| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
 Posted - 16 May 2012 : 16:59:00
|
Should it all be connected, or should every world have its own?
Mind you, if they only develop FR and no other world, this point become moot (I doubt they could do that, though, even if its their current plan).
I personally favor an interconnected model, as it was in 2e - I don't want different versions of Asmodeus and everyone else. Then I thought about comic's multiverses, and how their 'cosmic beings' are constant, even when they visit other dimensions....
But then I realized, even in comics, this isn't always a constant - Cosmic beings are (usually) specific to one multiversal continuity, but not to the greater megaversal continuity. The concept of a 'megaverse', BTW, has to be applied when one mutiverse 'meets' another (like the DC/Marvel crossovers). Marvel had Eternity, and DC has its own (unnamed) version... and strangely, they have been presented as both 'lovers', and brothers who hate each other (so they can't even keep continuity straight regarding crossovers).
And then there was Marvel's Beyonder, who existed (was 'born') outside of the Multiverse, and became a universe unto himself eventually (although this may have changed again- I can't keep up). So even though we have these cosmic, universe-spanning beings, they are not always constant outside of a specific number of realities.
So thats the rub - despite how cool it is to have these types of universal cosmic entities (and locales), there will always be someplace where these things don't exist, ergo its just easier to say every reality (Crystal Sphere) is separate.
On the one hand, it becomes easier to present universal, one-size-fits-all lore - like adventures/info set in other planes - but you increase the chances of creating continuity glitches exponentially. So what approach does everyone here prefer - separate, or Great Wheel/universal cosmology?
|
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3805 Posts |
Posted - 16 May 2012 : 17:46:59
|
I'd go for the Great Wheel, without hesitation.
It would help to avoid forcing extraneous elements in the Realms (so, it would help to avoid introducing more continuity problems), because there would be no need to do so, since the presence of whatever new thing from other Spheres they wanted to add could be explained with planar connections between primes.
About the problem of some entities being different across the Spheres, I think you could somehow lessen it by saying that they are in truth different faces of the same being (like you proposed to explain the death of Lolth on Greyhawk and her survival in the Realms). This is quite simple and, at least as far as I know, could work in most cases.
Beside that, I think that to have the various Spheres linked to form a single Universe holds a lot of potential and the flavor the Great Wheel adds of having those links -the planes- and, through them, most of the Multiverse being shaped by concepts and ideas is just fascinating. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 16 May 2012 17:52:38 |
 |
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36798 Posts |
Posted - 16 May 2012 : 17:56:41
|
Great Wheel/Universal Cosmology, all the way.
It's prior lore, and was integrated into the setting early on. It also allowed for a lot of travel to and from other worlds, which is also canon. Moving away from that model broke continuity, and I don't feel that either of the replacement cosmologies were good enough to justify this. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 16 May 2012 : 18:12:21
|
I have some rather strong preferences, likes and mislikes, about various evolutions of planar cosmology throughout the D&D editions. I actually decided when talk of "5E" appeared that rather than rant about the planes or provide a lengthy laundry list of pros and cons, I will simply wait it out and see what WotC decides to give us. Reconstruction of the planes in a way which is compatible with every previous D&D edition would be a Herculean task, and I suspect WotC will be unsuccessful in many ways ... but I long ago devised my own methodology for incorporating "conflicting" systems, one which actually welcomes new incompatibilities and complications - more planar lore is always welcome, and the more dubious the source the better.  |
[/Ayrik] |
Edited by - Ayrik on 16 May 2012 18:12:46 |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 16 May 2012 : 18:27:48
|
My initial thoughts on the 5E cosmology:
I think the 5E cosmology should be presented as self-contained and separate from the cosmology of any other campaign world. They should use the Great Wheel for the core cosmology.
The idea of linking the different cosmologies (and/or going the Spelljammer route or Planescape) ought to be presented as a campaign option; something discussed in a later sourcebook.
DMs should be instructed to think about deities with the same name across cosmologies as unique-to-that-cosmology examples of that deity. There can be several Lloths, for example, but each one is different than the others and they are absolutely not linked to each other.
I don’t like the idea of describing deities as singular, but having aspects in several game worlds, because you get into the same mess of problems 2E presented in the Realms and have to explain why deity X can die in one world but be just fine and dandy in another.
