D&D 5E Vecna Adventure Next Year and Obilesks *SPOILERS*

[Divine2021]

So, does Jergal play into this somehow? Reading the spellweavers wiki page led to an interesting conversation on how Jergel might have originally been one of their gods. It would certainly fit into BG3’s sometimes subtle story telling if old Jergel himself was somehow connected to all this.

 

[Parmandur]

Personally, I'm just hoping that they use Vecna to undo Spellplague (and maybe the Time of Troubles). Extra points if the Greyhawk Wars get rolled back and we get access on DM's Guild to Greyhawk.

Ghosts of Saltmarsh already rolled the Greyhawk clock back to the original Campaign Setting product.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

Vecna was a dark lord in Ravenloft, and this is enough reason to want vengueance against the dark powers.

Updated mythology about the D&D chronomancers is possible, but if you want a right lore, then it is better to await a long time for a better work. I mean an order of chronomancers as "timecops" could be the perfect nemesis for Vecna.

Chronomancers aren't locked in DMGuild. These means publishers could create "time spheres" like demiplanes/minisettings. A the civilitation Ri-Laganth (from Chronomancer handbook 2nd Ed) could be an ally or antagonist in the adventures where chronomancers and time dragons want to stop wicked Vecna's machinations about reseting the multiverse.

If Spellweavers created those obelisk, they should get ready for a plan B if somebody could used that power against them. Maybe they faked their own genocided, and Vecna pretended not to notice the deception because he knows like this they wouldn't dare to cause troubles, and they would rather to be hidden avoiding all contact with the rest of sentient beings.

Maybe there are two opposite factions of chronomancers. One group like the TVA(Loki in Disney+) wants to keep the "sacred timeline" and prone the rest of possible timelines. The other group would work like a Council of Kangs, where the alternate timelines are allowed to coexist, if everybody respect each other. Isolacionist and "counciliers" dislike each time, but some times they work together against a common menace, for example troublemaker time-travelers (SKYNET, I AM WATCHING YOU, AND ALSO YOU, LEGION!) or Vecna's agents.

Vecna may be really dangerous if the god of secrets can find a way to steal the power of Tharizdum (the elemental elder eye), and this is "nerferd" but also relatively saner, enough to create new no-so-self-destructive cults.

* In the "retouched" multiverse could see the "saga of Crystar" (an IP from 80's) updated as a variant of the shardminds (and the lavamen nerferd to cause volcanic fire a limited number of times).

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Personally, I'm just hoping that they use Vecna to undo Spellplague (and maybe the Time of Troubles). Extra points if the Greyhawk Wars get rolled back and we get access on DM's Guild to Greyhawk.

I have long pushed we need updated restarts of all the settings. 4e did it for darksun. reset to basic 1st box set BUT with updated concepts (so building warlock sorcerer warlord ect in)
I keep saying Marvel Comics showed the formula with the Ultimate line

 

[Henadic Theologian]

So, does Jergal play into this somehow? Reading the spellweavers wiki page led to an interesting conversation on how Jergel might have originally been one of their gods. It would certainly fit into BG3’s sometimes subtle story telling if old Jergel himself was somehow connected to all this.

One of the absolutely weirdest things in the Gatetowns is the fact that old Fundy duddy Jergal has a major connection to the Aboria Gatetown of Sylvania, it being where he gambled away most of his Godly domains to the Dead Three, and where he still gambles to this day. Dude gets around alot for someone in semi retirement.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Why exactly are we saying things like 'alternate multiverse' or 'parallel multiverse'? The whole definition of the 'multiverse' idea is that it includes everything... every single alternative world, every single alternative setting, and every single new timeline that branches off from every single point in time. And all of those would be considered their own individual UNIVERSES... not Multiverses. All the universes together on the whole make up the D&D Multiverse. The D&D Multiverse contains ALL of them. Every single universe/setting/timeline divergence/campaign ever created. That's the entire point of the 'multiverse' concept.

If in Vecna's book he changes current so-called "metaplot" across all the mentioned D&D settings to create a new normal across those settings... he's not creating an "alternate multiverse", he's just creating new branches of timelines/worlds within the one 'D&D Multiverse'. Just like every single D&D DM out there also does so when they take a setting book (which establishes that setting at a set point in time) and then runs their own game off of that point and thus creates an entirely new timeline branch of that setting in the D&D Multiverse. Basically, all of us DMs are exactly like Vecna in that regard. We all each of us creates a new "universe" that contains our own games/settings/worlds every time we start a new campaign, and it is a part of the D&D Multiverse, like it or not.

