Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Shemeska" data-source="post: 3511821" data-attributes="member: 11697">While the 1e material evolved quite a bit as it transitioned into 2e (and has continued to evolve for better or for worse since then), it had what were then called &quot;alternate material planes&quot; all linked to the same common inner and outer planes.The 1e MotP for instance was pretty explicit in linking them together what with all the various cultural pantheons all existing in the same set of planes, and that was the least of it. Takhisis of DL/Krynn is named in the entry on Tiamat (in 1e it was claimed that she and tiamat were the same, while 2e onwards has had them as seperate beings), and so Krynn was certainly intended to be within that cosmology (the latter-day revisionism of 3e DL notwithstanding).1e FR material had FR within the same shared cosmology as well, among other examples. The linkage did become more and more frequent towards the later years of that edition.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Shemeska, post: 3511821, member: 11697"] While the 1e material evolved quite a bit as it transitioned into 2e (and has continued to evolve for better or for worse since then), it had what were then called "alternate material planes" all linked to the same common inner and outer planes. The 1e MotP for instance was pretty explicit in linking them together what with all the various cultural pantheons all existing in the same set of planes, and that was the least of it. Takhisis of DL/Krynn is named in the entry on Tiamat (in 1e it was claimed that she and tiamat were the same, while 2e onwards has had them as seperate beings), and so Krynn was certainly intended to be within that cosmology (the latter-day revisionism of 3e DL notwithstanding). 1e FR material had FR within the same shared cosmology as well, among other examples. The linkage did become more and more frequent towards the later years of that edition. [/QUOTE]

Verification