Talk: Cosmology

Demi-Elemental Planes

"Several quasi-elemental and demi-elemental planes also exist, sitting at the junctures between the elemental planes such as the Elemental Plane of Cold that lies between the plane of air and water." Do you have a source for this? Non of the source books I've been using for this article (FRCS, PGtF, MotP) specifically list such planes, of course they mention that there are an endless number of demiplanes, but the only ones specified are ones created by Elminster and some other wizard who I forgot. Also, if there was a thing like a demiplane of Cold, wouldn't Auril inhabit it instead of Fury's Heart, or atleast have a portal link to the plane or some such?

And thanks for the typo correction, I suck at this :P Zerak-Tul 22:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

On page 165 of The Player's Guide to Faerûn it says all of the demiplanes in the Manual of the Planes sourcebook exist in the cosmology of Toril. The demi & quasi-elemental planes are described in said sourcebook. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hashimashadoo (talk • contribs)

New Cosmology Image

I created a new image of the pre-spellplague cosmology, since the existing one doesn't cite its source and appears to be copyrighted. Please take a look at it for correctness. Also, I'm thinking of creating something similar for the post-spellplague cosmology... but before I do so I'd like to get some feedback on this one. Comments?  SkyeNiTessine (talk · contr) 13:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... I like it, though it doesn't resemble the existing image very closely at all, or the concept of a "tree." It does, however, resemble the Great Wheel of Planescape fame. Artistically, it's well done if somewhat simplistic. In terms of data... I'm not sure if I'm a big enough lore expert to tell you if it's good or not in that department. Niirfa-sa 05:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick note on this, since I've noticed that this image has been moved to a "Great Wheel" sub-section. It was not my intention to use that term per se. Rather, I was trying to show all the planes in the FR setting, and their relation to each other. The existing image (for the 2E cosmology) does not include them all. In hindsight, yes it does kind of look like the core setting "great wheel" visualization, but we needn't call it that, or separate it out. It's just a different way of looking at the complete 2E FR cosmology.  SkyeNiTessine (talk · contr) 21:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Split

This article is absolutely huge right now. Splitting it up would be great. I think the Cosmology article needs to give an overview of the planes, not necessarily listing each individual one, and explain the differences between editions, but beyond that, specific information on planes can go on articles about those planes. Fw190a8 18:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it already split though? I mean, the blurbs on the planes are literally one to two sentences long. I'm sure actual articles on the planes, many of which do exist and many more of which I'm hoping to create, would contain more information than that. However, I can see you point about the article being very, very long - though many wikis have articles just this long on a regular basis.

If we were to split the article, however, I'd think a better idea than cutting out the individual planes would be to create separate articles for each of the cosmologies, with this article covering them in broader terms. For instance - the World Axis cosmology and the World Tree would both get their own articles, as would the Great Wheel, while this article would provide a vague description of each with a main article header. The plane descriptions could then be cut and moved to these articles, with the plane type descriptions being vastly reduced (perhaps to the current length of plane descriptions) to take up less space.

What do you think? Niirfa-sa 20:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking we should have a "Pre-Spellplague" cosmology article and a "Post-Spellplague" cosmology article (article names TBD). The difference between "Great Wheel" vs "World Tree" is negligible as shown in our current article: they have the same content but are really just different ways of drawing an N-dimensional concept onto a 2-dimensional image. On the other hand, after the Spellplague we've seen vast changes in the planes themselves, and the "World Axis" cosmology is one way of conceptualizing the new relation between the planes. There's no reason we can't have a "2 Half-Sphere" visualization of the new planar relations (as portrayed in the DMG) as well.

In short, I suggest it be broken based on content, and not on how it's visualized.  SkyeNiTessine (talk · contr) 20:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, two articles would probably be fine - though the two spheres is simply a different graphical representation of the World Axis cosmology - it differs in no way, whereas the Great Wheel and World Tree actually have differing structures, if identical planes that inhabit those structures. World Axis cosmology and World Tree it is (with the latter having an addendum for Great Wheel). I think these titles would work best since I really dislike using the terms "Post-Spellplague" or "Pre-Spellplague," particularly since it's likely the cosmology was different before the sundering of Abeir-Toril and may also change again.

Sound good? Niirfa-sa 22:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, sounds good. Just curious: how do you see our Great Wheel and World Tree images as differing structures? Is it the lack of connections (lines) between the connected planes on the Great Wheel image? That could be fixed, if desired.  SkyeNiTessine (talk · contr) 07:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not so much the image (although that too) but rather just the Great Wheel cosmology in general, which was considered standard for all D&D settings until 3.5, at which point hte World Tree was introduced. The Great Wheel has a distinction between "outer planes" and "inner planes," which the World Tree doesn't really have - or at least not in the same manner. True, the World Tree does have the celestial and fiendish planes separate from the elemental and energy planes, but the former don't reside in a circle surrounding the latter, which in turn don't surround the Prime or the transitive planes. Granted, this is a pretty minor difference, but it's still more substantial than the differences between the MotP and DMG illustrations of the World Axis which, except for a difference in how to portray the Astral Sea and the Elemental Chaos, are identical. Once again, I'd probably just go with two articles.Niirfa-sa 08:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I split it into four, and reckon it works pretty well... Wereguy2 08:23, October 17, 2009 (UTC)

Anomalous Planes?

