Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Neely 03-31-08, 05:49 PM	Hiya, First of all I'll apologize if any of my questions sounds silly or dumb, but these were a couple of things I was wondering the other day and I couldn't find an immediate answer in my books. If a plane has an infinite size, does it mean it also has infinite population? And if it should have infinite population, would it mean that it is unconquerable? If above is true. Why would demons and devils miss out this vital part in their Blood Wars? Or is it just like a big sparring match to them?
Cranewings 03-31-08, 07:13 PM	I'm going to say that the realms have a center, and the center has a throne. If you get it, you get the world. Also, if enough people convert, the plane shifts all together. People near the center count for more. Not to mention, the planes can be split, so a part can move and a part can stay. Also... the armies of demons in the blood war likely number in the TRILLIONS!
Taeldrin Laesrash 03-31-08, 08:26 PM	Theoretically, a plane could have infinite residents. However, many parts of a plane are physically or philosophically inhospitable. And don't even need to conquer all the hospitable parts, just the good parts. That said, the Blood War is putting two (probable) infinites against each other. What's bigger: Infinity or infinity?
Sorcen_Anenooata 03-31-08, 08:47 PM	Depending on how you choose to portray it in your games, the planes can be infinite or finite as you like. Having said that, the inifinity vs infinity of the Blood War can be explained off as whoever's beliefs will win against the other. Aquiring parts of the planes seem to be more about conquering it philosophically (by alignment) rather then physically. For instance, a devil general battles the demons back and manages to get to a layer of the abyss, he then forces his will upon the layer until it cedes over to Baator as part of their land.
Eldritch_Lord 03-31-08, 08:57 PM	RE: Infinite population. So far as I remember (it's been a while since I had my Planescape books) the demons and devils all have some sort of spawning locations--the Maggot Pits on Avernus for the devils and various breeding spots in the Abyss. Even with infinite populations there are degrees of infinity--if there are X demons and X+4 devils, they'd fight and fight and fight and fight and fight and fight and fight *gasp* and fight and fight and fight until the devils kill enough to get to the breeding areas, then BAM! Goodbye breeding pools, goodbye demons. So really, you can think of the Blood War as a non-population-limit Star Wars Battlefront--stuff keeps blowing up until the things that spawn the bad guys are taken over.
Sarig the Genie 04-01-08, 01:27 PM	Our real-world universe is probaby infinite or something like that, but the population humans are not, to put things in perspective (:
setekh 04-01-08, 03:53 PM	Our real-world universe is probaby infinite or something like that, but the population humans are not, to put things in perspective (: Our Universe is finite - We can observe the effects of Entropy upon it. Personally, I don't see the planes as being infinite, Infinite is a philisophical number, and has no place in actual measurement. but they are really, really, really, really, really, really, REALLY zoggin big.
RAGNAROKISCOMING2007 04-01-08, 04:32 PM	Unless there are extra planes yet to be described, I think the realm is infinte in size, but the layers (from what I've seen and read in the Fiendish Codexes and BOVD) are finite in size, which would mean the population is finite as well.
Kursk 04-01-08, 04:34 PM	#1 If a plane has an infinite size, does it mean it also has infinite population? No. #2 And if it should have infinite population, would it mean that it is unconquerable? See #1. If above is true. Why would demons and devils miss out this vital part in their Blood Wars? Or is it just like a big sparring match to them? See #2.
ripvanwormer 04-01-08, 04:47 PM	If a plane has an infinite size, does it mean it also has infinite population? Not necessarily. There could be an infinite amount of empty space (and this is explicitly the case in Gehenna, for example - the volcanoes eventually end and there is only black howling void beyond). There are explicitly not an infinite amount of devils. Their numbers are dependent on the numbers of lawful evil mortal souls they're able to recruit, which are also not infinite. Demons are capable of sexual reproduction, so there are more of them, but they're not infinite either. And if it should have infinite population, would it mean that it is unconquerable? Not necessarily. The Outer Planes are made of belief, war to control the Outer Planes is more about changing the perception of the planes in the multiverse in general than physically conquering the literal landscape and population. Of course, victories in battle are one way to change the perception of what planes (and thus ideologies) are the most powerful. This gets a bit tricky to think about, but if you imagine that every native of, for example, the Abyss is an aspect of chaotic evil beliefs, then their nature might change all at once if the dominance of their philosophy changes in a skewed parallel of the Hundred Monkey Theory. The Abyss is perceived as less powerful by a critical number of people, so demons become less powerful, which makes the Abyss less powerful, and everything spirals downward until the plane simply falls apart, being absorbed by its neighbors. You have to imagine that infinite amounts of terrain merge/disintegrate all at once, and infinite demons diminish at once, but as long as you're dealing with infinities anyway, you might as well. So there could be an infinite amount of demons and the Abyss might still be conquerable. However, there is not an infinite amount of demons (as far as we know - they haven't been counted), so this is a moot point.
