D&D 5E 4E Cosmology

[Jacob Lewis]

I'm going to push back on this. While the 4e lore is some of my favorite D&D lore, and they tried to do what you said (generally), they did not always succeed.

That's fair. There were a lot of shortcomings, and expectations weren't always met. That could be said of any edition. But at least here, we were given a clear goal and transparency for reasons why certain things were done the way they were. I can appreciate that, even when they came up short.

 

[dave2008]

That's fair. There were a lot of shortcomings, and expectations weren't always met. That could be said of any edition. But at least here, we were given a clear goal and transparency for reasons why certain things were done the way they were. I can appreciate that, even when they came up short.

100% agree!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I am not talking about RL. I made that verify clear. RL doesn't have any bearing on a fantasy mythology. So I am not sure why you keep bringing it up.

When I say it is a verifiable fact that gods existed in Greek mythology, I am talking about what happens in that mythological space. The peoples and heroes of Greek Mythology could verify the existence of Athena and Ares. That is a core aspect of Greek mythology. I assume you are not arguing otherwise, but I am not sure because you continue to talk about RL peoples and that is not what this is about!

And I'm telling you that that's a false comparison, because that mythology IS the story being told.

Like...let me make this very specific.

You keep saying that in the world of D&D, this thing is JUST one story among many. You have said repeatedly that all of these stories-about-reality could be true or false. Such a situation can only arise when the different stories cannot be verifiably and repeatably distinguished from each other--in other words, the situation just like real life, where we can't really be sure which is true and which is false. In other words, you take the story as being just that--a story told that may or may not actually be true.

Then you start talking about how within ancient Greek or Norse or Vedic etc. mythology, these places are verifiable, existent places that are real and present. In other words, you take the story as-is, accepting that it is a real and correct depiction of reality within the story itself.

You can't have that both ways. You cannot simultaneously have that Valhalla is a verifiably real place that souls go to under testable, verifiable conditions, AND have it be the case that Valhalla is merely one unverifiable story among many that people tell to each other, which might be true, but nobody can ever truly know. In exactly the same way, you cannot simultaneously have it that the Great Wheel's locations are verifiably real places that souls go to under testable, verifiable conditions, AND have it be the case that the Great Wheel is merely one unverifiable story among many that people tell each other, which might be true, but nobody can ever truly know.

Either the Great Wheel is verifiable, and thus the characters live "in" the mythology as it were, or it is not verifiable, and the characters believe the mythology without testable, verifiable fact. There can be no either-or on this; either the verifiability is possible or it is not. If it is verifiable, then it is true, and because of its nature, hegemonic. If it is not verifiable, then it is no more true than any other, and it has to be impossible for folks to know that (for example) a concertedly Lawful Good soul 100% always goes to Celestia.

The Great Wheel is not simply a mythology. It is a cosmological hypothesis. It makes specific, clear, testable, verifiable claims about reality. Either those claims can be verified, and thus proven objectively true or objectively false, or they cannot be verified, and thus other competing, contradictory hypotheses can also be entertained. Likewise, the World Axis is not simply a mythology. It, too, is a cosmological hypothesis, and not only does it make specific, clear, testable, verifiable claims about reality, those claims contradict the claims of the Great Wheel.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm pointing out that if the real, actual Universe's structure is built on underlying symmetries, why is it offensive that a model of a fantasy multiverse might also be built that way?

Because it wasn't built that way. You have not merely put the cart before the horse, you have put the woodcutter before the...whatever the midwife-equivalent is for a veterinarian.

In our world, we stumbled upon existing symmetries, and from those things, learned more about what the world is--and, importantly, what it isn't. Indeed, symmetries are one of the most fundamental aspects of existence, as proved by the criminally forgotten mathematical physicist Emmy Noether. (And yes, this is a proof, an objectively true mathematical fact, not just a durably-observed pattern!) In layman's terms, Noether's Theorem proves that, for all systems that can be described by a certain extremely basic mathematical structure, if that system exhibits a symmetry, then it necessarily has a conservation law. As an example, the fact that physics worked the same five minutes ago as it does now requires that energy is conserved; the fact that physics works the same when rotating to the left vs to the right requires that angular momentum is conserved; etc.

The Great Wheel was not developed by uncovering symmetries. It projected them, enforced them, regardless of the consequences that might be entailed. That is a vastly different situation. There is no possibility of learning what the world isn't--or, indeed, even learning what it is!--from the symmetries of the Great Wheel. The Great Wheel's symmetries were declared to be true, and now we have to live with whatever contradictions or baggage that entails.

IRL symmetries are us, the denizens, discovering what is just observably true about our world. When we engage in fiction-writing to create a cosmology, we are not denizens of that cosmology observing it. We are the gods themselves--or, I guess, in Great Wheel terms, the over-over-gods, above even Ao--willing that cosmology into (fictional) being. It is not empirical in the least; it is creationist, as is all fiction from the author's and reader's perspective.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Let me preface this by saying: I'm not trying to get anyone to like the Great Wheel or any other cosmological model that they don't already like. I have no interest in trying to "prove" that any model is somehow superior to any other.

And I believe I understand your objections to the Great Wheel quoted above. However... aren't the same objections true of any other defined D&D cosmology? Aren't various aspects of the World Axis, Eberron's planes, FR's World Tree (in the temporary conception that it wasn't actually another view of the Great Wheel), etc. also verifiable by D&D characters? Couldn't a D&D character with access to sufficient relevant data (i.e. the kind of data reasonably available to higher-level D&D PCs given standard class and spell availability) objectively discern which cosmology was correct for the universe/multiverse they inhabit?