And if anyone at WotC actually says or uses the terms 'alternate multiverse' or 'parallel multiverse', then they have little to no idea of what the concept of the multiverse is either, because they are defining it wrong. So hopefully someone with a better understanding of the multiverse concept will edit those terms out.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

.

Why exactly are we saying things like 'alternate multiverse' or 'parallel multiverse'? The whole definition of the 'multiverse' idea is that it includes everything... every single alternative world, every single alternative setting, and every single new timeline that branches off from every single point in time. And all of those would be considered their own individual UNIVERSES... not Multiverses. All the universes together on the whole make up the D&D Multiverse. The D&D Multiverse contains ALL of them. Every single universe/setting/timeline divergence/campaign ever created. That's the entire point of the 'multiverse' concept.

If in Vecna's book he changes current so-called "metaplot" across all the mentioned D&D settings to create a new normal across those settings... he's not creating an "alternate multiverse", he's just creating new branches of timelines/worlds within the one 'D&D Multiverse'. Just like every single D&D DM out there also does so when they take a setting book (which establishes that setting at a set point in time) and then runs their own game off of that point and thus creates an entirely new timeline branch of that setting in the D&D Multiverse. Basically, all of us DMs are exactly like Vecna in that regard. We all each of us creates a new "universe" that contains our own games/settings/worlds every time we start a new campaign, and it is a part of the D&D Multiverse, like it or not.

And if anyone at WotC actually says or uses the terms 'alternate multiverse' or 'parallel multiverse', then they have little to no idea of what the concept of the multiverse is either, because they are defining it wrong. So hopefully someone with a better understanding of the multiverse concept will edit those terms out.

Damn, my feeling creeping Dread is I increasing, the Vecna Adventure is going to be a disaster of epic proportions.

 

[dave2008]

Why exactly are we saying things like 'alternate multiverse' or 'parallel multiverse'? The whole definition of the 'multiverse' idea is that it includes everything... every single alternative world, every single alternative setting, and every single new timeline that branches off from every single point in time. And all of those would be considered their own individual UNIVERSES... not Multiverses. All the universes together on the whole make up the D&D Multiverse. The D&D Multiverse contains ALL of them. Every single universe/setting/timeline divergence/campaign ever created. That's the entire point of the 'multiverse' concept.

If in Vecna's book he changes current so-called "metaplot" across all the mentioned D&D settings to create a new normal across those settings... he's not creating an "alternate multiverse", he's just creating new branches of timelines/worlds within the one 'D&D Multiverse'. Just like every single D&D DM out there also does so when they take a setting book (which establishes that setting at a set point in time) and then runs their own game off of that point and thus creates an entirely new timeline branch of that setting in the D&D Multiverse. Basically, all of us DMs are exactly like Vecna in that regard. We all each of us creates a new "universe" that contains our own games/settings/worlds every time we start a new campaign, and it is a part of the D&D Multiverse, like it or not.

And if anyone at WotC actually says or uses the terms 'alternate multiverse' or 'parallel multiverse', then they have little to no idea of what the concept of the multiverse is either, because they are defining it wrong. So hopefully someone with a better understanding of the multiverse concept will edit those terms out.

While I agree with your general sentiment, I don't know that you are completely correct or others are completely wrong. It has been a while since I researched these ideas; however, my findings at the time where that there is no set definition of "Multiverse."

1. So a multiverse could be a bunch of parallel / alternate universes. This is general the field of scientific research into multiverse ideas (string theory and such).
2. A multiverse could be a connection of different realities, like the D&D mulitverse with the Prime (which is often equated with a universe), inner planes and outer planes.
3. There are others that I don't remember!

If option #2 is your definition, then if you have a complete separate set of planes (an alternate prime, connect to alternate inner, etc.) it could be justifiably called an alternate multiverse I think.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

One of the absolutely weirdest things in the Gatetowns is the fact that old Fundy duddy Jergal has a major connection to the Aboria Gatetown of Sylvania, it being where he gambled away most of his Godly domains to the Dead Three, and where he still gambles to this day. Dude gets around alot for someone in semi retirement.