Neely 04-02-08, 04:56 PM	Thanks everyone for your replies. ^^ It gave me much more insight in how the planes work.
sciborg3 04-02-08, 05:21 PM	Rip -so the planes are a stock market of beliefs? :) ArcTan and I debated this awhile back, and to some extent I had to concede that he was logically right in assuming that the use of infinite planes with infinite populations lead to logical problems (though disturbingly this is a result of assign probabilities to choices of supposedly free-willed beings). Snow Princess came up with the idea that the planes should be growing toward infinite size instead of being infinite, and the brighter math people said this would fix a lot of the paradoxes.
ripvanwormer 04-02-08, 06:48 PM	ArcTan and I debated this awhile back, and to some extent I had to concede that he was logically right in assuming that the use of infinite planes with infinite populations lead to logical problems That's only a problem if you think the Outer Planes are supposed to be "logical." Which would mean you don't understand them at all. The Outer Planes are an aggregate of every belief, not just the logical ones. They are often paradoxical and surreal. They are, in part, made out of paradoxes, and the paradoxes that infinity invites are a major part of their flavor and charm - like the infinite Spire that nonetheless has a top. Complaining about paradoxes in the Outer Planes is like complaining about paradoxes in an Escher print. It's like complaining that a dungeon contains dragons. But, as above, there's no indication that the populations of the planes are infinite in any case.
Zebppir 04-02-08, 09:48 PM	I'm going to say that the realms have a center, and the center has a throne. If you get it, you get the world. Also, if enough people convert, the plane shifts all together. People near the center count for more. Not to mention, the planes can be split, so a part can move and a part can stay. Also... the armies of demons in the blood war likely number in the TRILLIONS! the devils often fight in battles that the demons outnumber them to ten to one but the devils have better equipment..... Still it is awsome to imagine such a battle and (for DMs)to put PCs into such a colassal battle Ah! such good memories
Cranewings 04-02-08, 11:29 PM	Zebppir, it is wierd that this came up... my party is in the Abyss right now. I gave all my plane scape stuff away a long time ago. I never really got into it. I wish I had it back now. Funny how tastes change.
sciborg3 04-03-08, 03:18 AM	I'm not sure i can handle Rip telling me I don't understand the planes...:weep:
ripvanwormer 04-03-08, 10:22 AM	Well, the 'you' was intended to be general, not you specifically.
sciborg3 04-03-08, 10:44 AM	sniff..okay...sniff...
gravenhurst 04-03-08, 12:59 PM	Hmm, freaking interesting, eh? One of the questions I have been dealing with as well. I pose the population would be infinite because all the devils and demons are from lost, corrupted, and stolen humanoid souls from all material planes (they have to be because one world couldn't procreate so many creatures for the devil or demon planes). I believe the Blood War was a way for the writers of D&D to keep the evil side in check with each other and to pose a fantastic scenario of the two alignments clashing together. Also, I believe the idea of morphing devils into demons way back has now posed a problem for the D&D creators of today, “We have created a conundrum! Aren’t demons devils? How do we fix it? Well we wait for 4th edition and realign demons to there proper devil beginnings. Because why do devils have to be lawful evil when souls can be any alignment so why not chaotic evil devils?” [But this discussion is for a thread I will post and have replied on many others boards.] One thing is raised with the Blood War and the infinite population you have brought up, “There are a lot of bad souls out there!” And if demons and devils can die on their own plane of existence then how can they be warring with each other for eons? And if the Blood War ever stops (I think it does for 4th Edition?) woe to the material planes as they will be overrun by evil. So will true chaos keep them in the check, like the Far realm, or will the upper planes? Aren't, the celestials supposed to be infinite as well, then why hasn’t there been an angel war versus the whole lot of them? Yes, it is going on in the background and an explanation has been printed in Fiendish Codex 1? Another writers conundrum possibly, but who’s task is it in keeping the evil at bay? There are way too many choices overlapping alignments, races, deities, etc., that you just have to figure out what you want to take from it all and stick to your own heaven and hell existence.
gravenhurst 04-03-08, 01:01 PM	Planning on the players to get a beat down in the Abyss? Player's want to go to Hell to lay a smack down for some past slight? Or your PC's are powerful enough to kick some fiendish arse, then I suggest using 3.0E Deities and Demigods divine Rank system as a guide to the power a devil lord or a demon prince has. For example, a Rank of 11-15 has hundreds of thousands of mortal worshippers. So, to keep with game balance suppose a demon prince or a devil lord has an amount of “followers” compared to their average CR of 20, so that would put them at a Rank of 0, a quasi-deity, giving them a few hundred loyal followers. Beyond this you would be creating an army and for this I would pick up the 3.5E Heroes of Battle for suggestions on armies.
gravenhurst 04-03-08, 01:21 PM	Our real-world universe is probably infinite or something like that, but the population humans are not, to put things in perspective (: Depending on how you choose to portray it in your games, the planes can be infinite or finite as you like. Having said that, the infinity vs infinity of the Blood War can be explained by whoever beliefs will win against the other. Acquiring parts of the planes seem to be more about conquering it philosophically (by alignment) rather then physically. For instance, a devil general battles the demons back and manages to get to a layer of the abyss, he then forces his will upon the layer until it cedes over to Baator as part of their land. Great explanation! I haven't thought of it that way!
gravenhurst 04-03-08, 01:25 PM	Rip -so the planes are a stock market of beliefs? :) ArcTan and I debated this awhile back, and to some extent I had to concede that he was logically right in assuming that the use of infinite planes with infinite populations lead to logical problems (though disturbingly this is a result of assign probabilities to choices of supposedly free-willed beings). Snow Princess came up with the idea that the planes should be growing toward infinite size instead of being infinite, and the brighter math people said this would fix a lot of the paradoxes. I like this hypothesis! It would help resolve many issues and satisfy the good guys in halting the bad guys from gaining more land, thus becoming stronger. Neat!
