Takhisis is not Tiamat

Queen of Darkness, by Den Beauvais
(Dragons of Autumn Twilight)

Regularly, someone will mention that Dragonlance's Takhisis is actually D&D's Tiamat, and, if you look a bit deeper on the subject, you'll probably find, like I did, that this is really problematic.

In this post, I'll explain the reasons for and against this "hypothesis", and then, I'll go in detail about what I believe are the real reasons people want to make that Takhisis/Tiamat connection, and how these reasons are not legitimate from a storytelling or worldbuilding viewpoint.

1. - The Claim

A very good example of this claim is also the most recent, that is, this video, used as a marketing tool for Shadow of the Dragon Queen:

Let's read what's being said about Takhisis:

Todd Kenreck: So, I used to say Takhisis, but this is effectively Tiamat.

F. Wesley Schneider: Yes.

Todd Kenreck: So Tiamat is known by a certain amount of names in the D&D Multiverse. Who is Tiamat?

F. Wesley Schneider: So, Dragonlance has always played things a little coy with the goddess Tiamat or Takhisis, but they're one in the same. They are the Dragon Queen. They are the five-headed queen of the chromatic dragons. You'll know her from... Dungeons & Dragons: Dungeons & Dragons' history, dozens of past  adventures.

F. Wesley Schneider: In Shadow of the Dragon Queen, again she is the Dragon Queen. She's the threat that is in the title of the book, and she is the goddess of evil, sinister, dragons and she has been banished from the world for centuries and centuries. And now with the absence of the Gods, and the weakness of the peoples of Krynn, she's using this opportunity to rally her forces back on Krynn and make a play for dominating the entire world.

F. Wesley Schneider is making an interesting claim: Takhisis is Tiamat, and Tiamat has been part from D&D since eons.

We'll examine below the origins of both Takhisis and Tiamat, and then, take a step back to understand why conflating the two together makes sense when you are, say, F. Wesley Schneider, but quite less if you are, say, Tracy Hickman or Margaret Weis...

2. - Objective Reasons

Here, I will not "quote" people giving opinions. Just look at the settings information, as reported by their creators, or by sourcebooks.

2.a - Reasons why Takhisis could be Tiamat

Both Tiamat and Takhisis have a few things in common:

• Both have a Lawful Evil alignment
• Both have a five-headed chromatic dragon physical form
• Both are, in their own mythos, creators of evil chromatic dragons
  

But is this enough to be an objective reason for Takhisis and Tiamat being the same character?

2.b - Digressions

2.b.i - Let's talk about Vampires

Bram Stocker's Dracula is a masterpiece of literature. And Tracy & Laura Hickman's Strahd von Zarovich is a masterpiece of RPGs.

It is clear that Strahd was heavily inspired by Dracula: Both are gloomy vampires with undead brides and gothic castles. But it is also clear they are not the same characters, despite the similarities, and the fact one if heavily inspired by the other.

Conclusion: One character might be inspired by another without both characters being the same.

2.b.ii - The Origin of Takhisis and Tiamat

The similarities between the two characters are not even surprising when you learn of their origins.

Indeed, when creating Dragonlance, Jeff Grubb's original pantheon was reused for Dragonlance, Dragonlance's Takhisis being inspired by Jeff Grubb's own "Draco Cerebus".

And Jeff's Grubb "Draco Cerebus" was inspired by the "Dragon Queen", a.k.a. the "Chromatic Dragon", which was an otherwise unnamed monster that appeared in the 1975 Greyhawk supplement:

The Dragon Queen: The Chromatic Dragon is a huge creature with five heads, one of each color of the five Chaotic Dragons. Her body is striped in these same colors, and her tail is that of a Wyvern. She can employ all heads at once, either to breath or cast spells. Her major abode is in a stupendous cavern far beneath the earth. Her guard consists of five dragons, each of largest size, of the five Chaotic types of dragons. Her major aim is to spread evil.

- Source: Greyhawk (1975)

So "Takhisis" was inspired by "Draco Cerebus", and "Draco Cerebus" was inspired by the "Chromatic Dragon".

At the same time, in 1977, the "Chromatic Dragon" monster would be renamed Tiamat, and its lore would evolve, slowly but regularly, into what we have today.

So, both Tiamat and Takhisis come from the same barely-defined "source", whose name was neither Tiamat nor Takhisis.

But it doesn't stop there, because when recycling Jeff Grubb's original pantheon, Tracy Hickman made an interesting decision. Quoting Jeff Grubb:

"Don’t know where Trace [Tracy Hickman] got the name Takhisis (May be Indonesian – Neraka definitely is) but part of his decision to rename was to separate DL’s cosmology from Greyhawk’s."