Campaign setting cosmologies should not blur the line between campaign settings. The 5E cosmology should not be set up such that a DM or player might conclude that what happens in one world can effect what happens in another.
That said, there should be some sort of subtle hint or statement that suggests backdoors and pathways between cosmologies do exist, but they’re only ever traveled by (foolish) mortals or lesser planar beings outcast from their divine realms, as the gods are far too concerned with the world they watch over to care what lay beyond. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
|
|
|
Shemmy
Senior Scribe
USA
492 Posts |
Posted - 16 May 2012 : 19:41:33
|
I will shamelessly and wholeheartedly advocate with the core of my being that they go back to the Great Wheel and return a lot of the core assumptions and concepts from 1e/2e/3e where the planes and their denizens are concerned.
As far as campaign settings go, if a campaign setting started within the Great Wheel, it should stay there or go back to it, FR specifically would be helped in continuity terms by this. Ebberon however since it was never part of the Wheel, could continue on with its own unique cosmology (as opposed to being retconned into the 4e PoL cosmology). |
Shemeska the Marauder, King of the Crosstrade; voted #1 best Arcanaloth in Sigil two hundred years running by the people who know what's best for them; chant broker; prospective Sigil council member next election; and official travel agent for Chamada Holiday specials LLC.
|
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36798 Posts |
Posted - 16 May 2012 : 19:57:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shemmy
I will shamelessly and wholeheartedly advocate with the core of my being that they go back to the Great Wheel and return a lot of the core assumptions and concepts from 1e/2e/3e where the planes and their denizens are concerned.
As far as campaign settings go, if a campaign setting started within the Great Wheel, it should stay there or go back to it, FR specifically would be helped in continuity terms by this. Ebberon however since it was never part of the Wheel, could continue on with its own unique cosmology (as opposed to being retconned into the 4e PoL cosmology).
Agreed, though I don't know if Eber-whatsit's cosmology was retconned the way the Realms cosmology was. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
sfdragon
Great Reader
2285 Posts |
Posted - 16 May 2012 : 20:03:03
|
geat wheel.
we dont need or desire different versions of big A and demon lord xyz( yes the demon lord check your zipper)
however we also dont need or want herionious in the Realms when he is not active there and Torm is.
that is all. |
why is being a wizard like being a drow? both are likely to find a dagger in the back from a rival or one looking to further his own goals, fame and power
My FR fan fiction
Magister's GAmbit
http://steelfiredragon.deviantart.com/gallery/33539234 |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3740 Posts |
Posted - 16 May 2012 : 20:04:30
|
| -I'm a fan of the Great Wheel, in so much as I like all of the 2e Planescape lore that was written for it. Settings that use/used it should continue to do so. Settings like Eberron that had their own interesting spin on things shouldn't be forced to follow the Great Wheel format any more than the Forgotten Realms was forced to follow the Great Sea format. I'm for whatever works for each setting. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerûn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerûn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
|
|
|
Matt James
Forgotten Realms Game Designer
USA
918 Posts |
Posted - 16 May 2012 : 20:36:51
|
| There shouldn't be just one. I think a new Manual of the Planes should include various types of cosmologies and allow the DM/consumer to choose one. I think that would be rad. |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3805 Posts |
Posted - 16 May 2012 : 20:40:02
|
| Sure, but there must be an official cosmology. What would you write for some novel or published adventure that took place in the Planes? |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 16 May 2012 20:41:23 |
|
|
|
Matt James
Forgotten Realms Game Designer
USA
918 Posts |
Posted - 16 May 2012 : 20:52:14
|
| The Realms can conform to a cosmology, but the game doesn't need to. |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 16 May 2012 : 21:18:24
|
I’m no fan of returning the Great Wheel to the Realms, but for those that are would a sort of blending of the Great Wheel and the Great Tree work?
For example, you could say that the Realms are part of the Great Wheel, it’s just that the names for certain of the planes are different in the Realms then in places like Krynn or other worlds.
Something like that?
|
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3740 Posts |
Posted - 16 May 2012 : 21:49:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
Sure, but there must be an official cosmology.
