| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Mournblade |
Posted - 13 Aug 2005 : 03:12:28
Why did the cosmology even change? WHy was it necessary? From a marketting standpoint it does not seem wise. The core D&D material is the great wheel. SO why the heck did they even bother screwing it up?
Thoughts??
|
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Sir Luther Cromwell |
Posted - 29 Aug 2005 : 18:49:55
In relation to a 4e of dungeons and dragons, I have I one thing to say:
WWWWWWHHHHHHYYYYYYYYY????????
3e works! The d20 system works! Anything else will simply be overly complicated or overly stupidfied.
I mean come on, 3e has been out for how long? And we have already had a 3.5, why must they monkey around with a working system? They are doing this as if anyone who isn't an impressionable, silly rich kid is actually going to buy 4e within 8 years od 3e. |
| Sanishiver |
Posted - 27 Aug 2005 : 08:53:52
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
....For one thing, all the planar links that are a part of the old lore now no longer exist, officially.
Not true. Those links still officially exist and always have since the FRCS was released.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
That means old lore is invalidated. So, the fans have lost something.
The validity of lore is something a DM makes, not the books.
If I as DM run the Great Wheel and always have, no matter what edition my players favor, I loose nothing because the books I own don't suddenly disappear or have the words in them magically changed when a new book comes out that says something different.
Example: I know a lot of folks who either play pre-ToT in their campaigns or don't include the ToT in their games at all.
Example: The other Realms campaign some of my players are a part of features King Azoun as an old but otherwise alive King, a thriving Tilverton and no Shadovar whatsoever. They happen to use the Great Wheel, too.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
And anything that changes should be explained. Not explaining it breaks continuity. Any setting needs continuity, or it suffers.
This isn’t always necessary within the context of the game world (though all of the changes were explained in a real world context, but these were ultimately ignored), Not if the change was retroactive, Yes every setting needs a reasonable degree of continuity, and Not every setting suffers when continuity is “broken” (if this were true, the Realms would have died a piecemeal death looooong before 3E came out).
For the record I’m not looking to change people’s minds. After over five years of communicating with people who say the exact same thing over and over again regardless, I’ve learned to treat this as more of a repetitious exercise for refining reasoning than as a full on "we'll all take something new away from this" conversation.
This last isn't a dig, mind, but just how things are. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 27 Aug 2005 : 06:57:51
It scares many scribes...
What I was getting at though is whether, with the advent of 4e, we will continue to have altered core setting elements - like the cosmological change for example - that have no basis in the source material?
I mean, it was enough of an effort to have to learn about the changes from 2e to 3e. I'm not looking forward to the prospect, regardless of how likely or unlikely it may be at this point, of having to learn about even more setting changes with a new edition.
If the current changes are at least supported with future material, or even if they are given special attention should changes be incorporated in a new edition, I'd like some focus on what has come before.
|
| Mournblade |
Posted - 27 Aug 2005 : 04:31:19
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
See, I disagree. You do lose something. For one thing, all the planar links that are a part of the old lore now no longer exist, officially. That means old lore is invalidated. So, the fans have lost something.
And anything that changes should be explained. Not explaining it breaks continuity. Any setting needs continuity, or it suffers.
It'll be curious to see actually, if and when D&D is updated to 4e, whether we will see further "changes" to the now core-identity of the Realms...
PLEASE THIS Talk of 4e is scaring me.
I will have officially stopped buying D&D core material if the D&D 4e ever gets released. I am sure if I can convert KEEP ON THE BORDERLANDS to 2e AND 3e I will be able to convert any 4e back to 3e.
I hope never to have to do that though.
|
| The Sage |
Posted - 27 Aug 2005 : 03:16:22
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
See, I disagree. You do lose something. For one thing, all the planar links that are a part of the old lore now no longer exist, officially. That means old lore is invalidated. So, the fans have lost something.
And anything that changes should be explained. Not explaining it breaks continuity. Any setting needs continuity, or it suffers.
It'll be curious to see actually, if and when D&D is updated to 4e, whether we will see further "changes" to the now core-identity of the Realms...
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 27 Aug 2005 : 03:04:18
See, I disagree. You do lose something. For one thing, all the planar links that are a part of the old lore now no longer exist, officially. That means old lore is invalidated. So, the fans have lost something.
