Post/Author/DateTime	Post
sciborg3 01-18-08, 04:53 PM	random thoughts: Amazing artwork. In terms of marketing this really makes me excited about 4E...if not for the 3e bashing in the text. Interesting ideas with the primordials acting as the Titans of the new cosmology. I'm confused as to the supposed problems with the elemental planes now being "corrected" - the elemental chaos seems just as hostile, if not more so, than the elemental planes. A lot of "problems" with 3e seem drummed up to sell 4e, like the mention of how bad it was that D&D had an ooze mephit. However it gives me great ideas for Limbo so I don't mind it too much. Asmodeus as an angel committing deicide is interesting as well. I like the Feywild, and though using eladrin as a name-drop seems strange. I do like the idea of powerful fey (ghaele for winter, bralani for autumn). The idea of the Feywild having an underdark seems cool. Sadly, it's hard to like something when the guys who made it hate the cosmology you've loved since the 1e MotP. The Shadowfell and Feywild seem like derivatives of Changeling and Wraith in some ways, but not sure D&D will really explore the same aspects those games did. I can see myself getting bored with the themes here, but I can always stick the old planes into the Astral Sea. At the same time, they are really evocative and perhaps keeping them less as locales to dungeon crawl in may keep their mysterious nature alive. But as for silly cosmologies - Bright and dark parts of creation thrown aside by the primordials? What does that even mean? Is the Feywild Underdark "bright"? And then the comment that the fey were too cute until 3e? You mean the Queen of Air and Darkness was cute? I though she was one of the creepiest gods in D&D actually. And what about the elves of Ysgard that steal mortals away. However, I must say the Astral Sea is a great open ended option. This really frees up a lot of adventure writers I suspect. In the end, the cosmology itself isn't bad its more the selling of it that makes me be more critical than I might otherwise be.
Rikutatis 01-19-08, 02:00 PM	I haven't read Worlds and Monsters yet, but from what I've seen in Races and Classes and other sources, I share your thoughts. I happen to like the way they blended elves and eladrin, as well as the whole feywild concept. I think the new cosmology looks pretty good, although the planes will probably just be there to be the ultimate epic challenge for the heroes. I don't think we can expect much in the way of politics and complexity in the interaction between the various planar denizens. At the very least though, I think that adding an original story and a background to the "core world" is an improvement from 3e and its pretty much nonexistent supposed Greyhawk default setting. As far as the primordials are concerned, what are their relations with the deities? You mentioned a parallel to the Titans. Are the primordials the fathers or the ancestors of the current pantheon? Why did they fight each other? Are they still around? (other than the corrupted demon lords)
sciborg3 01-20-08, 02:43 AM	i might look at it in the bookstore tomorrow and will try to see if there was more about the primordials.
michel andre 01-23-08, 12:48 PM	I like the ideas of the 4e. I admit that some took awhile to grow on me. I like the infinite astral sea but not the finite planes. Since the astral is infinite, I can adjust each plane to be as big as a few galaxies, if I want. I can also include any plane (mirrors, dream, etc.) I desire also, official or otherwise. Since I don’t like the far realm, I would make a isolated, distant realm and incarcerate all aberrations there. I also like elemental chaos; I can include the plane of plants, blood or etcetera if I so choose. I think most of the 4e changes were to lose confining restrictions. The yugoloths never inspired me; I think that Carceri, Hades, Gehenna and Acheron will be more interesting without them. I interested that both good and vile gods are served by angels. I wonder about the “bad” angels. I am also excited by Asmodeus being the “god” of fallen angels and his prison plane was a divine realm before the deicide. I hope this concept is explored more; I am curious about the before and after. Feywild and Shadowfell sound exciting. I think Underdark should be another plane also; one accessed through caverns in the prime. I am also interested in these “Titanic” primordials. I’ll bet they are the Elemental Princes of Evil. There is so much has to be developed with the new cosmological back-story; I am really looking forward to it.
Jarred_Garrison 01-23-08, 02:08 PM	The yugoloths never inspired me; I think that Carceri, Hades, Gehenna and Acheron will be more interesting without them. Only as far as we know, there´s no Carceri, Hades, Gehenna and Acheron.
sciborg3 01-23-08, 02:11 PM	I am also excited by Asmodeus being the “god” of fallen angels and his prison plane was a divine realm before the deicide. I hope this concept is explored more; I am curious about the before and after. I think this is one of the more interesting ideas coming out of 4e.
Gray Richardson 01-23-08, 02:44 PM	Their description of Primordials strikes me as including the elemental gods. But not necessarily just the 4 elements, incarnations of all the various types of basic matter. So I think Michel Andre is probably right that the primordials include the Princes of Elemental Evil. Probably also they include Kossuth, Ishtishia, Akadi and Grumbar. And maybe the princes of elemental good too. But there may be others as well. Perhaps they include gods of primal concepts that we don't usually consider as "elemental" They might turn out to be something like the Greek titans: Cronus, Rhea, Hyperion, Themis, Mnemosyne, Phoebe, Oceanus, Coeus, Crius, Hyperion, Iapetus, and Theia, who embodied such primal concepts as Ocean, Memory, Intelligence, Brightness, Sun, Water, Light, etc. I don't know if Primordials will include incarnations of things like Memory or Brightness, but I think it possible that they may include some concepts that are surprising or untraditional. I am interested to see how they will develop this lore.
michel andre 01-23-08, 03:35 PM	Only as far as we know, there´s no Carceri, Hades, Gehenna and Acheron. If I want them in my campaign, they will be. If I want the demi-plane of ideas in my campaign, it will be. We are not powerless.
michel andre 01-23-08, 03:36 PM	They might turn out to be something like the Greek titans: Cronus, Rhea, Hyperion, Themis, Mnemosyne, Phoebe, Oceanus, Coeus, Crius, Hyperion, Iapetus, and Theia, who embodied such primal concepts as Ocean, Memory, Intelligence, Brightness, Sun, Water, Light, etc. I don't know if Primordials will include incarnations of things like Memory or Brightness, but I think it possible that they may include some concepts that are surprising or untraditional. I am interested to see how they will develop this lore. So am I. How about you, sciborg?
