D&D 5E The Multiverse is back....

[Hussar]

I really hope they allow for different cosmologies to be used and refrain from kitbashing things together that don't belong together (or taking things out that are essential to Planescape's feel). This cuts both ways. One of the things you saw in 3e and 4e was lots of planar products with none of the Planescape feel.

The defining features of Planescape - abstract made tangible, Blood War, philosopher's with clubs, living and dead side by side, cynical worldliness, unity or rings - were quilts unique to that setting. As [MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION] pointed out in another thread, Planar does not necessarily equal Planescape.

This. This is what I want.

 

[Quickleaf]

I think the "cynical worldliness" of Planescape is a natural extrapolation of the D&D alignment system and its cosmological realisation in the outer planes: evil is as real and "valid" as good, and the powers of evil are as real and "valid" as the powers of good, and the power they grant is as real and "valid" as the power granted by powers of good.

That's why I personally think that, if you want to avoid that cynicism (and personally I do in my games) then you've got to avoid the cosmological framing that underpins it. (And with the cosmology gone, mechanical alignment is the next on the chopping block!)

First off, totally agree that Planescape is not for everyone. When I ran my long-running 4e game there was a distinct Underdog Good Guys vs. Evil Prince John theme, very little cynicism.

Maybe you could explain more how the alignments & Great Wheel cosmology "validate" evil? Are you saying because an evil priest gets powers just like a good priest? I mean, hasn't that always been in D&D since there were evil priests? Maybe I'm just not following

 

[pemerton]

Maybe you could explain more how the alignments & Great Wheel cosmology "validate" evil? Are you saying because an evil priest gets powers just like a good priest? I mean, hasn't that always been in D&D since there were evil priests?

Evil priests have always got power, but that leaves it up for grabs how/why this is. Mabye they've been tricked or seduced by forces of darkness. Maybe they've sacrificed an eternity of paradise for the thrill of power during their mortal lives. The mere fact of their power doesn't mean that they are cosmologically validated. It can be true that they have power, yet are fundamentally at odds with the meaning/purpose of the universe.

But once you put in the cosmological machinery in which the lower planes are as real as the upper planes, their gods as real, their afterlives as real, etc, then it becomes much harder to write off evil priests as "invalid" or otherwise in error. (I can think of ways to do this, drawing on some modern readings of Socrates, but they are very - maybe overly - intellectual - and I've never seen D&D hint at them - but D&D definitely hints at the cosmological ideas of mediaeval religious people in which the universe has a purpose and evil is not part of it.)

Planescape takes this logic to its limit, with angels and fiends fraternising with one another in Sigil - something like the Christmas truce of 1914, and in the same way driving home the apparent lack of fundamental warrant for their opposition to one another.

To me it makes sense for a sword-and-sorcery style campaign. I guess it's possible to frame relativism non-cynically ("liberalism for the liberals, cannibalism for the cannibals" can be a view about respect and toleration, rather than mockery), but I find that that tends to head in a very different direction from the typical D&D approach to matters of value.

 

[Neonchameleon]

First off, totally agree that Planescape is not for everyone. When I ran my long-running 4e game there was a distinct Underdog Good Guys vs. Evil Prince John theme, very little cynicism.

Maybe you could explain more how the alignments & Great Wheel cosmology "validate" evil? Are you saying because an evil priest gets powers just like a good priest? I mean, hasn't that always been in D&D since there were evil priests? Maybe I'm just not following

It's the symmetry of the setting which leads to "Football team morality". Evil is just as valid a part of the wheel as Good and you just happen to be on different sides.

That those people are the bad guys you kill because they support a set of Gods on a different place on the Wheel to yours. And the Gods of Evil are just doing their part in the universe, as are their supporters. Balance is king means (as the Great Wheel implies) means that you can't meaningfully change things in the long run.

 

[Savage Wombat]

There is a difference between "keeping Planescape it's own thing" and "cutting out everything that might remind some people of Planescape".

 

[I'm A Banana]

I really hope they allow for different cosmologies to be used and refrain from kitbashing things together that don't belong together (or taking things out that are essential to Planescape's feel). This cuts both ways. One of the things you saw in 3e and 4e was lots of planar products with none of the Planescape feel.

The defining features of Planescape - abstract made tangible, Blood War, philosophers with clubs, living and dead side by side, cynical worldliness, unity of rings - were quite unique to that setting. As [MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION] pointed out in another thread, Planar does not necessarily equal Planescape.

Yeah, this is part of why the "One Cosmology To Rule Them All" thing grates on me.

Y'know, Dark Sun doesn't NEED the rest of the multiverse to be awesome. Ravenloft just needs to vaguely reference worlds beyond the mists. Spelljammer ships don't need to be docking in orbit outside Krynn to be relevant or useful. Dragonlance doesn't need to be swirling around next to Birthright to make those settings interesting. Eberron doesn't need FR's Drow.

In fact, when those things abut each other, it can really harm both of the settings. If you feel the need to smash Eberron into FR, you're not taking seriously the awesomeness that Eberron can offer in itself. You're selling it short.

The same applies to PS. PS as a setting is not just about going dungeon-crawling in the Abyss. Normal D&D does that just fine. You don't need the Great Wheel for that. Hell, you don't even need a "the Abyss" for that. A temple in a volcano! An acidic swamp! Just make your fantasy world MORE FANTASTICAL! Dante's Inferno wasn't another plane, it was inside our own planet. That's AWESOME.