gravenhurst 04-03-08, 01:29 PM	RE: Infinite population. So far as I remember (it's been a while since I had my Planescape books) the demons and devils all have some sort of spawning locations--the Maggot Pits on Avernus for the devils and various breeding spots in the Abyss. Even with infinite populations there are degrees of infinity--if there are X demons and X+4 devils, they'd fight and fight and fight and fight and fight and fight and fight *gasp* and fight and fight and fight until the devils kill enough to get to the breeding areas, then BAM! Goodbye breeding pools, goodbye demons. So really, you can think of the Blood War as a non-population-limit Star Wars Battlefront--stuff keeps blowing up until the things that spawn the bad guys are taken over. Yes! A focal goal for the players to achieve (or devil, or angel). That would be some scrap to get there, eh? But, there isn't any current material that specifies a central location for the breeding pits. Only examples on how fiends process souls. My guess it would be near the leader of the fiends, like Asmodeous in the actual Pit of Hell (9th layer)! I guess leaving it vague allows you to place the breeding pits anywhere you want.
ripvanwormer 04-03-08, 10:47 PM	Planes of Law postulated that not only was Acheron's population finite, but it had an absolute cap. Once that cap was reached, no more souls could enter the plane. This is offered as an explanation for why the various groups on Acheron are eternally at war - goblins have to destroy orcish petitioners in order to make room for more goblin souls, and vice versa.
gravenhurst 04-04-08, 11:32 AM	Planes of Law postulated that not only was Acheron's population finite, but it had an absolute cap. Once that cap was reached, no more souls could enter the plane. This is offered as an explanation for why the various groups on Acheron are eternally at war - goblins have to destroy orcish petitioners in order to make room for more goblin souls, and vice versa. Referring to 3rdE Manual of the Planes as todays primary source on Acheron, it says on Avalas (the first layer) the goblin and orc gods "managed to separate their realms into two wholly separate cubes." Their opposing armies battle when one manages to land on the others cube. So in 3rdE, there is no mention of a population limit on the cubes in Acheron though the cubes are finite in size (the space around the cubes is infinite). So in my estimation, the more cubes you conquer, the more powerful your god becomes. And the more powerful the god becomes, the more cubes he can create (or one larger cube). And the more cubes (or the more larger a cube) a god has, then the larger the population. So in 3rdE Deities & Demigods, Acheron has no population fix - it just keeps fluctuating! Now about fluctuating population, how does a god keep his army from depleting? If a deity tasks his petitioners to battle opposing petitioners from a rival god, do they reform and battle again the next day because they are dead and can not die (Deities and Demigods doesn’t say they can not die but it does say a petitioner is “to be remade by deities to fit the nature of their particular afterlife.”)? Or are dead petitioners absorbed into the god while he creates new petitioners from fresh souls? Exceptions to the rule seem to be when the soul is harvested for nefarious means other than resting in the afterlife at the beck and call of their own deity. These means would be evil goals of fiends procreating their own races to form armies. And since souls are generally humanoid non-humanoid creatures corrupt stolen souls into their own image, or use souls in rituals to build vile siege engines, only then are souls lost or dead. Probably only their own worshipped god could save their soul, possibly melding them into the layer their deity holds sway over for later duties, eh? Or absorbed back into his divine fold?
ripvanwormer 04-04-08, 12:05 PM	The two factions have separated by their own gods onto their own cubes, and battle when one of the other manages to land on the others cube, by the way. I do not get it why they have to make room for other souls. They live on the same plane, and there's apparently a maximum amount of petitioners that Acheron can hold. It's not a matter of how many souls the cubes can hold - their pantheons can change the physics in their realms to seem bigger, even if they can't increase the size of their realms as seen from the outside. They are already dead, so, why would their deity kill off his own petitioners when he wants/needs them as servants? No, no. Gruumsh wants to kill Maglubiyet's petitioners, and Maglubiyet wants to kill Gruumsh's petitioners. No one wants to kill their own petitioners. When a petitioner dies, it merges with the realm of its god. A deity could expend energy resurrecting them, but that's not always cost-effective.
