D&D 5E The Multiverse is back....

[SkidAce]

...then maybe we can change a Marilyth from general to something that likes to set itself up as a god to local peoples. So on and so forth.

Are you scanning my computer and reading my campaign?

 

[pemerton]

ultimately, the 4e cosmology reflects the conflicts in the 4e implied setting (a big one being gods-vs-primordials, with its inherent good law vs. destructive chaos overtones, as Greek Myth has), and it does so much better than the Great Wheel does.

I agree with this - both the description and the judgement.

Which is part of my answer to [MENTION=6779857]Jishosan[/MENTION], as to why someone might prefer default 4e to Planescape. [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION], about half-a-dozen posts upthread, gives a good set of reasons too.

 

[pemerton]

The point I was getting at is that if someone didn't like Greyhawk, they nevertheless had to put up with numerous Greyhawk references and/or material right in the core rulebooks. Why is that any less onerous than having, say, a reference to the Blood Wars in the monster manual? So, if somebody hates Planescape, the books must be sanitized of any reference to such, yet Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms references are perfectly o.k.?

I remember complaints about too many Greyhawk references back in the pages of mid-80s Dragon magazines.

In what sense, though, would Grazz't remain Grazz't if you change him into something different and just keep the name?

I think that's fantastic. Why does Grazz't have to be a single vision of the creature?

I guess my question is, is the defining characteristic of Grazz't that he's a demon lord that lives in such and such a plane in the Abyss, or is the defining characteristic of Grazz't his personality and behaviour. I'd argue the latter. Changing him into an Oni from the South to fit within a given setting better because the setting doesn't have an Abyss, makes the material more versatile.

I think Hussar's answer is a pretty good one. Personality and behaviour - which underpin the role of a monster or NPC in actual play - are more central to its identity than cosmological details.

I've run campaigns in which unicorns are celestial creatures, fey creatures and earthly but magical creatures. Within these different cosmological framings, a unicorn is still a unicorn, both in physical and magical abilities, and in personality and orientation (an aloof, magical creature that bestows blessings on the pure of heart).

The last time I used Graz'zt in a campaign he was the August Star of Heaven within the cosmological framework of an Oriental Adventures game. He was still a tempter with 6 fingers on each hand.

 

[Steely Dan]

The Multiverse never went anywhere, I find the 4th Ed World Axis deal, very easy to reconcile with the classic Planescape action, which I did, I then became disillusioned with 4th for other reasons, but with planar theory, it is easy to mess around.

 

[Imaro]

I think Hussar's answer is a pretty good one. Personality and behaviour - which underpin the role of a monster or NPC in actual play - are more central to its identity than cosmological details.

Unless of course one is heavily invested in the cosmology and/or has chosen to use it... then, I would argue, it is just as central or more depending on the role cosmology plays in one's campaign. Different playstyles and campaigns will weigh things differently. Let's use a different example... are the 4e Primordials personalities and behaviors more central to play than their cosmological identity in your campaign? I would say, unless those personalities incorporate their cosmological identity (which then puts it on the same level of personality) they loose much of their thematic oomph without it.

I've run campaigns in which unicorns are celestial creatures, fey creatures and earthly but magical creatures. Within these different cosmological framings, a unicorn is still a unicorn, both in physical and magical abilities, and in personality and orientation (an aloof, magical creature that bestows blessings on the pure of heart).

So then what is the point of the different cosmological framing? If a unicorn is a unicorn is a unicorn regardless of it's origin, creature type, habitat, etc... what was the point of changing it?

The last time I used Graz'zt in a campaign he was the August Star of Heaven within the cosmological framework of an Oriental Adventures game. He was still a tempter with 6 fingers on each hand.

So what did him being the "August Star of Heaven" mean? Was it intrinsic to his nature in the campaign world? And if not, why even bother assigning him a title?

 

[Sadras]

...maybe we can change a Marilyth from general to something that likes to set itself up as a god to local peoples. So on and so forth.

Are you scanning my computer and reading my campaign?

This might be a common theme. I once played in a game where the Yuan-ti who captured the PCs served a Marilyth like a deity (at least we suspected it was a Marilyth, we never had the pleasure of meeting it or finishing the campaign).

 

[Desdichado]

But your example is rather extreme don't you think? Changing a succubus from a demon to a devil is hardly on the same level as deciding that the most iconic undead monster in the game is suddenly not undead.

That's always the risk of a reducto ad adsurdum argument. Considering that the the word undead was invented, at least in its current concept, by Bram Stoker as he was also inventing the word vampire, at least in its current concept.

 

[Neonchameleon]

See, different preferences. The tone of PS is not one of a world on fire in desperate need of heroes, it is one of an ongoing war of competing ideologies, where heroism depends on what one thinks of the flag you're waving, where no hero is pure and no villain is monolithic, where the players enact change throughout reality and where the ideas they champion become more legendary than their own names.

It is totally fair to prefer a more heroic light-vs.-darkness / civilization-vs.-chaos kind of vibe for your D&D game, and you should be able to have a cosmology that supports that first and foremost rather than having to cleave to the Great Wheel or anything.

