D&D 5E Is Paladine Bahamut? Is Takhisis Tiamat? Fizban's Treasury Might Reveal The Answer!

doctorbadwolf · Jul 22, 2021

dave2008 said:
Sorry, I don't understand what we are discussing anymore. I think I will move on. I was just trying to be helpful.

Sorry. I didn't intend to be aggro about it, I just didn't really see the benefit of looking at it that way when I'm talking about not liking the general direction of the game as a whole, not any problem I've had in running the game.

Maxperson said:
None of that changes by putting them int0 the Great Wheel that the DMG says people can ignore. They still all have their own cosmologies isolated from the Wheel.

Being able to change a thing doesn't make that thing not bad. Or bad. Or anything. It has no effect of any kind on the quality of the thing.

Urriak Uruk said:
Well hold on here; the DMG leaves folks a framework to use any cosmology you like. It says the Great Wheel is a theoretical construct (the most popular one, but still), and may be incorrect. That lets any DM use whatever cosmology they like, and still be "canon." It still adheres to what the DMG says.

As above, okay, that doesn't make it good lore. It just means I can do whatever i want, which I would be doing even if I loved everything about the direction of DnD's lore and the DMG explicitly asked me not to do so. I generally don't view canon as having any authority of any kind in the context of fan interactions, and the very small authority it does have is whatever the IP holder enforces/can enforce on licensed works using that IP.

I don't view the mechanical rules as actual rules, I certainly don't see lore as rules.

Urriak Uruk said:
Huh. This might actually hint that a Dragonlance (or Dark Sun) setting book is on the way, that resets the setting back to the War of the Lance (or pre-Prism novels).

I am not as opposed to that type of reboot as I used to be, but I'd still rather just let 100 years or so pass (or even longer so that all the old characters are naturally dead in the new era, if it makes things easier, though I'd like for a few to be around to optionally use as advisors and mentors and such) and rewrite the setting in the new era, retconning only what is really needed, like Gully Dwarves, and writing the setting to be in a very similar place, having come full circle, as it was in the first days of he War of The Lance.

Dire Bare said:
I don't like the bubble idea, that Eberron is a bubble of different floating within the larger cosmology. I would agree with you there that this kind of diminishes the setting a bit, although again, not on a practical level. I'd rather think of Eberron as simply being different alongside those other worlds, each different in their own ways, to various degrees.

Eberron existing within the D&D multiverse, just as Krynn, Athas, and Toril do . . . to me, that doesn't diminish Eberron at all. Being a part of something larger isn't automatically a demotion, or indicative of a lesser status. Although, when folks first starting theorizing that Earth wasn't the center of the real universe, but just one world among many . . . that got controversial for a bit!

It being in the same multiverse in the marvel sense I'm fine with. It being a bubbel in the ethereal and elves coming from correlon even though he doesn't exist in Eberron is where the problem lies.

Dire Bare · Jul 22, 2021

Maxperson said:
Good. The books constant changes got a bit absurd. I've never treated novels, movies or video games as canon anyway.

For Dragonlance, at least, the sword cut both ways. The "Chaos War" storyline, and later the "War of Souls" storyline, were novel centric plots that had major metaplot/canon impacts on the setting. But the "Dragon Overlords" storyline was all about shifting the game away from AD&D and to the new Saga system. At the time, the novels supported the changes in the game! Ugh, what a disaster that was.

Dark Sun is interesting, because the Prism Pentad novels were part of the plan before launch. Not unlike the original Dragonlance novels and adventure modules. It was just a weird decision to present the world of Athas, and then immediately break it with the first set of novels.

I suspect part of the reason novels aren't canon now . . . is because WotC isn't really in the business of publishing novels anymore. It used to be a BIG part of the D&D franchise, but no more. Salvatore's Drizzt books continue despite WotC's reluctance because they are so popular. Weis & Hickman's upcoming new Dragonlance trilogy almost didn't happen, WotC actively tried to kill the project. And that's it, there aren't any other current novels, other than a new YA series coming up soon . . .

Henadic Theologian · Jul 22, 2021

Parmandur said:
I dunno, they are pretty laxidasical with FR canon, and I bet this how they move forward across the board.

Something I'm not impressed by.

Urriak Uruk · Jul 22, 2021

doctorbadwolf said:
As above, okay, that doesn't make it good lore. It just means I can do whatever i want, which I would be doing even if I loved everything about the direction of DnD's lore and the DMG explicitly asked me not to do so. I generally don't view canon as having any authority of any kind in the context of fan interactions, and the very small authority it does have is whatever the IP holder enforces/can enforce on licensed works using that IP.

I don't view the mechanical rules as actual rules, I certainly don't see lore as rules.

I'm so confused by this... first, it is lore, as it literally says;

Sages have constructed a few such theoretical models to make sense of the jumble of planes, particularly the Outer Planes. The three most common are the Great Wheel, the World Tree, and the World Axis, but you can create or adapt whatever model works best for the planes you want to use in your game.

I don't know how that's a rule, it's referencing Sages... that seems like lore to me.

And it's literally giving you a permission structure to do whatever you want. So I'm confused why you don't seem to like that, even though you say that's what you're going to do... you even mention how even if the DMG made good lore that you like, you wouldn't use it. But it doesn't do that! It lets you do whatever you want!

I should really disengage, that comment is scrambling my mind trying to read and understand.

