A Cosmology - Comments Solicited

[jjordan]

Self-scrubbing for reasons

[GalacticAxekick]

First things first, this belongs in the Worldbuilding forum (https://forums.giantitp.com/forumdisplay.php?57-World-Building).

But going on your cosmology


In the beginning was the timeless energy of pure chaos, infinitely small at the same time as being infinitely big. Within this chaos random interactions produced short-lived clusters of ordered interactions. Some clusters survived and continued, creating and extending through time and forming strands of order within the chaos that expanded in every direction. These proto-beings/realities multiplied, every interaction and decision creating a new strand. Most were weak and soon absorbed back into their originating strand. Others were stronger and kept their unique identity. Where strands draw close together it’s possible for energy to migrate from one to another. Sometimes this is accidental, sometimes this is deliberate.So the Big Bang, the abiogenesis of life, branching into cladistic "strands", the natural selection of sentient life.

So far, so familiar. This is our contemporary secular creation story, after all. What you have added is the idea that realities are born, procreate, and are naturally selected in the same way that creatures are.

My comment here would be "don't call them realities. That doesn't make any sense".

If they all exist, and can even interact with one another, then they are collectively ONE reality. It's not as if "in this reality I'm a doctor, but in that reality I'm an astronaut". It's rather that "I am a doctor. In another place far away, there is a being similar to me, except that he is an astronaut".

There's no fundamental difference between "multiple interacting realities" and "multiple interacting planets" or "multiple interacting countries" or "multiple interacting households". It's just different scales of distance. They are not different realities, but rather different realms.


Where the strands began as solitary intelligences the early process of assimilation led for some, most, strands to become home to multiple intelligences. The intelligences of some strands experimented with creating subordinate strings that grew, multiplied, and made the strand stronger. Other strands remained single intelligences leading a solitary life avoiding other strands while others became predators that consumed intelligences they happened upon. All intelligences are somewhat social and those that remained isolated became stranger and stranger, eventually passing through madness into the purest of alien.
Now this is a little confusing, because you describe the strands as both "beings" and "realities"—as both "intelligences" and "home to intelligences". It's very hard to understand whether you're talkin about a strand's actions or the actions of the beings that inhabit it. I'm going to do my best to rephrase what you wrote in clearly defined terms, and you can tell me whether I understand it or not:

Most strands ("realities", realms, cosmic areas) are home to multiple intelligences (creatures? gods?). The intelligences in some strands created (divinely created? bred? coerced?) subordinate strings (created mortals? bred beasts? coerced slaves?) that made the strand (their realm, their civilization) stronger.

Some strands (realms) are solitary intelligences (insular civilizations, maybe personified as a god). Other strands (realms) are predatory intelligences (imperialist civilizations, maybe personified as a god). All intelligences (realms, civilizations, gods) are somewhat social (interconnected). Intelligences (realms, civilizations, gods) that remain isolated become strange, mad, and finally alien (bad at governing themselves and bad at interacting with their neighbors)

If I'm understanding correctly, then this sounds like real-world politics applied on a "multiversal" scale (which is real just a way of stretching the universe across multiple planes and introducing gods/magic).


My setting is a multiverse with an infinite number of alien and alternate realities. There are multiple explanations/interpretations of this cosmology present in the world and each has its merits. Each is useful as a system which explains observed phenomena and allows for manipulation of reality through the focus of the will. The plane theory of reality doesn’t have a lot of adherents in my setting, but it exists. As does the theory of the Musica Universalis/Great Song which the bards use as the basis for their magic. And many others.Against, I'm going to do my best to rephrase what you wrote in terms that make sense to me. You can tell me whether I understand it or not:

The universe is infinitely large, and home to an infinite number of unique realms. The denizens of these realms have come up with many different models for how the realms are connected, how they can be navigated, and what laws underlie them. Different spellcasting traditions apply different models to do their magic, and because each model gets results, it can be said that they each APPROACH the truth. But none is perfect.

If I'm understanding correctly, this is the same relationship real-world scientific traditions have with the truth, once again applied on the "multiversal" scale that allows for gods and magic.

So far, the cosmology of your setting sounds like an allegory for the popular cosmology of our world. Which is fine! Allegory lets you tell stories about real world ideas on a more fanciful stage!



All this said, I haven't read anything that you wrote in point form yet. I'll do so later.

[jjordan]

Kind of you to take the time to read and comment. Thank you.

[GalacticAxekick]

Reading on:


-All planes of existence are simply independent strands of reality; some more alien than others.
-The astral sea is the chaotic medium in which the strands of reality exist. Physical existence in the astral sea is very difficult so most travel through this in non-corporeal form.
-The ethereal plane is the name given to those portions of the astral sea that overlap the strands of reality rather than existing outside the strands of reality. The shallows of the astral deeps, if you will.Cool. This is a pretty clear conceptualization of how different strands relate to one another in space (or rather, metaspace).


-Every interaction/decision creates a new version of reality. This means each thread creates a huge, but not infinite, different versions of itself every moment. Most of these differences are so minor that the new strand of reality is insufficiently independent to exist on its own and is almost immediately reabsorbed into the main strand. When two people disagree about the specifics of an event, that could be faulty memory or it could be two people accurately remembering different specifics that both happened.I think it's arbitrary for some timelines to be reabsorbed into the parent strand while other timelines remain apart. If there was an entity curating the timelines then sure, they could arbitrarily decide that some are redundant and prune them away. But if they are branching off naturally and without intervention, what forces "sufficiently similar timelines" to collapse together? Why do they not get the opportunity to butterfly effect into more and more unique timelines, or even just remain as parallel, nigh-identical timelines?