gravenhurst 04-05-08, 11:58 PM	They live on the same plane, and there's apparently a maximum amount of petitioners that Acheron can hold. It's not a matter of how many souls the cubes can hold - their pantheons can change the physics in their realms to seem bigger, even if they can't increase the size of their realms as seen from the outside. In Planes of Law but not in 3rdE Manual of the Planes! No, no. Gruumsh wants to kill Maglubiyet's petitioners, and Maglubiyet wants to kill Gruumsh's petitioners. No one wants to kill their own petitioners. I hear ya, I hear ya! Some possibly do, like Erythnul? Maybe more like sacrificing? When a petitioner dies, it merges with the realm of its god. A deity could expend energy resurrecting them, but that's not always cost-effective. Does it say petitioners merge with the realm in Planes of Law? In 3rdE Deities & Demigods it says, "In general, petitioners...become divine servants..." To me this is similar to Imparted Divine Power given to a mortal who ascends to godhood. And from your same point on deities not wanting to kill their own petitioners, I agree. Absorbing souls sounds better than casting them off into the layer of a plane. To me that sounds more like the killing of a soul! Merging petitioners sounds more to do with the fiends of Hell and the Abyss because they have no souls. As specified in 3rdE Deities & Demigods, petitioners are souls, where, "Elementals and outsiders tend to meld with their native planes, and such do not become petitioners. Their spirits may still be called back from the dead, however." But, as petitioners are considered outsiders, it would make sense when they died they would merge with their deities Godly Realm, as you said. But I would chose to have the deity be wiser and absorb souls in case he ever lost footing on his Godly Realm! I understand you refer to Planes of Law as your go to source, but I am referring to 3rdE Deities & Demigods, Manual of the Planes as the primary source and Acheron says nothing about a population problem and petitioners absorbing or merging per se. It is all open to interpretation for what works for you comfortably. Considering the Planescape setting is outdated (but useful), so it will be different and secondary to today's updated material, and I can only abide by material I own, as I assume you only own Planes of Law.
Taeldrin Laesrash 04-06-08, 12:04 AM	I'm pretty sure the idea does come from Planes of Law. The Manual of the Planes mostly goes over the basic information on the planes, much of which comes from the PS products.
gravenhurst 04-06-08, 01:34 AM	So everything in the Planescape setting, specifically the Planes of Law ,are more detailed than 3rdE Manual of the Planes?
ripvanwormer 04-06-08, 09:21 AM	Sorry, but where are you getting your information? I am referring to 3rd Edition Manual of the Planes for the primary source and Acheron says nothing about a population problem. Are you referring to the Plansecape accessory Planes of Law, an AD&D 2nd edition product? The Planescape setting is an interpretation of the core rules, so may be different, and thus secondary to core handbooks. Blood War is as well, an example of ones ideas on something happening in the D&D cosmology but is up to you if you want to incorporate the idea in ones campaign. Yes, Planes of Law. I mentioned that in post #24. Your mistake is in thinking Planescape is more optional than any other D&D thing. Everything is optional; it's not as if the Manual of the Planes (which also mentions the Blood War) is somehow mandatory. I wasn't trying to claim everyone was obligated to give Acheron a cap on its population; I don't really like the idea, personally. But I mentioned the idea because it was relevant to the thread. It's an interesting thing that lends added support to the idea that the planes don't have infinite populations, nothing more. That said, the rule of thumb is that older material remains "canon" unless explicitly contradicted, so Planescape material is largely as valid a source as any other. Your idea that it's an "interpretation of the core rules" is an odd one - it's true, I guess, in the same sense that the Monster Manual II, Tome of Battle, or the Manual of the Planes are interpretations of the core rules. But when it was released it was the planes in every setting except, to some degree, Dark Sun, and Wizards has embraced the material ever since (though it mostly rejects it in 4e - if we're talking 4e then none of the Astral Dominions are infinite, and it's a very different discussion).
ripvanwormer 04-06-08, 10:07 AM	the use of infinite planes with infinite populations lead to logical problems And that reminds me of this quote (http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/1482/ps/why.html) from David "Zeb" Cook, written to the Planescape mailing list way back when: "One of the most curious statements I've seen on this list is that PlaneScape is a logical world. I must have erred. I was trying to create a world that defied logic."
sciborg3 04-06-08, 10:15 AM	Damn Rip, I said "uncle" already! :) Though I see what Zeb is getting at, I'd note that there was a sect on Mechanus that would likely debate the very things that were discussed about logic and the planes. And as per the Math and Mechanus discussions, it doesn't have to be too pedantic...
gravenhurst 04-07-08, 06:20 PM	Yes, Planes of Law. I mentioned that in post #24. Yes I knew you meant 2ndE Planes of Law. Your mistake is in thinking Planescape is more optional than any other D&D thing. Everything is optional; it's not as if the Manual of the Planes (which also mentions the Blood War) is somehow mandatory. Yes I agree that everything is optional and yes I agree on referring to material from older material if it helps to fill in the gaps! But we aren't arguing gaps you and I. If anything, Planscape's Acheron is what it was then and 3rdE Acheron is what it is today. I only thought I was correcting you on the topic because I assumed you were referencing 3rdE (thread #24)! You are referencing 2ndE source. But what we disagree on is my opinion on Primary Source material. That said, the rule of thumb is that older material remains "canon" unless explicitly contradicted, so Planescape material is largely as valid a source as any other. And I disagree. Anyone could look back on older published material (D&D canon preferably) to get a clue for an idea on how something works, like a car engine. A motor made a decade ago is going to be similar to a motor today but isn't going to be as advanced in ways because some areas are different, possibly better, than before. As with Acheron, in todays rules it does contradict your Acheron and that is why 3rdE is todays Primary Source on the plane of Acheron. But for arguments sake, they are two different editions of D&D and it would be better to leave at that. For me, I have always played older material with their current rules and changed them as my campaign progressed into the new editions. Same can happens backwards. If ever my PC's travel back in time I can refer to older rules on the subject. Again, I stress you understanding what Primary Source means by going to my link below! Your idea that it's an "interpretation of the core rules" is an odd one - it's true, I guess, in the same sense that the Monster Manual II, Tome of Battle, or the Manual of the Planes are interpretations of the core rules. But when it was released it was the planes in every setting except, to some degree, Dark Sun, and Wizards has embraced the material ever since (though it mostly rejects it in 4e - if we're talking 4e then none of the Astral Dominions are infinite, and it's a very different discussion). Yeah, forget about all that. I was, what is the word, cagey? at the time. And no 4thE here, berk. Forget about it. I am done with a new edition. 