D&D 5E 4E Cosmology

[dave2008]

So back to the premise of the thread: 4e's cosmology is awesome, way better than the 1e junk that perpetuated itself all the way through 3e, and which 5e tossed out because it had to reject everything good 4e ever did.

There. I said something nice about all the effort that went into a cosmology. Just not the one that has taken over this thread, despite its title.

Actually, 5e didn't throw out everything good 4e did and that is apparent, among other things in the revised cosmology.

• I do agree 4e cosmology is awesome.
• I don't agree it is better than OG Great Wheel (1e)
• I don't agree it is better than the revised Great Wheel (2e)
• I don't agree it is better than the World Tree (3e)
• I don't agree it is better than the integrated Great Wheel (5e)

4e can be awesome without the need to define other cosmologies as trash.

 

[Joshua Randall]

Then why are you in this 4e thread?

 

[dave2008]

Then why are you in this 4e thread?

You didn't quote me, but I think you are asking me this question so I will answer:

1. I love 4e, it is the game that brought me back to D&D
2. 4e has great focused lore
3. 4e has a great marriage of lore and cosmology
4. I wanted to make sure the OP understood it was OK to use 4e lore in 5e
5. I wanted to make sure the OP understood how much 4e cosmology is already a part of 5e
6. I wanted to make sure the OP understood you can use the Wheel and the Axis together.
7. It is not a 4e thread, it is tagged 5e

 

[DrJawaPhD]

Then why are you in this 4e thread?

The thread is tagged as 5e, and the OP directly asked "what are peoples' thoughts on the current cosmology in 5e?". It's a thread about 5e

 

[Aldarc]

Actually, 5e didn't throw out everything good 4e did and that is apparent, among other things in the revised cosmology.

Not everything, but a helluva lot more than it needed to for the sake of appeasing haters.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Ever read a book on Cosmology or Quantum Physics? It will tell you much the same.

I've read both. I disagree strongly with this "interpretation" of such things.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

And I consider that to be rank refusal to even answer the question. "Clap your hands if you believe" is not cosmos-building. It's literally admitting that nothing is real in the first place.

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.

I can imagine it. I just refuse to believe that any serious world-builder would resort to such a thing as part of the default setting of their world.

Because, as said above, it's literally admitting that nothing is real and everything is just figments of imagination to the characters themselves. "Congratulations, nothing is real!" isn't just bullcrap handwavium. It's a rejection of the very idea of truth in the first place. I cannot live in, nor work with, a universe where truth doesn't ever exist. "All of reality is just, like, subjective impressions!" barely even qualifies as sophistry.

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.

It doesn't actually say that it's one of many possibilities though. Like that's specifically what I was hoping for, a clear statement that this is just one theory.

Instead, it fundamentally says that it IS true, but you could decide to have a different truth if you want. That's not at all the same thing.

Actually, 5e didn't throw out everything good 4e did and that is apparent, among other things in the revised cosmology.

Oh, not absolutely everything. I don't think anyone's ever really said that. Just nearly everything.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I've read both. I disagree strongly with this "interpretation" of such things.

You can disagree all you like, it doesn't make it not true.

And I consider that to be rank refusal to even answer the question. "Clap your hands if you believe" is not cosmos-building. It's literally admitting that nothing is real in the first place.

Beliefs are not real? That's a fairly controversial theological position.

 

[TwoSix]

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'm not sure what you're talking about here. The Great Wheel and the World Axis are simply diagrams, a map of extradimensional concepts and their connections to each other. What claims are they making?

Like, let's say you're using the Great Wheel for your setting. You can also decide in your setting that instead of going to the planes when they die, all souls go to Hades/Grey Waste (identically to Eberron's Dolurrh) to be cosmically recycled (or whatever else happens when souls disappear). Removing petitioners and changing the cycle of souls doesn't mean you aren't using the Great Wheel still.

 

[dave2008]

I can imagine it. I just refuse to believe that any serious world-builder would resort to such a thing as part of the default setting of their world.

What I love about 4e lore and the World Axis is so tight and works together like real world mythology. That drew me into the PoL setting more than any previous setting. It is great from that aspect.

However, I spend an inordinate amount of time working on deities and similar exalted beings (love me some primordials). At some point I realized the tight PoL setting didn't make sense for my understanding of the divine (and similiar entities). My default assumption when it comes to deities, and by proxy the cosmos, is that mortals do not, and possibly cannot, understand them. Therefore, and myth, tale, or cosmology mortals develops is invariable wrong to some degree or another. So a tidy cosmology / lore didn't make sense to me from that perspective.

So, back when I played 4e, I started thinking of ways to modify the default 4e setting to make it less comprehensible. First and foremost was that any idea of the cosmology would be incorrect. Any description of the cosmos is limited by our ability to observe, describe, and understand its true nature. That was freeing. Now, it so happens the easy, and nostalgic, thing to do to add some crazy was to mash it with the great wheel, so I started working on that. What I came up with ended up being very similar to what became the 5e cosmos (mine had some differences), so I was surprised to see my work in the 2014 DMG!

Because, as said above, it's literally admitting that nothing is real and everything is just figments of imagination to the characters themselves. "Congratulations, nothing is real!" isn't just bullcrap handwavium. It's a rejection of the very idea of truth in the first place. I cannot live in, nor work with, a universe where truth doesn't ever exist. "All of reality is just, like, subjective impressions!" barely even qualifies as sophistry.

Well that is an extreme take, but again that seems to be the way you go. I don't know how I can discuss this with you if you always go to extremes. Saying we don't know is not a rejection of truth. That is the ultimate truth IME.

Regarding RPG products. Some like everything spelled out, some like it vague. That is OK and neither is a rejection of truth.

It doesn't actually say that it's one of many possibilities though. Like that's specifically what I was hoping for, a clear statement that this is just one theory.

Instead, it fundamentally says that it IS true, but you could decide to have a different truth if you want. That's not at all the same thing.

That is your take on what it says, but that is not fundamentally what it says. We are both colored by our viewpoints. I am aware of that, I am not sure you are.

Oh, not absolutely everything. I don't think anyone's ever really said that. Just nearly everything.

You are correct, and neither did I. What I quoted said: "everything good" was removed. That is what I responded to.

How about this, why don't we agree to disagree and move on. I don't know why, as we are both 4e people, we are even arguing about this.