And anything that changes should be explained. Not explaining it breaks continuity. Any setting needs continuity, or it suffers. |
| Sanishiver |
Posted - 27 Aug 2005 : 01:18:28
quote:
I think that if the current cosmological changes had actually been the result of gradual changes, marking the transition from 2e to 3e, then perhaps proponents of the Great Wheel cosmology wouldn't have felt so "abandoned" when the Tree structure was introduced with the 3e FRCS.
The problem with this approach is that you can't do "gradual" cosmological changes without serously throwing a monkey wrench into all the new products and novels that would come during such a change.
To be blunt, this would have screwed all Realms products just after the release of the FRCS.
You'd literally have a years-long Realms Shaking Event, as opposed to the Avatar 'boom it's done' RSE we were dealt in the 90's.
And I guarantee you any in-game explanation for either an immediate or long running RSE to 'explain away' the changes would have not stopped complaints at all; if anything it would have generated more as all the hardcore fans wreaked havoc online for (1) WotC daring to change the Realms at all and (2) puting us all through an RSE when they (WotC) new from prior experience the first one was a mistake.
The Magic TV/it's always been that way approach is by far the better, because it presents every DM --and the game is for DM's and DnD, lest we forget-- with a choice: Either stick with the old Cosmology or don't.
If you are a long time Realms fan, you and your campaign loose nothing.
If you are a new Realms fan, you and your campaign loose nothing.
There's really no good reason to provide an in-game explanation to us. Doing it as some sort of apology to the people who were actually insulted by the changes (how that's possible, God only knows) would be a spectacularly bad idea, if for no other reason than it'd screw everyone else.
(I sincerely hope this legitimate, non-insulting, "not pointed at others to attack them" opinion can survive on it's own without mod-editing.) |
| Mournblade |
Posted - 26 Aug 2005 : 23:40:32
quote:
Originally posted by lowtech
This topic never fails to engender a feeling of helpless bitterness in me. Not to come across as a whining fanboy, but the absence of the Greatwheel simply lessons my interest in the Realms to such an extent that I don't think I'll ever be as big a fan as I once was. That is not to say I no longer enjoy the Forgotten Realms, it is still my second favorite campaign setting (and the only one of my favorites still commercially available as a DnD game). I guess I'm just cursed to most enjoy things that do not have mass-market appeal. (Dreamcast and Firefly come immediatly to mind).
It seems to me that Planescape had only a small (but very devoted) base of support within the larger rpg community. Does anyone know whether this was true among the professionals (those who designed commercial products) as well? I promise not to use this as an opportunity to personally attack the opinions of public personages, I'm just curious about this.
Don't worry Firefly is at least being released as the movie serenity. Maybe after the movie that show will revive. I think it was a mistake to cancel Planescape. I loved it. I do not htink it should be standard, but it was a great campaign setting.
For all purposes I think the change in cosmology was so unnecessary I pretend it NEVER happened. I use the REALMS as explained in the new cosmology, but in order to get to any of the deities realms from the ASTRAL plane they would have to first go to the great wheel plane where it is anchored. Otherwise they could use a direct conduit link from Faerun or the plane of shadow.
|
| lowtech |
Posted - 26 Aug 2005 : 21:14:17
This topic never fails to engender a feeling of helpless bitterness in me. Not to come across as a whining fanboy, but the absence of the Greatwheel simply lessons my interest in the Realms to such an extent that I don't think I'll ever be as big a fan as I once was. That is not to say I no longer enjoy the Forgotten Realms, it is still my second favorite campaign setting (and the only one of my favorites still commercially available as a DnD game). I guess I'm just cursed to most enjoy things that do not have mass-market appeal. (Dreamcast and Firefly come immediatly to mind).
It seems to me that Planescape had only a small (but very devoted) base of support within the larger rpg community. Does anyone know whether this was true among the professionals (those who designed commercial products) as well? I promise not to use this as an opportunity to personally attack the opinions of public personages, I'm just curious about this. |
| Sir Luther Cromwell |
Posted - 22 Aug 2005 : 23:56:51
quote:
Cromwell the idea has SO MANY possibilities. I have used the idea for Arioch (Because i have a moorcock flavour to my campaigns), but Arioch failed.
My explanation is simply TYR has conciousness in Asgard still, even though his portfolios are different for the Norse Pantheon. Tyr's thinking is simply, Thor may be a PAIN, but he is a hell of alot easier to deal with than Talos. If THor enters the realms successfully, (and currently there are priests to Thor in the realms.. but he can only grant low level spells as yet. The high level ones are actually granted by Tyr) both Thor and Talos would become Intermediate powers.