3.5E is here to stay, with a dabble or two in 2ndE & 1stE, with Castles & Crusaders thrown in, maybe Palladium, or Warhammer! But no 4thE!!! Quoting myself here Let me get this straight! If you have three different D&D settings with three different stats on the same plane of existence, what planar source would you use to refer to if they contradict one another? I was referring to D&D's cosmology, the Great Wheel. And, if a current edition was vague on information (meant to usually, so the DM could create his own rules tailored to their own campaign!), you are telling me to refer to something 14 years ago as primary source material! You do not go backwards to clarify rules for a rule for today when you have the rules updated today with MotP! Forget about the first part! I contradicted myself about referring to something years ago as if I wouldn't do that. But I do support the second half, as updated material is the Primary Source! I am not debating the fact of Planescape's validity on its own, but I due argue that it is not a primary source for 3.5E D&D. I am correcting you on referring to outdated material so when you suggest something on a thread you should be mentioning from what edition, and that is important to those asking the question. As for example, two like minds are arguing the same point but for different rules, like us. This could be the difference for someone making up their mind on using our help. I agree you can change whatever you want to your own liking except when being challenged by primary sources.[omitted text]In 3.5E technically the population is infinite but space permitting on a cube, probably finite; petitioners die new ones take their place. I corrected my views in this thread and in thread #27, and erased the last paragraph, it was a run on sentence. The first link is to WOTC errata page. Read the first paragraph under DMG about primary source: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/errata And this link takes you to Wikipedia on detailing the progression of our D&D cosmology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deities_and_demigods
ripvanwormer 04-07-08, 06:56 PM	Let me get this straight! If you have three differing campaign settings with three differing stats on a plane of existence, what one would you use? I thought we were talking core. If you wish to discuss the 4e cosmology or Eberron, you need only say so. Acheron only exists in one "setting" - the Great Wheel cosmology. At least until they decide to incorporate it into the 4e multiverse or something. So when we're talking about Acheron, it's fair to discuss other sourcebooks that described that setting, just as a discussion about Cormyr might incorporate 2e Forgotten Realms books. :mad: Uh-oh, the smiley face looks angry! And, if a current edition was vague on information If a current edition is vague on information, it's generally because it's a brief summary of something that was dealt with in greater detail somewhere else. Again, everything is optional, but the truth is that the description of Acheron in the 3e MotP is mostly a summary/update of its description in Planes of Law. you are telling me to refer to something 14 years ago as canon! You can do as you like, but I understand that's the rule of thumb. Previous canon holds unless officially overturned. Much of the 1st edition Forgotten Realms set, published in 1987, is still canon for the Forgotten Realms, for example. By the same rule, 1st and 2nd edition Great Wheel canon is still valid for those planes. so when you suggest something on a thread you should be mentioning from what source I did. Explicitly. And the 3.5 Edition Manual of the Planes doesn't contradict your Planescape source it just leaves out the finite rule on population limit. Right. So I presume the rule still holds, even if it was left out. But I think of it more as a suggestion than a rule - I'd have to check the source to see if it was a rumor or a flat pronouncement. More likely the former. Planescape became primary on many levels of ideas because it was the only updated source to refer to the cosmology since the original Legend and Lore book (aka, Deities and Demigods 2nd E). The order actually went: Deities & Demigods was published in 1980. In 1985, the sixth printing of the book was retitled Legends & Lore, and given a new cover. In 1987, the 1st edition Manual of the Planes was published, covering the cosmology in much greater detail and describing many of the realms of the deities mentioned in Deities & Demigods/Legends & Lore. In 1990, the 2nd edition Legends & Lore was published. In 1994, the Planescape Campaign Setting updated the 1987 Manual of the Planes, using the 2nd edition Legends & Lore and Monster Mythology as the source of its deities. But, in no means is the Planescape setting a core rule That's something for Wizards of the Coast to determine. I'll ask you what "core" is if I'm asking about your personal campaign, where your own interpretations are of course law. But you don't get to decide for everyone's campaign. then current banter is the chant, bub! Haha. "Bub" means alcohol in Planescape's cant. But an admirable attempt. Better would be something like, "The current chant's the dark of it, berk!" Read the first paragraph under DMG about primary source I did, and I agree that if the 3.5 DMG said "there is no cap on Acheron's population" then that would take precedence. The problem is that the DMG doesn't say anything about Acheron's population levels, so we can safely assume the earlier rule still applies. And Manual of the Planes is mandatory, for 3rd-3.5E Mandatory, is it? I didn't get the memo. I was under the impression that "rule 0" said that nothing was mandatory. Look, I'm not trying to tell anyone how to run their campaign. Someone asked if the Outer Planes were intended to have infinite populations. 3rd edition doesn't specify, but the books the 3e Manual of the Planes was based on did, so I noted this. If you want to make them have infinite populations, more power to you - as I said above, I think some interestingly illogical effects can be generated that way. I approve wholeheartedly. It is, however, entirely valid to say "This other book did it this way."
