D&D General DnD cosmology - Which Edition do you prefer?

[RangerWickett]

The ZEITGEIST setting took inspiration from 4e's style, with a bit of Eberron because there are literal planets that influence elemental magic. With the benefit of hindsight, some of the epic level stuff from the Gears of Revolution adventure path could have given the players more options to branch out from that cosmology. I could explain more if anyone's interested, but it'd be spoilers for the AP.

 

[JEB]

That's why all of the Elemental Planes in my world bleed into one another. You can find earthmote islands floating in the Elemental Plane of Air, volcanos throughout the Elemental Plane of Fire, pockets of air in the Elemental Plane of Earth, and so on. The idea of planes of existence comprised entirely of one of the four classical elements is cool . . . but really doesn't work that well as an adventuring location, which is really how most planes of existence should function (except the Far Realm).

Bits of other planes floating around the bigger elemental planes was actually a thing all the way back in Planescape, too. Kind of necessary for adventuring, as you say.

(I also like 5E's compromise approach of having the "pure" elements eventually collapse into the Elemental Chaos... though I think they placed the Chaos at the wrong end of the layout, it should have been centered around the Ethereal/Material Plane as the raw material of creation.)

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Does the great wheel model preclude moral agency?

Well...

Some versions of it (especially both Dragonlance and the Realms) claim that Balance Between Good and Evil is good. And that does wreck moral agency.

...this is a good start on why it does, but there's more to it than that. Specifically, alignment determinism and, at least for FR, the Wall of the Faithless.

In the Great Wheel, people know that you go to the afterlife associated with your alignment. Not only is there no doubt about this, but the perks and benefits of each possible "destination" are well-established facts independent of your intentions with your behavior. In other words, every person who dies, goes to the place that actually conforms to the values they championed in life (even if they did not openly espouse said values to others, or failed to realize that they were championing said values). Because this is known, people are encouraged not to make moral choices because of morality, but rather, because of the perks you get for dying with that alignment. Step 1 on the journey to infinite power (or comfort, or destruction, or freedom, or whatever else) is making sure you live a mortal life that will send you to the correct afterlife for your goals. That causes a removal of moral agency (not agency in general, just the moral aspect of it) because it removes the moral component of judgments: you aren't thinking ethically at all, but rather instrumentally. You are instead encouraged to think morally only in the sense that you want to avoid intending to follow <X Plane>'s moral goals but accidentally end up following <Y Plane>'s goals instead.

The Wall of the Faithless actually makes this worse, because it actively turns morality into a protection racket. The gods cease to be paragons of values (whether good or evil or anything else), and instead become mafia dons coercing worship out of mortals, with the threat of excruciating pain and gradual soul destruction. Under these lights, it becomes even more totally instrumental thinking: pick the god you will find it easiest to avoid "betraying" (since the False are punished too, just usually in a less horrific way than the Faithless) with an afterlife you can accept, follow them with the minimum effort to fulfill your end of the protection racket, then go to the afterlife you selected.

In a cosmos with no inherent moral alignment woven into its literal structure, and especially one where the afterlife is left in doubt (as it is in the World Axis), the choice to engage in certain moral behavior is necessarily more than just a calculation of expected utility. You are actually choosing morally; you can't be just making a calculation.

And count me in for preferring 4e slightly to Eberron and both those to just about any other D&D cosmology by a large distance. An interesting thing abut the 5e cosmology is for all it calls itself the Great Wheel it's the 4e World Axis with the Astral Sea broken out into the outer rim of the old Great Wheel.

Yeah, the "new" Great Wheel is frankly at least half World Axis, just very insistent about how it's Definitely Still Traditional, We Promise.

A big thing no one else seems to have mentioned is the elemental planes.

Realizing that the problem with elemental planes was that they were elemental planes was a eureka moment for me and the Elemental Chaos was an excellent jumping off point for my designs with keeping the 'elements' playable and survivable in mind.