Since we're talking on this subject, let me bring up something else that I've meaning to get input on. Do we have a Realms reference for the Anomalous Planes (Far Realm, Plane of Dream, and Plane of Mirrors). I know we do for the Far Realm (FRCG pg 64), and I do not think we do for the others. The Manual of the Planes book is not in and of itself sufficient as a reference, since it details the core setting. Also see the discussion here. Thoughts?  SkyeNiTessine (talk · contr) 16:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, WOTC has said the MotP (and any other sourcebook for that matter) should apply to any setting, be it the Realms, Eberron, or Dragonlance - except when it directly contradicts 4e Realms sources (so for instance, Celestia is not the home of Moradin and the Shadowfell was not created by the primordials). So the Anomalous Planes, which are supposed to lie outside of core cosmology (as in, they exist in every D&D cosmology) are supposed to exist in the Realms. This is a way of cutting costs, so to speak, since they plan to release fewer (if any at all past those already released) sourcebooks for the Realms in 4e than they did in 3.5 or any of the previous editions. Niirfa-sa 19:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I've read that as well, but it was informal and it remarked only on the game dev's intent. Also, we simply can't use their logic. There are instances where some of the named places in the Feywild, according to the new 4E Manual of the Planes, go back and forth between the Prime and the Feywild. Unfortunately, that would imply that all of those new places need to be located somewhere on Faerûn. I don't think we should do that. We certainly can't use any generic planar resource before 4E (where I recall reading about the Plane of Dream and Plane of Mirrors), and even the generic 4E planar stuff is very questionable. See the discussion I mentioned earlier. I'm open to input, but I feel we simply shouldn't change our existing stance on this, because in practice it doesn't work all that well.  SkyeNiTessine (talk · contr) 20:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't see how convenience trumps canon. Besides, anythng that requires something to be on Toril that obviously isn't obviously doesn't apply to the Realms. Hence, why I removed some of the Feywild and Shadowfell locations in the map. They require something to exist on Toril that doesn't, hence, they can't logically exist in the Realms' Feywild or Shadowfell. Gloomwrought was one of these locations.

Rather than simply ignore 4e information that seems inconvenient but at the same time canon, it'd probably be better to bring it up in the "Ask the Developer" thread in the WOTC forums. Making assumptions that run contrary to what the developers have actually said is, in fact, canon, seems to be a bad move to me. Niirfa-sa 22:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is it forces us to make arbitrary and subjective decisions as to what is "in" and what is "out". How do you know Gloomwrought is not located somewhere on Toril (the planet)? Yet you unilaterally decided that it is not on Toril (it's "out"). But for some reason the Plane of Mirrors is "in", despite not appearing in any Realms book. According to the argument you're making, we can only ignore if it contradicts Realms canon. Thus far Gloomwrought has not. Are you suggesting we add Gloomwrought back in?

Please also read the discussion that I've linked to. It was convincingly argued that we would not include planar info from non-Realms specific resources (quote: "Instead, I'd propose that only if something exists in the Realms source material does it belongs here" - Fw190a8). The reasons why we should not include generic planar resources are listed there, and do a better job of explaining why we should not do so.

I like your idea of asking the game devs on the WOTC forums. I propose the following: it's "out" unless a game developer says otherwise. Does this sound fair? Otherwise we're going to have to add a ton of stuff that is frankly not "Realms".  SkyeNiTessine (talk · contr) 23:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that's a reasonable compromise. I'll remove the references (except to the other Primes and the Far Realm, which are very much in). Niirfa-sa 00:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I've not made myself clear enough. When I said “Instead, I'd propose that only if something exists in the Realms source material does it belongs here”, I meant to say that I would consider things from generic D&D sources as “Realms source material” if there is no contradictory information in Realms sources. Whereas I believe that information in a Realms source is directly canonical, information in a D&D source would be indirectly canonical. Suppose that one of the monster manuals (generic D&D) contains a monster called a foo, but there is no mention of the foo in any Realms sources. It would be safe to assume that the foo is canon in the Realms, provided it adheres to common sense. If the monster manual states that the foo is part of a group of monsters called bar, and a Realms source states that no monsters of type bar are found in the Realms, foo would then be non-canon in the Realms even though no Realms source mentions the foo.