BlueFlames 04-08-08, 07:17 AM	Planescape is optional! And Manual of the Planes is mandatory, for 3rd-3.5E! Resources: This book is built from the bones of giants. From the initial planar visions of Gary Gygax and Dave Sutherland through Jeff Grubb's original, almost-talmudic Manual of the Planes, with its contributions by Roger Moore and Ed Greenwood, to the vibrant Planescape® work of David Cook, Colin McComb, Michele Carter, and Monte Cook, the planes have been an ever-evolving cosmology. (3.0 Manual of the Planes, page 2. Emphasis mine.) Seems rather explicit to me that the 3.0 Manual of the Planes summarizes and builds upon the Planescape setting, so if you're using the MotP, you're rather bound to the lore of Planescape. Besides, what kind of clueless sod is going to try to go to Ascheron and try to count the petitioner population? Sounds pretty barmy to me, berk. /BlueFlames goes back to measuring the distance between each cog in Regulus, muttering something about Modrons and their damnibly complicated formulas.
gravenhurst 04-09-08, 12:45 AM	Haha. "Bub" means alcohol in Planescape's cant. But an admirable attempt. Better would be something like, "The current chant's the dark of it, berk!" I did interpret it right, "...the current banter is the chant, cheers!":P This is turning into an infinite thread Primary Source and I strongly disagree with anyone who suggests otherwise even when I post current D&D errata on the subject to support my claims. So I digress for you and others who aren't following our rant. I will reiterate the current update on primary source material, as you have steered from mentioning it. This is the link I posted from D&D RPG Official Home Page: Errata Rule: Primary Sources "When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. [omitted text] Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the DUNGEON MASTER's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The DUNGEON MASTER's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities." All in all, todays D&D material is built on the backbones of yesterdays material. Agreed! But, your quote on finite population is not in the new information (though I did find support on renegade commander petitioners when slain merge with Acheron) of the 3.0 MotP, so it is moot because both our material are from different editions. ripvanwormer mentions, "Planes of Law postulated that not only was Acheron's population finite, but it had an absolute cap. Once that cap was reached, no more souls could enter the plane. This is offered as an explanation for why the various groups on Acheron are eternally at war - goblins have to destroy orcish petitioners in order to make room for more goblin souls, and vice versa." I do not own your reference material so I will use your quote as printed fact. In my source the layer of Avalas in Acheron has a cube separated by the two gods into two cubes and thus war with each other from separate cubes. Both try to send armies over to the other cube to battle. So in a sense MotP is indirectly killing off petitioners to make room for many more petitioners and since both gods have their own cubes they now have more room for more petitioners too. No need for a finite population! Since nothing contradicts Acheron in 3.0E, AND 3.5E, MotP is considered the primary source of information on the subject about the planes of existance. A healthy respect to the 2ndE Planescape setting as reference "lore" on missing or differing planar descriptions, if that is all that you have.[deleted text] Finite!:lop:
Taeldrin Laesrash 04-09-08, 09:54 AM	Since nothing contradicts Acheron in 3.0, MotP is considered the primary source of information on the subject. A healthy respect to the 2ndE Planescape setting as reference "lore" on missing or differing planar descriptions, if that is all that you have. But, considering 3.0 is all new and updated on the subject of the planes why would you reference anything that is secondary to the information at hand? Finite!:lop: Because 3e is not all new and updated. Much of the information on the planes has not been reintroduced or contradicted. This would include the theory that Archeron has a population cap.
gravenhurst 04-09-08, 04:49 PM	Because 3e is not all new and updated. Much of the information on the planes has not been reintroduced or contradicted. This would include the theory that Archeron has a population cap. Love the cartoon strip!:D
ripvanwormer 04-10-08, 09:27 AM	even when I post current D&D errata on the subject to support my claims. The errata you posted doesn't support your claims. As I pointed out before, there is no disagreement between the two sources. If the MotP had said, "There is no cap on Acheron's population," that would have been a contradiction. But it didn't say that. Therefore, we must assume the Planes of Law text still applies. But since both gods have their own cubes they now have more room for more petitioners. No need for a finite population! No, you're still misunderstanding. The cap isn't on the population of individual cubes, but the plane as a whole. It doesn't make any difference how many cubes you divide the plane into, the cap remains. For example, if there was a hard limit of 100 billion petitioners in Acheron (an arbitrary figure), putting the orcish and goblin petitioners on separate cubes isn't going to change that. It's 100 billion whether they're on one cube or two. And there are many more cubes than the ones the orcs and goblins inhabit, and this applies to all petitioners on the plane, not just the goblins and orcs. Here's the quote from Planes of Law, by the way: Scholars of Sigil are convinced that Acheron can never be a crowded place. The Book of Bindings, kept in the Rare and Dangerous Volumes vault of the Hall of Records, the library of the Cage, states that: "The absolute number of spirits in Acheron is a conserved quantity; the number can neither increase nor decrease. For this reason, the armies of Acheron take no prisoners; each enemy they slay provides an opening for an allied warrior's soul to enter. The massacres of Acheron will never end until all the petitioners of one side or the other are slain." Arguments still rage as to whether planars and proxies are counted in the conservation of spirits. Most generals assume that the principle of conservation of spirits only applies to petitioners, not planars. For this reason, captured mercenaries are sometimes spared. After all, most sell-swords are quick to change allegiance if payments from a dead employer don't seem to be forthcoming.