And you don't need Krynn and Toril and Oerth to make PS work, either. Those characters can wind up in PS, because EVERY character can wind up in PS, but their role in PS as planar characters is more important than the fact that they're a rebellious drow or a leader of armies or a slayer of dragons.

D&D doesn't need to say bupkiss about the world beyond the immediate world of the PC's. There's demons, there's devils, there's elementals, there's angels, whatever. They exist, they're out there, who the heck knows. Maybe there's some legends. Small, compact, efficient.

The fact that WotC wants to over-define and over-specify this doesn't bode well for the MM, IMO.

But once you put in the cosmological machinery in which the lower planes are as real as the upper planes, their gods as real, their afterlives as real, etc, then it becomes much harder to write off evil priests as "invalid" or otherwise in error.

Evil is just as valid a part of the wheel as Good and you just happen to be on different sides.

This ties into what I posit as one of Planescape's big "selling points" (and one of the things that makes it different from FR or Greyhawk or what-have-you): Infinite shades of grey. It's a morally ambiguous mutliverse (even with alignments).

Now, that's a distinction for PS, something it does and relies on that not every D&D world needs to or should. If you're looking for shades of grey in your D&D sauce, PS will deliver that, and if you're NOT, if you want your bad guys to be bad and your good guys to be good in classic heroic fantasy fashion, that's cool, but that's not a really a distinct PS experience.

Which is kind of my fear. If "PS is Default," and we define default D&D as classic heroic fantasy with Good and Evil, and PS has to be part of that, then it's going to weaken PS's shades of grey ("demons only crave destruction!"). And if we define default D&D as having PS's shades of grey, and all D&D has to be a part of that multiverse, then it has potential to weaken the things like the classic heroic fantasy of Dragonlance. ("Lord Soth just views the individual as inviolate and respectable authority as invested in those who can take it and that's just as valid as selfless altruism!")

Balance is king means (as the Great Wheel implies) means that you can't meaningfully change things in the long run.

I think it's important to note that "balance is king" isn't what Planescape implies and meaningful change in the multiverse is precisely what a full PS campaign arc should really be about, but I am all about drawing a distinction between the PS setting and the Great Wheel. I do think "balance is king" might be a bit more of a Greyhawk-specific theme (certainly many kinds of Gygaxian D&D gave me that vibe), which would make sense that this translated into the Great Wheel, but PS specifically takes that in different directions.

 

[pemerton]

This ties into what I posit as one of Planescape's big "selling points" (and one of the things that makes it different from FR or Greyhawk or what-have-you): Infinite shades of grey. It's a morally ambiguous mutliverse (even with alignments).

<snip>

if you want your bad guys to be bad and your good guys to be good in classic heroic fantasy fashion, that's cool, but that's not a really a distinct PS experience.

Just to be clear - I don't think Planescape has any special monopoloy on "shades of grey", if that means moral complexity.

A providential conception of morality leaves plenty of room for moral complexity. What it doesn't have room for is the objective cosmological truth of the parity of good and evil. Which is what you get in the Great Wheel and Planescape.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Just to be clear - I don't think Planescape has any special monopoloy on "shades of grey", if that means moral complexity.

A providential conception of morality leaves plenty of room for moral complexity. What it doesn't have room for is the objective cosmological truth of the parity of good and evil. Which is what you get in the Great Wheel and Planescape.

Oh, I agree, I wouldn't say it's a monopoly. This isn't exclusivity, it's just tone.

The distinct tone of PS is one with that moral ambiguity. FR-brand D&D, forex, doesn't have that distinct tone. It's certainly possible to have a morally ambiguous FR campaign if you want, it's just not what you go to FR looking for.

It is one of PS's more defining features, though -- if you go to PS, you're looking for moral ambiguity, and if you're looking for moral ambiguity in your game, PS should be something you consider as a worthy vehicle to deliver it reliably (there may be others, too). It is a thing that PS delivers that PS WANTS to deliver and that is distinct about PS in a way that it isn't distinct about FR (or Dragonlance or Greyhawk or Birthright...).

Which is why "evil is valid" works awesomely in PS in a way that it wouldn't necessarily work in some other setting. Evil is valid in PS because PS loves it some moral ambiguity. Evil isn't always valid in other worlds of D&D because that's not their schtick.

 

[TerraDave]

Reflecting on many of the above posts.

The multiverse, I pressume, is meant to be a flexible default that lets the WotCs show off its IP. I would guess that the great wheel, and probably Sigil, would be part of it. And it clearly implies that traveling from one setting to another (and many other primes) would be part of it.

But of course 5E is all about customization and modularity. So I would also not be surprised if they make explicit space for home brew cosmologies, or, as noted, no cosmologies beyond the "world" (though I find that option really, really boring, but it might work for some people).

 

[wedgeski]

I really don't have a stake in any of the cosmological discussions going on here, other than to say the following: I love the inclusiveness of the Basic D&D rules, where characters from all over the D&D fiction (FR, Dragonlance, etc.) are liberally called upon to illustrate something in the text, or the way excerpts from the novels are employed to introduce different sections. This is the "all in" approach to the foundation levels of the game that I never knew I wanted, and I'm very happy to see it.