D&D (2024) New Celestials | 2024 Monster Manual | D&D

[Parmandur]

celestials as a term leans too far towards "good" for my version of "neutral" nature spirits, but I hear yah.

Your thoughts make me want to create new campaign, but I'm too old for that.

I think the point is to lean into how the Alignments are typical...and a Celestial who comes into conflict with a party might be a bit of a roguenelement in the Upper Planes.

 

[SkidAce]

Giant Eagle who uses People logic and follows Nature's Law = Celestial

Giant Eagle who uses Birb logic and follows Bird Law = Fey

Valid, but my nature spirits are inherent to the world and are not fey associated.

Cool ideas though.

 

[Minigiant]

Valid, but my nature spirits are inherent to the world and are not fey associated.

Cool ideas though.

I think 2024 fey don't have to be be from the feywild.

Especially in setting where Fey are natural and not from a separate plane or realm.

 

[dave2008]

celestials as a term leans too far towards "good" for my version of "neutral" nature spirits, but I hear yah.

Your thoughts make me want to create new campaign, but I'm too old for that.

I hear you. In the video they made a case for moving away from the idea that celestial = good. The even noted the Empyrean is neutral.

 

[occam]

Giant intelligent animals being celestials is new, and far from the only new thing in regards to lore. All of this is WotC deciding on their own. It has nothing to do with us, new or veteran, and it just is how it is.

Well, they're correcting an error. Giant eagles and the like were Magical Beasts in 3e; when 5e didn't include that monster type, intelligent and communicative animals should've been classified as something other than Beasts.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

Since Kieth's comments were mentioned, I thought qouting them here makes sense.

A few thoughts on all of this...

Eberron has always been tied to the multiverse. Page 92 of the original Eberron Campaign Setting says "Eberron spins within its own Material Plane, enfolded by three coexistent transitive planes: the Astral Plane, the Ethereal Plane, and the Plane of Shadow, just as in the core D&D cosmology (see Chapter 5 of the Dungeon Master’s Guide)." WotC stated long ago that it was officially possible for people to travel to Eberron from other settings by using those transitive planes. You may not have noticed, because it's the default assumption of the setting that no one ever does... just as page 232 of Rising From The Last War establishes that the default assumption of the book is that "contact between the worlds and planes beyond its cosmology is impossible."

The idea is there that it COULD be possible, but it has absolutely ALWAYS been there: from the very beginning, Eberron had its own unique cosmology, but that entire cosmology was still part of the broader system of astral/ethereal/shadow. This simply calls that out more clearly, in part because it allows us to clearly say "This book is based on the assumption that contact with other settings is impossible." Again, the NEW aspect of this is to clarify that if you want it to be an aspect of your campaign, you're changing the default assumptions.

Likewise, the fact that this means that Cyric and Bane exist somewhere in the universe is utterly meaningless in Eberron. This doesn't mean that "Gods definitively exist", because as others have pointed out, the people of Eberron wouldn't identify the "gods" of FR as gods. The Vassals of the Sovereign Host believe that their deities are omniscient and omnipresent. The idea of one of them taking a physical form is pointlessly limiting; that's not a GOD, it's a powerful angel or an overlord. They would view the worship of such beings as a Cult of the Dragon Below; note that the Cults do worship coherent entities such as the overlords and daelkyr. And that's the point: the overlords have always been presented as beings that have the POWER of gods in other settings, but the answer of the masses wasn't to worship them, it was to bind them in spiritual chains. So yes, Rising acknowledges that the multiverse exists (as Eberron always has) and that therefore the gods of other settings exists; this doesn't change the critical facts:

• Those beings have no ability to influence Eberron unless you, the DM, choose to change that.
• As the default assumption is that they cannot and have never influenced the setting, they are absolutely and entirely unknown to the people of the setting.
• Those beings don't qualify as "gods" by the definitions used in Eberron, and the gods worshipped on Eberron do not follow their model. Eberron has always had beings that use the same rules as gods of other settings: those beings are the overlords, and rather than being worshipped, they were imprisoned.

Rising presents a clearer explanation of the principle presented on page 92 of the first Eberron book: Eberron COULD be connected to other settings if you want it to be, but the default assumption is that it's not. Beyond this, one of the core principles of Eberron is that canon is merely a starting point and that YOU decide what's true in your campaign. Ultimately, each DM decides if the Sovereigns are real, and each DM decides if Eberron is connected to the multiverse.