sciborg3 04-10-08, 12:33 PM	There isn't a contradiction. However, I think its important to note that planar scholars are like the scientists of our world, they try to figure out reasons why things are the way they are. As such in Planes of Law that's an IC quote, so anyone can use it or not - one of PS's mantras in making the planes your way, right away....oh wait that's Burger King.... The important question is whether a population cap as a hard-fast rule or even idea limits your game or enhances enjoyment. So, in summary: If you have three differing campaign settings with three differing stats on a plane of existence, what one would you use? All of them, and cherry pick what I like.
gravenhurst 04-11-08, 02:16 AM	The errata you posted doesn't support your claims. How does it not support my claims? The 3rdE Manual of the Planes is referred to if another source had contradictory information about the planes of existence! Pretend the setting of the mud clams said the Elemental Plane of Water did this but doesn't do that, and is missing the extra wing-ding, the DM would have to refer to the Primary Source on the subject of the plane of water and it would be the MotP, not the Planscape Accessory, Inner Planes. As I pointed out before, there is no disagreement between the two sources. If the MotP had said, "There is no cap on Acheron's population," that would have been a contradiction. But it didn't say that. Therefore, we must assume the Planes of Law text still applies. But there are disagreements between the two sources, which I have clarified through the past posts, and here as the last paragraph. No, you're still misunderstanding. The cap isn't on the population of individual cubes, but the plane as a whole. It doesn't make any difference how many cubes you divide the plane into, the cap remains. I understand that you mentioned about the whole Plane of Acheron having a cap on population instead of one layer. I got it! [The rest of ripvanwormer's explanations isn't needed as I replied to the above quote, which means my original begining paragraph is a defeated point. It has been deleted. And I have credited past replies with corrections so I deleted the second paragraph here because it is redundant.] Differences: Is Acheron infinite around the layers and cubes? It is in MotP. Did the two warring gods split the cube they were fighting on in MotP? They sure did. Is Wee Jas in PoL? Probably not! There are many more differences from both our sources, I am sure. My stance on what is relevant, is what is relevant for 3.5E D&D, as the Primary Source on the Planes of Existence is the MotP. And the MotP is the primary source on the description of Acheron as printed by D&D's Official Home Page. No population cap! I believe in the use of D&D rules as a guideline for designing ones own campaign path but I do believe in following the rules when things need to be settled and I firmly believe in today’s 3.0E of MotP is that material. Thank you! Thank you very much, aha!:bravo:
sciborg3 04-11-08, 09:36 AM	Well, finally, you quote material from Planes of Law (I am assuming) and come back with not only one cube having a cap and not one layer having a cap, but the whole plane of Acheron having a population cap! Now this is a whole new ball game. Just let me clear my throat! :confused: he was always saying this. whether it's canon or not is another matter, one that is of minimal importance....
ripvanwormer 04-11-08, 02:40 PM	Well, finally, you quote material from Planes of Law (I am assuming) and come back with not only one cube having a cap and not one layer having a cap, but the whole plane of Acheron having a population cap! Now this is a whole new ball game. Yes, the whole plane. That's why I said "Acheron" and not "one of Acheron's cubes." And yes, that was a quote from Planes of Law. That's why I said, "Here's the quote from Planes of Law." All I can suggest is that you reread the thread and see what I've actually been saying, since it doesn't much resemble your summary. But you then said PoL was printed before MotP and so my source is wrong because it is derived from Planescape and thus mine is an error on the author’s part for leaving out all the parts from PoL! No, I never said anything like that. I agreed with you that the most recent source trumps the earlier one as far as the official canon goes, where they contradict. Where they don't contradict - as they don't on the matter of populations - that isn't an issue. Both sources are correct, because they don't disagree with one another on this point. If the Manual of the Planes said "Acheron has an infinite or unlimited population," that would be a disagreement. The Manual of the Planes has not revised the Planes of Law statement, however. This doesn't make it "wrong," it just means that it didn't have enough space to include everything. In the same way, the DMG has even less space to detail the various planes, but this doesn't mean the Manual of the Planes is no longer valid just because the DMG doesn't include all the information the MotP did. For what it's worth, I agree with sciborg that the Planes of Law quote is in-character and not necessarily binding - but then, I wouldn't consider it to be binding even if it was written out-of-character. You can select what you like. As far as what's official, however, it remains the latest word on the matter of Acheron's population. No subsequent (or previous) source has weighed in on the matter. I don't think it's safe to assume there are an infinite number of souls on a plane just because a source doesn't specifically say the population is finite. If the only source that ventures an opinion on the subject at all suggests it's finite, I would take that into account when deciding how to interpret subsequent texts.
keelsc 04-19-08, 01:15 PM	I think the size of a plane is dependant of the DM's view of whats possible. because if you think about it than the Matrtial Plane extends to all other planets and such in the current universe. On the other hand if you think of the Elemantal Planes, they are described as flat, infinite planes rather than planets. So it depends on it you view your planes as compilations of planets and such or if each plane is, in it self, an infinitly extending flat plane. If the previous applies than each planet or place of existance would have a finite population but the entire plane could have an infinite populous. if the latter applies than in theory you should be able to fit an infinite number of people on the plane.
