D&D 5E D&D Lore Changes: Multiversal Focus & Fey Goblins of Prehistory

WotC's Jeremy Crawford revealed a couple of the lore changes in Monsters of the Multiverse.
  • The big shift is toward the multiverse as the game's main perspective rather than a specific setting. The game is shifting towards a multiversal focus, with a variety of worlds and settings.
  • Universe-spanning mythical story beats, such as deep lore on goblinoids going back to 1st Edition, and the gods they had before Maglubiyet. Prior to Magulbiyet unifying them, goblinoids were folk of the feywild in keeping with 'real-world' folklore.
  • Changelings aren't just Eberron, but they've been everywhere -- you just don't necessarily know it. Their origin is also in the realm of the fey.

 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Chaosmancer

Legend
This is literally what I was talking about.


That's... not what anyone here is trying to claim. For a Multiverse, WotC will be producing one Forgotten Realms. All material they publish will be for that one version of the Realms. But! they aren't going to demand that everyone play in it exactly the way they write it, and they aren't going to claim that any group's version is "fake." They never have and never will, and nobody has claimed that they have or will. WotC is just going to do what they've always done: have one version that they decide is canon and not care if players change it as they want to. If they write an adventure where the goal is to stop X from happening, then they're going to produce later books assuming that X was stopped. At most, they'll have a sidebar that says "if X happened in your game, then this other thing may happen." And that's an if, depending greatly the nature of X.

But again: unless WotC decides to totally follow Keith Baker's lead, they're not going to produce a base Realms, have the starting year always be 1495, and have the PCs be the main characters with no NPC shenanigans going on in the background,.

So we both agree that WoTC is going to continue doing exactly what they have always done. So, can you explain to me why my model which requires no change in what WoTC has done, and only an acknowledgement that table games are equally canon to the books is a bad business decision like was claimed?

Because, that's all my model does. Acknowledges that there are different, sealed, realities that can have different origins and rules but are still part of "the multiverse". And I was told this was a bad decision based on DnD tradition (which I am not addressing) and business, because WoTC doesn't want a Multiverse, they want a shared Universe where everything affects each other because that makes more money... despite them making good money having never done that.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Which refers to universe or Milky Way size or bigger.
EDIT: Not the least of which the dictionary has not yet caught up various science fiction terms that are used fairly freely nowadays.

The Milky Way is a Galaxy, not a Universe.

Universe, coming from the latin universus means "combined into one, whole". It is everything that is observable. If everything that was observable was found out to be the size of a marble, then out current understanding of the universe would be the size of a marble. At one point the universe WAS the size of a marble, due to the Big Bang, and so clearly size has nothing to do with it.

Then guess what, it isn't a universe.
Not very difficult was it now?

Then what is it?

As entropy and the heat death occur, and the stars fade and the galaxies rip apart and the planets turn to dust, what do you call the space they all inhabited that was once and still is all of observable reality? What is the name you give it, since you claim it can no longer be the universe?

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

True, they have already said that, and have been for virtually the entire history of the game. What then exactly do you want them to do differently? I've gnashed my share of teeth over the core lore changes they've made recently, but I can't deny their right to do it, and they're not going to provide more than one option or even say that what they say happened might not have happened. They're going to leave that up to individual groups, like they always have done. To do otherwise is to dilute the brand, which is what they REALLY care about.

My point was to address the gnashing of teeth.

For example, earlier in this thread someone was complaining that Goblins can't all come from the Feywild, because in Dragonlance they were created by the Grey Gem and therefore giving Goblins a universal origin is wrong.

But that seems to me like a modeling problem. Just because Goblins come from the Feywild for even the majority of realities doesn't mean that they came from the Feywild for all realities. It could be true that they were created by the Grey Gem and that they came from the Feywild, and that they were born from Human/orc relations and that they are the First Children of Gaia. All you have to do is accept that the story being told is only one reality, and that there is another reality where a different truth is true.