pukunui 01-23-08, 04:14 PM	I just got my copies of the 4e preview books yesterday. I tore through Worlds & Monsters first. Let me just say that I've been playing D&D since 2nd edition, and while I enjoyed the 2e Planescape stuff, I was never that attached to the Great Wheel or any of that stuff. However, I am truly digging the 4e cosmology. It just speaks to me. I like the numerous real world mythological references and the fact that it has an overarching story. It just comes across as well-planned. They've clearly given it quite a bit of thought. What I especially like is that they can be accessed from very early on -- that is to say, extra-planar adventures are no longer reserved for higher level characters. On page 17 of W&M, it talks about how they thought about the planes as being three "layers" to match the three "tiers" of play: Heroic - material plane ("the world"), Feywild, Shadowfell Paragon - material plane, Feywild, Shadowfell, Elemental Chaos (and "perhaps the Abyss") Epic - material plane, Feywild, Shadowfell, Elemental Chaos, Astral Sea, Dominions, Nine Hells, the Abyss I like that. I also like the idea (garnered from numerous references in the book) that the world is full of ancient portals and "thin areas" (rifts) connecting it to these other planes. One example reads "the oldest and hottest volcanoes sometimes link directly to fiery parts of the Chaos (and sometimes fire titans come through into the world there)." The book also has quite a few illustrations of planar rifts and things. Quite cool. It means that the PCs could stumble into another plane quite by accident or perhaps seek out one of these portals in order to close it up or go through it without needing a spell/ritual. Lots of possibilities! Now that Michele Carter has said that Sigil is going to be in the 4e cosmology, I'm quite curious to know where. My guess is it'll be somewhere in the Astral Sea ... so you'll have the City of Brass as the "nexus" for the "lower planes" (the Elemental Chaos and the Abyss) and Sigil as the "nexus" for the "upper planes" (the Astral Sea and the deities' Dominions, which includes the Nine Hells [since Asmodeus is now a deity, they can be considered his Dominion]). I quite like the Feywild and the Shadowfell as well. They seem much more exciting than the Ethereal Plane and Plane of Shadow ever did. In fact, I always thought those two planes were downright boring and never had any interest in having the PCs go there. In fact, I never really had any interest in having my PCs go to any of the other planes and had even considered building a world that didn't have access to them (much like Dark Sun). But I really like this new cosmology and I will definitely be using it. I'm actually thinking that once we finish our current Red Hand of Doom campaign, I will give up the DM's chair until 4e comes out. This will give me an opportunity to devote some time to building a 4e world, using the 4e cosmology and all that, without having to split that time between world-building and the bothersome, time-consuming math that is 3.5 DM prep. On a side note, I was very pleased to read the note in W&M about the new art direction. They specifically addressed the fact that 3rd edition art tended to be items or people with no context. There was a distinct lack of landscape art, which was so prevalent in previous editions. That was once of the first things I noticed when I got back into the game with 3.5. I was really disappointed by the 3e art style. The thing I remember most from my 2e days was the art. It was much more evocative than the 3e stuff is. So I am super happy that they have specifically stated in W&M that they are going to bring back the landscape art. They're going to place people and things in context more. Hooray! My only complaint about the new art, though, is that a lot of it is very clearly computer-generated and therefore doesn't always look that great. There's even one piece of art (on pp. 82-83) where a shield and skull combo have been copied and pasted -- so you've got two absolutely identical shields and skulls in the illustration (and they're not even that far from each other). It's ever so slightly distracting and annoying and therefore detracts from an otherwise very evocative landscape piece. [The other thing that annoys me is the preponderance of warlock illustrations in R&C. I get the feeling that the warlock class is going to be the "poster boy" for 4e.]. Oh and as much as I like that the green dragon has gone back to being all about poison, I think they could have done a better job on his makeover. :P
pukunui 01-23-08, 05:00 PM	Interesting ideas with the primordials acting as the Titans of the new cosmology.The primordials and the titans are separate. The primordials created the titans, and the titans created the giants. Then the gods warred against the primordials and killed most, if not all, of them. That's how I understood it from my reading of W&M. But as for silly cosmologies - Bright and dark parts of creation thrown aside by the primordials? What does that even mean? Is the Feywild Underdark "bright"?I think in this instance it might be better to think in terms of "bright = life" and "dark = death or unlife" ... because there are numerous references in both preview books that suggest the level of illumination in the Feywild is low (it is described in one section as a "twilight place" and in the section on eladrin, it is described as "dark"). However, it is meant to be a plane teeming with life (not just creatures but plant life as well -- it's one big wilderness full of big forests and fields and all that) ... whereas its counterpoint, the Shadowfell, is the opposite. The level of illumination there is also dark, but it's a place without much vegetation. There aren't many living creatures there, but there are heaps of undead creatures. Everything is muted. Morbid. Melancholic. (And probably lots of other words starting with the letter 'M' too ;)) I don't know if that helps. I thought it was worth pointing out though.
Gray Richardson 01-24-08, 10:45 AM	The primordials and the titans are separate. The primordials created the titans, and the titans created the giants. Then the gods warred against the primordials and killed most, if not all, of them.Yes, you have that correct, however, we were comparing the Primordials to the original 12 Titans of Greek myth, the ones that ruled before the Olympian gods came on the scene who deposed the Titans in a great war. There is a symmetry there that begs for comparison. Although, the lingo is no doubt confusing since the same name is used for 2 different groups of beings. The titans of the new D&D cosmos appear to be elemental ur-giants, and despite their name, they don't really have an obvious parallel with Greek Myth, except maybe to the offspring of the Greek Titans. If you think of the Primordials as "Elder Titans" maybe the comparison becomes clearer. It's a little like how the Navy and the Army both have ranks called "captain" but a Navy captain is more equivalent to an Army colonel, and an Army captain is several levels below a Navy captain in comparative rank.
pukunui 01-24-08, 02:51 PM	Yes, you have that correct, however, we were comparing the Primordials to the original 12 Titans of Greek myth, the ones that ruled before the Olympian gods came on the scene who deposed the Titans in a great war. There is a symmetry there that begs for comparison. Although, the lingo is no doubt confusing since the same name is used for 2 different groups of beings. The titans of the new D&D cosmos appear to be elemental ur-giants, and despite their name, they don't really have an obvious parallel with Greek Myth, except maybe to the offspring of the Greek Titans. If you think of the Primordials as "Elder Titans" maybe the comparison becomes clearer. It's a little like how the Navy and the Army both have ranks called "captain" but a Navy captain is more equivalent to an Army colonel, and an Army captain is several levels below a Navy captain in comparative rank. Right. OK. I was confused by the terminology. Thanks for clearing that up. And, for the record, I wholeheartedly agree. :) The more I think about it, the more I love this new cosmology. I think it's a lot more believeable than the old Great Wheel and the numerous other bits tacked on in various places. I also love all the real world mythological references.
Ryltar Swordsong 01-24-08, 06:19 PM	The more I read about 4e, the more determined I am not to buy 4e.
Gray Richardson 01-24-08, 06:38 PM	The more posts I read trying to squash people's enthusiasm for 4e, the more determined I am to support 4e by buying the products.
pukunui 01-24-08, 06:56 PM	The more I read about 4e, the more determined I am not to buy 4e. That's nice. Thanks for sharing. There really is no way WotC could possibly make everyone happy, so I don't mind if people don't like 4e. Everytime I read something about the new edition, though, I feel like it's been designed with me in mind. They've addressed just about everything I don't like about 3.5. They make comments that mirror almost verbatim comments that I have made (like Matthew Sernett's comment at the back of W&M about how DMing 4e is going to be faster and easier ... he says, "The time that you used to spend on math can be spent on coming up with cool ideas for encounters and adventure plots instead." When I read that, I was like, "Was he reading my mind or something?")