- Source: https://dragonlancenexus.com/jeff-grubb-gods-krynn/

So, not only Tiamat and Takhisis were separate evolutions of the same concept (the Chromatic Dragon), but there was also a clear desire from Dragonlance's designers to keep the Dragonlance setting and the Greyhawk setting separate.

2.b.iii - Tiamat's lore

From the original Chromatic Dragon, TSR added lore and backstory to the character, giving to it the name of a ancient Mesopotamian goddess: Tiamat.

(also, fun fact, Bahamut is a fish...)

TSR's Tiamat, in addition to being the Queen of Evil Dragons, is also a devil stuck in Avernus, the first layer of Hell.

Apparently, she was once duke of that layer of Hell, but somehow lost favor with the topmost devil of Hell, and lost her job.

She became a deity around AD&D2 (how?), but she is still somehow Asmodeus' pet, because, after being tempted to destroy her for having failed him once too much, he realized she had never acted against him willingly: Unlike the other devils whose ambitions were to take his place, Tiamat was only a very loyal, but very incompetent, subordinate.

And that's all.

Taking a step back, Tiamat is not even that important: She is just one among the many, many, many evil antagonists in D&D-adjacent settings, some much more interesting than Tiamat will ever be (Vecna? Tasha? Strahd? Graz'zt? Tar-Baphon? Abrogail Thrune?).

2.b.iv - Takhisis' lore

Queen of the Evil Dragons like the original Chromatic Dragon, and leader of evil knights like Jeff Grubb's Draco Cerebus, Takhisis has expanded well beyond these characters she was inspired from, in terms of portfolio, or power, or nature.

She is a deity since its inception, and was instrumental in the creation of the world of Krynn, and the living being inhabiting it (chromatic dragons, but also the ogre race).

She is also the leader of the Pantheon of Evil (i.e. the other evil gods submit to her will), and rules the Abyss.

In addition to evil dragons (who were created by her and Paladine, then corrupted by her), her portfolio include Domination, Hatred, Intrigue, and Night. Her domains are Destruction, Evil, Law, Trickery, and Tyranny.

In addition to the Five-Headed Chromatic Dragon aspect she shares with Tiamat, she has many aspects, and among them: the Dark Warrior, and the Dark Temptress.

Last but not least, her divine power is Control. While this seems to come out of nowhere, this actually informs what Takhisis is, at its core: A Tyrant deity, whose ideal is to have everything in the universe under her direct or indirect command. That, and her leadership of her pantheon, makes her the goddess of ultimate evil of Krynn.

In conclusion: Takhisis is The Big Bad Evil of the Dragonlance setting.

2.d - Reasons why Takhisis could not be Tiamat

As shown above, Tiamat and Takhisis have their origin in Greyhawk's "Chromatic Dragon", but since that origin, both went their separate and different ways, by design.

So, now that we know why one might think Takhisis might be Tiamat, how similarity and origins don't make two characters merge into one, and how the two characters evolved from a common source, let's see the actual arguments on why Takhisis is probably not Tiamat:

2.d.i - The setting creator decided it to be so

Let's remember the two quotes:

• "So, Dragonlance has always played things a little coy with the goddess Tiamat or Takhisis" (F. Wesley Schneider)
  
• "Part of [Tracy Hickman's] decision to rename [Takhisis] was to separate [Dragonlance]’s cosmology from Greyhawk’s." (Jeff Grubb)

Let's ignore the undeniable contributions of Tracy and Laura Hickman to the RPG hobby (Ravenoft, anyone?), and let's just focus on Dragonlance. Not only Tracy Hickman is one of the co-creator of this setting, but he brainstormed it with his wife Laura before even reaching TSR HQ, and he is one of the great storytellers of our hobby.

On the other hand, F. Wesley Schneider is one of the many current employees at Hasbro.

So, yeah, on anything Dragonlance, between F. Wesley Schneider and Tracy Hickman, and if I relied only on argument of authority and/or legitimacy, I would favor the viewpoint of Tracy Hickman, hands down.

But this is not just an argument of authority and/or legitimacy.

Tracy Hickman & co. had a very definitive idea of what was the Dragonlance universe, and for that universe to reach its full potential, it needed to not be weighted down by lore from other D&D universes. This is why you had a Cataclysm in Dragonlance, and Toril and Oerth were safe. This is why the Krynn gods turned their backs on mortals, and yet, Toril and Oerth's clerics still had divine magic.

This is why Toril had a cataclysmic event for every D&D edition change, and no one on Krynn gave a damn. (This will become important, later).

In the end, the creator of the setting decided Takhisis was distinct from Tiamat for reasons important for the setting. And that's more than enough.