Ya, that does seem like Tyr's philosopy, and I can tell you know a lot about this.
Now one simply wonders what our old friend Loki would do to the realms... |
| Edain Shadowstar |
Posted - 22 Aug 2005 : 06:36:46
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage:
I mean really, if there is an explanation... what are the designers waiting for?
Be careful what you wish for. Last time the Realms went through a major change and it was explained in game three very popular deities got whacked and we found out that even deities have to respect the old saying "No matter how powerful you are, there's always somebody more powerful than you out there...". Seriously, whenever major changes to campaign setting happen, the change alone makes people mad. But the in-game explaination can make tings even worse. Especially when we're talking about playing with cosmologies (for some reason I keep remembering then ending of Die, Vecna, Die!). I think that, and as much as I hate to say it, a retcon is the cleanest way to do this. Not that I agree with the change. Either way, I'm still in teh Great Wheel, so it doesn't matter for me.  |
| Mournblade |
Posted - 22 Aug 2005 : 04:05:21
Cromwell the idea has SO MANY possibilities. I have used the idea for Arioch (Because i have a moorcock flavour to my campaigns), but Arioch failed.
My explanation is simply TYR has conciousness in Asgard still, even though his portfolios are different for the Norse Pantheon. Tyr's thinking is simply, Thor may be a PAIN, but he is a hell of alot easier to deal with than Talos. If THor enters the realms successfully, (and currently there are priests to Thor in the realms.. but he can only grant low level spells as yet. The high level ones are actually granted by Tyr) both Thor and Talos would become Intermediate powers.
|
| Sir Luther Cromwell |
Posted - 22 Aug 2005 : 02:48:57
Well, there's always the chance that its one of those 'The DM decides' type of things. But if that is the case, why not just come out and say it? |
| The Sage |
Posted - 22 Aug 2005 : 02:40:35
quote:
Originally posted by Gray Richardson
In fact, I simply assume there is one, and that it just hasn't been explained yet.
See, that's where I have a problem.
I'd like to assume that as such, but if there had been an explanation waiting on the sidelines... we should have at least seen it being worked into the 3e FR source material by now. We are now five years into 3e FR and still we have learned nothing about the changes -- unless the clues are in the source material somewhere. But no one has found them as yet...
I mean really, if there is an explanation... what are the designers waiting for?
|
| Sir Luther Cromwell |
Posted - 22 Aug 2005 : 02:19:50
quote:
I still maintain in my campaign that there are OTHER pantheons and MANY of them are trying to get a foot hold on Toril. A LONG TIME back story line I have going on, which has gone on for several groups, is that TYR is ACtively moving against TALOS. Talos has been knoocked down one level of Deity rank in my campaign though he is still a greater god. The REASON is that TYR is trying to gate THOR into the realms. When that happens Thor will steal the storms from Talos, and Talos will only maintain destruction. If Thor ever DOES enter the realms he will either join a domain house or Ao will allow him to build a domain of his own.
Mournblade, you have just given me the most awesome idea!
Ok, for this up coming year in guelph, if I have time for DMing (what with university and all), I wanted to create a campaign that was all about maintaining a world with a variety of gods. Essentially some new god had recently inplanted himself in the realms and created an empire of believers. These believers would then move on and try and oppress the other faiths, or in other words this implanted god would try and start a 'holy war' against the unbelievers and heathans.
My probelm with this was always that none of the FR dieties fit this criteria. Bane, however powerful, LE, and having a chip on his shoulder (and by chip on his shoulder he'd like to do so or terrible things to mystra), somehow didn't fit the whole exterminating other faiths deal. Cyric, it wasn't uncommon for cyric, but the other faiths have already compensated for him. This threat had to be new and unexpected.
Your whole "Other gods getting into Faerun" thing is PERFECT! Before FR I used to be a veteran player for Ravenloft, and I'd LOVE to try a campaign where the Law Giver got into the realms. Could you imagine what he'd do? So many different faiths, so little time! If you don't know who I'm talking about, Mourn, essentially the Law Giver was a diety whose soul purpose seemed to weed other other dieties, particularily those of Hala (Hala, in many ways, is like Mystra).
And in a way it could make sense. The two Law Giver prominant domains in ravenloft are Hasslin and Nova Vaasa: both based off of places in faerun!