Ryltar Swordsong 01-24-08, 10:41 PM	The more posts I read trying to squash people's enthusiasm for 4e, the more determined I am to support 4e by buying the products. Did I type anything to imply that I feel YOU shouldn't buy 4e? Let's check: The more I read about 4e, the more determined I am not to buy 4e. No, it looks to me like I was expressing my distaste for 4e, and my intention not to buy 4e products. I haven't liked a single change I've seen from them yet, and plan on letting WotC know that by spending my money on other things instead of their products. I especially dislike the cosmology changes, since I am a big fan of Planescape. Then there are the horrible things they are doing to the Forgotten Realms. Add in the cost of new books that will make all the 3e/3.5e books practically useless (and I bought every 3/3.5e book that WotC has put out). I'm done simply giving WotC my money and having the things I like about the game discarded. So my money will go elsewhere (I've been thinking about buying the new Camaro when it comes out).
Taeldrin Laesrash 01-24-08, 11:03 PM	The more I look at the new cosmology, the more it grows on me. I'm liking the reduction of alignment in the cosmology; there's now a lot more possibility for planar exploration. The mythology drops don't feel as forced as parts of the old cosmology, also.
sciborg3 01-25-08, 12:05 AM	I am curious, and somewhat excited about certain aspects. But I also don't know if I'll be spending any money on 4e. Maybe if Paizo goes that way, though the great wheel bashing hasn't done anything to make me spend money on it.
sciborg3 01-25-08, 01:31 PM	Was skimming over it again at the local Barnes, noticed some interesting things: Who is the Raven Queen? I understand that they were influenced by Susanna Clarkes' incredible work in creation of the Feywild so is this a permutation of the Raven King? Yet she's in the Shadowfell and not the Feywild. I've heard Sigil will be in 4e. I don't see the place it has in the new cosmology to be honest.
pukunui 01-25-08, 03:25 PM	Was skimming over it again at the local Barnes, noticed some interesting things: Who is the Raven Queen? I understand that they were influenced by Susanna Clarkes' incredible work in creation of the Feywild so is this a permutation of the Raven King? Yet she's in the Shadowfell and not the Feywild.I actually think the Raven Queen is quite cool. She is the goddess of death (hence the raven reference). She's apparently the only one who really knows what happens to people after they die. She used to have a domain up in the Astral Sea but she abandoned it, along with her true name, to take up residence in the Shadowfell. Orcus is obsessed with finding out her true name because he believes it will enable him to destroy her and take her place - so he's got minions scouring the Astral Sea in search of her lost domain. I've heard Sigil will be in 4e. I don't see the place it has in the new cosmology to be honest.If Michele Carter is to be believed, Sigil is going to be in because she pestered James Wyatt until he relented and gave her a paragraph about it to put in the DMG. My guess is it'll show up as the "nexus" for the Astral Sea (with the City of Brass being the "nexus" for the Elemental Chaos).
awaken_D_M_golem 01-25-08, 03:55 PM	Sadly, it's hard to like something when the guys who made it hate the cosmology you've loved since the 1e MotP. Lemme see, D&D history is fine. Grand History of The Realms. ripvanwormer's version of the longer history. Far Realms is anything goes. ??? Kender in MM3 come from where ??? One of the Elder Evils comes from perpendicular to the Wheel. And now 4E "cosmology". It's already less well developed than Eberron. And I don't mean that as a criticism. It's like sticking THAC0 into the d20 stuff; in a weird, distented, lords of madness-esque sort of way. [input data] run rummage program [/input data] OHH ... It's a(n) alternative prime material plane(s) !! :rolleyes:
sciborg3 01-25-08, 04:26 PM	I actually think the Raven Queen is quite cool. She is the goddess of death (hence the raven reference). She's apparently the only one who really knows what happens to people after they die. She used to have a domain up in the Astral Sea but she abandoned it, along with her true name, to take up residence in the Shadowfell. Orcus is obsessed with finding out her true name because he believes it will enable him to destroy her and take her place - so he's got minions scouring the Astral Sea in search of her lost domain. Yeah, this was really cool. I like the 4e cosmology, I just find it more an alternative I'd use ideas from than something I'd adopt. The Great Wheel was more a canvas, at times clunky like different paints mixing together. But it was still more opened ended, more focused on philosophical concepts. Of course the 4e cosmos is more unified, it completely abandons the idea of trying to be inclusive of different settings and RL cultures though Planescape's On Hallowed Ground did a reasonably good job of making the different RL gods fit into the Wheel. It's seems like an interesting cosmos, just not worthy of replacing the Wheel imo.
awaken_D_M_golem 01-25-08, 04:49 PM	Maybe I meant Keepers, sometimes I don't know. It's seems like an interesting cosmos, just not worthy of replacing the Wheel imo. Amen to that. It occurs to me that a Total History book, ala GHoTR, would be very large. Like biblical large. And the bible doesn't get read all that often, so neither would a Total History book. Is 4E cosmology, D&D Cosmology for Dummies ?! No wink, no nod.
Taeldrin Laesrash 01-25-08, 07:05 PM	If Michele Carter is to be believed, Sigil is going to be in because she pestered James Wyatt until he relented and gave her a paragraph about it to put in the DMG. My guess is it'll show up as the "nexus" for the Astral Sea (with the City of Brass being the "nexus" for the Elemental Chaos). Yay! She has my thanks (And Wyatt has my boos and hisses).
sciborg3 01-25-08, 07:44 PM	so apparently the Astral plane wasn't fun because it had different physical rules? i'd say this was what made it interesting. really, the majority of things that were complaints are really just whining or an ignorance of Planescape's seminal work on the old cosmology. I actually like the old symmetry, because it actually seems like the metaphysics have been thought out. the more I read world's and monsters, the more I think their ideas are interesting but the more annoyed I get with their whining about old editions.