All I'm trying to do is give people a different way to picture the Multiverse that allows for multiple versions of the same setting to concurrently be true, because that is EXACTLY how a multiverse should work. Which means it is highly likely that is how the people at WoTC are considering it. Fizban's has quite a few examples of this, including the dragon sight and the echoes. And I think this really ameloriates people's need to gnash teeth, because WoTC is just producing one version of events, not THE version of events.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I think there is a lack of understanding of what the First World is/how it works.

Firstly, the D&D multiverse, which goes back the the 1st edition AD&D DMG. There are and infinite number of different parallel prime material planes (in addition to the inner and outer planes). There are lots Faeruns, lots of Oerths, etc. Some of them differ only slightly, some of them differ in significant ways.

Now the First World. This is the new thing, and it was created to explain why the lore for many creatures is similar (note: not identical) across many (note: not all) different PMPs. The idea is, the First World forms a sort of multiversal collective unconsciousness. Events in different planes tend to (but don't have to) follow certain patterns established by the First World. The people of those planes did not physically originate in the First World, just the idea of them did.

So, lets take Maglubiyet* as a case study. In some planes Maglubiyet is a god who corrupted the goblins. In other planes he might be a devil or demon or even a mortal leader. In other planes, further removed from the First World, there may have never been a Maglubiyet (or similar corrupting force), and goblins remain as mischievous fairy tricksters. Or maybe there are no goblins, and maybe Maglubiyet corrupted something else. All possibilities exist.



*Who originally appeared in 1st Edition Deities and Demigods, and was never a Forgotten Realms specific deity.
 

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
So we both agree that WoTC is going to continue doing exactly what they have always done. So, can you explain to me why my model which requires no change in what WoTC has done, and only an acknowledgement that table games are equally canon to the books is a bad business decision like was claimed?

Because, that's all my model does. Acknowledges that there are different, sealed, realities that can have different origins and rules but are still part of "the multiverse". And I was told this was a bad decision based on DnD tradition (which I am not addressing) and business, because WoTC doesn't want a Multiverse, they want a shared Universe where everything affects each other because that makes more money... despite them making good money having never done that.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////



The Milky Way is a Galaxy, not a Universe.

Universe, coming from the latin universus means "combined into one, whole". It is everything that is observable. If everything that was observable was found out to be the size of a marble, then out current understanding of the universe would be the size of a marble. At one point the universe WAS the size of a marble, due to the Big Bang, and so clearly size has nothing to do with it.



Then what is it?

As entropy and the heat death occur, and the stars fade and the galaxies rip apart and the planets turn to dust, what do you call the space they all inhabited that was once and still is all of observable reality? What is the name you give it, since you claim it can no longer be the universe?

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////



My point was to address the gnashing of teeth.

For example, earlier in this thread someone was complaining that Goblins can't all come from the Feywild, because in Dragonlance they were created by the Grey Gem and therefore giving Goblins a universal origin is wrong.

But that seems to me like a modeling problem. Just because Goblins come from the Feywild for even the majority of realities doesn't mean that they came from the Feywild for all realities. It could be true that they were created by the Grey Gem and that they came from the Feywild, and that they were born from Human/orc relations and that they are the First Children of Gaia. All you have to do is accept that the story being told is only one reality, and that there is another reality where a different truth is true.

All I'm trying to do is give people a different way to picture the Multiverse that allows for multiple versions of the same setting to concurrently be true, because that is EXACTLY how a multiverse should work. Which means it is highly likely that is how the people at WoTC are considering it. Fizban's has quite a few examples of this, including the dragon sight and the echoes. And I think this really ameloriates people's need to gnash teeth, because WoTC is just producing one version of events, not THE version of events.
Ok, if you are just trying to make people feel better, I get you. It is a fabrication though, because WotC IS saying that all goblins have the same origin; that's the point of their terrible First World idea, that the entirely of D&D springs from one place they just made up and published a couple months ago. When needed, I have no doubt that they will squeeze this into any and all future setting books they publish.