Imagine that: the players have now become part of the struggle to maintain their faiths, their cultures, and their way of life, as they slowly but surely try to close off the Law Giver from having his wrath on Faerun!
You're a genius!
EDIT: Sorry about that guys, I know its kind of off topic, but I kind of exploded just then.  |
| Gray Richardson |
Posted - 22 Aug 2005 : 00:41:53
Oh I agree with you all that an in-game explanation would be a very good thing. In fact, I simply assume there is one, and that it just hasn't been explained yet.
I bet Eric or Ed or Tom Costa would be just the ones to do it. Maybe they could address such a thing in a novel. Or better yet, a Planes of Faerûn sourcebook.  |
| Kuje |
Posted - 21 Aug 2005 : 18:24:14
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
I feel the same.
I think that if the current cosmological changes had actually been the result of gradual changes, marking the transition from 2e to 3e, then perhaps proponents of the Great Wheel cosmology wouldn't have felt so "abandoned" when the Tree structure was introduced with the 3e FRCS.
Exactly! Had we had a good, in-game explanation, the debate would have been greatly minimized.
Again I agree. I feel insulted because it was pushed on us with the "It's always been this way and so we just up and went and made countless, over 50+, holes in the lore with the change." |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 21 Aug 2005 : 17:33:28
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
I feel the same.
I think that if the current cosmological changes had actually been the result of gradual changes, marking the transition from 2e to 3e, then perhaps proponents of the Great Wheel cosmology wouldn't have felt so "abandoned" when the Tree structure was introduced with the 3e FRCS.
Exactly! Had we had a good, in-game explanation, the debate would have been greatly minimized. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 21 Aug 2005 : 14:29:25
quote:
Originally posted by Kuje
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
My biggest problem isn't the cosmology, it was just the way it was changed with no explanation. I don't mind things being changed, I just want the changes to be explained.
Exactly, and that's all I've asked for for about two years. :)
I feel the same.
I think that if the current cosmological changes had actually been the result of gradual changes, marking the transition from 2e to 3e, then perhaps proponents of the Great Wheel cosmology wouldn't have felt so "abandoned" when the Tree structure was introduced with the 3e FRCS.
|
| Kuje |
Posted - 21 Aug 2005 : 05:29:39
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
My biggest problem isn't the cosmology, it was just the way it was changed with no explanation. I don't mind things being changed, I just want the changes to be explained.
Exactly, and that's all I've asked for for about two years. :) |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 21 Aug 2005 : 04:43:49
My biggest problem isn't the cosmology, it was just the way it was changed with no explanation. I don't mind things being changed, I just want the changes to be explained. |
| Mournblade |
Posted - 20 Aug 2005 : 21:17:20
quote:
Originally posted by Aaron L
Dont you think that the Realms deserves its own cosmology instead of beign shoehorned into Greyhawks? I certainly do, and I am very appreciative of and gladdened the Great Tree. Besides, it explains why there is no Weave to worry about on Oerth, or why the Abyss of Krynn is such a different place than the Abyss of Toril. It also lets the gods of Toril have thier own planes instead of having to share them with the likes of Zues and Odin, and explains why these gods arent all over the place trying to aquire worshippers, and makes interloper deities much more of an interesting thing, they have to make a lot of effort to move to a different cosmology, instead of just happening to decide to look at this new planet on the Prime and put thier foot on it. But most of all I think that the Realms DESERVES its own set of planes, it DESERVES to have a bit of uniqueness. Dont fret about it being cut off from anywhere it is said to have been cnnected to, Khelben the Younger can still be trudging around the Flanaess, the Plane of Shadow allows travel to other cosmologies, and offers a very interesting possibility in the form of the Shadovar and Malaugrym, being inhabitants of Shadow, to have acquired all sorts of knowledge and/or alles from other D&D worlds. Could you imagine a tie between the Malaugrym and Tharizdun? I certainly could.
As I have said before, the cosmology makes the world no more or less unique. It is not about that. I cannot say that the cosmology indeed WAS shoehorned as that was the way it was published in 1st and 2nd edition. IT works fine then and it works fine now. If you want to go ahead and use the new cosmology you are not causing any harm to anybody. I think the change was unnecessary. I have never played where the events of one world affected the events of another world.
