Was just looking through stuff for inspiration while thinking about how to make the world map for a world I wanna use for at least 1 campaign. A lower magic setting. Then I saw the great wheel cosmology thing and knew I wanted to recreate it with each plane as a separate land mass. How do you think each plane should be interpreted/translated/whatever as an island. Also, low magic. Magic was overused years ago and is now a rare gift. A gift often stolen through pacts with old beings.
Im not sure the planes-as-islands really meshes with a low-magic setting. Planes like the elemental planes, astral plane, the feywild, the shadowfell, the celestial planes, and the nine Hells are explicitly magical, even archetypically so. Without high magic, such places simply would not exist.
Air: Floating Islands over the sea (or a series of small cliff-like islands connected by bridges with high winds running through them, think Pike/Iron Islands from GoT
Earth: A Sheer mountainous Rock, with an intricate cave system accessed from the waterline
For the Outer planes, you could have them be islands with the appearance/effects of each plane, with the Styx being a "jet stream" that connects them
I get why you would think that planes as islands wouldn't work with low magic. Let me explain more. Long ago in this world, magic was common and incredibly powerful. The only gods now are the few remaining demon lords, and the great old ones, which all but destroyed magic when forcefully merging planes. These gods control what is left of the magic, and fight over it. Each island/plane though has a minor god that maintains the island. They are also what keeps the properties going. Low magic wasn't the right word. It's more that mortals don't get much magic.
Look at legacy edition maps for inspiration imo...but islands overly simplifies and doesn’t do the planes concept justice imo. Islands suggests that each plane is a defined geographic location independent and measurably distant from every other plane. I think some planes might work as islands, but certainly not others
A bit late to the party, but I would like to make a few suggestions.
Instead of having a specific Shadowfell or Feywild island, I would recommend having designated areas that are just filled with dark magic or the fae. For example, an old battlefield haunted by those who died in the fight, and constantly reliving the fight every day, would be one shadowfell area, a "domain of dread" if you will. Meanwhile, that elven forest at the edge of the village is forbidden, for its not only filled with tricksy pixies, sprites and quicklings, but also blink hounds, coeurl, treants, oreads, nymphs and niads. Be careful you're not misled by this Druid Grove.
I personally like the idea of each of the outer planes being a country in each themselves. The Nine Hells would be a series of cities on a great volcano. Mount Celestia is, well, another mountain. The Abyss would be different sections of the Underdark. In fact, Out of the Abyss has some great ideas for the two. The prison plane could be an actual divine prison. Sigil could be a giant floating city that's neutral ground for the gods.
A few planes don't really need an equivalent - you don't really need to have a Feywild area on top of the Seldarine's plane. There's overlap between a lot of them.
You do realize there is no obligation whatsoever to fit with any lore, right? And that most of that '40 years' can be boiled down to maybe a couple paragraphs each for most of the planes?
of course not...problem you end up coming across if you're making something that anyone but you are going to use is acceptance. i've had people get red in the face over stuff like this. if you say 'shadow plane is over here and material plane is over here' sure, a reader who hasn't read any prior editions, or any novels might say 'wow, that's awesome'. but anyone who has is going to be like 'no, not really'.
it's like a math error in a financial presentation...as soon as someone realizes something is amiss, the entire document becomes suspect.
and i'd say its a lot more than a couple paragraphs when you start looking at novels.
You do realize there is no obligation whatsoever to fit with any lore, right? And that most of that '40 years' can be boiled down to maybe a couple paragraphs each for most of the planes?
of course not...problem you end up coming across if you're making something that anyone but you are going to use is acceptance. i've had people get red in the face over stuff like this. if you say 'shadow plane is over here and material plane is over here' sure, a reader who hasn't read any prior editions, or any novels might say 'wow, that's awesome'. but anyone who has is going to be like 'no, not really'.
it's like a math error in a financial presentation...as soon as someone realizes something is amiss, the entire document becomes suspect.
