for this thread about the new Map and @Henadic Theologian's comment about those four planes looking too samey then yes geography is the principle factor of concern. When someone posts a discussion about the nature of the Planes then differentiation can be made - though I still maintain those 3 in particular easily blend in to each other in a way that other planes dontIs geography the principle factor be concerned about? Feel free to pass on the "It's a map" comments.
I don't see it, not if you're looking at more than 5e has to offer on the subject.for this thread about the new Map and @Henadic Theologian's comment about those four planes looking too samey then yes geography is the principle factor of concern. When someone posts a discussion about the nature of the Planes then differentiation can be made - though I still maintain those 3 in particular easily blend in to each other in a way that other planes dont
But it is a problem when these three alignment planes (TG, GCG, and CG) blend easily.I still maintain those 3 in particular easily blend in to each other in a way that other planes dont
Who do we ask for help when we don't know which way to go?Having watched a lot of Dora the Explorer with my kiddos back in the day, this D&D Dad thinks the if I were to stat up Dora's sentient magic map for D&D it would be the most popular magic item since the bag of holding.
No joke. I put Swiper the Fox in one of my sessions as an Archfey..Who do we ask for help when we don't know which way to go?
You have to say "The Map!" say "The Map!"
"Louder! - I think you have to say it again!"
If some one (Henadic Theologian) comments that a map indicates the geography shown on that map is "too samey" then its seems to me that a perfectly legitimate response by @Tonguez is to point out that indeed the lore suggests their geography is very similar. What, in your mind, should have been the appropriate response?Is geography the principle factor be concerned about? Feel free to pass on the "It's a map" comments.
I must say I do like that simplified graph from Strategic Review, though I might switch up the names a bit.Some notes on the evolution of the Great Wheel:
While I don't own any of the OD&D rule books or supplements, a lot of development took place in early issues of The Strategic Review/The Dragon, which I do have access to. (I hunted down the Dragon Archive CD-ROM a few years back.) I'd appreciate if someone with access to Gods, Demi-gods, and Heroes could corroborate or debunk one of my theories based on this evolution--namely, that the Wheel is partially the result of having to shoehorn deific residences from that supplement into Gygax's earlier structure.
First, the earliest version, from The Strategic Review, Vol. 2, Issue 1, which is where Gygax introduced the differentiation of Good and Evil into the Lawful and Chaotic alignments, thus creating the 5-point system used in Holmes and the AD&D Monster Manual:
View attachment 368768
When researching this article, I found that G, DG, & H is advertised as new in The Dragon #2, thus suggesting that this article predates the supplement.
Second, from DRAGON #8, the first layout of the Great Wheel--but it is not the final form.
View attachment 368769
From the notes on the following page:
The Lower Planes are pretty well set, but the Upper Planes are in a bit of flux. Elysium retains its position at the Chaotic Good pole from Strategic Review 2, the Paradise from that article has become the Twin Paradises of pure Good, the Happy Hunting Grounds are in the L/NG position, and Olympus is in the N/CG slot. However, there's no mention of the 'shading' of alignments, and the examples of the main text use the 'primary' planes of the earlier article: "Typical higher planes are the Seven Heavens, the Twin Paradises, and Elysium. The plane of ultimate Law is Nirvana, while the plane of ultimate Chaos(entropy) is Limbo. Typical lower planes are the Nine Hells, Hades’ three glooms, and the 666 layers of the Abyss." Hence my hypothesis.
I can't find anything between DRAGON #8 and the AD&D PHB that addresses the development further; does anyone know any other pieces of the puzzle?
If some one (Henadic Theologian) comments that a map indicates the geography shown on that map is "too samey" then its seems to me that a perfectly legitimate response by @Tonguez is to point out that indeed the lore suggests their geography is very similar. What, in your mind, should have been the appropriate response?