on abeir-toril's cosmology. [Archive] - Wizards Community

on abeir-toril's cosmology. [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
xpochian
07-24-07, 04:29 PM as a long-time 2e planescape DM, i've flirted with literally every other campaign setting and am somewhat familiar with most of them. our 2e days are long gone and i've been comfortably running a 3e FR campaign for almost a year (in between work, school, outings, ect.) and have gotten to the point where i'd realized that i didn't understand most of these new planes that the gods in my campaign live on, in my girlfriend's copy of faiths of faerun.

i'm aware i'm the DM can can rule anything I want, but i'm wondering if it's worth it to trade in all of my old PS knowledge of the planes, which seemed to dominate the cosmology of 2e FR for this newer, seemingly more plot friendly 3e FR cosmology.

any thoughts?
Faraer
07-24-07, 07:58 PM The names and natures of the gods' domains are much the same in both conceptions. The big difference is in the structure of the planes and their links, and my approach, Ed Greenwood's too, is to assume both sets of connections are at least potentially real, and that they represent limited mortal viewpoints on a greater, not literally mappable, reality.

Lolth lives in the Demonweb Pits. It can be accessed from the prime material plane, or from layers of the Abyss. Is it part of the Abyss? That's a theologians' quibble.

Tymora's abode is Brightwater. Is it part of Arborea or Olympus? In as far as you want to tell stories that emphasize her CGness.

No, don't trade it in. You can keep what you know and use the advantages of the new planar structure as well.
Mr_Miscellany
07-24-07, 08:30 PM I guess it depends on what sort of campaign you want to run: Plane hopping or Faerūn-based.

I'd recommend the older PS stuff if the former, the new cosmology if the later.

I suppose your player's expectations might factor in to this a bit. If they want or strongly expect PS stuff, that's a vote for PS.

In my own 3E Realms DMing experience I think it's a very good idea to leave things vague. Maybe use the new names (they are far more Realms-centric) but leave the rest in doubt.

Once your players actually get to the planes you can decide precisely how planar travel works (to the Astral, then to the correct color pool, or not).

Good luck!
Old Sage
07-24-07, 09:09 PM The names and natures of the gods' domains are much the same in both conceptions. The big difference is in the structure of the planes and their links, and my approach, Ed Greenwood's too, is to assume both sets of connections are at least potentially real, and that they represent limited mortal viewpoints on a greater, not literally mappable, reality.Indeed. Ed prefers to use both 'cosmologies' as fallible mortal maps of the same 'place'. As he once said -

"The Great Wheel or any other cosmology doesn’t bother me, just as avatar stats and the endless “but this god came first, or can beat that god” arguments don’t: mortal PCs can’t know the truth about the gods anyway, because every in-game source (supreme priests, avatars of the gods themselves, holy writings) they could possibly learn all this stuff from is biased. Everything. So it really is all up to the DM."
xpochian
07-25-07, 01:32 AM Now this makes a little more sense.

Since I want to keep this as in the realms as possible (most other campaigns spiral into the outer planes sooner or later) I think I'll adopt their newer system as common knowledge, but also keep the older system as more scholarly knowledge. Keeping what mortals could actually know, in a sense they are both right. So in this respect, one will be more of a commoner's reply: "...and 'ere's to Brightwata gents!" and a scholars reply: "...more specifically, the second layer of Carceri, the steaming and thrice-cursed jungles of Cathrys."

Thanks for the help all!
Gray Richardson
07-25-07, 01:55 AM It's your game. Use what you like best and what fits the adventures you want to run. Both cosmologies have their strong and weak points, but you can run excellent planar adventures using either cosmology.

If you are curious to learn more about the 3e Cosmology, the planes of the Great Tree are detailed in the Players Guide to Faerūn. But there is no reason you should abandon your old materials if you do not want to. If you need to, you can adapt most of the old stuff to fit the new cosmology, or if you prefer you can adapt the new stuff to fit the old cosmology.

I personally use the Great Tree for my planar adventuring. My players are based in Faerūn (in Cormyr, currently, but they travel all over) however my games frequently involve planar story arcs that take detours through and involve encounters and side-quests across the planes. I think the Great Tree works best if you run adventures based in Faerūn that occasionally (or even often) travel to the planes. The Great Tree complements the unique cultures, myths and history of the many peoples and creatures of Toril. And, of course, I try to run a game that follows canon as much as I can, so I prefer to use the canon cosmology.

However, the 2e Great Wheel cosmology has the benefit of many, many wonderful supporting materials. That saves the DM a lot of time in preparation, especially if you want to run a planar adventure that has been previously published, there are a lot of well-written planescape adventures to use. And there is also a ton of great resource material to draw on and mine for ideas. If you are running a campaign that takes place primarily in the planes and which spans many different worlds (such as Krynn, Greyhawk, Athas, or even Eberron) and gods from other mythologies that are not strictly Faerunian (like the Norse or Greek pantheons) then the Great Wheel lends itself to that style of play very well.