-For each individual setting, sure. No reason to make everything match with each other for the sake of conformity, continuity wrinkles be damned. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerûn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerûn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3805 Posts |
Posted - 16 May 2012 : 22:15:42
|
quote:
-For each individual setting, sure. No reason to make everything match with each other for the sake of conformity, continuity wrinkles be damned.
Yes, of course I don't want settings mixing with each other or conforming to a unique model for the sake of it.
As I said before, I just like the concept that the Great Wheel provides of having something whose very nature is shaped by mortal ideas to be one of the ways to connect the various primes, one of the things that hold the Multiverse together.
If this ruins or somehow damages a setting, then shouldn't be included in it.
Just my preference here, though. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 16 May 2012 22:19:34 |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31726 Posts |
Posted - 17 May 2012 : 01:50:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Shemmy
I will shamelessly and wholeheartedly advocate with the core of my being that they go back to the Great Wheel and return a lot of the core assumptions and concepts from 1e/2e/3e where the planes and their denizens are concerned.
As far as campaign settings go, if a campaign setting started within the Great Wheel, it should stay there or go back to it, FR specifically would be helped in continuity terms by this. Ebberon however since it was never part of the Wheel, could continue on with its own unique cosmology (as opposed to being retconned into the 4e PoL cosmology).
Agreed, though I don't know if Eber-whatsit's cosmology was retconned the way the Realms cosmology was.
It's hard to say. The EBERRON cosmology has always largely been on it's own -- with only vague possibilities of connections between it, and the other cosmological frameworks of Core D&D and Realms settings.
The 4e EB setting books seems to outline the planes of EBERRON in much the same way of the 3e detailing, as I don't recall reading much about any overlap between the core planes and those that were setting-specific. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31726 Posts |
Posted - 17 May 2012 : 01:56:48
|
As much as I'd like to see a return to the Great Wheel [or, even, to a lesser extent, the Great Tree], I'm assuming Wizards will formulate some new cosmological framework for the planes in 5e.
Thus, I think it would be best for me to just interpret any new planar framework through the words of Ed, when it comes to such matters -- specifically, that 'cosmologies' are fallible mortal maps of the same 'place'. As he once said:-
"The Great Wheel or any other cosmology doesn’t bother me, just as avatar stats and the endless “but this god came first, or can beat that god” arguments don’t: mortal PCs can’t know the truth about the gods anyway, because every in-game source (supreme priests, avatars of the gods themselves, holy writings) they could possibly learn all this stuff from is biased. Everything. So it really is all up to the DM."
...
This makes it easier for me to keep what I like about all the various planar frameworks that have been part of the game since the earliest edition of the Manual of the Planes.
Besides, as most here probably already know, I've been working on my own planar cosmological framework for the better part of a decade. I've spent so much of my spare time on this stuff for so long that I doubt I'll ever truly finish it. I've drawn in references from multitudes of sources, and incorporated ideas I've thought up on a whim because they fit with the overall conceptional model I've been trying to create.
I like to draw ideas from real-world cosmological thinking as well, but with slight [and sometimes, not so slight] Sage-ified tinkering when appropriate, or because real-world ideas don't quite mesh with my own. It's a lot of fun!
|
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 17 May 2012 : 03:25:53
|
| I don't have a problem with what they do for the Forgotten Realms...I mean, it wasn't so long ago that many thought the Sun revolved around Earth...and we seemed to have survived the "change" eh? |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36798 Posts |
Posted - 17 May 2012 : 04:25:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
I don't have a problem with what they do for the Forgotten Realms...I mean, it wasn't so long ago that many thought the Sun revolved around Earth...and we seemed to have survived the "change" eh?
This would only a viable argument if the sun did indeed revolve around the Earth, and that suddenly changed without warning or explanation. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Sightless
Senior Scribe
USA
608 Posts |
Posted - 17 May 2012 : 04:57:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
As much as I'd like to see a return to the Great Wheel [or, even, to a lesser extent, the Great Tree], I'm assuming Wizards will formulate some new cosmological framework for the planes in 5e.