Now of course, we're all perfectly free to ignore it. It'll still be there though, and we'll keep seeing references to it. You unfortunately can't st I p that gnashing of teeth, but I appreciate the thought.
 

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
I think there is a lack of understanding of what the First World is/how it works.

Firstly, the D&D multiverse, which goes back the the 1st edition AD&D DMG. There are and infinite number of different parallel prime material planes (in addition to the inner and outer planes). There are lots Faeruns, lots of Oerths, etc. Some of them differ only slightly, some of them differ in significant ways.

Now the First World. This is the new thing, and it was created to explain why the lore for many creatures is similar (note: not identical) across many (note: not all) different PMPs. The idea is, the First World forms a sort of multiversal collective unconsciousness. Events in different planes tend to (but don't have to) follow certain patterns established by the First World. The people of those planes did not physically originate in the First World, just the idea of them did.

So, lets take Maglubiyet* as a case study. In some planes Maglubiyet is a god who corrupted the goblins. In other planes he might be a devil or demon or even a mortal leader. In other planes, further removed from the First World, there may have never been a Maglubiyet (or similar corrupting force), and goblins remain as mischievous fairy tricksters. Or maybe there are no goblins, and maybe Maglubiyet corrupted something else. All possibilities exist.



*Who originally appeared in 1st Edition Deities and Demigods, and was never a Forgotten Realms specific deity.
Do they say that in Fizban's or is that your interpretation? I don't remember reading that.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Do they say that in Fizban's or is that your interpretation? I don't remember reading that.
They’re extrapolating a bit, but mostly they’re just compiling the available information.

The First World doesn’t force a common origin to everything, though. They’re absolutely right that even what common origin there is, isn’t every world or thing within those worlds. Eberron is specifically called out as not being broken off from the wreckage of the first world, for instance.
 

Do they say that in Fizban's or is that your interpretation? I don't remember reading that.
It's a bit of both. There is little more than a poem in Fizban's, but here are a couple key phrases in the paragraph: " Various creation myths told on different worlds echo some of the themes and notions of this poem", "myriad worlds of the Material Plane". It helps to have read Moorcock and other works on many worlds theory.

But WotC is definitely not saying "all goblins have the same origin", they are saying "goblins in many worlds have similar origins".
 


Rogerd1

Adventurer
😂👍

Back up your claim, bud. I’ve backed up mine. The dictionary isn’t “behind”, it’s descriptive, and describes all known usages of a term. That particular dictionary is updated every year, so any “missing” definition that is specific to size would be a very minor, niche, quite new, definition.

LOL trying to talk down to me while flailing about how nitpicking terminology totally isn’t pedantic is hilarious.

Provide support for you claims, or stop wasting my time.

Yes, they are.

Which could also be accurately described as a series of concurrent universes.
1 & 3. I did back up my claim.
What do you think concurrent universes are? What is your definition?
Buddy, you…are embarrassing yourself very badly, here.
Flame bait.

The dictionary isn’t “behind”, it’s descriptive, and describes all known usages of a term. That particular dictionary is updated every year, so any “missing” definition that is specific to size would be a very minor, niche, quite new, definition.
Wrong.
Show me where it refers to pocket universe, bottle universe. False vacuum collapse. Calabi-Yaui space. Or even different multiverse models.
So you're clearly wrong about updating these terms as Max Tegmark's multi-level multiverse has been around for a while.
Oh, look relying on a wikia which are written by the fans, for the fans.
Not only is it terrible, and the terminology wrong. Now a good wikia is the Doctor Who which is superlative.
Except you're wrong.
Except the evidence shows that I am not.

Let's make things simple for you - you lot can keep patting each other on the back how right you are all you like, it does not change anything.

The Milky Way is a Galaxy, not a Universe.

Universe, coming from the latin universus means "combined into one, whole". It is everything that is observable. If everything that was observable was found out to be the size of a marble, then out current understanding of the universe would be the size of a marble. At one point the universe WAS the size of a marble, due to the Big Bang, and so clearly size has nothing to do with it.