-My setting explains some creatures (elves, orcs, halflings, dragons) as creatures from other strands of reality that have settled in this strand for various reasons. Other species are native to this strand. Travel between strands and accidental or intentional overlaps are possible and provide a great way to customize the setting and introduce new species, magic, creatures, and anything else you and your players wish to incorporate.A version of this idea is already standard in D&D (fey, elementals, aberrations, celestials, and certain constructs originate from different realms of reality). But because you're proposing an infinitely large reality with realms representing every conceivable possibility, you're proposing that anything can show up in a setting, allowing DMs and players to customize it as they wish.

I think that if you want a setting that includes A, B and C, you should write a setting that includes A, B and C. And if you want a setting that includes X, Y and Z, you should write a setting that includes X, Y and Z. I don't understand the appeal of a setting where anything from A to Z could show up anywhere, anytime.


-Divinities are reality. A strand of reality may be composed of several divinities that coexist while cooperating or competing. The more powerful a divinity is the harder it is for it to directly interact with reality without causing massive changes. Truly powerful divinities must interact with lesser components of the strand using lesser divinities as their intermediaries. There is a finite amount of energy within a strand of reality and all major divinities share in it. Increasing the total energy of the strand is the best way to get more power, but divinities are intelligent and they more frequently compete.

-Divinities can exist in more than one strand of reality. Splitting off a child strand is a way for a divinity to increase its power. But if the child strand becomes too independent it will split off from the gestalt.
So I was right to assume that divinities are personifications of their realms. And I was write to assume that gods are analogous to rulers.

Like a ruler, the more encompassing a god's power is, the more it needs intermediaries to actually interact with its realms. Like a ruler, a god can become more powerful either by growing its realms or by seizing power from rivals within its realm. Like a ruler, a god can expand into new realms, though it does so at the risk of its colony becoming independent.

All of this sounds fine.


-There are two dividing lines between mortals and divinities. These lines are conditional immortality and absolute immortality. Conditional immortality is achieved when a being is able to draw upon the localized power of reality to sustain their life. Nature divinities which draw upon the power of a spring, a river, or a forest are one example. A lich capable of pulling the power from living creatures is another example. Deprived of their source of power these divinities will eventually perish. Absolute immortality is achieved by weaving their essence into the threads and strings that make up the strand of reality. Even the absolutely immortal can die, if they choose, or be killed, if the strand of reality is sufficiently altered/destroyed. Mortals were not built to be immortal and the physical and mental changes required are significant even before the opposition of existing divinities is factored into the equation.Sure.


-The more alien a strand is, the more removed it is from a creatures native strand, the harder it is for the creature to exist in the non-native strand. It takes a great deal of magical power to make this possible and without this power the strand will eventually kill the non-native creature.Sure. Traveling into alien strands is stressful and potentially lethal. Creatures aren't built for foreign environments.



Overall I'd say your setting is a pretty standard fantasy setting, with many grand and fanciful analogues to real-world dynamics. The one thing that sets it apart is the idea of an infinite variety of realms that can interact with one another, which, to me, threatens your ability to tell coherent and impactful stories more than it empowers you to tell new stories.

What I might ask is, what sort of stories do you hope to tell using this setting? And what possibilities do you intend to open up to your players?

[GalacticAxekick]

Okay, so the goal is to create a setting that justifies the improv going on out-of-character.

It is not a concrete setting with rules or history of it's own. Those things are arbitrary, and the DM and players share the role of arbiter.

If that's the case, then your setting accomplishes that goal perfectly! And if that kind of improv is what your players all want, they'll love this setting!

Like I said earlier, I think the idea of total improv threatens the table's ability to tell coherent and impactful stories. I think a good story is like a puzzle; it's about striving to solve a problem within a set of constraints. As a player, I have fun working in-character to make creative use of my abilities and resources within the constraints of the setting. And as a DM, I have fun devising a setting that intrigues and challenges the players.

Players introducing new elements out-of-character is, to me, like using scissors to make the puzzle pieces fit together. It cheapens the entire thing.

But that's just me.

[GalacticAxekick]

How about you give an example of how this cosmology might come up in character creation or in play?

The impression I'm getting goes something like this:

The story premise is presented. For example, the Big Bad is causing havoc in a nearby land. Great heroes are sent to stop him. Medieval fantasy setting, typical Tolkien races.
The players create characters who could conceivably be contracted for this task. One player wants to use scifi equipment that doesnt exist in this setting. That's explained as "coming from another strand".
Another player wants to play as a strange race that doesnt exist in this setting. Same explanation.
Another player wants to use homebrew alternatives to spells that break the usual rules for magic. Same explanation.
Beyond character creation, the players have no power to introduce elements from other strands. They cant say "Oh, theres a town of people with laser guns and jet packs just like me. Let's ask them for help". At least, not without DM approval. This limits their ability to "scissor the puzzle together" so to speak.
The DM, however, can introduce those sorts of elements as they see fit.

[jjordan]

Yep, that's correct. Thank you for elaborating. That's a lot of variation to put in a game, for my taste, but it's exactly what this cosmology enables.

[GalacticAxekick]

Sure. That seems fine then