Thus, I think it would be best for me to just interpret any new planar framework through the words of Ed, when it comes to such matters -- specifically, that 'cosmologies' are fallible mortal maps of the same 'place'. As he once said:-
"The Great Wheel or any other cosmology doesn’t bother me, just as avatar stats and the endless “but this god came first, or can beat that god” arguments don’t: mortal PCs can’t know the truth about the gods anyway, because every in-game source (supreme priests, avatars of the gods themselves, holy writings) they could possibly learn all this stuff from is biased. Everything. So it really is all up to the DM."
...
This makes it easier for me to keep what I like about all the various planar frameworks that have been part of the game since the earliest edition of the Manual of the Planes.
Besides, as most here probably already know, I've been working on my own planar cosmological framework for the better part of a decade. I've spent so much of my spare time on this stuff for so long that I doubt I'll ever truly finish it. I've drawn in references from multitudes of sources, and incorporated ideas I've thought up on a whim because they fit with the overall conceptional model I've been trying to create.
I like to draw ideas from real-world cosmological thinking as well, but with slight [and sometimes, not so slight] Sage-ified tinkering when appropriate, or because real-world ideas don't quite mesh with my own. It's a lot of fun!
I can completely go with this, I've already started this with the weave, Gruumsh, the World serpent, and the splitting of the world. I've barrowed ideological and systemological thoughts mostly from mid and far eastern thought, as well as whatever FR lore I can find that then falls into the argumentative framework. Of course, I'm working under the assumption that what's there is told from a biased point of view. Hense the stereotyping. |
We choose to live a lie, when we see with, & not through the eye.
Every decision, no matter the evidence, is a leap of faith; if it were not, then it wouldn't be a choice at all. |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 17 May 2012 : 06:02:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
I don't have a problem with what they do for the Forgotten Realms...I mean, it wasn't so long ago that many thought the Sun revolved around Earth...and we seemed to have survived the "change" eh?
Yup, though there are always a few who just refuse to believe it.
You're probably right though, in the sense that we'll all live and be just fine no matter what WotC does. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 17 May 2012 : 07:00:14
|
quote:
Matt James
The Realms can conform to a cosmology, but the game doesn't need to.
Expanding on this:
I think it's actually completely unreasonable to assume every world and setting conforms to the same cosmology. The nearly infinite workings of the nearly infinite planes are not meant to be comprehensible to mortal (or immortal) minds ... belief (in this context) only forms a metaphor. Whether that metaphor resembles a great wheel, or cosmic tree, or islands upon an ocean, or endless river, or flower garden, or galactic clusters, or a complex mechanically-interlocked orrery is all completely irrelevant because every metaphor can be exactly as right and wrong as every other.
Eberron and Mystara, along with OD&D Blackmoor and 1E Greyhawk and 2E Planescape and 3E Ravenloft and 4E Realms - and our own Earth! - all impossibly coexist within the "same" D&D pseudoverse (at least to the point where travel between them could be possible), even though the rules of each can categorically deny the very existence of the others. |
[/Ayrik] |
Edited by - Ayrik on 17 May 2012 07:17:37 |
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 17 May 2012 : 08:00:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
quote:
Matt James
The Realms can conform to a cosmology, but the game doesn't need to.
Expanding on this:
I think it's actually completely unreasonable to assume every world and setting conforms to the same cosmology. The nearly infinite workings of the nearly infinite planes are not meant to be comprehensible to mortal (or immortal) minds ... belief (in this context) only forms a metaphor. Whether that metaphor resembles a great wheel, or cosmic tree, or islands upon an ocean, or endless river, or flower garden, or galactic clusters, or a complex mechanically-interlocked orrery is all completely irrelevant because every metaphor can be exactly as right and wrong as every other.
Eberron and Mystara, along with OD&D Blackmoor and 1E Greyhawk and 2E Planescape and 3E Ravenloft and 4E Realms - and our own Earth! - all impossibly coexist within the "same" D&D pseudoverse (at least to the point where travel between them could be possible), even though the rules of each can categorically deny the very existence of the others.
Exactly!
Hells, the "Gods" of Mystara aren't even Gods...they are "Immortals" and just about anyone who can do the work can join them!
I think the outer planes can be whatever someone deems them to be. I mean, I still prefer the "Wheel" in my games, but at the same time in my games, the "Great Tree" is what most in Faerun see the Outer Planes to be.
