|
Although Tiamat is listed as one of the original beings in the Multiverse in 'Gods and Magic', there is not much additional information. As one of the two creators of the original gods, this seems strange. To be specific, Tiamat is only mentioned in the sections on Apsu and Dahak. Does anybody know of any additional canon source material?
|
Contributor
|
In addition to Gods and Magic, Tiamat is mentioned in Dragons Revisited and Pathfinder #4. However, only page 61 of Pathfinder #4 has more information than what is located in Gods and Magic. It's a great read...you should try to get it in PDF, at least.
However, there isn't much in the way of detail in Pathfinder #4, either. Where Apsu is the embodiment of the primal "fresh water" (Law), Tiamat is the embodiment of the primal "salt water" (Chaos). She is the mother of Dahak and the mate of Apsu, and her countenance hearkens back to the Tiamat of Earth mythology, making her a dark, mysterious and incredibly powerful entity...much more than the multi-headed monster of D&D fame.
It was through the unholy power of Tiamat that the original Metallic dragons were corrupted into the Chromatics.
However, Tiamat is far removed from the Pantheon of Golarion. Even the sound of her name gives pain to all dragons.
I don't think there's much more info than that on her. Dahak and Apsu are the main Draconic deities in the Pathfinder setting.
I hope that helps.
More information on Tiamat can be found in Babylonian mythology. For a summary, check the Wikipedia entry. It's not "Golarion cannon," but the original myths are a strong source of inspiration for the AD&D/D&D/Pathfinder versions.
She only gets a passing mention because she's not really involved in the happenings of Golarion. There are no followers of Tiamat - even our blasphemous get Dahak has but a small following, even among the evil dragons.
That's why information is so scarce: Few scholars know about her, and most of those who do will not talk of her. She's like a distant horror of the Dark Tapestry: It's there, it's evil and dangerous, but it's far, far away, unlikely to disturb this sphere.
Creative Director
|
Also note that Tiamat as "five-headed evil dragon goddess" is a WotC IP. Tiamat the mythological name/figure isn't. So Paizo can't just slap the D&D likeness of Big T in their products.
This is the main reason we don't and won't talk about Tiamat much, and why we decided to make Dahak the big bad dragon. We probably should have avoided mentioning Tiamat at all in the context of a dragon deity, but we couldn't resist a brief mention as almost an easter egg.
But going forward, Dahak's the evil dragon god. We won't be doing much else with Tiamat ever... but neither will be saying "Tiamat has no place in Golarion." Like Demogorgon, we just can't say much about the character because while the name is public domain, the specific D&D incarnation of the character is not.
Also note that Tiamat as "five-headed evil dragon goddess" is a WotC IP. Tiamat the mythological name/figure isn't. So Paizo can't just slap the D&D likeness of Big T in their products.This is the main reason we don't and won't talk about Tiamat much, and why we decided to make Dahak the big bad dragon. We probably should have avoided mentioning Tiamat at all in the context of a dragon deity, but we couldn't resist a brief mention as almost an easter egg.
But going forward, Dahak's the evil dragon god. We won't be doing much else with Tiamat ever... but neither will be saying "Tiamat has no place in Golarion." Like Demogorgon, we just can't say much about the character because while the name is public domain, the specific D&D incarnation of the character is not.
I wouldn't mind seeing Paizo re-imaging both demogorgon and tiamat at some point
We probably should have avoided mentioning Tiamat at all in the context of a dragon deity, but we couldn't resist a brief mention as almost an easter egg.
Well, the mythological Tiamat did give birth to dragons (though it was just part of a bigger giving birth to nasty critters thing she had).
So nobody could claim that they have the right to Tiamat as a dragon deity any more that they could claim sole right to words like dragon.
|
The role of 'mother of monsters' is being pretty firmly gripped by Lamashtu right now, so it's probably best for Golarion-Tiamat to remain some formless chaos-serpent creation-goddess, and remain less active.