Rikutatis 01-25-08, 08:21 PM	It's seems like an interesting cosmos, just not worthy of replacing the Wheel imo. In my opinion it depends on which Wheel we're talking about. Sure, there'll be less planes in the new cosmology than there were in the Great Wheel, but it also seems to be more open ended (in theory, there could be an infinite number of planes, even if individual planes are no longer infinite in size). It'll be up to each individual DM to add more planes to his home campaign. So if we're talking about the 3e Great Wheel, as presented in the 3e Manual of the Planes, I think the new cosmology may be a refreshing change. It does some things better (the feywild, the open ended setup), others not so much (dumbing down lower planar politics, the new demons). But it certainly has an appeal. But yes, of course the Planescape approach to the Great Wheel was far more interesting, rich, creative and roleplay friendly. But truth be told, Planescape was never standard D&D fare. It was more of an experimental project. A very different style of game. I guess it'd be too much to expect that future versions of the game would follow that line of thought. For that, there's always the 3rd party publishers. Or at least one can hope. It could be a niche market worth exploring.
sciborg3 01-26-08, 02:21 AM	3e gave us Savage Tide, Shackled City, and Bastion of Broken Souls. The Great Wheel was well designed because it incorporated - or could incorporate many worlds. I don't mind having a streamlined cosmology as the 4e default but to claim that the "Great Wheel is dead" like they did me a favor is obnoxious. They're inviting comparisons to be drawn, which is unfortunate because I feel the need to find stupid things about their ideas. Childish perhaps but in my mind a natural reaction. I mean, how can you call anything stupid when you have an earth elemental with a helmet. A freakin' helmet. :rofl:
awaken_D_M_golem 01-26-08, 03:05 PM	I checked MM3 for my kender/keeper biff, and found that I biffed. Ooops. ... streamlined ... BINGO I find it odd - the claim that they're getting away from Euro-medieval, but eliminating Law/Chaos from the planes. Chinese history provided a large imprint for Law, instead of Good, as a mega-design idea. And I think female Earth Elementals are quite surprised and happy, when a male EE has a "helmet". Don't want little Elemental Envoys running around, making Wizard's familiars feeling inadequate.
ripvanwormer 01-27-08, 07:50 PM	I find it odd - the claim that they're getting away from Euro-medieval, but eliminating Law/Chaos from the planes. If anything, the Law-Chaos axis is even more emphasized. The Elemental Chaos, mingled with the Abyss, lies at one end of the multiverse, both destructive and creative, a boiling, raucous, cancerous threat to the comparative order of the mortal world and at the same time the source of all that is. The angels who serve the deities act as minions of Law, determined to contain Chaos and preserve Creation. It's much like Hindu myth in that way, or Babylonian, with the devas or other servants of the gods opposed to the ancient beings who swam in the waters before the world was made. Also note that the Astral Sea was designed with the intent that all the 1-3e planes could fit into it. The Abyss is an exception, of course, but I imagine you could strip the divine realms out of it, stack them into a sandwich in the Astral Sea and call the resulting plane Fury's Heart (inspired by the FR plane of that name). Plague-Mort could still be the gate-town leading to it, and things would be almost as they should be.
pukunui 01-27-08, 08:12 PM	If anything, the Law-Chaos axis is even more emphasized. The Elemental Chaos, mingled with the Abyss, lies at one end of the multiverse, both destructive and creative, a boiling, raucous, cancerous threat to the comparative order of the mortal world and at the same time the source of all that is. The angels who serve the deities act as minions of Law, determined to contain Chaos and preserve Creation. It's much like Hindu myth in that way, or Babylonian, with the devas or other servants of the gods opposed to the ancient beings who swam in the waters before the world was made. Also note that the Astral Sea was designed with the intent that all the 1-3e planes could fit into it. The Abyss is an exception, of course, but I imagine you could strip the divine realms out of it, stack them into a sandwich in the Astral Sea and call the resulting plane Fury's Heart (inspired by the FR plane of that name). Plague-Mort could still be the gate-town leading to it, and things would be almost as they should be. That's a really good way of putting it, rip. I totally agree. The only de-emphasis of Law-Chaos that I'm seeing is in a character's or creature's stated alignment and in the removal of alignment-based abilities and spells (no more detect evil, for instance). Aside from that, Law and Chaos are still very much present in the "fluff". It's just that it's less explicit.
Taeldrin Laesrash 01-27-08, 09:25 PM	But doesn't it seem that it's associating Chaos with Evil by putting the Abyss in the middle of the Elemental Chaos? The gods seem lawful, and so we're going back to the simple Law=Good, Chaos=Evil.
pukunui 01-27-08, 09:31 PM	But doesn't it seem that it's associating Chaos with Evil by putting the Abyss in the middle of the Elemental Chaos? The gods seem lawful, and so we're going back to the simple Law=Good, Chaos=Evil. Except that you've got the evil devils in their Nine Hells up there with the gods. The devils are plainly lawful, so Law =/= Good in their case. Plus, not all the gods are good, just like the angels aren't all good now either.
Taeldrin Laesrash 01-28-08, 12:43 AM	Except that you've got the evil devils in their Nine Hells up there with the gods. The devils are plainly lawful, so Law =/= Good in their case. Plus, not all the gods are good, just like the angels aren't all good now either. True. Rip's idea just gave me some terrible ideas that seemed logical.
sciborg3 01-28-08, 08:50 AM	It's much like Hindu myth in that way, Rip, are you referring to the Danavas swimming in the cosmic ocean prior to Vishnu (or Bhrama) making the world(s)?
sciborg3 01-28-08, 09:15 AM	I'm wondering - the Great Wheel was big, and had many pieces in its pie. I think this made it use-able as a default setting, largely because it was easy to throw out huge chunks of the cosmology and still have more than enough left over to serve your world - Krynn and Athas proved this. It was also possible to take huge parts of the cosmology and incorporate them into your game - FR, Greyhawk, and of course Planescape showed this. The new cosmology is problematic in this regard. It doesn't scale well, if I may (likely incorrectly) use a software buzzword. One problem is that the origin is spelled out - something that the Great Wheel avoided. Another is that there seems, at first glance, to be a lack of wandering real-estate in the "Outer Planes". You are in the realm of a god, in the E-Chaos, or in the Abyss. One of the things that makes me suspect the designers are missing the point is the mention that abandoned astral dominions are the dungeons for epic players. I guess imo if the game is simply about killing monsters and taking stuff then one merely can go online and play WoW or Neverwinter Nights. The Great Wheel offered both the chance to fight weird planar monsters but also to delve into the mysteries of the planes, to examine things philosophically, or to cross cultures/traditions with all the shoehorned gods you could choose to put in. On the other hand, I could easily adopt the Shadowfell and Feywild into my games, though again this supposed claim of making fey more dangerous annoys me. Not every encounter needs to be this terrifying, violent, battle. Sometimes it's fun to go up against trickster pixies or those crazy little guys from Willow.
