D&D General DnD cosmology - Which Edition do you prefer?

Of all the published cosmologies, Eberron is my favorite. Because the outer planes are not simply representations of a particular alignment they are far more interesting thematically. For example, Dal Quor is a plane of dreams, Shavarath is a plane of war, etc. The existence of manifest zones, and the movement of planes making them coterminus during certain times lets the planes have influence in the material world in a way they don't with other systems.

In general though I don't think a particular cosmology is important, or even meant to be taken literally. I imagine that things like "the great wheel" or "the world tree" are just models philosophers and theologians have come up with to make sense of something mortals can't truly comprehend. Different sages in the same campaign setting should have different views about what the planes truly look like. The planes should be mysterious and not fully knowable, rather than something that is treated as a blueprint.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I treat the shallow ethereal as the DMG "otherworld". Spirits of any kind can be found there whether elemental influences, fey, or shadow.

Meanwhile the "deep ethereal" are like the thematically immersive domains of these spirits.

Technically, angels are intellects (thought constructs), not spirits (force constructs). However, when the angels roam the material plane, they do so ethereally forming a virtual body made out of force. In this way celestials and fiends can also be found within the other world of the shallow ethereal.
Cool. Sounds like you have it sorted for your tastes. But it sounds like a lot to keep track of. I kinda hate the Great Wheel and the idea of ethereal, astral, fire, and lawful good as separate planes. I’ll take the World Axis any day. I use it in 5E as the default and have recently moved to using the Otherworld as a means of making the planes even more grounded in the daily world of the PCs. Seems pointless to have things there simply as ideas rather than something immediately useful.
 


Cool. Sounds like you have it sorted for your tastes. But it sounds like a lot to keep track of. I kinda hate the Great Wheel and the idea of ethereal, astral, fire, and lawful good as separate planes. I’ll take the World Axis any day. I use it in 5E as the default and have recently moved to using the Otherworld as a means of making the planes even more grounded in the daily world of the PCs. Seems pointless to have things there simply as ideas rather than something immediately useful.
Heh, the 5e cosmology does require sorting thru to make sense of how the planes relate to each other. Ultimately, the main planes are astral (thought), ethereal (force, namely physical forces, often subtle), and material (matter).

I agree, an "otherworld", namely an all-encompassing spiritworld, is more useful for adventuring, and often a better match for folkbeliefs. That is why I use the shallow ethereal this way.

At the same time, sometimes its helpful to give a setting concept its own enclave. Then the rest of the 5e cosmology is like a filing system to put things. For example, for my 5e near-future setting, the virtual realities of cyberspace are the same thing as domains in the astral plane.
 
Last edited:


Cosmology is not something I think too much about and tend to skip all but the most general and brief overview when reading setting products. I'll figure out the cosmology when there is a chance it will directly effect play.
Basically, yeah. It's great that beholders exist, in the abstract, but until they directly impact the game we're actually playing, that they exist is academic. Same with planes and cosmology. I guess the D&D philosophers have to have something to argue about, but beyond that, either it's actively, directly being used in the game right now or it's indirectly affecting the game from "off screen," or it doesn't matter.
Heh, the 5e cosmology does require sorting thru to make sense of how the planes relate to each other.
Only if you care enough to bother. Personally, I don't.
I agree, an "otherworld", namely an all-encompassing spiritworld, is more useful for adventuring, and often a better match for folkbeliefs.
Which is exactly how and why I use it. If it's not actively present it's not something I need to dedicate time to sorting it out. I want to use things like the Shadowfell and the Feywild and the Elemental Chaos, but having them simply exist in the abstract is pointless. Either it's in the world now, indirectly affects the world now, or it doesn't matter.
At the same time, sometimes its helpful to give a setting concept its own enclave. Then the rest of the 5e cosmology is like a filing system to put things.
Right. Probably another reason I don't bother with too much of it, it's far too neat and delineated. The world is far messier than anything that could be described as a filing system, each component in its own box or enclave. Worlds don't work like that. At least to me.
 



Well 3PP wise, at least for one specific setting, I created the cosmology for the Kaidan setting of Japanese Horror (PFRPG), which is a twisted version of the Buddhist reincarnation cycle, though several of those reincarnation tiers utilize the Japanese social caste system as a cosmically direct destination. Your character accumulates karma points based on lawful or chaotic acts, along with a determined number of points based on your current social caste. At PC death, you roll on the reincarnation table, adding your existing karma points at death, plus any spells that may modify the results to find your next reincarnated destination. Because it is a ghost story setting, there is a chance of becoming stuck as a yurei (Japanese ghost) and being trapped on the cycle.
 


Remove ads

Top