Although, given her nature, I'd expect her 'breath weapon' to be a summoning effect, perhaps disgorging swarms of smaller monsters drenched in acid...
|
Creative Director
|
I wouldn't mind seeing Paizo re-imaging both demogorgon and tiamat at some point
It won't be happening, because I happen to quite like the way WotC and TSR developed Demogorgon and Tiamat. I don't WANT to rebuild or reimagine them. Nor can we actually use those incarnations in our products. The only real choice is to use the names now and then since those are public domain, but leave the actual role and appearance of each implied. You CAN use the WotC 3.5 versions of both in Golarion. They're just not officially supported in those roles.
And Dahak and Lamashtu are pretty much the official replacements. You can, if you wish, think of them as the re-imaging of both Tiamat and Demogorgon, I suppose.
|
Creative Director
|
Well, the mythological Tiamat did give birth to dragons (though it was just part of a bigger giving birth to nasty critters thing she had).
So nobody could claim that they have the right to Tiamat as a dragon deity any more that they could claim sole right to words like dragon.
Nobody is claiming that.
The claim is that Tiamat as a five headed dragon that combines the five features of the five chromatic dragons and is a deity who lives on the first layer of Hell is flavor that belongs to WotC. I'm not interested in poaching that flavor, nor am I interested in hard-wiring into Golarion a re-imagining of Tiamat that makes using her in that capacity in a home game "wrong."
Well, the mythological Tiamat did give birth to dragons (though it was just part of a bigger giving birth to nasty critters thing she had).
So nobody could claim that they have the right to Tiamat as a dragon deity any more that they could claim sole right to words like dragon.
Nobody is claiming that.
The claim is that Tiamat as a five headed dragon that combines the five features of the five chromatic dragons and is a deity who lives on the first layer of Hell is flavor that belongs to WotC. I'm not interested in poaching that flavor, nor am I interested in hard-wiring into Golarion a re-imagining of Tiamat that makes using her in that capacity in a home game "wrong."
The Chronicles Tiamat doesn't live in hell, though, does she? If I got my stuff right, she's "somewhere far away", which I interpret as nowhere near the outer planes as known on Golarion.
And Set has a good point: I get a big Tiamat-vibe when I read about Golarion's Lamashtu (or a Lamashtu-vibe when reading about mythological Tiamat).
Still, the five-headed part was kinda fun.
Speaking of D&D Dragon deities: Isn't Bahamut as a dragon god also pretty much D&D-specific? Because there is a Bahamut in various Final Fantasy games, where you can summon him and he has the form of a dragon (or a draconic warrior that can transform into a dragon-shaped fighter jet). And the first FF also had a five-headed dragon called Tiamat apparently.
Regarding Tiamat (who is thought to have been pictured as draconic/sea monsterish in ancient religion, so D&D didn't come up with the dragon thing totally), it might be a good idea to just say she got killed or banished by some other deity in the distant past. It wouldn't be too much of a deviation of Babylonian myth, considering Marduk did slay her and all (and her body became the heavens and earth, etc., but you can leave that out to avoid a blatant myth copy).
edit: fixed tons of grammatical errors >_<
Speaking of D&D Dragon deities: Isn't Bahamut as a dragon god also pretty much D&D-specific? Because there is a Bahamut in various Final Fantasy games, where you can summon him and he has the form of a dragon (or a draconic warrior that can transform into a dragon-shaped fighter jet). And the first FF also had a five-headed dragon called Tiamat apparently.
Apparently (says Wikipedia) Bahamut was a giant fish in Arabic myth... Also, D&D predates FF by a number of years, but references to it can be found in many FFs (mind flayers even showed up once). The Japanese seem to have particularly enjoyed early D&D mythology (see, for example, Record of Lodoss War, where the characters can almost be directly associated with D&D classes, not to mention the elves & dark elves)
|
|
Apparently (says Wikipedia) Bahamut was a giant fish in Arabic myth... Also, D&D predates FF by a number of years, but references to it can be found in many FFs (mind flayers even showed up once). The Japanese seem to have particularly enjoyed early D&D mythology (see, for example, Record of Lodoss War, where the characters can almost be directly associated with D&D classes, not to mention the elves & dark elves)Speaking of D&D Dragon deities: Isn't Bahamut as a dragon god also pretty much D&D-specific? Because there is a Bahamut in various Final Fantasy games, where you can summon him and he has the form of a dragon (or a draconic warrior that can transform into a dragon-shaped fighter jet). And the first FF also had a five-headed dragon called Tiamat apparently.