Hexmage-EN · Jul 22, 2021

I get at least some solace in that even WotC doesn't particularly care about the Outer Planes of the Great Wheel beyond the Abyss and the Nine Hells except as a way to get all their IP under the same D&D Multiverse (TM) umbrella. The Blood War used to range across the Lower Planes in 3E and earlier, but in 5E the demons just skip all the other Lower Planes and get straight to Avernus. The yugoloths didn't even get their old lore back and just became a special commission Asmodeus requested of some night hags.

dave2008 · Jul 22, 2021

doctorbadwolf said:
Sorry. I didn't intend to be aggro about it, I just didn't really see the benefit of looking at it that way when I'm talking about not liking the general direction of the game as a whole, not any problem I've had in running the game.

It is not that, i just don't think we are in the same mind space where we are talking about the same things.

doctorbadwolf · Jul 22, 2021

Urriak Uruk said:
I'm so confused by this... first, it is lore, as it literally says;

Sages have constructed a few such theoretical models to make sense of the jumble of planes, particularly the Outer Planes. The three most common are the Great Wheel, the World Tree, and the World Axis, but you can create or adapt whatever model works best for the planes you want to use in your game.

I don't know how that's a rule, it's referencing Sages... that seems like lore to me.

And it's literally giving you a permission structure to do whatever you want. So I'm confused why you don't seem to like that, even though you say that's what you're going to do... you even mention how even if the DMG made good lore that you like, you wouldn't use it. But it doesn't do that! It lets you do whatever you want!

I should really disengage, that comment is scrambling my mind trying to read and understand.

You’re overthinking it, I think. I didn’t say that the lore is a rule. I was trying to make it clear that I am not coming from a perspective of viewing the lore as binding, I am criticizing what I see as bad lore, a bad direction for the lore, and a change in lore that will affect any game that is run mostly from the books.

I am also pointing out places where the lore is detrimental if used as written, as with the “cosmic revelation” example.

I don’t get why it’s hard to grok that I can both;

Not feel beholden to canon

And

Care about the direction of the game’s lore.

Maxperson · Jul 22, 2021

doctorbadwolf said:
You’re overthinking it, I think. I didn’t say that the lore is a rule. I was trying to make it clear that I am not coming from a perspective of viewing the lore as binding, I am criticizing what I see as bad lore, a bad direction for the lore, and a change in lore that will affect any game that is run mostly from the books.

I am also pointing out places where the lore is detrimental if used as written, as with the “cosmic revelation” example.

I don’t get why it’s hard to grok that I can both;

Not feel beholden to canon

And

Care about the direction of the game’s lore.

The exact same "cosmic revelation" would have occurred during 3e and 4e, though. In both of those editions all settings, regardless of individual cosmologies, were part of the D&D multiverse along with all of the other settings. That meant that even if a setting like Eberron had a unique cosmology, there was still an overarching cosmology that it was a part of. All 5e did was name it the Great Wheel. Nothing actually changed other than knowing the name.

I think that's where a lot of us are having the disconnect with you. You're seeing this as a major change when it was just the slight revelation of a name.

Sword of Spirit · Jul 22, 2021

Maxperson said:
The exact same "cosmic revelation" would have occurred during 3e and 4e, though. In both of those editions all settings, regardless of individual cosmologies, were part of the D&D multiverse along with all of the other settings. That meant that even if a setting like Eberron had a unique cosmology, there was still an overarching cosmology that it was a part of. All 5e did was name it the Great Wheel. Nothing actually changed other than knowing the name.

I think that's where a lot of us are having the disconnect with you. You're seeing this as a major change when it was just the slight revelation of a name.

That's sort of correct, but it requires another level of planar dimensionality.

In 3e, different multiverses existed, and it was theoretically possible to get to them through the Plane of Shadow. But each of those was an entirely distinct multiverse, with its own planes and personalities that were completely unconnected to those planes and personalities in others, even if they shared the same name. Forgotten Realms was at the center of it's own World Tree cosmology multiverse, Greyhawk at the center of its gutted (er, excuse me, "revised") Great Wheel cosmology, Eberron with it's thing, etc.

In 2e (and 5e) Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, and every other setting exists within the same Great Wheel multiverse in some way, even if it may be cut off from certain parts of it. (It's possible that the MtG worlds exist in an entirely different multiverse, and I'm not sure the designers have weighed in on that part yet.) There is only one Abyss, one Nine Hells of Baator, etc, and your world either does or doesn't interact with it, but it's still up there interacting with all the other planes that your world might be interacting with.

Now, personally, I greatly prefer the unified 2e/5e presentation, but I absolutely understand where @doctorbadwolf is coming from. I'm of the other cosmological preference, but of the same mindframe in believing that such presentations are meaningfully different and do effect my game even if indirectly.

doctorbadwolf · Jul 22, 2021

Sword of Spirit said:
That's sort of correct, but it requires another level of planar dimensionality.

In 3e, different multiverses existed, and it was theoretically possible to get to them through the Plane of Shadow. But each of those was an entirely distinct multiverse, with its own planes and personalities that were completely unconnected to those planes and personalities in others, even if they shared the same name. Forgotten Realms was at the center of it's own World Tree cosmology multiverse, Greyhawk at the center of its gutted (er, excuse me, "revised") Great Wheel cosmology, Eberron with it's thing, etc.

In 2e (and 5e) Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, and every other setting exists within the same Great Wheel multiverse in some way, even if it may be cut off from certain parts of it. (It's possible that the MtG worlds exist in an entirely different multiverse, and I'm not sure the designers have weighed in on that part yet.) There is only one Abyss, one Nine Hells of Baator, etc, and your world either does or doesn't interact with it, but it's still up there interacting with all the other planes that your world might be interacting with.

Now, personally, I greatly prefer the unified 2e/5e presentation, but I absolutely understand where @doctorbadwolf is coming from. I'm of the other cosmological preference, but of the same mindframe in believing that such presentations are meaningfully different and do effect my game even if indirectly.

Very well said. Thank you.