The choice is yours, and really, either way, there is no bad choice. Whichever cosmology you use, you and your players will have a lot of fun.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
xpochian 07-24-07, 04:29 PM	as a long-time 2e planescape DM, i've flirted with literally every other campaign setting and am somewhat familiar with most of them. our 2e days are long gone and i've been comfortably running a 3e FR campaign for almost a year (in between work, school, outings, ect.) and have gotten to the point where i'd realized that i didn't understand most of these new planes that the gods in my campaign live on, in my girlfriend's copy of faiths of faerun. i'm aware i'm the DM can can rule anything I want, but i'm wondering if it's worth it to trade in all of my old PS knowledge of the planes, which seemed to dominate the cosmology of 2e FR for this newer, seemingly more plot friendly 3e FR cosmology. any thoughts?
Faraer 07-24-07, 07:58 PM	The names and natures of the gods' domains are much the same in both conceptions. The big difference is in the structure of the planes and their links, and my approach, Ed Greenwood's too, is to assume both sets of connections are at least potentially real, and that they represent limited mortal viewpoints on a greater, not literally mappable, reality. Lolth lives in the Demonweb Pits. It can be accessed from the prime material plane, or from layers of the Abyss. Is it part of the Abyss? That's a theologians' quibble. Tymora's abode is Brightwater. Is it part of Arborea or Olympus? In as far as you want to tell stories that emphasize her CGness. No, don't trade it in. You can keep what you know and use the advantages of the new planar structure as well.
Mr_Miscellany 07-24-07, 08:30 PM	I guess it depends on what sort of campaign you want to run: Plane hopping or Faerūn-based. I'd recommend the older PS stuff if the former, the new cosmology if the later. I suppose your player's expectations might factor in to this a bit. If they want or strongly expect PS stuff, that's a vote for PS. In my own 3E Realms DMing experience I think it's a very good idea to leave things vague. Maybe use the new names (they are far more Realms-centric) but leave the rest in doubt. Once your players actually get to the planes you can decide precisely how planar travel works (to the Astral, then to the correct color pool, or not). Good luck!
Old Sage 07-24-07, 09:09 PM	The names and natures of the gods' domains are much the same in both conceptions. The big difference is in the structure of the planes and their links, and my approach, Ed Greenwood's too, is to assume both sets of connections are at least potentially real, and that they represent limited mortal viewpoints on a greater, not literally mappable, reality.Indeed. Ed prefers to use both 'cosmologies' as fallible mortal maps of the same 'place'. As he once said - "The Great Wheel or any other cosmology doesn’t bother me, just as avatar stats and the endless “but this god came first, or can beat that god” arguments don’t: mortal PCs can’t know the truth about the gods anyway, because every in-game source (supreme priests, avatars of the gods themselves, holy writings) they could possibly learn all this stuff from is biased. Everything. So it really is all up to the DM."
xpochian 07-25-07, 01:32 AM	Now this makes a little more sense. Since I want to keep this as in the realms as possible (most other campaigns spiral into the outer planes sooner or later) I think I'll adopt their newer system as common knowledge, but also keep the older system as more scholarly knowledge. Keeping what mortals could actually know, in a sense they are both right. So in this respect, one will be more of a commoner's reply: "...and 'ere's to Brightwata gents!" and a scholars reply: "...more specifically, the second layer of Carceri, the steaming and thrice-cursed jungles of Cathrys." Thanks for the help all!
Gray Richardson 07-25-07, 01:55 AM	It's your game. Use what you like best and what fits the adventures you want to run. Both cosmologies have their strong and weak points, but you can run excellent planar adventures using either cosmology. If you are curious to learn more about the 3e Cosmology, the planes of the Great Tree are detailed in the Players Guide to Faerūn. But there is no reason you should abandon your old materials if you do not want to. If you need to, you can adapt most of the old stuff to fit the new cosmology, or if you prefer you can adapt the new stuff to fit the old cosmology. I personally use the Great Tree for my planar adventuring. My players are based in Faerūn (in Cormyr, currently, but they travel all over) however my games frequently involve planar story arcs that take detours through and involve encounters and side-quests across the planes. I think the Great Tree works best if you run adventures based in Faerūn that occasionally (or even often) travel to the planes. The Great Tree complements the unique cultures, myths and history of the many peoples and creatures of Toril. And, of course, I try to run a game that follows canon as much as I can, so I prefer to use the canon cosmology. However, the 2e Great Wheel cosmology has the benefit of many, many wonderful supporting materials. That saves the DM a lot of time in preparation, especially if you want to run a planar adventure that has been previously published, there are a lot of well-written planescape adventures to use. And there is also a ton of great resource material to draw on and mine for ideas. If you are running a campaign that takes place primarily in the planes and which spans many different worlds (such as Krynn, Greyhawk, Athas, or even Eberron) and gods from other mythologies that are not strictly Faerunian (like the Norse or Greek pantheons) then the Great Wheel lends itself to that style of play very well. The choice is yours, and really, either way, there is no bad choice. Whichever cosmology you use, you and your players will have a lot of fun.