Then what is it?

As entropy and the heat death occur, and the stars fade and the galaxies rip apart and the planets turn to dust, what do you call the space they all inhabited that was once and still is all of observable reality? What is the name you give it, since you claim it can no longer be the universe?
1. Correct, a galaxy would not be a universe.
2. Right and?
3. I have already stated this.
4. You are postulating one possible end, but no one knows what is going to happen as there are so many things we do not understand about the universe.
 
Last edited:


doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
1 & 3. I did back up my claim.
What do you think concurrent universes are? What is your definition?

Flame bait.


Wrong.
Show me where it refers to pocket universe, bottle universe. False vacuum collapse. Calabi-Yaui space. Or even different multiverse models.
So you're clearly wrong about updating these terms as Max Tegmark's multi-level multiverse has been around for a while.

Oh, look relying on a wikia which are written by the fans, for the fans.
Not only is it terrible, and the terminology wrong. Now a good wikia is the Doctor Who which is superlative.

Except the evidence shows that I am not.

Let's make things simple for you - you lot can keep patting each other on the back how right you are all you like, it does not change anything.


1. Correct, a galaxy would not be a universe.
2. Right and?
3. I have already stated this.
4. You are postulating one possible end, but no one knows what is going to happen as there are so many things we do not understand about the universe.
Yikes.

At this point, continuing this exchange is just me being mean.

Go touch grass.

Absolutely no one is impressed or convinced by your misplaced snark and wildly unearned sense of superiority.
 


Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
It's a bit of both. There is little more than a poem in Fizban's, but here are a couple key phrases in the paragraph: " Various creation myths told on different worlds echo some of the themes and notions of this poem", "myriad worlds of the Material Plane". It helps to have read Moorcock and other works on many worlds theory.

But WotC is definitely not saying "all goblins have the same origin", they are saying "goblins in many worlds have similar origins".
Fair enough. I withdraw my complaint. Now it's just an idea I don't like.
 

Rogerd1

Adventurer
Yikes.

At this point, continuing this exchange is just me being mean.

Go touch grass.

Absolutely no one is impressed or convinced by your misplaced snark and wildly unearned sense of superiority.
You were proven wrong regarding the dictionary and the use of a wikia that can be altered by anyone, to say anything.
So the only snark here, is yours.
So all of your post is pure flame bait, nothing more.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
You were proven wrong regarding the dictionary and the use of a wikia that can be altered by anyone, to say anything.
So the only snark here, is yours.
So all of your post is pure flame bait, nothing more.
You literally have not proven anything, at any point in this thread, except that you don’t understand what a comparison is, or how definitions of words work.

All you’ve done is attack and belittle people while being embarrassingly wrong about very nearly every statement you’ve made.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
You were proven wrong regarding the dictionary and the use of a wikia that can be altered by anyone, to say anything.
So the only snark here, is yours.
So all of your post is pure flame bait, nothing more.
Wait wait, also, do you think that whether a statement is snark depends on whether the statement is correct or false!? 😂
 

Rogerd1

Adventurer
You literally have not proven anything, at any point in this thread, except that you don’t understand what a comparison is, or how definitions of words work.

All you’ve done is attack and belittle people while being embarrassingly wrong about very nearly every statement you’ve made.
Wait wait, also, do you think that whether a statement is snark depends on whether the statement is correct or false!? 😂
Wrong.
A definition of universe was posted here

So again your posts are nothing more than flame bait.
 