Yes, but the OP could do like a planar upheaval where the structure of the planes shifts radically overnight, maybe due to the actions of a powerful entity like Tharizdun (from the Oerth campaign setting). Or just a retcon where it’s always been that way in his campaign.
I don't see what there is to become red-faced about. Even the official D&D lore presents the several styles of multiverse presentation (World Tree, Wheel, etc.) as different, evolving interpretations of the planes by the sages of the time. If one version of the lore can say it's a tree, and another can say it's a wheel, and another can say it's a "world axis," then what is to prevent another interpretation as islands in an ocean?
All of these cosmological interpretations are metaphors to help understand the relationships among the planes -- they need not be taken literally. Just like when we talk about the "milky way" we don't really understand it to be a trail of milk in the sky.
I don't see what there is to become red-faced about. Even the official D&D lore presents the several styles of multiverse presentation (World Tree, Wheel, etc.) as different, evolving interpretations of the planes by the sages of the time. If one version of the lore can say it's a tree, and another can say it's a wheel, and another can say it's a "world axis," then what is to prevent another interpretation as islands in an ocean?
All of these cosmological interpretations are metaphors to help understand the relationships among the planes -- they need not be taken literally. Just like when we talk about the "milky way" we don't really understand it to be a trail of milk in the sky.
I don't see what there is to become red-faced about. Even the official D&D lore presents the several styles of multiverse presentation (World Tree, Wheel, etc.) as different, evolving interpretations of the planes by the sages of the time. If one version of the lore can say it's a tree, and another can say it's a wheel, and another can say it's a "world axis," then what is to prevent another interpretation as islands in an ocean?
All of these cosmological interpretations are metaphors to help understand the relationships among the planes -- they need not be taken literally. Just like when we talk about the "milky way" we don't really understand it to be a trail of milk in the sky.
I don't see what there is to become red-faced about.....what is to prevent another interpretation as islands in an ocean?
nothing...my first post was meant to be written as a suggestion and included my own opinion. apologies if it wasn't.
as far as red-faced, i have a wide group at the table - the oldest guy (probably late 50's i'd guess) is the 'that's not right' guy. i've got one kid who has probably read more than the rest of the table combined and is way more accepting. most of the others have only 5th edition as a reference point.
I don't see what there is to become red-faced about.....what is to prevent another interpretation as islands in an ocean?
nothing...my first post was meant to be written as a suggestion and included my own opinion. apologies if it wasn't.
as far as red-faced, i have a wide group at the table - the oldest guy (probably late 50's i'd guess) is the 'that's not right' guy. i've got one kid who has probably read more than the rest of the table combined and is way more accepting. most of the others have only 5th edition as a reference point.
Okay. Cool.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Was just looking through stuff for inspiration while thinking about how to make the world map for a world I wanna use for at least 1 campaign. A lower magic setting. Then I saw the great wheel cosmology thing and knew I wanted to recreate it with each plane as a separate land mass. How do you think each plane should be interpreted/translated/whatever as an island. Also, low magic. Magic was overused years ago and is now a rare gift. A gift often stolen through pacts with old beings.
Im not sure the planes-as-islands really meshes with a low-magic setting. Planes like the elemental planes, astral plane, the feywild, the shadowfell, the celestial planes, and the nine Hells are explicitly magical, even archetypically so. Without high magic, such places simply would not exist.
Elemental Planes could be as follows:
Fire: Highly Volcanic Island
Water: Reef/Atoll/Archipelago system
Air: Floating Islands over the sea (or a series of small cliff-like islands connected by bridges with high winds running through them, think Pike/Iron Islands from GoT
Earth: A Sheer mountainous Rock, with an intricate cave system accessed from the waterline
For the Outer planes, you could have them be islands with the appearance/effects of each plane, with the Styx being a "jet stream" that connects them
I get why you would think that planes as islands wouldn't work with low magic. Let me explain more. Long ago in this world, magic was common and incredibly powerful. The only gods now are the few remaining demon lords, and the great old ones, which all but destroyed magic when forcefully merging planes. These gods control what is left of the magic, and fight over it. Each island/plane though has a minor god that maintains the island. They are also what keeps the properties going. Low magic wasn't the right word. It's more that mortals don't get much magic.