The problem here is that we have a complete clash in tones between Sigil and The Great Wheel.

Sigil (pre *spit* Faction War) is a war of competing shifting philosophies. What you do, even what you argue, matters. Philosophies can rise and fall - and even be all but wiped out. If the Mercykillers were to decide that the whole of Sigil was impure and start cleansing it that would be a problem. If you were to somehow engineer a merger between the Takers and the Heartless (not that difficult in some ways) and drive the Dustmen underground you would fundamentally change the nature of Sigil as it stands. This is IMO sensible.

The Great Wheel is a war of immutable symmetric philosophies. The philosophies are opposed - but due to the symmetry of the wheel, Balance Is King. In two Great Wheel settings this has been made explicit; the Avatar War started because the Gods forgot that Balance was King and in Dragonlance himself Palatine says that the goal was to free the pendulum, and that Good held sway just before the Cataclysm, implying that was the cause. In Great Wheel settings, Gods represent their philosophies and those philosophies must be upheld by the God. The God isn't the power, the God is a minion of the Great Wheel and they can be put on trial for not fulfilling their function. Strike one down and they will be replaced (which is why we've had multiple Mystras).

The Great Wheel is actually worse than that. If Balance is King (as it explicitly is) then good is pointless. If you do good and Balance is King then there's an equal amount of evil to balance it out. If I set up an orphanage and save two dozen orphans that would be a good act. An equal amount of evil would happen in order to balance it out. And my actions have made that act necessary. Which means that in the grand scheme of things my actions haven't done any good. I can't even say "It matters to that starfish" without being aware that there are just as many starfish that my acts are making things worse for because balance. By trying to do good I'm dooming starfish. And it matters to those starfish. The closest you can get to doing lasting good in the world is by utilitarian accounting along the lines of Omelas - if you consider that to be an acceptable compromise. On the other hand I can do evil freely. If I launch a campaign of looting and pillaging I'm having fun and getting rich. It doesn't bother me in the slightest that somewhere someone else is creating an orphanage that's cancelling out my evil. I'm having fun and getting rich.

Jam the two together and there's a huge clash in tones. The only reason Planescape/Sigil works at all is that there is an Overgod (the Lady of Pain) who has this one city as her personal petri dish and is simultaneously as curious and disinterested as any good scientist in seeing what happens. Sigil is the only place in the whole of Planescape where you can change anything important - and that only because of the protective umbrella of the Lady of Pain insulating Sigil from The Great Wheel.

I think it'd be a mistake to conflate PS with the Great Wheel. These things are not the same things. The development that PS gave the Great Wheel might be welcome sometimes, but other times it might not be, because the setting has its own tone and style it brings into the game.

I'm of the opinion that Planescape works better with the 4e default cosmology than with the Great Wheel. The World Axis is inherently unstable, and the Great Wheel, as I've argued, promotes evil and makes good pointless.

My case is more that I think there should be no truly default cosmology.

I like the idea of a default cosmology - but settings each explicitly following their own. Aebir-Toril for the Realms was not necessary.

So then what is the point of the different cosmological framing? If a unicorn is a unicorn is a unicorn regardless of it's origin, creature type, habitat, etc... what was the point of changing it?

What is a fictional vampire? Anne Rice? Hammer Horror? Buffy? Stephanie Meyer? (Please, no). Chinese Hopping? Penaggalan? Count von Count? All very distinct. And all types of vampire with things in common.

 

[The Shadow]

That's always the risk of a reducto ad adsurdum argument. Considering that the the word undead was invented, at least in its current concept, by Bram Stoker as he was also inventing the word vampire, at least in its current concept.

...In a book written nearly 120 years ago, and building on existing legendary material. Granted that Stoker wove together a bunch of legends plus some stuff from his imagination, in a rather unique way. But it's become part of our culture, and entire genres of books and movies, in a way D&D succubi have not.

The distinction between demons and devils is purely a D&D construct (though one I'm fine with), and has not penetrated our culture outside of the narrow genre of D&D novels whatsoever. And as mentioned in another thread, the succubus has made far more sense as a devil from the very beginnings of the game. It's a case of the creator being tone-deaf to his own imaginary material!

I forget who said it on the other thread, but it's very very true - the best proof that the Greek pantheon is not active in our world today is that the real Erinyes didn't eviscerate the author and illustrator of their Monster Manual entry and drag them screaming to Hades.

 

[Desdichado]

The distinction between demons and devils is purely a D&D construct (though one I'm fine with), and has not penetrated our culture outside of the narrow genre of D&D novels whatsoever. And as mentioned in another thread, the succubus has made far more sense as a devil from the very beginnings of the game. It's a case of the creator being tone-deaf to his own imaginary material!

I forget who said it on the other thread, but it's very very true - the best proof that the Greek pantheon is not active in our world today is that the real Erinyes didn't eviscerate the author and illustrator of their Monster Manual entry and drag them screaming to Hades.

Totally agree. Which other thread? Now I'm interested.