Planet names of Settings

DMH · Apr 5, 2005

Joshua Dyal said:
As to whether or not the Moon is, in fact, a moon, saying that it isn't is a bit forward, since what a moon is is defined by the Moon...Personally, I don't think there's much to be gained from saying the Moon isn't a moon because we're a double planet system, since saying so doesn't really imply anything very different about our situation other than the fact that our own is quite massive relative to it's planet than most of the other such systems in our solar system.

But we are different from all the other planets in this system. All other satellites in the system have a gravitational center in the middle of the body they orbit. Luna does not- it and Earth revolve around a point within Earth's outer core. If you look at Earth's orbit around the sun, it looks like a sine wave because it does (weakly) revolve around Luna. That is why Luna is not a moon but rather a small planet.

Desdichado · Apr 5, 2005

DMH said:
All other satellites in the system have a gravitational center in the middle of the body they orbit. Luna does not- it and Earth revolve around a point within Earth's outer core.

Pluto and Charon do the same, to an even greater extent than the Earth moon, since they are closer in size to each other. There are even asteroids identified with "moons." And actually, all bodies rotate around a common center of gravity, it's just that with the greater mass of most planets relative to their moons, the center of gravity is deep within the planet itself. This off-center (relative to the main body) center of gravity phenomena is what has allowed us to to detect the rash of extrasolar planets that have been discovered in recent years; because the center of gravity of the star and its satellites (planets) is not the same as the actual center of the star, it causes it to "wobble."

fusangite · Apr 5, 2005

reanjr said:
Whether or not the world views of ancient people thought the world rested on the back of a turtle, it doesn't change the fact that they lived on a planet. So putting a setting on a planet makes most sense. It doesn't change any world view or really affect them in any way. Not to mention, different cultures in the same setting may have different views on what their world is like.

I guess my point is that cosmological systems that included magic almost never made the earth a planet whereas cosmological systems that did not include magic almost always made the earth a planet. So it just seems strange that D&D would represent a worldview in which Newtonian/Einsteinian physics were in effect when an a priori assumption of the rules is that they are not.

Desdichado · Apr 5, 2005

Since when does Newtonian/Einsteinian physics preclude magic? Or are you not saying that?

Gez · Apr 5, 2005

fusangite said:
I guess my point is that cosmological systems that included magic almost never made the earth a planet whereas cosmological systems that did not include magic almost always made the earth a planet. So it just seems strange that D&D would represent a worldview in which Newtonian/Einsteinian physics were in effect when an a priori assumption of the rules is that they are not.

It's not strange at all. D&D is, was, has always been, and will stay firmly pulp fantasy rather than heroic fantasy or sword & sorcery fantasy.

In everyone's mind, a world and a planet are the same thing. We're too accustomed to the idea we live on a giant space marble to instinctively adopt a flat world assumption, or think about cosmic turtles and elephants anymore.

The notion of planet was even more popularized by science fiction, of course -- all those space opera pulp -- and sci-fi pulp are as big an influence on D&D as fantasy pulp is. Look at the Derro (a.k.a. Dero, detrimental robots, google for the Chandler mysteries), the mindflayer, the beholder, the xill and displacer beast (ixtl and couerl from Voyage of the Space Beagle), the loxxo (the aliens in Footfall), the gelatinous cube and other oozes (variation on the Blob theme), and so on.

This mixing of genres was common at the time -- people will remember that the first Ultima games featured laser swords, starfighters, and time-travel machine, before those elements were expurged to get a pure medieval fantasy setting.

Desdichado · Apr 5, 2005

Gez said:
This mixing of genres was common at the time -- people will remember that the first Ultima games featured laser swords, starfighters, and time-travel machine, before those elements were expurged to get a pure medieval fantasy setting.

Did they? I know the Might & Magic games did, all the way up until 3DO went belly-up.

Gez · Apr 5, 2005

Joshua Dyal said:
Did they? I know the Might & Magic games did, all the way up until 3DO went belly-up.

Oh yes they did. You even battled TIE Fighters in Ultima 1.

Look!

Also in Ultima 2

It's in Ultima 3 that the overtly sci-fi elements disappeared. Though in Ultima 7, you have a crashed Kilrathi ship in a field near Britain (totally useless and could as well just be a big rock), and in Ultima Underworld 2, you meat telepathic felines named Trilkhai that are linked to Kilrathi if you read between the lines (they task you with enquiring on their past).

Desdichado · Apr 5, 2005

Eww. Anyway, your point is well-taken. After all, the first D&D setting ever was Blackmoor. I don't mind medieval fantasy, but I don't like the apparent insistence of many fans that fantasy must be medieval. I thought the whole point of fantasy was to be fantastic and creative, not medieval. Medieval's just one outlet for fantasy. (And not trying to imply that fusangite is one such insister, just commenting in general.)

Of course, as a guy who grew up reading Edgar Rice Burroughs, I'm much more tolerant than many about "non-traditional" elements in my fantasy to the point where I almost prefer them nowadays. Although maybe that's just a knee-jerk reaction to too many Tolkien, Arthurian and Norse or Celtic mythology rip-offs over my fantasy literature reading career.

The_Warlock · Apr 5, 2005

Gez said:
It's in Ultima 3 that the overtly sci-fi elements disappeared.

To be fair, the sci-fi elements were in Ultima 3, you just had to look
harder for them, and your final enemy, Exodus, was a supercomputer that was generating the monstrous waves and villainy affecting Sosaria.

Oh my...I think I just made myself feel REALLY old....

Voadam · Apr 5, 2005

fusangite said:
I guess my point is that cosmological systems that included magic almost never made the earth a planet whereas cosmological systems that did not include magic almost always made the earth a planet. So it just seems strange that D&D would represent a worldview in which Newtonian/Einsteinian physics were in effect when an a priori assumption of the rules is that they are not.

It was an ancient greek who calculated the size of the round earth. So while not an example of newtonian/einsteinian, it is an example of a pythagorean/aristotelean physcial world view at the same time as cosmology including nymphs, fauns, and shapeshifting gods.

Planet names of Settings

DMH

First Post

Desdichado

Hero

fusangite

First Post

Desdichado

Hero

Gez

First Post

Desdichado

Hero

Gez

First Post

Desdichado

Hero

The_Warlock

Explorer

Voadam

Legend

Similar Threads