He is waiting for Bill and Ted to turn up for a rematch. He already has the Settlers of Catan board ready.

 

[DEFCON 1]

If option #2 is your definition, then if you have a complete separate set of planes (an alternate prime, connect to alternate inner, etc.) it could be justifiably called an alternate multiverse I think.

Admittedly, if the people involved with D&D end up defining their use of 'multiverse' as you state in Option 2... then sure, it is what it is. But if they do that, then they are schmucks-- they would be taking a word that means something specific and changing it for absolutely no reason, and which only clouds the entire idea in the first place.

A 'D&D Universe' (not Multi-- Uni!) would include a particular person's Prime plane, alternate and variant Prime planes, Feywild/Shadowfell, elemental planes, Elemental chaos, ethereal, astral, and outer planes. That is one specific Universe because it includes EVERYTHING that that player has access to. Or indeed if the person isn't using the Great Wheel, then it could be something like their Eberron/Siberys/Khyber and the 13 aerie planes make up their 'D&D Universe' if they play an Eberron game. And if you take MY Great Wheel game Universe and YOUR Great Wheel game Universe, and Keith Baker's Eberron game Universe, and Matt Mercer's Exandria game Universe... all of them together make up the D&D Multiverse. They are all alternative worlds and Universes within the umbrella of D&D.

Now yes... to go along with and agree with what you have mentioned in your Option #2... I myself have heard Jeremy occasionally talk that while all of our individual games make up variant Prime planes to each other (and characters can move back and forth between them if they so wished-- which is the explanation of the 'Greenwood/Elminster/Mordenkainen convos in Greenwood's kitchen' stories which have been explained away)... he says there is but one set of Outer Planes and that any characters (like Tiamat) that appear in different settings/worlds are merely mirrors/shadows of the ONE actual Tiamat. Which to me... is absolutely stupid. No, there is not only a SINGLE Tiamat in all of D&D, because that is not something Crawford/Perkins et. al. get to control. They don't get to decide on the Multiversal "reality" of any of this stuff, just like none of us can. Which is exactly why the Multiverse concept exists!

As an example of that stupidity... if Crawford and Perkins were to decide at some point to legitimately kill/destroy/remove/purge the "One" character of Tiamat from Dungeons & Dragons-- all that accomplishes is remove that character from anything further that THEY produce. THEY can choose not use Tiamat going forward, but they can't stop anyone else. They can't stop someone from running the Tyranny of Dragons adventure after the fact. So if someone plays that adventure, what is that Tiamat? Does that Tiamat character not actually exist? Because THEY chose to remove Tiamat from the game? If Jeremy et. al. suggest that... that's pretty much saying that all of our games don't actually exist then. None of our games are "real" because only they get to decide what is or isn't real. Which of course is ridiculous, because the entire point of the Multiverse concept as they've been using it up to this point has been to explain why all of our individual games ARE real. As real as anyone else's! My game is no less real than Jeremy's game.

And to pile on top of that silly assertion of Jeremy's (assuming he does in fact believe that idea of "Only one true Tiamat, but with lots of shadows" still)... what happens in 15 years after Jeremy and Chris are no longer on the D&D team and the next production staff decide to bring Tiamat "back"? Well, doesn't that then prove the "only ONE true Tiamat" idea was bull? Chris and Jeremy could no more remove the character from D&D as any of us could. If one of us "kill Tiamat" in our games, that means nothing to the great populace of Dungeons & Dragons... just like it means nothing even if Jeremy, Chris and the D&D production team say it.

The ONLY way that any of this works... the only way we can legitimize every single player's game and table as TRUE and REAL... is by using the concept of the multiverse as it is meant to be. Every single one of us (including Jeremy and Chris; including Rob Heinsoo, Andy Collins and James Wyatt; including Monte Cook, Jonathan Tweet and Skip Williams; including Zeb Cook; including Gygax and Arneson), we ALL have real and true D&D games in our own individual D&D universes-- where whatever happens there happens-- but which doesn't actually impact or affect anyone else. We are all alternative universes to each other-- everything different, every different setting, every different timeline within these worlds and settings, every single cosmology-- we ALL have our own thing in D&D that is no more or less real and true than anyone else's. And when taken as a whole... we ALL make up the individual universes within the entirety of the D&D Multiverse.