I don't actually get WHY people would think the events of Greyhawk would affect the realms. The planes of 1st edition do not mean that all worlds i.e. greyhawk, krynn, toril are all connected. If lolth dies in greyhawk, all that means is she now has no power there. It does absolutely nothing to Lolth in the realms.
So no I really don't think the new cosmology makes the realms any more unique. I don't think the great wheel makes it any more unique. I don't think that cosmology is all that important to the realms at all. So I ignore the new changes and make it fit into my own. |
| Aaron L |
Posted - 20 Aug 2005 : 17:20:11
Dont you think that the Realms deserves its own cosmology instead of beign shoehorned into Greyhawks? I certainly do, and I am very appreciative of and gladdened the Great Tree. Besides, it explains why there is no Weave to worry about on Oerth, or why the Abyss of Krynn is such a different place than the Abyss of Toril. It also lets the gods of Toril have thier own planes instead of having to share them with the likes of Zues and Odin, and explains why these gods arent all over the place trying to aquire worshippers, and makes interloper deities much more of an interesting thing, they have to make a lot of effort to move to a different cosmology, instead of just happening to decide to look at this new planet on the Prime and put thier foot on it. But most of all I think that the Realms DESERVES its own set of planes, it DESERVES to have a bit of uniqueness. Dont fret about it being cut off from anywhere it is said to have been cnnected to, Khelben the Younger can still be trudging around the Flanaess, the Plane of Shadow allows travel to other cosmologies, and offers a very interesting possibility in the form of the Shadovar and Malaugrym, being inhabitants of Shadow, to have acquired all sorts of knowledge and/or alles from other D&D worlds. Could you imagine a tie between the Malaugrym and Tharizdun? I certainly could. |
| Mournblade |
Posted - 19 Aug 2005 : 01:14:07
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Luther Cromwell
That's actually a really good way to go about it. I can see how that works. Now what would be awesome is if there was a gran visual aid for this, so maybe there could be some possibility of taking away any confusion there may be for future players/GMs.
If you look at the Cosmology tree in the Forgottne Realms Campaign Guide they show a diagram of the links. I have placed Eilestree's main home in The Beastlands (I think, I do not have my notes or even a digram of the great wheel here in Arizona). So lets just say for sake of argument her main realm is in the beastlands. If A PC wants to travel to the beastlands there are a couple ways to do it. 1) The traditional, ethereal to Astral to Beastlands, 2) Conduit from Faerun (Conduits have same hazards as Astral with regards to the realms) to the Demonweb pits (to Eilistraes home there) to the beastlands, 3) Conduit from Faerun to House of Nature (Anchored to the Beastlands even though Sylvanus is Neutral) to the Beastlands. Also the tree of the domains As I call it have FOUR main anchor points: House of the Triad (on Mount Celestia), Arvandor (on the old Olympus or Arborea), The Abyss, and the Nine Hells. Basically the four extreme alignments. So any faerunian character can travel to any one of these realms via conduit and still reach any plane of the great wheel via traditional travel.
There are Deity only portals on some of the planes (example Bane is on Acheron, and HE can travel to the Hells but none other), set up as the Deity deems necessary.
I still maintain in my campaign that there are OTHER pantheons and MANY of them are trying to get a foot hold on Toril. A LONG TIME back story line I have going on, which has gone on for several groups, is that TYR is ACtively moving against TALOS. Talos has been knoocked down one level of Deity rank in my campaign though he is still a greater god. The REASON is that TYR is trying to gate THOR into the realms. When that happens Thor will steal the storms from Talos, and Talos will only maintain destruction. If Thor ever DOES enter the realms he will either join a domain house or Ao will allow him to build a domain of his own.
One new god that exists in the realms albeit on a cult level is ARIOCH of the Melnibonean Pantheon. He is not the greater god he is in Deities in Demigods here but he is Working on it. His power is SEVERELY curtailed with the birth of Bane. Arioch saw the death of Bane as an oppurtunity and moved. But the Lord of Chaos NOW has to contend with BOTH TALOS and BANE and is losing.