A few other minor points while I'm here...

• The default assumption of Eberron is that spells such as commune don't reach the Sovereigns directly, but rather connect you to a celestial that also believes in the Sovereigns. By default - and again, it's up to the DM to decide the truth - there's no absolute proof for or against the existence of the Sovereigns.
• The statement on Page 228 that "Some sages believe the moons are connected to the planes or are physical extensions of the planes" is 100% talking about the planes of Eberron. The sages have no concept whatsoever that there might be other planes, because the default assumption of the book is that contact with worlds and planes beyond its cosmology is impossible. The idea that the moons are tied to the planes of Eberron isn't new. There are (or were) thirteen moons and thirteen planes, and the giants specifically destroyed the thirteenth moon to sever ties with Dal Quor.

The only thing that I feel IS overstated is the statement that the Progenitors DID create the creatures of Eberron being presented as absolute fact. The rest of the book presents the idea that the Progenitors may have been metaphorical, and that is still the default assumption. The primary point of the section was to concretely say that despite default 5E stating "All orcs are tied to Gruumsh" and "All Elves are children of Corellon" that this does NOT apply to Eberron—that the elves and orcs of Eberron are part of EBERRON and have no ties to the multiverse beyond it. As others have called out, Rising does point out that the drow of Eberron were created by the GIANTS, not by Lolth OR the Progenitors. As with the Sovereigns, it's up to the DM to decide if the Progenitors truly existed, and if so, what they actually were. What's important is—just as has always been the case—Eberron is a part of the multiverse, but it is an isolated part that has its own cosmology and that has no contact with the rest of the Multiverse unless you, the DM, choose to change that.

(Oh, and since it's been a while since I've been here— Hi! I'm Keith Baker, creator of Eberron.)

I know about a theoretical connect via the Plane of Shadows, did not know about the connections with the other transitive planes. Although there is no Plane of Shadows Transitive Plane outside Eberron anymore so it's like what is transitioning between now. It's like an Orphan Plane.

Also Eberron being impossible to reach or level is out the Window with Vecna: Eve of Ruin. Even E: RftLW had Vi in Sigil as a Planeswalker.

And what is blocking one from going through the transitive planes to reach Eberron, the Crystal Sphere? Does it exist in all planes at once?

Anyways back to Celestials, it does leave the Question of out Titans/ especially Empyreans if both types fit into the setting as well if they are made in a different way to the rest of the Multiverse?

 

[SkidAce]

I hear you. In the video they made a case for moving away from the idea that celestial = good. The even noted the Empyrean is neutral.

They sure are having a fun time changing words lately;

 

[Veltharis ap Rylix]

celestials as a term leans too far towards "good" for my version of "neutral" nature spirits, but I hear yah.

Your thoughts make me want to create new campaign, but I'm too old for that.

The term "celestial" has traditionally meant good aligned, but there have been a number of neutral/unaligned celestials of late - particularly in 5e Planescape (the rilmani) and Spelljammer (several of the Astral Sea natives).

And they did say that not all of the celestials in the new MM will be good aligned, so I think expanding the definition to include things like nature spirits is pretty reasonable.

 

[Veltharis ap Rylix]

I hear you. In the video they made a case for moving away from the idea that celestial = good. The even noted the Empyrean is neutral.

To be fair, that's at least in part because Empyreans can apparently also be fiendish in nature, instead of just celestial.

So I think it's the "it could be anything" kind of neutral, rather than the "dedicated to balance in all things" kind.

 

[SkidAce]

The term "celestial" has traditionally meant good aligned, but there have been a number of neutral/unaligned celestials of late - particularly in 5e Planescape (the rilmani) and Spelljammer (several of the Astral Sea natives).

And they did say that not all of the celestials in the new MM will be good aligned, so I think expanding the definition to include things like nature spirits is pretty reasonable.

I understand what they are doing, and it is reasonable in a way.

But why make a square peg fit into a round hole? Giant beasts now celestials? What do the druids have to say about this?

Really, I'm not hung up on it, I've been through every change since the Red Box and 1st Ed. I can adapt.


Makes me scratch my head sometimes though...