D&D 5E Eberron versus Multiverse

[Ruin Explorer]

(IRL there can be a "historical Jesus" but that doesn't automatically mean he's the son of god).

Quite and even historically this precise sort of thing was a point of contention, with many early takes in Christianity having different spins on the exact nature of Christ, the triune god, and so on. Let's not even start on Gnosticism or other takes.

I mention this because D&D has tended to have very little of this sort of complex and interesting religious conflict (which is also extremely period-appropriate), due to the whole "gods are real and talk to people and have specific alignments" and so on deal.

Eberron was potentially the richest setting for this because of the strong implication that the gods might not be real at all, or not what people thought and apparent good and bad gods might not be that simple. So making it part of the actual Great Wheel cosmology, where gods generally are very real (which it clearly wasn't in 3E and 4E) is rather sad. But as you say at least it tries to keep things vague. I have literally no idea why they felt the need to explicitly place it in the Great Wheel though and would love to hear an explanation. I also guarantee 6th edition reverses that position.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Roleplaying is about the imagination. I think some people are confining themselves too narrowly within canon and codes and this-fits-but-this-does-not rules. If someone wants to make Eberron grim and dark, fair enough. But not everyone wants grim darkness. Some of us like Oz and Narnia mixed into our Gormenghast and Elric.

Yup. And "canon" is for narrow-minded pedants. I'm the DM, I decide what is true and what is not true in my game, and anyone who tries to say otherwise can eff off.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Yup. And "canon" is for narrow-minded pedants. I'm the DM, I decide what is true and what is not true in my game, and anyone who tries to say otherwise can eff off.

Quite right. I can't even imagine trying to run Dragonlance post-all-the-novels actually "canon", for example. I run a decidedly non-canon version of Taladas for my main game myself.

Even back when I ran the FR and Planescape i think the last time I had any kind of discussion with a player about what was "canon" was maybe 1998?

 

[Arnwolf666]

The 5e designers can not not push Forgotten Realms polytheism into every aspect of D&D.

Even into Eberron.

If they want to they can. It’s up to whoever owns the IP.

 

[ChaosOS]

Eberron was potentially the richest setting for this because of the strong implication that the gods might not be real at all, or not what people thought and apparent good and bad gods might not be that simple. So making it part of the actual Great Wheel cosmology, where gods generally are very real (which it clearly wasn't in 3E and 4E) is rather sad. But as you say at least it tries to keep things vague. I have literally no idea why they felt the need to explicitly place it in the Great Wheel though and would love to hear an explanation. I also guarantee 6th edition reverses that position.

Eberron still gets to keep its 13 unique planes, which is way more important than a throwaway paragraph about "Here's how to do a crossover episode if you want to". Given how popular crossover material is now, it would be insane for WotC to say "No, you can never ever ever do a crossover episode ft. Eberron". Given that there's going to be some baseline assumption of crossover potential so someone can use all the published material ever for 5e, this is about as light of a touch as they could give.

 

[dave2008]

I have literally no idea why they felt the need to explicitly place it in the Great Wheel though and would love to hear an explanation.

Yep, that is what gets me as well. They could have easily said nothing, or if they wanted to include it, put in a sidebar and said: "Here is how you can include Eberron in the wider D&D multiverse if you want to..."

Would have saved themselves some trouble and lost nothing. Seems to me they stumbled here a bit.

 

[Hriston]

I have literally no idea why they felt the need to explicitly place it in the Great Wheel though and would love to hear an explanation.

Branding

 

[dave2008]

Branding

How does it help branding?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Given how popular crossover material is now, it would be insane for WotC to say "No, you can never ever ever do a crossover episode ft. Eberron". Given that there's going to be some baseline assumption of crossover potential so someone can use all the published material ever for 5e, this is about as light of a touch as they could give.

I don't think that makes sense. Rule 0 exists, and the default position being that Eberron is outside the Great Wheel is a better one than in. Making it optional to be in would have achieved the same goals without causing problems.

No other edition had this issue (4E had a related but different and less severe one). This also supports my theory that we won't see Dark Sun 5E, because you literally couldn't use a ton of 5E material there. Indeed looking at 5E in general it seems like really only Greyhawk and Spelljammer would cleanly fit into it. Maybe Planescape but I will be shocked if we see anything beyond Sigil getting a chapter (or less) in an MotP type book.

 

[Hriston]

How does it help branding?

It reinforces the idea that D&D is synonymous with the multiverse IP.