I appreciate this is a grey area but this is possibly where we need discussion on these points. I think we use Realms material, then common sense, then generic D&D material, in that order. We had a similar situation with the Sigil article recently, but we resolved that quite well, I believe. Fw190a8 18:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Reading the discussion on Sigil was pretty instructive. It seemed there was some dissent as to whether it should be included at all. It was only the fact that there were a couple of Realms-specific sources that mentioned Sigil that seemed to convince everyone that it should be kept. This reminds me of the debate we had with Spelljammer. Though the Spelljammer campaign setting itself said that the Realms was part of the setting, that was not sufficient and there was large dissent as to its inclusion on this wiki. It was only once we found and listed all the Realms-specific references to Spelljammer that we decided it warranted a mention on this wiki.

I think that makes sense -- to include things on this wiki with Realms-specific references. If we had chosen otherwise, then the entirety of the Spelljammer campaign setting (its monsters, locales, etc...) might have been documented on this wiki (since none of it contradicts Realms lore).  SkyeNiTessine (talk · contr) 08:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

4E Realms Cosmology vs Core 4E Cosmology

A couple of (mostly minor) differences that I've seen:

• According to FRPG, pg 159, the Abyss is located below the Elemental Chaos ("Below the Elemental Chaos is the Abyss, home to demons"), and is thus distinct, whereas in the core setting the Abyss is located at the bottom of the Elemental Chaos. Though FRCG pgs 60 places the Abyss at the bottom of the Elemental Chaos as well -- discrepancy? Either way, currently the Abyss in our image is not situated at the bottom nor as a distinct plane.
• The lines in the current image appear to denote connections between planes (I think?) -- it's a little unclear if they're just cosmetic "lightning bolts" or meant to represent the actual connections (as they did in the 2E image). If the lines are actual connections, then we're missing some for our Realms cosmology.
• Spirits of the deceased are said to first pass through the Shadowfell before passing upwards to the Divine Dominions in the Astral Sea. That doesn't seem to be well reflected in the current image from WotC for their 4E cosmology. Thoughts as to how best to represent this?

Anything else I missed? Cheers,  SkyeNiTessine (talk · contr) 16:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

For number 1, the Abyss is located at the bottom of the Chaos. But the "bottom" of an infinite plane is variable and indistinct. Granted, I took artistic license in placing Roothold and Cresting Spires both beneath it, but these, in my mind, aren't actual, literal representations. And yes, the Abyss is at the bottom of core cosmology as well. And no, it's not located outside of the Chaos. It's an elemental realm, the same as the City of Brass or the primordial realms.

For numbers 2 and 3 (which seem to be the same point), there is a link between the Shadowfell and the Fugue Plane on the image, as well as a link between that particular point in the Shadowfell and the Prime. Follow the link closely. In order to reach Kelemvor and the City of Judgment the dead do have to pass through the Shadowfell in the image. The other dominions' connections are more direct, but not for the purpose of ferrying the dead since I copied them (for the most part) from the original image, which pertains to the core cosmology where the dead are similarly ferried through the Shadowfell. So, no, the connection is not missing. Niirfa-sa 19:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me preface this by saying that I really like the image we have! Now, on to the topic:

1) I noted the discrepancy in FR-specific resources. I'm happy to leave it at the bottom of the Abyss though, and ideally we should reflect that in our image. It's not a big deal in any case. Oddly enough the FRCG and FRPG always speak in terms of the Astral Sea being "above" and the Elemental Chaos being "below", so they seem to imply a sense of direction, even if that really doesn't make sense in a 4D environment. In any case, people kind of expect to see the Abyss at the bottom of the Elemental Chaos given the numerous references to it there.

2) In regards to the links, I think what you're illustrating corresponds to the "Connections" line in the description of each divine dominion in the FRCG pg 62-65, correct? If so, then "Banehold" in the FRCG states "Connections: none", yet in the image we do have one connection (to the Prime). Are we assuming that all regular divine dominions also have a link to the Prime by default? But then "Nishrek" in the FRCG states "Connections: Abyss", yet does not have a default link to the Prime.

3) Got it, I see the link.

Cheers,  SkyeNiTessine (talk · contr) 23:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Elminster meeting Ed Greenwood

What is the source for this? Even if Ed Greenwood did state this, are you sure that he actually meant it as canon, or did he only say it as a joke? ➳Quin 05:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It was in the Grand History. I'd source it (and I plan to) but I unfortunately don't have the book on me at the moment. As soon as I do (likely a few days), I'll place the citation in. Niirfa-sa 06:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ed Greenwood meeting Elminster has to be cannon. It's in lots of Realms books. Just some examples:Volo's guide to Waterdeep-Elminster talks about his colleague Ed Greenwood, Realmspace-Elminster's Hideaway has a portal to Ed Greenwood's house, and the countless Dragon articles, where Elminster comes to Ed's house to meet with other wizards. (Bloodtide 11:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC))

Holy crap, lol p. 142 of GHotR. Zerak^talk 14:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)