Sarella Starshine 01-28-08, 10:51 AM	sciborg3: I do not have the book yet (I would love to get it, but alas, it is low on the totem pole as we have moved and much more important things to spend our money on (such as new furnature)). However, you are forgetting a very important part of the new cosmology: the astral sea where all the god realms are located. Its that sea that makes it more adaptable, as you can decide for yourself just how many god realms are withing 'easy' reach of your world. Also: you can just as easily add other things to the astal sea, like ghostly realms of dead gods, a few other primes with thier own halo of god realms, and so forth. I love how the new cosmology is shaping up, as it perfectly fits what I wanted to do, but had almost no support in doing so (unless I wanted to spend hours and hours of time going through 3rd party books). In fact, when I first heard about the introduction of the feywild (and shadowfell), I rejoiced as I now had a place to stick the two opposing camps of fae in my world (and in doing so, gave them a reason for fighting over the prime).
sciborg3 01-28-08, 12:49 PM	Hmmmm, I didn't exactly forget the Astral Sea but perhaps I wasn't considering its full potential. My feeling from Worlds and Monsters was that the Astral Sea only contained the realms of the gods rather than a wider swath of planar real estate not held by gods. But you're right, the Astral Sea and the Feywild/Shadowfell are the greatest planar additions.
pukunui 01-28-08, 02:08 PM	The new cosmology is problematic in this regard. It doesn't scale well, if I may (likely incorrectly) use a software buzzword. One problem is that the origin is spelled out - something that the Great Wheel avoided. Another is that there seems, at first glance, to be a lack of wandering real-estate in the "Outer Planes". You are in the realm of a god, in the E-Chaos, or in the Abyss.The origin is spelled out but it can easily be changed. Or it can be regarded as one "theory" as to how the multiverse began. Take it with a grain of salt, I say. It's just meant to be a starting point. It's meant to inspire not restrict. One of the things that makes me suspect the designers are missing the point is the mention that abandoned astral dominions are the dungeons for epic players. I guess imo if the game is simply about killing monsters and taking stuff then one merely can go online and play WoW or Neverwinter Nights. The Great Wheel offered both the chance to fight weird planar monsters but also to delve into the mysteries of the planes, to examine things philosophically, or to cross cultures/traditions with all the shoehorned gods you could choose to put in.I personally find the idea of exploring abandoned dominions fascinating. It's not about all the weird monsters that might be roaming those dominions. It's the idea that there might be heaps and heaps of forgotten lore and/or forgotten treasures hidden amongst the ruins in those dominions. Take, for instance, the little fluff piece about Orcus and the Raven Queen. I've mentioned it already, but I'll mention it again. There's the whole thing about how no one knows the Raven Queen's true name and Orcus is obsessed with locating her abandoned realm in the Astral Sea in hopes of finding her name so he can destroy her and take over as ruler of the Shadowfell. That sort of thing is incredibly inspiring and would involve plenty of intrigue as well as out-and-out fighting (mainly with minions of Orcus encountered in various places in the Astral Sea). The PCs might even decide to search for the Raven Queen's true name themselves. There's also the "mystery" of what happens to most people's souls after they leave the Shadowfell. I have a few ideas myself, but that could make for an interesting story for the players. On the other hand, I could easily adopt the Shadowfell and Feywild into my games, though again this supposed claim of making fey more dangerous annoys me. Not every encounter needs to be this terrifying, violent, battle. Sometimes it's fun to go up against trickster pixies or those crazy little guys from Willow.It's my opinion that the designers may be making poor terminology choices. When they talk about being able to fight everything, I don't think they necessarily mean with violence all the time. I think what they really mean is simply being able to come into conflict with everything. And conflict doesn't have to be violent. It can involve diplomacy and intrigue. It can involve tricks and subterfuge and whatever else. Take the comment about Bahamut getting the PCs to remove a gold dragon from its seat of power as a dictator of a country. Although violence is one way to do that, there are plenty of other ways. They could try to blackmail the dragon. They could try diplomacy. They could spark a rebellion or get an alliance of other nations to come and threaten violence without actually causing it ... So many possibilities! As for fey, I think there will be plenty of room for them to be crazy little tricksters. I think the point about the creatures of the Feywild, though, is that they do things on a whim. So they might decide to just play pranks on PCs or they might decide to tear them apart like piranhas - not out of malice or spite but simply because they feel like it. So you could very easily come into conflict with any type of creature in the Feywild, but that doesn't necessarily mean out-and-out fighting. And you may not come into conflict with them either. What makes it dangerous and scary is the idea that violence could break out at any time, not that it will break out. If it was that predictable, it wouldn't be scary. Everyone would know that the Feywild is a violent place and would either avoid it or go in prepared. It's the uncertainty that does it for me - you just don't know how the fey will react from one moment to the next. I think the new cosmology and world setup has great potential for non-violent conflict. The loosening of alignment really helps in that regard. There's more room for other forms of conflict besides Good vs Evil. Anyway, to sum up, my point is that the designers should probably be talking about "conflict" rather than "fighting". I think that's their intent (although I acknowledge that I could be wrong). And I think the new cosmology and "assumed" world allows for non-violent conflict perfectly well.
ripvanwormer 01-28-08, 04:00 PM	But doesn't it seem that it's associating Chaos with Evil by putting the Abyss in the middle of the Elemental Chaos? The gods seem lawful, and so we're going back to the simple Law=Good, Chaos=Evil. I don't think it's fair to assume that the gods are all lawful. I imagine there are plenty of trickster gods and gods of destruction in the Astral Sea (and probably few or no "gods" in the Elemental Chaos or Abyss, although the titan-like Primordials dwell there). It is true, however, that even trickster gods oppose primal Chaos in myth. Raven pulls the world out of the waters rather than seeking to put them back in, for example, and Rudra, god of destruction, fought on the side of the devas against the asuras. Similarly, chaotic Hermes supports the Olympians against against Typhoeus (though not particularly usefully) and the Titans, and Loki aids the Aesir against the jotuns on numerous occasions (though he ultimately switches sides after Ragnarok, perhaps he wouldn't have if the Aesir hadn't imprisoned him beneath a venomous serpent). I think what we can say is that the gods and devils are generally (though probably not always) on the side of cosmic Order (their power depends on the continuity of Creation), though they may be lawful or chaotic, good or evil themselves. The Elemental Chaos and the Primordials who were its original rulers are not evil in itself, though Chaos has an evil, cancerous blight upon it known as the Abyss.
pukunui 01-28-08, 04:25 PM	I don't think it's fair to assume that the gods are all lawful. I imagine there are plenty of trickster gods and gods of destruction in the Astral Sea (and probably few or no "gods" in the Elemental Chaos or Abyss, although the titan-like Primordials dwell there). It is true, however, that even trickster gods oppose primal Chaos in myth. Raven pulls the world out of the waters rather than seeking to put them back in, for example, and Rudra, god of destruction, fought on the side of the devas against the asuras. Similarly, chaotic Hermes supports the Olympians against against Typhoeus (though not particularly usefully) and the Titans, and Loki aids the Aesir against the jotuns on numerous occasions (though he ultimately switches sides after Ragnarok, perhaps he wouldn't have if the Aesir hadn't imprisoned him beneath a venomous serpent). I think what we can say is that the gods and devils are generally (though probably not always) on the side of cosmic Order (their power depends on the continuity of Creation), though they may be lawful or chaotic, good or evil themselves. The Elemental Chaos and the Primordials who were its original rulers are not evil in itself, though Chaos has an evil, cancerous blight upon it known as the Abyss.Again, well put. And if I may, I'd just like to add to that very last bit ... The Primordials are not inherently evil but they are destructive, since their philosophy of "continual creation" involves destroying anything and everything they actually create in order to create something new. Supporters of order and stability could quite easily paint the Primordials (and, by extension, the Elemental Chaos) as "evil" because of their destructive tendencies ("See, look, the Primordials want to destroy the world! They must be evil!"). I think this new cosmology and de-emphasis of alignment allows us to make things far more subjective -- that is, while there may very well be "true evil" and "true good" in the multiverse, those alignments can also be a matter of perspective. Some evil creatures won't necessarily view themselves as evil, and they may say that the good people getting in the way of their plans are the ones who are actually evil. With no means to magically detect alignment, it'll mean that the players will have to roleplay it all out. That'll make my group happy. They feel like the 3.5 rules get in the way of roleplaying too often.
