D&D 5E D&D Lore Changes: Multiversal Focus & Fey Goblins of Prehistory

WotC's Jeremy Crawford revealed a couple of the lore changes in Monsters of the Multiverse.

• The big shift is toward the multiverse as the game's main perspective rather than a specific setting. The game is shifting towards a multiversal focus, with a variety of worlds and settings.
• Universe-spanning mythical story beats, such as deep lore on goblinoids going back to 1st Edition, and the gods they had before Maglubiyet. Prior to Magulbiyet unifying them, goblinoids were folk of the feywild in keeping with 'real-world' folklore.
• Changelings aren't just Eberron, but they've been everywhere -- you just don't necessarily know it. Their origin is also in the realm of the fey.

D&D 5E - A Compilation of all the Race Changes in Monsters of the Multiverse

Over on Reddit, user KingJackel went through the video leak which came out a few days ago and manually compiled a list of all the changes to races in the book. The changes are quite extensive, with only the fairy and harengon remaining unchanged. The book contains 33 races in total, compiled and...

www.enworld.org

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I'd rather take a few cyanide pills than acknowledge Critical Role and MtG as part of my D&D multiverse and I'm sure I'm not alone in this.

Alone? Nah. Definitely an extremely tiny minority.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's a bit of both. There is little more than a poem in Fizban's, but here are a couple key phrases in the paragraph: " Various creation myths told on different worlds echo some of the themes and notions of this poem", "myriad worlds of the Material Plane". It helps to have read Moorcock and other works on many worlds theory.

But WotC is definitely not saying "all goblins have the same origin", they are saying "goblins in many worlds have similar origins".

Fair enough. I withdraw my complaint. Now it's just an idea I don't like.

 

[Rogerd1]

Yikes.

At this point, continuing this exchange is just me being mean.

Go touch grass.

Absolutely no one is impressed or convinced by your misplaced snark and wildly unearned sense of superiority.

You were proven wrong regarding the dictionary and the use of a wikia that can be altered by anyone, to say anything.
So the only snark here, is yours.
So all of your post is pure flame bait, nothing more.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You were proven wrong regarding the dictionary and the use of a wikia that can be altered by anyone, to say anything.
So the only snark here, is yours.
So all of your post is pure flame bait, nothing more.

You literally have not proven anything, at any point in this thread, except that you don’t understand what a comparison is, or how definitions of words work.

All you’ve done is attack and belittle people while being embarrassingly wrong about very nearly every statement you’ve made.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You were proven wrong regarding the dictionary and the use of a wikia that can be altered by anyone, to say anything.
So the only snark here, is yours.
So all of your post is pure flame bait, nothing more.

Wait wait, also, do you think that whether a statement is snark depends on whether the statement is correct or false!?

 

[Rogerd1]

You literally have not proven anything, at any point in this thread, except that you don’t understand what a comparison is, or how definitions of words work.

All you’ve done is attack and belittle people while being embarrassingly wrong about very nearly every statement you’ve made.

Wait wait, also, do you think that whether a statement is snark depends on whether the statement is correct or false!?

Wrong.
A definition of universe was posted here

D&D 5E - D&D Lore Changes: Multiversal Focus & Fey Goblins of Prehistory

WotC's Jeremy Crawford revealed a couple of the lore changes in Monsters of the Multiverse. The big shift is toward the multiverse as the game's main perspective rather than a specific setting. The game is shifting towards a multiversal focus, with a variety of worlds and settings...

www.enworld.org

So again your posts are nothing more than flame bait.

 

[Malmuria]

Wrong.
A definition of universe was posted here

D&D 5E - D&D Lore Changes: Multiversal Focus & Fey Goblins of Prehistory

WotC's Jeremy Crawford revealed a couple of the lore changes in Monsters of the Multiverse. The big shift is toward the multiverse as the game's main perspective rather than a specific setting. The game is shifting towards a multiversal focus, with a variety of worlds and settings...

www.enworld.org

So again your posts are nothing more than flame bait.

