D&D 5E 4E Cosmology

I guess I just don't understand why the light would strike your eyes in a way that lets you see, but wouldn't strike a camera in a way that lets the camera "see.
Most real world theologians would differentiate between seeing something in spirit, and seeing something physically.

But “seeing” is very much defined by the physical capabilities of the human body. Many real world organisms perceive very differently.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Most real world theologians would differentiate between seeing something in spirit, and seeing something physically.

But “seeing” is very much defined by the physical capabilities of the human body. Many real world organisms perceive very differently.
That just seems to be saying that these places don't physically exist, which...is in conflict with the ability to go and adventure there bodily.
 

That just seems to be saying that these places don't physically exist, which...is in conflict with the ability to go and adventure there bodily.
I would say that the outer planes are the realms spirit, thought and belief. They are not physical. Beings that go there impose their own reality. It behaves like the physical world because the planar travellers believe it behaves like that.
 
Last edited:

...why wouldn't you be able to?


I have never--ever--understood ANY presentation of the Great Wheel to be such. I
This really seems to be a you issue. If you can't imagine why it might not be possible to take a photo on an outer plan, I can see why you get yourself straightjacketed into a narrow concept of what the outer planes could be. It is an issue I struggle with too, so I get it. However, nothing in D&D is ever presented as absolute IMO. D&D is very clear that it is your game, you make it what you want.
Do you have a quotation handy from the 5.5e DMG on the cosmology, by the way? You probably won't be surprised to know that I don't own one and have negative interest in buying one, but it really, truly would be nice to see ANY Great Wheel-based book that actually deigns to allow even the slimmest chance of other cosmologies actually being valid.

I see @Chaltab already posted the text from the DMG that to me is very clear that the Great Wheel is one of many possibilities. I remember there being others and would look for them, but what is the point? You asked for the slimmest chance and yet, when the book clearly says you can use a different model, here are some examples. You say it is actually worse! This is a you issue, I can not help you.
 

I always think of those visual puzzles were an object viewed from an odd angle is difficult to identify or looks like something else. The multiverse has a great many more than the 3.5 dimensions we are able to perceive. Why shouldn’t it resemble a wheel when viewed from one direction, and a tree from another?
 

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...
I have been looking for this statement almost since the thread started, cause I agree with it and wanted to post it here like you did, but I can't seem to find it, although I know and agree that it exists.
 

The quote from the 5e DMG is bullcrap handwavium. "No one can look down at the planes and tell how they fit together, but here's a diagram of how they fit together based on all the evidence we have."

"Also here are some other things that might be true. Y'know, if you wanted. Except these all blow up the assumptions upon which the game is built, so, y'know, have fun with that."

This is D&D at its worst: afraid to make a definitive statement about the world it portrays and offloading the heavy lifting of world building onto the DM.
 

"The Great Wheel is true, and thus these places exist and work like XYZ", or "The Great Wheel is just one idea among many, nobody can know if any is 'true' or 'false', we don't truly know how things work". Pick one.
I dont think they have to be mutually exclusive.

We have had many adventures semi-based on the Great Wheel.

There was also a story arc for our "Viking" style warrior/druid PC where the party was climbing the World Tree.
 

The quote from the 5e DMG is bullcrap handwavium. "No one can look down at the planes and tell how they fit together, but here's a diagram of how they fit together based on all the evidence we have."

"Also here are some other things that might be true. Y'know, if you wanted. Except these all blow up the assumptions upon which the game is built, so, y'know, have fun with that."

This is D&D at its worst: afraid to make a definitive statement about the world it portrays and offloading the heavy lifting of world building onto the DM.
Ever read a book on Cosmology or Quantum Physics? It will tell you much the same.
 

The quote from the 5e DMG is bullcrap handwavium. "No one can look down at the planes and tell how they fit together, but here's a diagram of how they fit together based on all the evidence we have."

"Also here are some other things that might be true. Y'know, if you wanted. Except these all blow up the assumptions upon which the game is built, so, y'know, have fun with that."

This is D&D at its worst: afraid to make a definitive statement about the world it portrays and offloading the heavy lifting of world building onto the DM.
For you maybe, but for others not so. Besides, bullcrap handwavium is the best thing about TTRPGs - more of that please! I mean that explains about 90% of the fantasy TTRPG genre:
  • Magic = bullcrap handwavium
  • Classes = bullcrap handwavium
  • monsters = bullcrap handwavium
  • multiverse = bullcrap handwavium
  • Hit Points = bullcrap handwavium
  • Armor = bullcrap handwavium
  • and so on...
As an aside, I have no problem running 5e with any cosmology. Cosmology is so irrelevant to the game that you can have any or none and it is just fine. As a DM I care about cosmology, but I can't remember a player ever being interested in it.

EDIT: OH -
 

Remove ads

Top