gravenhurst 04-24-08, 12:26 AM	So everything in the Planescape setting, specifically the Planes of Law ,are more detailed than 3rdE Manual of the Planes? Considering no one has replied to this, I will assume that 3rdE D&D is more detailed than Planscape, with loads of thanks to its fore father the 1st E Manual of the Planes, that everything has derived from, including Acheron!
gravenhurst 04-24-08, 03:21 AM	How does it not support my claims? The 3rdE Manual of the Planes is referred to if another source had contradictory information about the planes of existence! Pretend the setting of the mud clams said the Elemental Plane of Water did this but doesn't do that, and is missing the extra wing-ding, the DM would have to refer to the Primary Source on the subject of the plane of water and it would be the MotP, not the Planscape Accessory, Inner Planes. But there are disagreements between the two sources, which I have clarified through the past posts, and here as the last paragraph. I understand that you mentioned about the whole Plane of Acheron having a cap on population instead of one layer. I got it! [The rest of ripvanwormer's explanations isn't needed as I replied to the above quote, which means my original begining paragraph is a defeated point. It has been deleted. And I have credited past replies with corrections so I deleted the second paragraph here because it is redundant.] Differences: Is Acheron infinite around the layers and cubes? It is in MotP. Did the two warring gods split the cube they were fighting on in MotP? They sure did. Is Wee Jas in PoL? Probably not! There are many more differences from both our sources, I am sure. My stance on what is relevant, is what is relevant for 3.5E D&D, as the Primary Source on the Planes of Existence is the MotP. And the MotP is the primary source on the description of Acheron as printed by D&D's Official Home Page. No population cap! I believe in the use of D&D rules as a guideline for designing ones own campaign path but I do believe in following the rules when things need to be settled and I firmly believe in today’s 3.0E of MotP is that material. Thank you! Thank you very much, aha!:bravo: P.S.: By the way, 3.5E MotP is not the Primary Source on the Plane of Acheron anymore, it is the original 1stE Manual of the Planes by Jeff Grubb.:D
Taeldrin Laesrash 04-24-08, 09:39 AM	Considering no one has replied to this, I will assume that 3rdE D&D is more detailed than Planscape, with loads of thanks to its fore father the 1st E Manual of the Planes, that everything has derived from, including Acheron! Your reasoning is superb. Planescape was built off the information in the 1e Manual of the Planes, and vastly expanded upon it. The 3e cosmology was in turn taken from the very basics of Planescape.
Paulon 04-24-08, 03:57 PM	Considering no one has replied to this, I will assume that 3rdE D&D is more detailed than Planscape, with loads of thanks to its fore father the 1st E Manual of the Planes, that everything has derived from, including Acheron! The most detailed fluff for Acheron is in the Planescape setting. Approximately 3 and a half pages in 3rd edition Manual of the Planes just doesn't have the space to cover everything described in 30+ pages in 2nd Ed Planescape's Planes of Law boxed set, not to mention the less detailed references elsewhere. Personally for 3rd Edition I'd look in those books first for what's current, then go back to Planescape for more background detail, because there is more background detail. That doesn't mean I have to use it if I don't want to, but it's there if I want it.
gravenhurst 04-25-08, 12:36 AM	The most detailed fluff for Acheron is in the Planescape setting. Approximately 3 and a half pages in 3rd edition Manual of the Planes just doesn't have the space to cover everything described in 30+ pages in 2nd Ed Planescape's Planes of Law boxed set, not to mention the less detailed references elsewhere. Personally for 3rd Edition I'd look in those books first for what's current, then go back to Planescape for more background detail, because there is more background detail. That doesn't mean I have to use it if I don't want to, but it's there if I want it. Wow, that much material on the Plane of Acheron! 30 pages alone on Acheron? I never got around asking my counterpart ripvanwormer on the Planes of Law boxed set to find out. You mean all planes lawfully aligned, including: The Nine Hells, Acheron, Mechanus, and Arcadia? But who needs all that info when you aren't campaigning in Planescape! Most campaigns that I know don't centre around planar hopping. It is why Planescape is so in depth with its sources because the campaign involves running through portals and doors, to even adventuring in other cosmologies! So I can see why so many of you are passionate of that setting. I hold in high regards the few products I have in my collection as superb writs of fantasy. I own A Player's Primer to the Outlands with CD (cool talking skull, can get annoying when you have to repeat a track); I bought this first because I was running Egg of the Phoenix which involved time travel and portal hopping, so I thought it could be useful. Confusing lingo to say the least. Then I bought faction war, which confused the s**t out of me more. Faction here, factol there, berk, bark, barmy, whatever! Insane plot! Then The Factol's Manifesto, which helped with understanding what all the factions were all about but was still in the dark on petitioners and walking dead and the confusing jumble of cultures and races all mixed around. Neat maps! Last is my favourite, and that is Dead Gods. Monte Cook kicks butt and this would have fit in nice to a campaign ender for me involving drow, Elder Elemental Eye/Tharizdun, Orcus, and St. Cuthbert but the group disbanded before I got a chance to run it. So I understand the amount of material that goes into something involving Planscape! So all that material must have had an "infinite" amount of workers to accomplish the loads of work involved in completing some of these masterpieces, eh?:D had to be, if it were to be considered the Primary Source on said material!;)