Eldritch_Lord 01-28-08, 04:47 PM	I've heard Sigil will be in 4e. I don't see the place it has in the new cosmology to be honest. Why not? It makes even more sense in 4e than in 2e or 3e. Sigil is the City of Doors, with portals to everywhere in the multiverse. That was nice to have when you could walk from Celestia to Baator and back by way of Limbo and Acheron, but it wasn't necessary. Now that nothing is connected, however, doesn't it make a place with portals to everywhere and many ways to get from point A to point B even more necessary?
pukunui 01-28-08, 05:03 PM	Why not? It makes even more sense in 4e than in 2e or 3e. Sigil is the City of Doors, with portals to everywhere in the multiverse. That was nice to have when you could walk from Celestia to Baator and back by way of Limbo and Acheron, but it wasn't necessary. Now that nothing is connected, however, doesn't it make a place with portals to everywhere and many ways to get from point A to point B even more necessary? Totally. And immediately upon reading your post, I got the idea that perhaps the portal to the Raven Queen's abandoned dominion could be wrecked ... so not all the doors in the City of Doors go places. Or perhaps it takes you to the wrong place or a random place or something. I have to say that 4e really is inspiring me far more than 3e ever did. With 3e, it was always, "Oh, look at all the cool mechanical possibilities ...." I can't ever recall anything in 3e giving me ideas for plot hooks or anything. It was always about the mechanics and what you could "build" with them. After a while that got stale and 3e became a chore. 4e isn't even out yet but my imagination is already bubbling over with ideas for fluff and plot hooks and the like. It's great!
Eldritch_Lord 01-28-08, 06:05 PM	Totally. And immediately upon reading your post, I got the idea that perhaps the portal to the Raven Queen's abandoned dominion could be wrecked ... so not all the doors in the City of Doors go places. Or perhaps it takes you to the wrong place or a random place or something. Or maybe since many Sigil portals require keys, all the portals are still there (but hidden, of course) but they simply lack the key(s), which the Raven Queen took with her. Find the key(s), steal the key(s), don't let Orcus use the key(s)...the plot hooks are endless.
pukunui 01-28-08, 06:44 PM	Or maybe since many Sigil portals require keys, all the portals are still there (but hidden, of course) but they simply lack the key(s), which the Raven Queen took with her. Find the key(s), steal the key(s), don't let Orcus use the key(s)...the plot hooks are endless.I forgot about that. You could even combine the two: they've found the key but the portal still doesn't work ... so the PCs have to figure out how to fix it or find some other way.
sciborg3 01-30-08, 10:01 AM	With 3e, it was always, "Oh, look at all cool mechanical possibilities ...." I can't ever recall anything in 3e making giving me ideas for plot hooks or anything. There was admittedly less evocative fluff and less attempt at such fluff, so 4e may end up being richer though I think this can backfire. If the cosmology is going to be tossed by most groups then it may be a bit much to spend pages in the DMG or PHB on it. Only time will tell of course.
sciborg3 01-30-08, 11:36 AM	Io got killed? Damn, can't the Ninefold Dragon catch a break? First a demotion in 3e and now death? Apparently he was so arrogant he fought some guy named Erek-Hus (sp?) and was split in two. The pieces became Bahamut and Tiamat. I really dislike this, as the 2e theory that he created the Multiverse was the only one I ever bought into. It fit the idea that dragons were primordial masters as given their inclusion in the game's title. I suspect in 5e Io will be an old man who randomly tries to cast fireball at everything in sight....oh wait....
Gray Richardson 01-30-08, 12:14 PM	Not sure if many groups will choose to toss the new cosmology, as likely many spells and game effects will rely on the new cosmology. For instance, spells like Shadow Walk and other shadow related spells will likely be tied to the Shadowfell in some fashion. Other spells may have Astral properties and will be tied to the mechanics of the Astral Sea. Although I can't think of spells that are strongly tied to fey effects in 3e, there will probably be spells that use features of the Feywild for certain things. Perhaps a spell called "Fey Walk" or I could see them tying glamors and illusions to the Feywild somehow. The designers have said that they are focusing on flavor text as much as mechanical text in 4e (fluff on par with crunch) so you we might expect to see more flavor in spell texts and monster texts, and I get the feeling that flavor text will mention aspects of the new cosmology and tie it to specific game mechanics. The way undead work in 4e has been hinted will be tied to the way the afterlife works and where souls go in the new cosmology. So we can guess that the way necromantic spells work will be tied in part to the new cosmology. In light of this, I think it will be troublesome (difficult, but not impossible) to decouple certain mechanics, spells and game effects from the new cosmology. I imagine also that mentions of the cosmology in the flavor text will be ubiquitous throughout the core rulebooks, and so will not only engage the imaginations of players, keeping it ever-present in the back of their minds, but will also inspire them to want to use the cosmology as written. Based on those speculations, I am inclined to think most players will stick with the new cosmology. But there will certainly be some who will change it up or adapt it to their own home-brew cosmos or retrofit it to the Great Wheel. Rich Baker has said the cosmology does not preclude using the Great Wheel setup, since the Astral Sea is basically the Astral Plane of prior editions, and the Astral Dominions are basically the Outer Planes. You can easily arrange the Astral Dominions to correspond to the Great Wheel setup. To any extent that they support the Greyhawk setting in 4e, I am sure its Astral Dominions will still reflect the Great Wheel as they always have. It will be interesting to see how they merge the FR and Eberron cosmologies with the new planar schema. Surely they will have to make some setting specific adaptations, and I am very curious how that will work.
sciborg3 01-30-08, 12:57 PM	It will be interesting to see how they merge the FR and Eberron cosmologies with the new planar schema. i think this is impossible. you have one world with active gods and another with gods being possibly non-existent. trying to find a "happy" medium will, imo, result in disaster for both settings.