What they THINK is what is most important. |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36798 Posts |
Posted - 17 May 2012 : 11:51:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Eberron and Mystara, along with OD&D Blackmoor and 1E Greyhawk and 2E Planescape and 3E Ravenloft and 4E Realms - and our own Earth! - all impossibly coexist within the "same" D&D pseudoverse (at least to the point where travel between them could be possible), even though the rules of each can categorically deny the very existence of the others.
I disagree. I know of nothing that says that Eberron, Mystara, or Blackmoor have any connections to anywhere else. The 4E Realms does not coexist with anything else, despite prior lore saying otherwise. And while travel from the Realms to Earth is possible, there is no evidence that Earth and the Realms share a universe. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 17 May 2012 : 12:34:18
|
| I would say there's plenty of substantial evidence of connections between these (and other) D&D worlds. Unless it's all been retconned away? |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Thauranil
Master of Realmslore
India
1591 Posts |
Posted - 17 May 2012 : 13:49:36
|
| I think i prefer the Great Tree myself. I loved those scenes in the Lady Penitent series when the Masked Lady and Lolth would play their games with the lives of mortals in the balance. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 17 May 2012 : 15:51:28
|
Interesting.
Suffice it to say I have find this thread very telling.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Eberron and Mystara, along with OD&D Blackmoor and 1E Greyhawk and 2E Planescape and 3E Ravenloft and 4E Realms - and our own Earth! - all impossibly coexist within the "same" D&D pseudoverse (at least to the point where travel between them could be possible), even though the rules of each can categorically deny the very existence of the others.
I disagree. I know of nothing that says that Eberron, Mystara, or Blackmoor have any connections to anywhere else. The 4E Realms does not coexist with anything else, despite prior lore saying otherwise. And while travel from the Realms to Earth is possible, there is no evidence that Earth and the Realms share a universe.
I never really thought about it that way before - I assumed if you could get to it, it was part of the same multiversal universe.
If all the worlds were once part of a greater multiverse, and they no longer are, doesn't that mean that canonically these worlds are NOT the same worlds presented in earlier edition material? The old versions obviously exist in some other universe (where they are all connected).
EDIT: Just how I feel about it, of course. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 17 May 2012 16:27:36 |
|
|
|
Sightless
Senior Scribe
USA
608 Posts |
Posted - 17 May 2012 : 15:55:17
|
In an interview taken from one of the gaming conventions Baker said that Eberron, and FR weren't actually connected.
I prefer the great tree myself, both for reasons already stated, and it works given AO as the trunk and the other Gods as the branches. |
We choose to live a lie, when we see with, & not through the eye.
Every decision, no matter the evidence, is a leap of faith; if it were not, then it wouldn't be a choice at all. |
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 17 May 2012 : 17:09:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
I don't have a problem with what they do for the Forgotten Realms...I mean, it wasn't so long ago that many thought the Sun revolved around Earth...and we seemed to have survived the "change" eh?
This would only a viable argument if the sun did indeed revolve around the Earth, and that suddenly changed without warning or explanation.
BUT Wooly, the people THOUGHT the Sun revolved around the earth...and that made it "true" didn't it?
Just because someone writes a "theory" of how the planes are, does not mean they actually are that way.
I take the books as only what the sages and scholars of the day consider to be true...not what the actual truth is.
For me, the Great Wheel is the essential "Truth", but from that can be pulled any number of ideas about how things exist. I don't have to fully use things as presented. |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3740 Posts |
Posted - 17 May 2012 : 17:40:06
|
| -Quick question: Asides for not liking it when things are randomly retconned without explanation, does anyone really dislike the Great Tree being the 'official cosmology' over the Great Wheel? If so, why (asides for not liking unexplained retcons)? I've never understood personally. The lore that came with Planescape- locations, organizations, phenomena, individuals, events, and whatever else- was what made it so amazing, in my opinion. Does the theoretical shape of the multiverse being a tree or a wheel really interfere with your enjoyment of these things? |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerûn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerûn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3805 Posts |
Posted - 17 May 2012 : 17:49:33
|
| I'd have no real problem with that, if the flavor of Planescape cosmology was kept. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
5e Cosmology