For the official record. Record of Lodoss War was actually a direct copy of a DnD campaign that occurred. I forget the official term, but essentially its a DnD campaign made into an anime.
|
|
Regarding Tiamat (who is thought to have been pictured as draconic/sea monsterish in ancient religion,
What with Golarion actually having sea serpents (and linnorms, which may or may not be related to them) having Tiamat be the unofficial goddess of sea serpents (and possibly linnorms) could be neat.
She could even take on a Jormungandr aspect, and be thought to encircle the world, coiled deep within the seas, with earthquakes being a result of her shifting in her sleep.
Since what really brought destruction raining down upon Azlant isn't exactly common knowledge, her few and far-between cultists (fewer still human) might whisper that she had something to do with the sinking of the ancient civilization, and that Earthfall was just a symptom of her wrath, and not the cause of the devastation.
They'd, of course, be competing with a dozen other apocalyptic cults, claiming that Earthfall was the wrath of Groetus who sent a 'child' down to Golarion, or an attack by Rovagug, attempting to shatter his prison, or something to do with Lamashtu opening the World Womb, that her demonic offspring could pour forth and sweep over Golarion, or the wrath of Aroden, maddened by the failure of man to follow the lessons of law, etc, etc.
So many want to take credit, after all...
I never liked wotc's Tiamat and overall the overexposure of dragons, Golarion's mysterious version is an improvement.
With Apsu and Tiamat and Dahak, has there been any thought to bringing in Kingu?
|
Creative Director
|
The Chronicles Tiamat doesn't live in hell, though, does she? If I got my stuff right, she's "somewhere far away", which I interpret as nowhere near the outer planes as known on Golarion.
We leave where Tiamat lives up to the individual GM. My preference is that she does indeed live on the first layer of Hell. But if you use Tiamat in your game, she lives wherever you want.
And Set has a good point: I get a big Tiamat-vibe when I read about Golarion's Lamashtu (or a Lamashtu-vibe when reading about mythological Tiamat).
Since Lamashtu comes from a similar part of the world and a similar time (Mesopotamian mythology), that's not surprising at all. Kind of like how there are similarities between Greek and Roman gods. Unlike with Tiamat's development for a game world, though, we stuck relatively close to Lamashtu's real-world mythological roots for her incarnation in Golarion (although we DID tone down several elements in order to keep from going TOO R- or X-rated; turns out real world mythology doesn't follow the MPAA code).
Speaking of D&D Dragon deities: Isn't Bahamut as a dragon god also pretty much D&D-specific? Because there is a Bahamut in various Final Fantasy games, where you can summon him and he has the form of a dragon (or a draconic warrior that can transform into a dragon-shaped fighter jet). And the first FF also had a five-headed dragon called Tiamat apparently.
Bahaumut is like Tiamat; a real-world mythological figure that's been adopted as a dragon deity. We decided to replace him with Apsu for the same reason we replaced Tiamat with Dahak.
Final Fantasy has a long and proud tradition of lifting monsters from other systems or mythology or popular culture or stories, though. Different philosophy between Square Enix and Paizo about how and what they want to "borrow" from popular RPG culture.
With Apsu and Tiamat and Dahak, has there been any thought to bringing in Kingu?
Heh, I had to start listening to some Therion after reading your mention of Kingu!
With Apsu and Tiamat and Dahak, has there been any thought to bringing in Kingu?Heh, I had to start listening to some Therion after reading your mention of Kingu!
** spoiler omitted **
\m/>@<\m/ To Mega Therion!
