| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Richard Lee Byers
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
1814 Posts |
 Posted - 05 Jul 2013 : 03:29:59
|
I believe that one's been done.
I actually wouldn't call the book in question a Forgotten Realms/Ravenloft crossover novel because the importance of the Realms to the story is minimal. To me, it's a Ravenloft novel, pure and simple. (A good one; I'm not knocking it.) |
 |
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jul 2013 : 11:29:17
|
I can see that a lot of people are pleased and I won't begrudge them their happiness, but I find myself disappointed with this turn of events.
Mearls uses the phrase "Planescape as our default assumption," which doesn't indicate concepts like the Great Tree or the 4E Planar structure are being thrown out, but does indicate that a 5E version of the Great Wheel will stand as the backdrop against which the Realms are depicted.
Thus, just as the Great Wheel was set aside without being discarded with the rise of the 3E Realms, so it seems one of the best things to happen to the Realms in 3E--i.e. the Realms getting its own Cosmology--will quietly go away.
That is, Mearls doesn't seem to be saying all the various campaign worlds are now under one planar roof when he writes, "Ideally, our approach allows [all those settings], and your own campaign setting to work with the basic assumptions we make about the planes." But I don't think it's too great a leap of logic for readers (especially gamers that remember 2E and Planescape) to conclude as much, as some already are.
Regardless this, to me, will muddy the Realms just as much as Mearls seems to think Spelljammer would do if it were allowed to link all the settings, and will certainly muddy the Realms if WotC makes any effort to declare the different settings (Dragonlance, Eberron, Forgotten Realms, the world of the Nentir Vale, Greyhawk, Mystara and Dark Sun) all reside in one planar structure with Planescape as the means to visit them all, much as TSR did back in the day.
Consider Bane: a deity lifted from the Realms and made Core in 4E. How do they plan to reconcile the lore and background of these two deities in 5E? Did Core Bane die just as Realms Bane died? Do they both reside in the outer planes and if not, is it worth it to confuse readers (old and new) by telling them there are two Banes?
Or do you instead confuse readers by saying there's only one set of outer planes, it's just that the occupants are different depending on which campaign world you use and oh by the way Planescape is still around it just doesn't connect the different worlds?
It's the same old multi-spheric divine hodgepodge all over again that we had in 2E and it produces the same set of circular questions that are sure to slow down a DM's prep time as he or she labors over what is and isn't in the campaign.
I don't like it. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3806 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jul 2013 : 12:02:18
|
TBH, I like Planescape because of its peculiarity that mortal ideas have actual power and manifestations on the planes (and because of how the planes are structured and detailed there). I'm glad to see this being back, but I'm not too fond of worlds being connected either. However I don't see it as a problem for DMs or players: if they don't want to include those planar links in their campaing, it'll be easy to ignore them.
About the deity problem you point out, it could be handwoven by saying that -for example- Bane of the Realms and the one of Nentir Vale are just aspects of the same being (or that they are two different deities with the same name). Anyone who didn't have problems with all the mess 4e caused with deities, surely won't have them with something way less impactful like this. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 05 Jul 2013 12:48:45 |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jul 2013 : 12:11:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
About the deity problem you point out, it could be handweaved by saying that -for example- Bane of the Realms and the one of Nentir Vale are just aspects of the same being (or that they are two different deities with the same name).
There are solutions, certainly. Yours is a good example.
What I'm getting at is that for some things it's better to not put the problem in front of the DM (and players) to begin with.
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
Anyone who didn't have problems with all the mess 4e caused with deities, surely won't have them with something way less impactful as this.
I see what you're saying. If DMs didn't fret over it now, surely they won't later, right?
However, I'd say it's far more an impact (and thus an issue) if you're linking the different worlds via Planescape.
I think it'll depend on just how they (WotC) present things and what emphasis they put on planar connections and planar campaigns.
For what it's worth I for one never liked the idea of Bane in the Core pantheon and would've nixed him from a 4E Core rules/non-Realms game (if I ever ran one). |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3806 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jul 2013 : 12:48:47
|
I see. It could be a unnecessary complication to even put the matter in front of the DM, but it could also be an additional tool in his/her hands, or a source of interesting campaigns. I don't see it as a problem because -unless WotC did something in this regard- having two deities (or whatever elements) from different worlds completely unrelated would be as easy as it having them connected. The choice would depend on wheter the capaign benefits from it or not.
However I agree with you on the fact that this depends on how much emphasis WotC is going to put on this matter. Sourcebooks heavy on it could give the wrong impression. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
|
|
|
Quale
Master of Realmslore
1757 Posts |
Posted - 07 Jul 2013 : 13:12:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
I can see that a lot of people are pleased and I won't begrudge them their happiness, but I find myself disappointed with this turn of events.
Mearls uses the phrase "Planescape as our default assumption," which doesn't indicate concepts like the Great Tree or the 4E Planar structure are being thrown out, but does indicate that a 5E version of the Great Wheel will stand as the backdrop against which the Realms are depicted.