Gray Richardson 01-30-08, 11:45 PM	Possibly, but I am hoping for the best! They may yet surprise us! :) Regardless, if the FR cosmology ends up not working out so well, then we will at least have a good time trying to figure out how to fix it and harmonize it with previous lore. No doubt that will give us years of good topics to discuss here on the boards! ;)
pukunui 01-31-08, 02:56 AM	i think this is impossible. you have one world with active gods and another with gods being possibly non-existent. trying to find a "happy" medium will, imo, result in disaster for both settings. Well, if you read the latest Realms update, you'll note that the Spellplague has altered the FR cosmology so that it now has a Feywild, a Shadowfell, an Elemental Chaos, an Abyss that has "fallen" down to the bottom of the Chaos, and so on ... Maztica has also been "replaced" by "Abeir" ... and that's where the Dragonborn nation has come from as well. I was a big fan of FR in 2e days and I never realized that the Abeir from "Abeir-Toril" was meant to be a different world/dimension/whatever. Must be a new thing. Whatever the case, it's back now and Abeir and Toril are now together again or something. Anyway ... sounds a bit confusing but also a bit interesting. I think the new Realms are definitely worth checking out. I'll be getting the FRCG if nothing else. Even if I don't ever play an FR game, I'm sure I'll be able to steal some stuff from it for my homebrew (and by having the cosmology be the same as the "default", it'll mean less retrofitting ...).
sciborg3 01-31-08, 10:49 AM	i can't really see this new setting as the realms. the spell plague seems cheesy at best to me.
ripvanwormer 01-31-08, 12:15 PM	Rich Baker has said the cosmology does not preclude using the Great Wheel setup, since the Astral Sea is basically the Astral Plane of prior editions, and the Astral Dominions are basically the Outer Planes. To some extent, yes, but because the Abyss will not be an Astral Dominion, and because the Inner Planes are different, and because many monsters have changed, there are many characters, sites, and plot elements from previous editions that will be scarcely recognizable in the new edition. Optimism is to be encouraged, niceness is appreciated, but it's also important to be honest that the changes are real and significant.
Gray Richardson 01-31-08, 04:56 PM	While you are right that the changes are real and significant, it doesn't mean that a setting can't vary from the core cosmology. We were told in the latest Realmslore article on the main site that in FR's cosmology the Abyss has fallen out of the Astral into the Elemental Chaos following the Spellplague. They are not saying it has always been that way. If so then there is no reason not to contemplate a Greyhawk cosmology that is arranged with it's Great Wheel planes in a ring, with it's Abyss remaining unfallen. I have no idea if they will continue to support the Greyhawk setting, but I imagine if they do and if they ever do mention the Greyhawk cosmology again, it will probably look much like the Great Wheel cosmology it always had. You can also postulate an Elemental Chaos that is more segregated, with each element concentrated in a region of a hypersphere, touching each next element, fire, water, earth, and air, with border regions of vaccuum, ooze, radiance, and so on. The Elemental Chaos can look exactly like the inner planes of the Great Wheel. No reason that you couldn't throw in a few extra planes like an ethereal plane, or positive and negative energy planes. Now, with the creatures being different, not sure how that would work, but you could change their flavor text without changing their stats, so maybe in a Greyhawk cosmology, yugoloths could be a separate race from the demons. I don't know if they will go that route, but it seems clear that each campaign setting will have accommodations made to adapt it's unique planar setup to the core cosmology. But regardless of what they do with the official cosmology, I don't think the new cosmos is so different from the old that a clever DM cannot adapt it to the way he wants it. My current FR campaign is set in 1375 DR, a long ways before the Spellplague, so I will continue using the Great Tree for awhile yet. However, my players are excited about 4e, so we probably plan to reboot and start a new campaign in September using the new rules, and I will probably just go with the changes and see how everyone likes them.
pukunui 01-31-08, 05:19 PM	it seems clear that each campaign setting will have accommodations made to adapt its unique planar setup to the core cosmology.FR certainly wasn't given accommodations. Its "unique planar setup" has been blatantly rewritten to match the new "core" cosmology. That doesn't mean the other settings will suffer the same fate but it certainly sets a precedent ... Personally, I don't have a problem with it but I'm sure plenty of people will (and no doubt plenty already do).
Eldritch_Lord 01-31-08, 06:28 PM	FR certainly wasn't given accommodations. Its "unique planar setup" has been blatantly rewritten to match the new "core" cosmology. That doesn't mean the other settings will suffer the same fate but it certainly sets a precedent ... Personally, I don't have a problem with it but I'm sure plenty of people will (and no doubt plenty already do). Well, that was because (A) people were getting upset with the "bloat" of FR-specific stuff and they were trying to cut down and (B) FR has had a "Realms-shaking event" for every edition change, so why stop for 4e?
pukunui 01-31-08, 06:40 PM	Well, that was because (A) people were getting upset with the "bloat" of FR-specific stuff and they were trying to cut down and (B) FR has had a "Realms-shaking event" for every edition change, so why stop for 4e? What was the "Realms-shaking event" for the switch from 2e to 3e? AFAIK, all they did was change some fluff (like scrapping all the Tolkienesque "elves and dwarves are dying races" stuff). I don't even think Mystra died in that edition change! Did I miss something?
awaken_D_M_golem 01-31-08, 07:59 PM	Optimism is to be encouraged, of course niceness is appreciated, not with politics on the mind but it's also important to be honest that the changes are real and significant. an honest yugoloth ?? !! snarkers !! Hey, Marvel comics intentionally screws up their timeline, just to guarantee their own jobs. So why not the Planes-Soups guys? There's always an unstatted Overdeity to fix everything. Or if you're a Pazuzu cultist, there's always that version of Pun-pun. In any case, the more convoluted it is, the more a REALLY smart writer, has to cook something up. { ... cook and Soups , etc ... }
Gray Richardson 01-31-08, 10:36 PM	FR certainly wasn't given accommodations. Its "unique planar setup" has been blatantly rewritten to match the new "core" cosmology.Rewritten, yes, but not retconned. The history of FR's planes is still intact (I think). The planes as they exist now will continue to exist up until 1385 DR, after which the Spellplague will have wrought devastating changes to the cosmos and to Toril itself. This is not a retroactive continuity change, but rather a prospective change. This deviates from the core cosmology in that in core the Abyss has always been part of the Elemental Chaos (well, since it's creation, anyway) whereas in Faerűn the Abyss began as an outer plane and fell into the Elemental Chaos only recently. And that is only one difference they have enumerated. Not sure what other differences there will be between the new FR cosmos and the core cosmology, but we can surely expect some differences.
sciborg3 02-01-08, 02:55 AM	I recall the creation of the Tree was done specifically because FR fans (or maybe just Sean Reynolds iirc) didn't want to have their cosmos tied to the Great Wheel. And I wasted $100+ dollars on the War of Lolth novels that did nothing but poorly make a realm for Lolth outside the Abyss for no good reason I could tell from the text. And now the Abyss is "falling"? This physical relocation of an infinite plane is something of a last straw for me. Or maybe the dragonborn world sliding to replace Maztica was the last one. Or maybe Mystra's dying cause all these changes even though she's died twice over at least without falling planes coming into the picture. I'm sick of the RSEs at this point as the Realms has been shaken to the point of being broken.