Also, D&D predates FF by a number of years
Yes, I know. I'm sure they got the dragon Tiamat and Bahamut thing from D&D.
The thing I'm getting at is that wizards/hasbro isn't getting mad at Square Enix and isn't taking any steps to get them to stop it.
(although we DID tone down several elements in order to keep from going TOO R- or X-rated; turns out real world mythology doesn't follow the MPAA code).
This is the goddess you're already describing as someone who devours infants and mates with all manner of beasts and monsters, right? And she gets even more nasty than that?
Way to go, girl, not that's villainy! }>
I guess square enix is a little bit more difficult to sue and than a company like paizo.[...]
Its similar with Blizzard.
[...]
I guess we will never see a law suit because of this because its not that easy and of course more expensive to sue a big fish like Blizzard.
Actually, I think it would be hilarious. But I doubt that wiazrds would be dumb enough to try anything.
But small fish and direct competitor Paizo has to choose here the cautios side and IMO this is clever decision.No argument there.
|
With Apsu and Tiamat and Dahak, has there been any thought to bringing in Kingu?Heh, I had to start listening to some Therion after reading your mention of Kingu!
** spoiler omitted **
I and a huge fan of Tiamat and my first pathfinder charcter was a sorcerer who worshiped her, and it seems to me, if Paizo wont put her into their stuff ((stupid of decision as I think that is)) its their right choose that, so if we want Tiamat in our games we gotta addapt some old books and put her in private games, seems thats all we can do is write our own stories
|
|
I don't see why that's a stupid decision since they wouldn't be able to use the five-headed version we know from D&D lore anyway. They'd have to rewrite Tiamat into something else and personally I really like the five-headed version.
So yeah, having our own private versions of Tiamat in our Golarion games isn't such a bad thing.
I don't see why that's a stupid decision since they wouldn't be able to use the five-headed version we know from D&D lore anyway. They'd have to rewrite Tiamat into something else and personally I really like the five-headed version.
So yeah, having our own private versions of Tiamat in our Golarion games isn't such a bad thing.
+1
I think it's a very good decision to mention that Tiamat exists, without reimagining her. That way, I can use the 5-headed version in my games without there being a different official version around :)
What really sold me on Golarion originally is the care with which the designers provided compatibility with older material and mythology while developing a unique flavor. There's a place in Golarion to fit all kinds of the adventures that have come before. It creates a world that is both novel, and at the same time extremely useful to people who want to adapt older stuff.
So I'm glad that Tiamat is explicitly a part of the Golarion campaign setting, and I'm also glad that she's not been ripped off or re-imagined, but rather just left as a nebulous, undefined entity. It's the advantage of a blank space on a map: we can put there what we want without creating a bunch of setting inconsistencies. James Jacobs' attitude above something I deeply appreciate.
In a campaign setting I'd run? Tiamat is a multi-headed dragon deity of chromatic, evil dragonkind. Although I reckon she has yellow, orange, and purple heads, too. And whether she lives on the first layer of Hell would get nailed down when someone decides to go pay her a call.
|
|
I don't see why that's a stupid decision
not to sound too petty but its their right not to use her more than just a mention, and its my right to find that a poor choice as a big fan of her and a bit put off there is no chance of her appearing in any Pathfinder books, ((was hoping for a new Draconomicon, WITH a Tiamat entry))
\m/>@<\m/ To Mega Therion!
There is only one dragon god if you are a monotheist :)
I and a huge fan of Tiamat and my first pathfinder charcter was a sorcerer who worshiped her, and it seems to me, if Paizo wont put her into their stuff ((stupid of decision as I think that is)) its their right choose that, so if we want Tiamat in our games we gotta addapt some old books and put her in private games, seems thats all we can do is write our own stories
You're a huge fane of the WotC's vision of Tiamat.
Paizo would not be able to do that, and as James said many times in this thread and many other threads, he's a fan of what WotC did with the char and wants to be able to leave it out there for people to use in home games.
So use her as you want if you want, but don't expect Paizo to touch her, other than a mention here and there as a great mythological Easter Egg.