In the link you include in that post, please scroll down to the section entitled "multiverse hypothesis." It reads in part

It is possible to conceive of disconnected spacetimes, each existing but unable to interact with one another.[141][144] An easily visualized metaphor of this concept is a group of separate soap bubbles, in which observers living on one soap bubble cannot interact with those on other soap bubbles, even in principle.[145] According to one common terminology, each "soap bubble" of spacetime is denoted as a universe, whereas our particular spacetime is denoted as the universe,[21] just as we call our moon the Moon. The entire collection of these separate spacetimes is denoted as the multiverse.[21] With this terminology, different universes are not causally connected to each other.[21] In principle, the other unconnected universes may have different dimensionalities and topologies of spacetime, different forms of matter and energy, and different physical laws and physical constants, although such possibilities are purely speculative.[21]

Of course, the dnd understanding of the multiverse is not purely related to physics, but perhaps more to mythical cosmology and mysticism

 

[Rogerd1]

In the link you include in that post, please scroll down to the section entitled "multiverse hypothesis." It reads in part


Of course, the dnd understanding of the multiverse is not purely related to physics, but perhaps more to mythical cosmology and mysticism

You will actually find this multiverse example in the DnD core or DMG actually, and also in DC comics.

The best way to think of it are bubbles in the bath, or when you wash dishes, and they clump together.

Then there is the multi-level multiverse by Tegmark, and Bruan Greene's nine different multiverse types.

Like I said from a science fiction standpoint they could be pocket universe, but they tend to connected to something, usually the main universe like you get in Doctor Who EU.

That said, because they are all separated, and not connected to one another, they are more dimensions in their own right. But fantasy tends to refer to them as planes.

 

[Umbran]

Wait wait, also, do you think that whether a statement is snark depends on whether the statement is correct or false!?

I'm not sure who ever suggested to you that laughing at folks was a constructive way to resolve a conflict, but I have to disabuse you of this notion. This, and other posts, have all been rather sub-standard in that department.

And if you're no longer trying to be constructive, that's a problem.

So, please choose - constructive or not - and proceed accordingly. Thanks.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Ok, if you are just trying to make people feel better, I get you. It is a fabrication though, because WotC IS saying that all goblins have the same origin; that's the point of their terrible First World idea, that the entirely of D&D springs from one place they just made up and published a couple months ago. When needed, I have no doubt that they will squeeze this into any and all future setting books they publish.

Now of course, we're all perfectly free to ignore it. It'll still be there though, and we'll keep seeing references to it. You unfortunately can't st I p that gnashing of teeth, but I appreciate the thought.

Or it works more like what Paul Farquhar says. After all, there are multiple settings where the Feywild isn't a thing. It doesn't exist in Eberron, or Dragonlance, or Theros or Ravnica. So, either WoTC is doing something utterly terrible... or they are just presenting a single facet of the whole.

I guess I just don't understand why, when presented with two different equally plausible explanations, you and others insist on taking the version that is the least charitable and the most upsetting.

EDIT:

Fair enough. I withdraw my complaint. Now it's just an idea I don't like.

Ah, never mind, it seems we have reached an understanding.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

1. Correct, a galaxy would not be a universe.
2. Right and?

And yet you refer to a universe as "milky way size" Yet the Milky way is only a mere 201,000 light years compared to the 93,000,000,000 light years of the actual observable universe (which of course, the actual universe could be larger than the observed universe)

So, you have already put forth a model that allows to a universe to be 462,686.56 times smaller than the actual universe. So, if your model allows for something to be over 450 THOUSAND times smaller, why can't it be another 201 thousand times smaller?

What makes 200,000 the magic number? What are you basing your claims on? Other than vague "I know science fiction better than you" claims?

3. I have already stated this.
4. You are postulating one possible end, but no one knows what is going to happen as there are so many things we do not understand about the universe.

You have already stated what to call a universe without stars, planets and galaxies? I haven't seen you make that statement, so would you mind repeating it?

Also point #4 is meaningless noise. I don't care that we don't know that the Heat Death model is accurate, it is an accepted model and the question is based on that model. Refusing to answer the question because other models exist is just avoiding the question.