Also ty for ideas so far. I'm definitely gonna be taking these into account while drawing maps.
The suggestions have helped a lot so far. just finished mapping the islands for material plane feywild shadowfellfire radiance and ash.
Look at legacy edition maps for inspiration imo...but islands overly simplifies and doesn’t do the planes concept justice imo. Islands suggests that each plane is a defined geographic location independent and measurably distant from every other plane. I think some planes might work as islands, but certainly not others
Guide to the Five Factions (PWYW)
Deck of Decks
I think it’s a great idea. Are you gonna keep the alignment restrictions of the Outer Planes even though you’re getting rid of the Great Wheel?
A bit late to the party, but I would like to make a few suggestions.
Instead of having a specific Shadowfell or Feywild island, I would recommend having designated areas that are just filled with dark magic or the fae. For example, an old battlefield haunted by those who died in the fight, and constantly reliving the fight every day, would be one shadowfell area, a "domain of dread" if you will. Meanwhile, that elven forest at the edge of the village is forbidden, for its not only filled with tricksy pixies, sprites and quicklings, but also blink hounds, coeurl, treants, oreads, nymphs and niads. Be careful you're not misled by this Druid Grove.
I personally like the idea of each of the outer planes being a country in each themselves. The Nine Hells would be a series of cities on a great volcano. Mount Celestia is, well, another mountain. The Abyss would be different sections of the Underdark. In fact, Out of the Abyss has some great ideas for the two. The prison plane could be an actual divine prison. Sigil could be a giant floating city that's neutral ground for the gods.
A few planes don't really need an equivalent - you don't really need to have a Feywild area on top of the Seldarine's plane. There's overlap between a lot of them.
of course not...problem you end up coming across if you're making something that anyone but you are going to use is acceptance. i've had people get red in the face over stuff like this. if you say 'shadow plane is over here and material plane is over here' sure, a reader who hasn't read any prior editions, or any novels might say 'wow, that's awesome'. but anyone who has is going to be like 'no, not really'.
it's like a math error in a financial presentation...as soon as someone realizes something is amiss, the entire document becomes suspect.
and i'd say its a lot more than a couple paragraphs when you start looking at novels.
Guide to the Five Factions (PWYW)
Deck of Decks
Yes, but the OP could do like a planar upheaval where the structure of the planes shifts radically overnight, maybe due to the actions of a powerful entity like Tharizdun (from the Oerth campaign setting). Or just a retcon where it’s always been that way in his campaign.
I don't see what there is to become red-faced about. Even the official D&D lore presents the several styles of multiverse presentation (World Tree, Wheel, etc.) as different, evolving interpretations of the planes by the sages of the time. If one version of the lore can say it's a tree, and another can say it's a wheel, and another can say it's a "world axis," then what is to prevent another interpretation as islands in an ocean?
All of these cosmological interpretations are metaphors to help understand the relationships among the planes -- they need not be taken literally. Just like when we talk about the "milky way" we don't really understand it to be a trail of milk in the sky.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I agree.
nothing...my first post was meant to be written as a suggestion and included my own opinion. apologies if it wasn't.
as far as red-faced, i have a wide group at the table - the oldest guy (probably late 50's i'd guess) is the 'that's not right' guy. i've got one kid who has probably read more than the rest of the table combined and is way more accepting. most of the others have only 5th edition as a reference point.
Guide to the Five Factions (PWYW)
Deck of Decks
I'm an old guy in my 50s and I say "that's not right" about a lot of things, but I can't imagine saying it about a DM's vision of a world cosmology.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Okay. Cool.