D&D 5E 4E Cosmology

[Starfox]

Neal Stephenson’s Anathem presents a multiverse model based on causal links between realities that also inspires my fantasy cosmology, if less directly.

The universe we live in under this model are causally connected, meaning that events flow logically and consistently from one to another, forming structured "narrative". However, most universe-states lack this causal structure—they exist in isolation and contain absurd or highly improbable phenomena, like a block of ice inside a star. These universe-states remain disconnected because they lack a coherent chain of causality linking them to a past or future. They are mathematical possibilities but there is no way for a progression of events to lead there.

This idea is inspired by quantum mechanics and Tegmark’s Mathematical Universe Hypothesis, where every mathematically possible universe exists, but only those with strong causal coherence are meaningfully connected. In Anathem, the ability of conscious minds to observe and interact with these structured realities plays a role in their stability and persistence.

In a fantasy setting, this could mean that certain realms are deeply intertwined through history and myth, while others remain unknowable voids of chaos—places that exist but have no structured link to the worlds we experience. This aligns with Anathem's themes of perception shaping reality, where certain possibilities remain inaccessible due to their lack of causal integration. It also opens a mechanism for magic as the ability to connect to these unconnected universe state, tapping them for power, matter, and even summon creatures from such places.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Am I just weird? I'm 57 in March and this summer will mark my 50th year in D&D. I've hated the Great Wheel ever since I can remember. The shift in Cosmology and the addition of the Feywild and Shadowfell in 4e I thought was brilliant. I was disappointed when 5e went back to the Great Wheel model. I've kept 4th edition Cosmology In all my stuff and refuse to let it go. A couple of my players say I'm being a "Boomer" about it

What are people's thoughts on the current Cosmology In 5e? Do you make use of it or ignore it? Do you run successful adventures in it? Inquiring minds want to know!

I always vaguely despised the GW. I mean, it is this huge obtuse ramshackle thing. In a sense it is sort of cool, there's all this structure, etc. As some sort of fantasy universe building exercise it is fun, though also a bit silly. The problem comes when you actually want it to give you good play, at a structural level.

The GW is an eternal, essentially static universe. If it has any 'epic' themes, overall trajectory, fate, etc. none of this is within the purview of the PCs, or apparently even the gods they supposedly revere, who seem more like rats in the walls than anything else. It can only really be a kind of static backdrop or a species of terrain to navigate.

By contrast the WA cosmology of 4e is built exactly to serve as a tool of play. Built right into its structure is a cosmic struggle between order and chaos, one which resonates deeply with our most ancient stories and beliefs. The characters have a deep stake in this! Their town, their nation, their world are all related directly to the goings on in the very heavens. And they can be a part of that mighty epic, maybe a small, or a large part, as desired. Heck, WA can play the exact same role as GW, an uncaring and infinite cosm if you want.

It's funny, because the cosmology we developed in the playing of D&D in the world I mapped out in the mid 1970s looks so much like WA I would accuse WotC of ripping me off, but of course that's absurd, we just both naturally responded to the same needs in the same way. It'd be interesting to hear from the person who did the principal design of WA, I think we must share some pretty similar ideas!

 

[Aldarc]

I do understand the position that while WotC or "in-multiverse scholars" may say that the Great Wheel is only one model among many possibilities, if almost all product support is in favor of the singular model of the Great Wheel, is there really all that much weight given to multitude of possible models out there? Isn't just paying lip-service to other cosmological models?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Not sure that is true, and it definitely doesn't need to be true. However, even if it is true what is the issue with that? It is not only creatures or actions of a given alignment need to occur on a give plane. They are not uniform.

From the DMG:
"If the Inner Planes are the raw matter and energy that make up the multiverse, the Outer Planes provide the direction, thought, and purpose for its construction. These are realms of spirituality and thought, the spheres where Celestials, Fiends, and deities dwell."


I mean both Greek and Norse mythology have verifiable afterlives, but that didn't stop people from being people!

I think, perhaps, I have a more figurative and less literally idea of what the outer planes (and the wheel) than some. From my perspective the Great Wheel and World Axis are both describing the same cosmology, they are just tales told by different people.

There's a fundamental difference in terms of overall architecture and trajectory. The GW is eternal, it's depicted as the way the cosmos is organized. At the core of it is the Cosmic Balance. It has always existed, will always exist, and is the very definition of existence. This is very different from the WA, which has a beginning, a trajectory, and various possible, materially different, futures. Futures which the PCs are expected and invited by their very natures to care about and possibly participate in.

