasonable that other fish might figure out the the trick too.That could make for one seriously bad Christmas in Czech households.
Thanks, Kajehase! I'd never heard of the Czech Christmas carp tradition before. I've searched several websites and cannot find much about why they eat carp on Christmas, other than that eating carp was considered a luxury and so as the Industrial Revolution had created drastic increases in real incomes per person by the 19th century, that's when Czechs in large numbers became able to afford carp. I might have conjectured that carp had some symbolic significance relating to some of Jesus' apostles working as fisherman, but I can find nothing to confirm the conjecture.
I wonder what the Arabic Bahamut would think about eating carp? :-D
Ooh, this so makes me miss Gary Gygax. I would ask him if he got the idea of transforming Bahamut from a fish to a dragon from the Asian tradition (is it widespread in Asia or just Japanese?) of carp turning into dragons. I used to run a Yahoo list for him and would on occasion ask him questions like that. That's where I learned things like the fact that he got the idea of the monk from the Remo Williams novels, and his original grand masters (and three types of colored dragons) from the game mahjong. He's also the one who set me straight on the pronunciation of "drow," which I'd thought rhymed with "mow" and "row," but which he told me he got from the Oxford Old English Dictionary and was pronounced there to rhyme with "how now (brown) cow." It's like when I see a Discovery channel ad for a show on fighter jets and I really miss my dad because he so loved that sort of show. Of course Gary was part of my generation (albeit an earlier part) and in my thinking should have been around for two or three more decades, but then I based on how long my grandparents lived I thought my dad would still be alive today. :-(
Sorry. Anyway, I looked up the carp to dragon transformation and it appears to come from Chinese mythology. In fact there's a specific Chinese story of a carp swimming upstream to the Dragon's Gate when no other carp could, and being transformed into a dragon as a reward. Even when I throw "Japan" into the search mix I get references to China.
Speaking of Gary Gygax and dragons, has anyone come across Garyx, the dragon god of fire, destruction, and renewal? I first ran across him somewhere in 3rd Ed (it might have been Draconomicon but I'm thinking it might have been earlier, perhaps in the World of Greyhawk Campaign Setting or less likely the Greyhawk Gazetteer), and thought he was a 3rd Ed tribute to Gary, despite the entry saying that something Garyx is insane. Gary, however, was NOT amused. Later I came across Garyx in an old 2nd Ed book (probably the softcover Monster Deities book) and then learned that TSR introduced Garyx in the 2nd Ed Draconomicon. In as much as 2nd Ed always seemed somewhat anti-Gygaxian, I wondered if they actually created Garyx as a poke at Gary rather than an attempt at a humorous tribute. Either way though, he didn't like it.
I've never used Garyx in my campaign, nor indeed any of the other dragon deities introduced in 2nd Ed. I do have Tiamat and Bahamut, although I've never actually had PCs run into either, but the good dragons that my parties have encountered do pay homage to Bahamut. In my campaign world there are lesser and greater divine beings, and one greatest divine being who created them both. Most of the "gods" of various pantheons belong to the lesser divine race. (I basically borrowed the idea from Tolkien, who had Eru Iluvatar creating the Valar (greater divine race) and Maiar (lesser divine race), although mine have different deities (and different names for the two types). Most of the long-lived races venerate the greater divine race, but recognize that there's actually one divine being who created everything and so don't refer to the members of either divine races a "gods." One of my players, when created a half-dragon, wanted to know if his character likely worshiped Bahamut or venerated the greater divine race. I told him that dragons don't claim that Bahamut is a god and that a follower of Bahamut could nonetheless venerate the higher divine race. Bahamut is more like the rich, powerful, arrogant yet oddly caring patriarch of the (good) dragon clan. :-D