Thus, just as the Great Wheel was set aside without being discarded with the rise of the 3E Realms, so it seems one of the best things to happen to the Realms in 3E--i.e. the Realms getting its own Cosmology--will quietly go away.
Nothing unique will be lost, 3e FR cosmology mostly consisted of the Great Wheel parts arranged a bit differently. And the World Tree is just another name for Yggdrasil, already known by that name in places like Rashemen, Ruathym, and the North. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 07 Jul 2013 : 15:53:49
|
Yeah, its easy enough to rectify, because there really is no 'correct' version of the planes. If most of the folk of Toril believe its like a tree, then that is how it will appear to them.
We need to have a default cosmology (whether true or not), so that certain basic assumptions can be made for D&D in-general. There is no problem with that - Planescape was one of the best D&D settings ever designed. When you run your own FR campaign, you can cherry-pick what you want to use - its no big deal. Also, one of the things I really liked about the 4e approach was the 'use anywhere' modules that could still be canon. If a lot of the adventures take place in these 'side planes' (Shadowfel, Feywild, Elemental Planes, plane of mirrors, Far Realms, etc) then they can focus on one set of multi-setting modules and make them all excellent, instead of splitting their resources amongst a half-dozen settings or more. I still want some setting-specific adventure-paths, but the general, one-shot modules are best suited for this universal approach.
As for the deites thing, I have always felt there were a set of (true) gods - the Archtypes - and everything else were aspects of them. Either the culture itself got to the point where it needed a deity of such-and-such and an aspect 'arrived' to fill the void, or (more likely) some local mortal ascended to take that position, and became an aspect of the Archtype (in much the same way that demi-powers are Exarches of the gods). Thus, some Torillian-born warlord arose in power, and took the name Bane (perhaps unknowingly), and when he was of sufficient power (level?), he spontaneously ascended... but in reality, he was sponsored by 'Core Bane' (or whatever - IMG I say Bane is an aspect of Asmodeus, but 4e screwed all of that up now).
And most of these world-specific aspects (deities) probably don't even realize they are just a part of something greater; true gods (the Archtypes) are rarely ever challenged so would almost never have to 'reel in' all of their power (which would include these deity-aspects, which are like Uber-Avatars), When a local deity is challenged they normally call all their avatars back so as to be at full power (although clever ones might leave one hidden somewhere). This is something an Archtype would almost never have to do (these beings are 'true' gods, and should be nearly impossible to destroy).
So somewhere in the multiverse is the 'Dragon Queen', and she has lots of aspects, among them dozens of Tiamets and even a Takhisis or three. Maybe Golarion's Lamshtu is another aspect, or perhaps the Archtype itself: the 'mother of monsters'.
Thus, what is true in one setting does not have to be true for another. Every story about Corellon could be true, depending upon which world the story originated on (although ancient powers, like the Fey ones, should be the 'truest' to the archtype: they may be far closer to actual Avatars then other world-specific gods). In fact, the 'real' gods - those Archtypes - may be what the Creator Races all first started to worship, before members of their races attained enough power for their own ascensions (and so, the first deities were born). This falls in-line with a lot of what Gray Richardson does with his musings.  |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 07 Jul 2013 15:57:09 |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jul 2013 : 00:03:25
|
I'm not quite understanding the objections and complaints about how 5E-era neo-Planescape lore seems to be an uninspired and "stolen" reprint/adaptation of previous Manual(s) of the Planes, Planescape, and general 2E-era lore.
How else can it possibly maintain compatibility and self-consistency with previous lore? I don't expect it to be perfect, indeed I'll admit I expect it to turn out somewhat disappointing and oversimplified and neutered to the point of being completely inoffensive by childish 1950s-style censorship standards (sorry to say it that way, but that's how I feel) ... yet, I'm still willing to approach it with an open mind and I'll hope for some creative inspirations which can succeed in resolving the egregious discrepancies (and damage!) seen in the incompatible body of planar lore published across previous D&D editions.
In short, I'll hope for the best but be prepared for the worst. For now I'm still speculating, I'll save my vitriol for afterwards - and then, only if I don't happen to like what I've been given. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11829 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jul 2013 : 23:20:33
|
| Jeremy does have a point when he brings up that it forces cosmologies back together. You do end up with the "they killed Lolth in Greyhawk, so is she dead in the realms now" stuff.... though since she's a god and not just a demon lord... perhaps a better example would be "Orcus was killed in X campaign world". Or will the Abyss of Toril and the Abyss of X plane be different.... what about the lords of hell? They were different for FR were they not? Or does Hell become "Sundered" into multiple hells and that's how Asmodeus will lose his power? |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jul 2013 : 16:49:45
|
In D&D, NOTHING ever truly dies - it just enters other states of existence. Thats how we rectify the problematic (cross-setting) lore - by using the lore itself. If Orcus 'dies' in Faerūn, then he is dead in Realmspace... for the time being. His other aspects (that may or not even be called 'Orcus') in other Spheres should remain unaffected.