(Note that I'm setting aside the case where no one has sufficient capability to learn about their multiverse's cosmic structure. A setting where "there might be a cosmological structure, but no one has the ability to learn anything significant and real about it so they have to come up with their own ideas and rely on faith" is fine, but beside the point of this post.)

I guess I'm wondering, based on your post, if you're opposed to use of the Great Wheel specifically for the reasons you cited, or to defined cosmologies in general.

My opposition is not the fact that it is verifiable. I dislike the "unnecessary symmetry" of the Great Wheel when combined with the verifiability thereof. If it were unnecessarily symmetric, but equally a matter of faith as any other cosmology, I could comfortably ignore it with no problem. If it were not unnecessarily symmetric, but verifiable, then I could just roll with it. It is the two together that cause an issue.

 

[cbwjm]

Truth be told, I think in most games the cosmology is ignored. I'm playing in a couple of games and I have no idea how the planes are set up. For one I'm assuming the wheel, but that's only because it's a 5e game. Until they come up, the only plane that usually matters for the vast majority of games is the material plane where the typical adventure takes place.

 

[dave2008]

And I'm telling you that that's a false comparison, because that mythology IS the story being told.

Like...let me make this very specific.

You keep saying that in the world of D&D, this thing is JUST one story among many. You have said repeatedly that all of these stories-about-reality could be true or false. Such a situation can only arise when the different stories cannot be verifiably and repeatably distinguished from each other--in other words, the situation just like real life, where we can't really be sure which is true and which is false. In other words, you take the story as being just that--a story told that may or may not actually be true.

Then you start talking about how within ancient Greek or Norse or Vedic etc. mythology, these places are verifiable, existent places that are real and present. In other words, you take the story as-is, accepting that it is a real and correct depiction of reality within the story itself.

You can't have that both ways. You cannot simultaneously have that Valhalla is a verifiably real place that souls go to under testable, verifiable conditions, AND have it be the case that Valhalla is merely one unverifiable story among many that people tell to each other, which might be true, but nobody can ever truly know. In exactly the same way, you cannot simultaneously have it that the Great Wheel's locations are verifiably real places that souls go to under testable, verifiable conditions, AND have it be the case that the Great Wheel is merely one unverifiable story among many that people tell each other, which might be true, but nobody can ever truly know.

Either the Great Wheel is verifiable, and thus the characters live "in" the mythology as it were, or it is not verifiable, and the characters believe the mythology without testable, verifiable fact. There can be no either-or on this; either the verifiability is possible or it is not. If it is verifiable, then it is true, and because of its nature, hegemonic. If it is not verifiable, then it is no more true than any other, and it has to be impossible for folks to know that (for example) a concertedly Lawful Good soul 100% always goes to Celestia.

The Great Wheel is not simply a mythology. It is a cosmological hypothesis. It makes specific, clear, testable, verifiable claims about reality. Either those claims can be verified, and thus proven objectively true or objectively false, or they cannot be verified, and thus other competing, contradictory hypotheses can also be entertained. Likewise, the World Axis is not simply a mythology. It, too, is a cosmological hypothesis, and not only does it make specific, clear, testable, verifiable claims about reality, those claims contradict the claims of the Great Wheel.

I apologize I couldn't read all this wall of text. I am just going to agree to disagree. I can't really discuss these concepts with someone talking about absolutes in RL let alone a fantasy game.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I play 4e so I use the world axis cosmology of course, it is tidely organized and everything that exists in it has a clearly defined purpose (though I don't like that they included Sigil in it, it feels like it was tacked on just because it existed in previous editions so they had to include it, I remove it in my games).

The great wheel model is a giant mess that tries too hard to sound impressive but ends up being disappointing IMO.

Mod Edited for language.

Mod Note:

Please keep the language family friendly.

 

[Joshua Randall]

I'm pointing out that if the real, actual Universe's structure is built on underlying symmetries, why is it offensive that a model of a fantasy multiverse might also be built that way?

Because the real actual universe doesn’t have multiple planes of existence tied to a weirdly tidy moral/ethical framework.

 

[Chaltab]

Because the real actual universe doesn’t have multiple planes of existence tied to a weirdly tidy moral/ethical framework.

To be fair, maybe it does and we just can't verify that with current techniques.

The Great Wheel is not simply a mythology. It is a cosmological hypothesis. It makes specific, clear, testable, verifiable claims about reality. Either those claims can be verified, and thus proven objectively true or objectively false, or they cannot be verified, and thus other competing, contradictory hypotheses can also be entertained. Likewise, the World Axis is not simply a mythology. It, too, is a cosmological hypothesis, and not only does it make specific, clear, testable, verifiable claims about reality, those claims contradict the claims of the Great Wheel.

While it's true that this is how it's often presented in 2E, we're also speaking about a cosmology that requires impossible things to be true, like an infinitely tall spire that also has a very visible start and end point. I think there's something to be said that the cosmology of planes of pure thought need not be objective reality because of how perception plays into things. This does seem to be the current 'canon' as far as 5E is concerned, considering the official line is that the Great Wheel, World Axis, and World Tree models are competing visions of reality that scholars debate...

Even if the Great Wheel is the only one that actually gets any attention in the books, much to my chagrin.