Frankly, part of why I intentionally didn't mention them is some people think this is The Worst Thing Ever, that having the "pure" elemental planes is super duper important. So I just didn't want to kick that particular hornet's nest.

 

[Scribe]

Actually making moral choices?

You can always do so.

 

[Voadam]

Some versions of it (especially both Dragonlance and the Realms) claim that Balance Between Good and Evil is good. And that does wreck moral agency.

I've read that for Dragonlance (too much good is imbalance that causes cosmological problems and causes a pendulum swing), but I don't recall that theme in FR. Mostly there just is a lot of evil as far as I can see, and that propitiating evil gods can hold off some evil, not that it is considered good to have evil to balance out good cosmically.

Where is the reference for that in FR? Is it in the computer game dealing with Ao? One of the novels? A D&D sourcebook? FR is big and sprawling over decades and hundreds of sources so I would not be surprised at that view being put out somewhere, but I am just not familiar with it.

I am also not clear on your argument that therefore it wrecks moral agency. It might make it less clear on what will ultimately have good impacts versus negative ones, but that seems not a dealbreaker for moral agency.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You can always do so.

I don't find "select your afterlife from the menu" to engage any actual moral thought.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Where is the reference for that in FR? Is it in the computer game dealing with Ao? One of the novels? A D&D sourcebook? FR is big and sprawling over decades and hundreds of sources so I would not be surprised at that view being put out somewhere, but I am just not familiar with it.

It's the excuse for the Avatar Trilogy that marked the transition between 1e and 2e (and yes it was an Ao decision).

I am also not clear on your argument that therefore it wrecks moral agency. It might make it less clear on what will ultimately have good impacts versus negative ones, but that seems not a dealbreaker for moral agency.

If The Powers That Be (whether Ao or Paladine) are ensuring that there is a "balance between good and evil" then they are ensuring that for all the good you do there must be an equivalent amount of evil done to maintain the balance. What this means is that by doing good all you are doing is prioritising the good of those specifically near you at the expense of those further away from you who suffer the counterbalancing evil. And there's a word for prioritising the good of those near you while knowing that because of it those you can't see are going to suffer - and it's not "good".

 

[cbwjm]

I don't find "select your afterlife from the menu" to engage any actual moral thought.

Thing is, I don't think that's what people would do. People would live their lives according to their own moral code and then end up on an outer plane that matches, assuming they don't end up in the realm of a god.

 

[Lyxen]

Very simply, the World Axis was great (and gave us the Feywild and Shadowfell), but it was still more one-dimensional than the Wheel, which is at least two dimensional, and actually more than that since it also applied to the inner planes who were mostly fused in the World Axis.

I agree that it's easier to explain and less controversial (although it suffered from the inconsistent alignments from 4e, where they tried to keep the words and part of the structure but ended up with an inconsistent mess - one of the only real inconsistence of an otherwise extremely well-built version), but for me it lacks the epic power of good vs. evil and especially law vs. chaos conflict (I was raised on Moorcock then thrived on Planescape, sue me ).

 

[teitan]

I've read that for Dragonlance (too much good is imbalance that causes cosmological problems and causes a pendulum swing), but I don't recall that theme in FR. Mostly there just is a lot of evil as far as I can see, and that propitiating evil gods can hold off some evil, not that it is considered good to have evil to balance out good cosmically.

Where is the reference for that in FR? Is it in the computer game dealing with Ao? One of the novels? A D&D sourcebook? FR is big and sprawling over decades and hundreds of sources so I would not be surprised at that view being put out somewhere, but I am just not familiar with it.

I am also not clear on your argument that therefore it wrecks moral agency. It might make it less clear on what will ultimately have good impacts versus negative ones, but that seems not a dealbreaker for moral agency.

Yeah it seemed to always be more of a Greyhawk thing than a Forgotten Realms thing. Forgotten Realms is where alignment seems to have begun it's long de-emphasis when you look at it.