 

[the Jester]

Okay. Let me use a physics example. This applies to you too, @Neonchameleon

One person, Alice, says that light is 100% purely a wave and it never ever has any particle-like properties, it can move at varying speeds even in totally empty vacuum, and its energy determines its wavelength. Another person, Beth, says that light is 100% purely a particle and it never ever has any wave-like properties, it has a fixed speed in pure vacuum and moves more slowly through all other materials, and it has no wavelength because it's a particle.

To the best of our scientific knowledge, which is quite extensive on this topic: Alice and Beth are equally incorrect about their first claims (light has both types of properties, something that can only be observed at incredibly tiny scale.) Alice is completely wrong about the second claim and Beth is completely right. Finally, Beth is completely wrong about the third claim (as a result of being wrong about the first), while Alice is completely right.

On each topic, there is some fact of the matter. Either one is right, or both are wrong. It cannot be the case that Beth correctly perceives that fact X is true, and also at the same time, in the same manner, of the same thing that Alice correctly perceives that fact X is false. That is a contradiction about reality itself.

If Alice says that light is a wave, and Beth says that light is a particle, both are correct.

Neither is completely correct.

That's the kind of thing we're talking about when we discuss the planes- multiple perspectives can be correct, because no mortal fully understands the issues being discussed.

 

[dave2008]

There's a fundamental difference in terms of overall architecture and trajectory. The GW is eternal, it's depicted as the way the cosmos is organized. At the core of it is the Cosmic Balance. It has always existed, will always exist, and is the very definition of existence. This is very different from the WA, which has a beginning, a trajectory, and various possible, materially different, futures. Futures which the PCs are expected and invited by their very natures to care about and possibly participate in.

Actually that isn't quite true, at least not from my perspective. From my perspective the GW is presented as a "model" for the underlying structure of the cosmos. It is not in fact the overall architecture of it. It is a flawed model based on mortal understanding.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The cosmological “maps” are always abstractions. The way they’re spatially laid out is aesthetically pleasing, but basically irrelevant. The important part is, what are the planes, what are they like, and how do you reach them. The thing that most Workd Axis fans like about it is that every plane is highly focused on being a gameable play space. The Shadowfell and the Feywild are mirrors of the material plane, so while you may face different obstacles there than you would on the material plane, their spaces are essentially just as navigable as the material plane. Instead of the elemental planes (which are typically depicted as composed primarily of their respective elements, making them almost completely impossible to navigate, not to mention pretty devoid of interesting interactable features), you have the elemental chaos. As originally conceived, the elemental chaos is a constantly changing place where all of the elements interact, combine, annihilate, and recombine. Adventures within the elemental chaos take place in short-lived pockets of relative stability, where the elements are locally and temporarily in a stable enough balance as to be essentially as navigable as the material plane. Instead of the outer planes, you have the astral sea, which can be “sailed” kind of spelljammer style, to reach “islands” that, once again, can be navigated and explored. Since these astral domains are not beholden to exemplifying particular alignments, there is no limit to their number, or to what adventures might be had there; they can be dynamic places where interesting conflicts happen, instead of static places of perfect goodness, order, evil, or disorder.

Ah, yeah. This amusingly reminds me of our Agon campaign. In that game the PCs sail from island to island, solving conflicts and interacting with mythological and divine themes as heroes. I could definitely imagine this scenario translated to 4e epic play pretty much verbatim.

 

[Aldarc]

Actually that isn't quite true, at least not from my perspective. From my perspective the GW is presented as a "model" for the underlying structure of the cosmos. It is not in fact the overall architecture of it. It is a flawed model based on mortal understanding.

Despite what you may believe from your perspective, this can be something of a distinction without a difference. So your perspective doesn't really change much if anything.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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?

It's not a matter of offensiveness, that's a question of taste which is debatable but ultimately individual. It's instead a matter of utility and fitness for purpose. The grid style chart of Standard Model particles illustrates actual observed relationships, that's its function. The GW alignment grid is just art. It's supposed to serve a useful function as game lore. As we say, form follows function. The assertion is WA's lack of adherence to that grid aesthetic is better function.

 

[dave2008]

Despite what you may believe from your perspective, this can be something of a distinction without a difference. So your perspective doesn't really change much if anything.

For you maybe, but for me it is a distinction with a difference and does change how I view things. I know I can't change anyone on these forum's viewpoint and am not really trying.