Nogitsune_Teumessia 02-01-08, 06:41 AM	I've already thought of something akin to the Astral Sea so I'd use that. I absolutely hate the idea of "elemental evil" without "elemental good". Basically you're saying the nature of all reality is basically evil and good is, at best, an illusion for fools. You might as well be playing Ravenloft and be done with it. I hate to see what this is going to do to the Eberron setting, given it has 13 moons, each of which is tied to a different plane (instead of the one moon, one sun they seem to be aiming for) and has the Dragonmarks (egads, innate, CONTROLLABLE magic?!) which seems to go completely against their new idea that you either must have an instrument of control (like a staff or wand) or you cast wild magic. I foresee them making a huge cataclysm to that setting to reduce the number of moons to one and break the power of the Dragonmarks. Not so far fetched if you consider what they just did to Forgotten Realms.
Eldritch_Lord 02-01-08, 07:49 PM	What was the "Realms-shaking event" for the switch from 2e to 3e? AFAIK, all they did was change some fluff (like scrapping all the Tolkienesque "elves and dwarves are dying races" stuff). I don't even think Mystra died in that edition change! Did I miss something? Well, the War of the Spider Queen series explained the change to the FR cosmology, Great Wheel to Great Tree, and there have been a few more (Return of the Archwizards, The Last Mythal, and others) after 3e came out and again around 3.5e. I'm not really a FR fan (I just read the books, but don't play there) but I know there were lots of RSE around that time and I think 1 or 2 of them were meant to explain the 2e-3e transition.
pukunui 02-01-08, 07:56 PM	Well, the War of the Spider Queen series explained the change to the FR cosmology, Great Wheel to Great Tree, and there have been a few more (Return of the Archwizards, The Last Mythal, and others) after 3e came out and again around 3.5e. I'm not really a FR fan (I just read the books, but don't play there) but I know there were lots of RSE around that time and I think 1 or 2 of them were meant to explain the 2e-3e transition. Oh ok. I stopped reading FR novels in 1995 or 1996. I don't remember exactly. Long time ago anyway. I did recently borrow The Thousands Orcs and its sequel from the library and thought they were absolute rubbish. Didn't bother to track down the third one. I have read in many of the 3e FR RPG books, most heavily in the actual campaign setting book, and never really picked up on anything as "Realms-shattering" as the Time of Troubles or the new Spellplague ... I guess I'm just out of the loop. As much as I don't mind the changes they're making this time around (probably because I'm not at all invested in the setting), I was thinking it might be fun to dig out my 2e box set and run a 4e game in that version of the Realms ...
Shemeska the Marauder 02-02-08, 09:26 AM	Well, the War of the Spider Queen series explained the change to the FR cosmology, Great Wheel to Great Tree, and there have been a few more (Return of the Archwizards, The Last Mythal, and others) after 3e came out and again around 3.5e. I'm not really a FR fan (I just read the books, but don't play there) but I know there were lots of RSE around that time and I think 1 or 2 of them were meant to explain the 2e-3e transition. No FR novels have ever explained the 2e-3e cosmology changes. More often than not, different novels have used one or the other cosmology when referencing the planes, or used a mixture of both. It's been a mess. WotSQ only explained the creation of the Demonweb Pits as a 3e FR plane apart from the Abyss, but beyond that it assumed the 3e FR cosmology for the most part, except two books in the series included some overtly Planescape references (the Ships of Chaos). There are 3e novels that reference Gehenna, deities in the Abyss while 3e FR says there are none in the Abyss, etc etc. It's been a seriously garbled situation since the start (which suggests to me the changes weren't popular or weren't discussed and given the treatment needed to make the change go over well). And now they're changing things once again. Yay.
Shemeska the Marauder 02-02-08, 09:29 AM	I have read in many of the 3e FR RPG books, most heavily in the actual campaign setting book, and never really picked up on anything as "Realms-shattering" as the Time of Troubles or the new Spellplague ... I guess I'm just out of the loop. There was no in-game explanation. The explanation we were given was that the changes to the realms in 3e versus 2e weren't changes because it "had always been that way". Retcons rather than in-game events causing those changes.
pukunui 02-02-08, 06:07 PM	There was no in-game explanation. The explanation we were given was that the changes to the realms in 3e versus 2e weren't changes because it "had always been that way". Retcons rather than in-game events causing those changes. OK. That's what I thought. At least they're being more open about it this time ... right?
Eldritch_Lord 02-03-08, 09:32 AM	No FR novels have ever explained the 2e-3e cosmology changes. More often than not, different novels have used one or the other cosmology when referencing the planes, or used a mixture of both. It's been a mess. WotSQ only explained the creation of the Demonweb Pits as a 3e FR plane apart from the Abyss, but beyond that it assumed the 3e FR cosmology for the most part, except two books in the series included some overtly Planescape references (the Ships of Chaos). There are 3e novels that reference Gehenna, deities in the Abyss while 3e FR says there are none in the Abyss, etc etc. It's been a seriously garbled situation since the start (which suggests to me the changes weren't popular or weren't discussed and given the treatment needed to make the change go over well). And now they're changing things once again. Yay. Hmm. Interesting. All I know of the FR cosmology is stuff from the novels and what I skimmed of the FRCS in Borders, so when I read a bunch of FR books with the Planescape cosmology and then a bunch with the new one, I assumed there was some RSE in between to explain it. You'd think, though, with all the other RSEs that make such relatively minor changes they'd have used one to explain 3e and its cosmology rather than retconning it.
sciborg3 02-06-08, 11:57 AM	The new FR cosmology and the SpellPlague are the most hamfisted retconning since House of M. Except House of M was creative.
ripvanwormer 02-06-08, 01:53 PM	The Primordials are not inherently evil but they are destructive, since their philosophy of "continual creation" involves destroying anything and everything they actually create in order to create something new. But they created the titans, giants, and archons, and never destroyed them. Or did they only accidentally survive because the gods defeated their creators?
pukunui 02-06-08, 02:18 PM	But they created the titans, giants, and archons, and never destroyed them. Or did they only accidentally survive because the gods defeated their creators? True. Perhaps it's because they are creatures and are therefore capable of keeping themselves alive ... whereas everything else the primordials created was just raw element and could easily be broken down and reformed?
sciborg3 02-12-08, 12:09 AM	i think their destructive nature is more about being unconcerned with life. If something survives it's okay, but they are going to continually reshape the planes.