Wrong.
A definition of universe was posted here

So again your posts are nothing more than flame bait.
In the link you include in that post, please scroll down to the section entitled "multiverse hypothesis." It reads in part
It is possible to conceive of disconnected spacetimes, each existing but unable to interact with one another.[141][144] An easily visualized metaphor of this concept is a group of separate soap bubbles, in which observers living on one soap bubble cannot interact with those on other soap bubbles, even in principle.[145] According to one common terminology, each "soap bubble" of spacetime is denoted as a universe, whereas our particular spacetime is denoted as the universe,[21] just as we call our moon the Moon. The entire collection of these separate spacetimes is denoted as the multiverse.[21] With this terminology, different universes are not causally connected to each other.[21] In principle, the other unconnected universes may have different dimensionalities and topologies of spacetime, different forms of matter and energy, and different physical laws and physical constants, although such possibilities are purely speculative.[21]

Of course, the dnd understanding of the multiverse is not purely related to physics, but perhaps more to mythical cosmology and mysticism



 

Rogerd1

Adventurer
In the link you include in that post, please scroll down to the section entitled "multiverse hypothesis." It reads in part


Of course, the dnd understanding of the multiverse is not purely related to physics, but perhaps more to mythical cosmology and mysticism
You will actually find this multiverse example in the DnD core or DMG actually, and also in DC comics.

The best way to think of it are bubbles in the bath, or when you wash dishes, and they clump together.

Then there is the multi-level multiverse by Tegmark, and Bruan Greene's nine different multiverse types.

Like I said from a science fiction standpoint they could be pocket universe, but they tend to connected to something, usually the main universe like you get in Doctor Who EU.

That said, because they are all separated, and not connected to one another, they are more dimensions in their own right. But fantasy tends to refer to them as planes.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Wait wait, also, do you think that whether a statement is snark depends on whether the statement is correct or false!? 😂


I'm not sure who ever suggested to you that laughing at folks was a constructive way to resolve a conflict, but I have to disabuse you of this notion. This, and other posts, have all been rather sub-standard in that department.

And if you're no longer trying to be constructive, that's a problem.

So, please choose - constructive or not - and proceed accordingly. Thanks.
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
Ok, if you are just trying to make people feel better, I get you. It is a fabrication though, because WotC IS saying that all goblins have the same origin; that's the point of their terrible First World idea, that the entirely of D&D springs from one place they just made up and published a couple months ago. When needed, I have no doubt that they will squeeze this into any and all future setting books they publish.

Now of course, we're all perfectly free to ignore it. It'll still be there though, and we'll keep seeing references to it. You unfortunately can't st I p that gnashing of teeth, but I appreciate the thought.

Or it works more like what Paul Farquhar says. After all, there are multiple settings where the Feywild isn't a thing. It doesn't exist in Eberron, or Dragonlance, or Theros or Ravnica. So, either WoTC is doing something utterly terrible... or they are just presenting a single facet of the whole.

I guess I just don't understand why, when presented with two different equally plausible explanations, you and others insist on taking the version that is the least charitable and the most upsetting.

EDIT:


Fair enough. I withdraw my complaint. Now it's just an idea I don't like.

Ah, never mind, it seems we have reached an understanding.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

1. Correct, a galaxy would not be a universe.
2. Right and?

And yet you refer to a universe as "milky way size" Yet the Milky way is only a mere 201,000 light years compared to the 93,000,000,000 light years of the actual observable universe (which of course, the actual universe could be larger than the observed universe)

So, you have already put forth a model that allows to a universe to be 462,686.56 times smaller than the actual universe. So, if your model allows for something to be over 450 THOUSAND times smaller, why can't it be another 201 thousand times smaller?

What makes 200,000 the magic number? What are you basing your claims on? Other than vague "I know science fiction better than you" claims?

3. I have already stated this.
4. You are postulating one possible end, but no one knows what is going to happen as there are so many things we do not understand about the universe.

You have already stated what to call a universe without stars, planets and galaxies? I haven't seen you make that statement, so would you mind repeating it?

Also point #4 is meaningless noise. I don't care that we don't know that the Heat Death model is accurate, it is an accepted model and the question is based on that model. Refusing to answer the question because other models exist is just avoiding the question.
 

Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition Starter Box

Visit Our Sponsor

Latest threads

Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition Starter Box

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top