This will make the Purists SCREAM, but There is no way I am shaking the Great Wheel. It has worked this way for the last 15 years (Except the tree part has been changed and detailed to fit in with the cosmology as presented in the guide), and my players love it. So no need to change.
|
| Sir Luther Cromwell |
Posted - 18 Aug 2005 : 16:27:16
quote:
Anyway, back on topic. I have always used the domains of the tree in conjuction with the great wheel. ON Toril you can reach the deities realms Either through the pathways of the trees, or by venturing into the proper outer planes. In cases where alignment would conflict in a deities residence, I have the deities domain as an additional Link to an outer plane. For example Fury's heart is home to Both Talos and Auril. Fury's heart itself is NOT placed in the Abyss and instead is placed in Gehenna (I think that is the plane between the abyss and Hades.) In cases where a deities alignment is greatly different, the Greatest Deitie's alignment decides what plane the realm is in. I have been playing it this way for years and it seems to work, which is why the cosmology change is not as bad as it could of have been.
That's actually a really good way to go about it. I can see how that works. Now what would be awesome is if there was a gran visual aid for this, so maybe there could be some possibility of taking away any confusion there may be for future players/GMs. |
| Mournblade |
Posted - 18 Aug 2005 : 07:19:53
Well according to some writings in Bantha Tracks in SW INSIDER, it was the outcry on Mediclorions that actually made them play a MUCH lesser role than was intended. They were mentioned again in Revenge of the Sith, but they were originally intended to have a greater part in the story. Mediclorions DID in fact demystify the force and that is why so many people were angered about it. The symbiosis theme in SW is very weak, and did not have to be played out by the worms. Symbiosis relationships in nature are sometimes but not always beneficial to both parties.
Anyway, back on topic. I have always used the domains of the tree in conjuction with the great wheel. ON Toril you can reach the deities realms Either through the pathways of the trees, or by venturing into the proper outer planes. In cases where alignment would conflict in a deities residence, I have the deities domain as an additional Link to an outer plane. For example Fury's heart is home to Both Talos and Auril. Fury's heart itself is NOT placed in the Abyss and instead is placed in Gehenna (I think that is the plane between the abyss and Hades.) In cases where a deities alignment is greatly different, the Greatest Deitie's alignment decides what plane the realm is in. I have been playing it this way for years and it seems to work, which is why the cosmology change is not as bad as it could of have been.
|
| Faraer |
Posted - 17 Aug 2005 : 17:37:54
Ed Greenwood and I both assume that each planar map is a limited, unreliable, mortal diagram of the infinite planes, that all the connections shown on both maps work -- probably. It quite mistakes the character of the planes to think that a two-dimensional diagram is anything more than an approximate guess. (The new planes group the gods in a much better way than AD&D's alignment-divided, inappropriately named outer planes, but the new planes are inadequate for everything other than gods' homes.)quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
Yeah they are like the Mediclorions. But at least 80% of the SW fans are united in not liking the little worms.
No such information is available: all you can say is that a few people rant about midi-chlorians on messageboards. People who ignore things don't bring them up repeatedly.
They are a wonderful part of Star Wars's symbiosis theme, and they don't demystify the Force, as is sometimes claimed, any more than the existence of neurons explains consciousness. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 17 Aug 2005 : 17:17:34
My idea for merging the two is to assume that the Tree reaches each deity's domain, and goes no further. The domain, though, lies on a plane of the Wheel. So the Wheel remains accessible, you just have to go thru the Tree to get to it.
As for the other planes, I suppose they could be treated in a similar fashion. Toril's Plane of Shadow, for example, would be like a subplane, part of the Wheel's Plane of Shadow.
That's the best way to merge the two that I can think of... Though, to be honest, I'm no expert on planar lore, and haven't really pondered the whole issue that much. |
| Sir Luther Cromwell |
Posted - 17 Aug 2005 : 15:46:37
Wait a second, I just thought of a way to fix all of this!! Merge the two!
The great wheel represents a world divided into the three ethical alignments, Law, neutrality, and chaos, correct?
Well, consider a universe where the great wheel was simply one axis (the X-axis for example). What if this universe had the great tree as its Y-axis.
The way this works: The roots of the tree represent evil (the underdark, hell, darkness, etc.), the middle of the tree represents neutrality (on a moral level, such as the earth), and the branches represent good (the heavens, the sun, the sky, light, etc).
This way, we get a picture that represents the entirity of ALL alignments. A great wheel, which is centered around the great tree. The very center of the universe it totally neutrality (true neutral) Could this work?
|
| Edain Shadowstar |
Posted - 17 Aug 2005 : 02:56:54
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade:
Yeah they are like the Mediclorions. But at least 80% of the SW fans are united in not liking the little worms.
Reminds me of Malaria... EEESH!!!!!
Except quinine won't help a bit with the little Force pests. |
|
|