2.d.ii - Tiamat's lore and Takhisis' lore are too different

As shown above, while Takhisis and Tiamat share a common, barely defined and unnamed ancestor qualified as "The Dragonqueen" or the "Chromatic Dragon", from there, their lore have diverged greatly:

To the point where they are incompatible, unless you are willing to sacrifice what is great about Takhisis (or give Tiamat an ultra-massive boost).

Despite superficial similarities, Tiamat and Takhisis have different character arcs

What if someone on Krynn killed Takhisis. Would it impact the Tiamat on the Forgotten Realms? What if someone went to Hell, and added a new head (magenta?) to Tiamat. Would it impact Takhisis?

Because the questions above are a reality:

• For better or worse, the Dragonlance authors killed Takhisis (and demoted Paladine into mortality) in the War of Souls trilogy.
• In the Forgotten Realms, Tiamat is the loyal but dumb pet of Asmodeus, confined into a small part of the first layer of Hell
  

One might argue that, for "cosmo-spiritual reasons" or something, the death of Takhisis/Tiamat in Krynn doesn't mean Takhisis/Tiamat is dead in other universes...

... but arguing that is actually confirming the universe/setting is actually what separates Takhisis from Tiamat:

• In the Dragonlance setting, Takhisis is dead, period, and no one there cares about Tiamat surviving in Hell.
• While in the Forgotten Realms setting, Tiamat is still alive (and confined in Hell as a pet to Asmodeus), and no one in the Forgotten Realms setting cares about Takhisis being dead on Krynn

And every attempt to unify the two lead to discrepancies or credibility-overstretching.

2.e - Partial Conclusion

Objectively, Tiamat and Takhisis are actually very different characters:

• They only have a barely defined origin in common
• Their lore is incompatible
• Their character ares are different
  
• The creator who actually matter decided it so
  

So, why would someone want to merge them?

3 - It's all about settings

A subjective reason to merge Tiamat and Takhisis is the fact D&D has many settings, and there has been a trend to actually make them coexist, or even conflate them together. Some kind of D&D Cinematic Universe à la MCU, I guess.

In that vision, Dragonlance is seen as part of D&D...

3.a - Advantages of coexistence: Marketing

This multiverse idea is a very tempting idea, that has been done in many ways, but you can see it done at least with three settings: Spelljammer (a.k.a. D&D in space), Planescape, and Ravenloft.

But here, we go a step further, because, decades ago, having different settings had been very costly for D&D's owners to maintain. So, today, from a marketing viewpoint it makes sense to standardize these different settings, as to make sure every D&D supplement can be used as-is for each setting, and thus bought by everyone, no matter their setting of choice.

From a marketing viewpoint, this is the Holy Grail, and this is why F. Wesley Schneider is mischaracterizing Takhisis: He's actually selling Dragonlance as part of the "D&D Multiverse".

It just happens that Tiamat/Takhisis is just the very visible tip of that marketing iceberg: For a setting called Dungeons & Dragons, the idea of having a draconic big-bad-evil is very tempting, and Tiamat, in appearance, at least, fits perfectly the role, even if her backstory is less than stellar. This explains why so many recent D&D supplements are about her (Tyranny of Dragons? Hoard of the Dragon Queen? Rise of Tiamat?)

3.b - Disadvantages of coexistence: Worldbuilding

Having specifics for each settings make them more original, less bland.

The problem with coexistence is that it dilutes and/or damages the specifics of each setting

On the positive side, in more than one occasion, Dragonlance was set apart:

• No orcs
• No halflings
  
• No drows (if but one typo).
• Dragons are smaller in size (because there's no point in having a dragonlance when your dragons are colossal)
• The Abyss of Dragonlance is clearly not the Abyss of D&D
  
• In particular, these two quotes for the AD&D2 and D&D3 rules for Dragonlance:
  

The point here is to maintain immersion in the players' mind. And this need for immersion preservation is why Dragonlance is not "playing coy", but is "playing correctly", instead.

Now, on the negative side, there are many ways to damage a setting.

• One infamous occasion was when the Ravenloft setting "stole" Lord Soth from the Dragonlance setting: While it is understandable to be tempted by getting together a "League of Evil NPCs" for a setting which is essentially a theme park of evil characters, removing Lord Soth from Dragonlance made the Dragonlance setting "poorer".
  (In addition to show you are unable to come up with a good villain for your own setting, that is)
  
• Another example are Raistlin and Fistandantilus. These are great, original characters, with a lot of depth. They were also the greatest mages of the Dragonlance settings. But Raistlin and Fistandantilus are but footnotes in the D&D multiverse, because, of course, you have then to compare them with Elminster, or Mordenkainen.
• Another is the specifics of the settings that need to exist for that setting to make sense. For example, teleportation in Dragonlance is a rare occurrence, limited to powerful wizards... And suddenly, with D&D5, you got teleportation circles so everyone could teleport everywhere (turning your fantasy campaign into a Star Trek rip-off?).
• The same for planar travel: Going into the Abyss is not something you just cast a spell for, in Dragonlance, as Raistlin has to charm and manipulate Crysania to open that portal for him. But in D&D5, you're welcome to travel everywhere like there's some kind of thriving tourist business.
  