Think of it as a type on banishment - which is also based on previous lore/rules. Once defeated, a fiend (or probably any extra-planer being) may not return to the world of their destruction for hundred (and one?) years, or some-such. UNLESS... they are summoned by a more-powerful mortal of that world once again. I think summoning a dead archfiend back should be a hell of a lot harder then summoning a live one (in that Sphere), requiring a great sacrifice (of power and/or souls, etc), but it can still be done, as proven over and over again in various stories.
Live Orcus - pretty-much just say his name.
Dead Orcus - A hundred virgin souls on an alter, 20 High Priests and a wizard (some of whom may loose levels in the process), etc, etc...
It just means you have to 'go beyond' the normal route for these things - that you have to 'call forth' a new avatar to your Crystal Sphere. Thats why it requires so much power - you are basically creating it it whole-cloth at that point. You tap into the Orcus Arch-type and call forth an aspect of it. The physical substance of it is made from the Prime World itself, in much the same way as elementals.
Now, this isn't like an actual different being for each world; think of it more like as if you had a time machine, and you summoned a version of yourself from every moment of your existence to the same place. They wouldn't be different people - they'd all be you, taken from different points of your own, personal timeline. Thats how these Orcus(i?) should be - they are all the same Orcus, all aware of everything each does, but each represents a different 'slice' of the whole. They'd be fully aware of what mortals have defeated them in the past, and once given solid form back on that prime World, all hell breaks loose (or Pandemonium, etc).
There should be some rules governing all this - that it takes a more powerful spellcaster and/or ritual to bring back a 'dead' Planer being then the one that banished it (which is precisely why these beings try their hardest not to be destroyed - its the 'law of diminishing returns'; after so many 'deaths', the world may not offer-up a high-enough Spellcaster to bring them back... at least not right away). This works even if it is ritual-based; suppose the ritual to bring Orcus back to some world required 100 acolytes the last time. Next time, it could be a thousand, and the next a million... each time it becomes exponentially harder.
That would also explain why Planer Beings don't try to get footholds in every world at once - they need to concentrate their full attention on any they hold a goodly amount of power in, so as not to loose it all and have to start back at square one. On most worlds, fiends probably ignore petitioners (cultists) for the most part, unless that world has something they want (think RW economics - what countries do major powers bother to get involved with?)
Also, Archfiends (and deities, by extension) could have completely different power-levels depending upon the world (and their power-base there). A world where Orcus holds total sway may have him as a greater Power instead of an Archfiend. And not only would he not have to worry about being taken-down there because of that power, but he wouldn't have nearly so much trouble coming back if he were (because the whole population works to his 'greater glory'). Because of this system of 'slow and steady wins the race' (patience and planning), Devils are naturally more apt at this sort of slow, methodical build-up of power then demons would be. Demon Lords probably got to where they are because they are more cunning (and patient) then the rest of their brethren. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 09 Jul 2013 16:55:47 |
|
|
|
Gary Dallison
Great Reader
United Kingdom
6361 Posts |
|
|
Shemmy
Senior Scribe
USA
492 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jul 2013 : 04:34:17
|
I took a week to think about this before responding, though more so that I've been on vacation in New Orleans for that time than any particular reaction to this all.
Overall, it's a start. As far as the outer planes go, I'm totally on board with the approach that they describe. The Inner Planes are a bit more of a mixed bag however, and there's a bit too much 4e influence still lingering around for my personal taste. I understand that they want to create some sort of compromise version to bridge the almost irreconcilable gulf between the 1e/2e/3e planes and the 4e cosmos, but I worry that the more 4e terms and influence that is merged into a more heavily classic D&D Great Wheel is going to please neither Great Wheel fans or 4e fans. It's a tricky thing. But it can work if you're subtle about it. We shall see, and I'll be paying attention as it develops certainly.
Problems that I see however:
Ravenloft as a border plane between the Material and Negative Energy? What the...? That's just... I don't even... They really need to leave Ravenloft as a demiplane and not try to overly define what it is, which is what an overt linkage to Negative Energy is going to do. Use the classic Plane of Shadow, drop any pretense of the clumsy Shadow/Negative Energy/Ravenloft/Fugue Plane/Greek Underworld amalgamation that the 4e Shadowfell was, and return to a more classic plane of Shadow.
Likewise I find it somewhat unwise to use the 4e Feywild as a border plane between the Material Plane and the Positive Energy Plane.
Ideally I'd keep a 5e Fey plane and Shadow Plane as divorced from the Energy Planes, and functioning more as opposite mirror-dopples of the Material Plane, linked to it, rather than anything else. Bright and dark mirrors if you will. That's also how Pathfinder handles its own First World and Shadow Plane, and I like that as it works better with more classic D&D attempts at the same concepts than either the 4e or 5e models IMO.
Finally: Where is the Ethereal? Unless I completely missed it, where's the misty plane of raw potential, dreams, and demiplanes? |
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
36804 Posts |
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Return of the Great Wheel
