Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Nivenus" data-source="post: 6408411" data-attributes="member: 71756">I agree wholeheartedly (and I believe several other people in the thread do as well)! No one should be forced to use a cosmology that you don't want to use and the rulebooks should support not only multiple cosmologies but the ability to craft your own as well. Individual campaign settings ought to be able to utilize their own individual cosmologies and DMs should be allowed to pick and choose what they want to use.Fortunately, <a href="http://archive.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4wand/20140115" target="_blank">it seems that's largely Wizards' plan</a>. I've already shared this quote before, but it bears reposting I think:Consider also this passage from the 5th edition Player's Handbook's description of Sigil and the Outlands:Basically, it sounds like WotC's plan is to presume all official settings are part of a shared multiverse, but that within each setting the structure of that multiverse is going to vary as per the local beliefs. Celestia might be perceived as a single plane in Sigil but a series of distinct planes on Toril. Daanvi in Eberron corresponds in some way to the Great Wheel plane of Mechanus but it's not an exact match and may represent its own reality. The true arrangement of the planes, according to WotC, lies very much in the eye of the beholder.My own personal view is that the structure of the planes isn't something that can be easily mapped to a two-dimensional or even three-dimensional representation. Aspects of the Great Wheel, World Tree, and World Axis may all be valid. It's possible the elemental planes simultaneously exist &quot;closer&quot; to the Prime and &quot;below&quot; it. The Outer Planes may in some respects be organized as a wheel while still floating freely in the Astral Plane/Sea. The seeming contradictions this implies are actually somewhat charming in my view: they exemplify how strange and unknowable the planes ultimately are.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Nivenus, post: 6408411, member: 71756"] I agree wholeheartedly (and I believe several other people in the thread do as well)! No one should be forced to use a cosmology that you don't want to use and the rulebooks should support not only multiple cosmologies but the ability to craft your own as well. Individual campaign settings ought to be able to utilize their own individual cosmologies and DMs should be allowed to pick and choose what they want to use. Fortunately, [URL="http://archive.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4wand/20140115"]it seems that's largely Wizards' plan[/URL]. I've already shared this quote before, but it bears reposting I think: Consider also this passage from the 5th edition [I]Player's Handbook[/I]'s description of Sigil and the Outlands: Basically, it sounds like WotC's plan is to presume all official settings are part of a shared multiverse, but that within each setting the structure of that multiverse is going to vary as per the local beliefs. Celestia might be perceived as a single plane in Sigil but a series of distinct planes on Toril. Daanvi in Eberron corresponds in some way to the Great Wheel plane of Mechanus but it's not an exact match and may represent its own reality. The true arrangement of the planes, according to WotC, lies very much in the eye of the beholder. My own personal view is that the structure of the planes isn't something that can be easily mapped to a two-dimensional or even three-dimensional representation. Aspects of the Great Wheel, World Tree, and World Axis may all be valid. It's possible the elemental planes simultaneously exist "closer" to the Prime [I]and[/I] "below" it. The Outer Planes may in some respects be organized as a wheel while still floating freely in the Astral Plane/Sea. The seeming contradictions this implies are actually somewhat charming in my view: they exemplify how strange and unknowable the planes ultimately are. [/QUOTE]

Verification