• Last but not least, the Dragonlance's Age of Despair was about gods of Krynn not answering the mortals' prayers anymore. Mortals tried to find other gods, but of course, no other gods existed, so their prayers went unanswered. How does that even work in a multiverse with an infinite number of gods who could have stepped up?

Thus, the Dragonlance setting has been, by necessity of internal coherence and player immersion in the story, actively separating itself from the mainstream, vanilla D&D lore, from its conception up to the 3.5 edition (which is the last time a genuine, legitimate Dragonlance alumni had been in control of the license).

So, by conflating settings together for D&D5, you are just erasing specifics, and introducing inconsistencies in the original setting, just to make it compatible with the others.

And this is problematic.

3.c - The "D&D Multiverse" is but one setting among others

The mistake is, I believe, considering the  D&D Multiverse as "the setting of settings".

I'd argue that, at best, it could be, by itself, considered just as one setting whose premise is: "What if there was a setting inside where all the other cool settings exist?" (which is not as original as some would like to think).

And looking closer, I'd argue it's not even a setting: It is a framework restricting the creativity of worldbuilders, to make it easier to market and publish D&D books that can be used by everyone without a second thought.

While the idea is tempting (which is why we have Batman and Superman and Wonder Woman in the same DC universe), there's actually no need to enforce such framework/setting. All you need to do is to make compatible rules.

But this is not what is being done. Instead, there's a willingness to make the settings as close to each other as possible, to enable a seamless crossover of rules and characters.

And all that assume they actually have an idea about what that "D&D Multiverse Setting" is about, but they can't stop tinkering with it. For example, they spent the last editions changing the organization of the outer planes, for some reason. Do they really expect Tracy Hickman and Margaret Weis, and all the Dragonlance campaigns out there to update the planes of Dragonlance to take that into account?

Do they really think all the real settings need to be updated because "someone" got an "idea" for their "settings framework"?

Which is why, for those who don't care about the "crossover" benefits, the gratuitous damage inflicted by this framework on the setting is infuriating.

In addition to the inconsistencies I mentioned above, this is why you had the external planes organized as the D&D alignments (which is, in retrospect, quite stupid, even if it seemed cool 50 years ago), which then damaged Dragonlance when its AD&D2 sourcebook, Tales of the Lance, contradicted Dragonlance's own planes (The Dome of Creation, the Hidden Vale, and the Abyss).

And this framework is why the Dragonlance's "Queen of Darkness" was changed into the "Dragon Queen" in the "Shadow of the Dragon Queen" book, retconing the character into its much-less-interesting copy, which ends up damaging the original character, and thus, the Dragonlance setting as a whole.

4 - In the end, the game master decides...

There are objective reasons to think Tiamat and Takhisis are not the same "characters".

And there are marketing reasons to merge them together.

But in the end, depending on where you stand as a game master, having Dragonlance as part of D&D might be something that appeals to you, and I respect that: It's your game, and thus, your world and your players' world.

In the same way some other might prefer Dragonlance as a standalone setting, which you can visit as a reader by reading the novels, as a writer by writing fiction, or as a game master or a player by playing an RPG using this setting, and some ruleset that could be D&D5... Or AD&D1, or Pathfinder 2, or the Storyteller System.

5 - Conclusion

When asking yourself "Is Takhisis the same as Tiamat?", there are real, deeper questions you need to answer for yourself:

The first is about Worldbuilding vs. Marketing:

• From a marketing viewpoint, until Hasbro sells the Dragonlance IP to someone worthy of handling it, Tiamat is Takhisis, and Dragonlance is part of the D&D multiverse.
• From a worldbuilding viewpoint, Tiamat and Takhisis are separate, distinct entities with some similarities, and Dragonlance is a distinct, independent setting.
  

The second is how you, as a creator, want to use Dragonlance:

• If you want to play Dragonlance as part of the D&D Multiverse, then you are right: It's your game.
• If you want to play Dragonlance as it was meant to be played, then you are also right, because, again, it's your game.
  

I, for one, am clearly on the Worlbuilding side.

Because everything, from the original creators designs, to the history of the characters, to the worldbuilding imperative, tends to support Takhisis not being Tiamat, and this coherence is important for my own immersion in the setting.

And because I want to play Dragonlance in isolation, without being weighted down by a ruleset, other full-fledged settings, or even the parasitic "setting of settings" that brings nothing, but unwanted distraction.

I just wish Hasbro had done a better job in respecting the Dragonlance setting, in Shadow of the Dragon Queen...