Talk:Plane (Dungeons & Dragons)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Dungeons & Dragons-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and find out how to help!
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


Isn't the Blood Sea of Istar (Dragonlance) a conduit from Krynn to the Abyss? --'Net 18:29, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Is the Blood Sea something similar to the River Styx or Oceanus (where travel down the river/ocean results in traveling along the planes)? If so, then that's a planar pathway, and totally different. In fact, I should probably add planar pathways to the Portals, Conduits, and Gates section. — Shoecream 23:10, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
I think so. In the Forgotten Realms, the River of Blood is the same as the River Styx in the core Dungeons & Dragons setting. Jarlaxle June 30, 2005 04:57 (UTC)

Is the Shadow Plane the same as the Shadow Deep? Different authors seem to use different terminologies in the War of the Spider Queen series. Iluvchineselit 00:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The Shadow Deep is a certain area of the Shadow Plane, I think the deepest or densest. JarlaxleArtemis 03:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


No need for every single concept in D&D to have its own page. The planes can be generalized enough to explain them and all fit on one page. shadzar|Talk|contribs 17:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree (with respect to the major planar concepts anyway), when there have been numerous books written about a topic (as is the case with most major planar concepts), it deserves its own article. Dec 26 2006

  • Technically, EVERYTHING can be generalized enough to fit on one page, but that doesn't mean we have to do it.--Robbstrd 07:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I think that the way this and other articles about D&D planes are currently arranged is not very good. Important information (like the properties of the plane of Radiance are not documented at all) and things I have never heard of (like the Far Realm) are given more coverage.
The Inner Planes, Prime Material Plane (aka Material Plane in 3e), the Outer Planes and the Far Realm (which I don't recall seeing in Manual of the Planes or Planescape - we need a citation for this) are lumped into one small section called "Spacial planes". This reduces their importance compared to the Transitive Planes, which are given much more detail on this page. Incidentally I don't recall seeing the term "Spacial planes" before. I'd like to see a citation for this as well.
If you don't want to merge the other articles with this then the "Transitive Planes" should be given their own article and the section for them should be a summary. However, I'd prefer all of the articles about D&D planes to get a major rewrite by people familiar with the Planescape campaign setting and the 1e and 3e versions of the Manual of the Planes. Big Mac 13:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The Phlogiston is not a transitive plane[edit]

The author of the Phlogiston section says that it is "not traditionally considered a plane" but it is actually not a plane at all and has no place in an article about the transitive planes. The Planescape Campaign Setting set down in cannon that the Phlogiston and wildspace are both part of the Prime Material Plane. Previously, the cosmology of D&D had spoken about Alternate Prime Material Planes, but Planescape switched this to a single Prime Material Plane.

This Prime Material Plane consists of an uncountable number of crystal spheres floating in the Phlogiston. The Phlogiston does have special properties (its highly flammable and blocks all interaction with other planes) but it is still part of the Material Plane.

I know a Planescape expert and I'll try to get the name of the book where this was set out.

I'm proposing that this section is removed from the article. It would be acceptable to include it in a section about the Prime Material Plane. However that might not please people looking for information on the older "multiple prime cosmology", so it should probably be in a section of that article dedicated to the Planescape/Spelljammer version of the Prime Material Plane. Big Mac 13:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

If it's consistently described as part of the Prime Material Plane, the article should state that it's part of the Prime Material Plane. If a Spelljammer sourcebook states that it's a plane which connects multiple Prime Material Planes while a Planescape sourcebook describes it as part of the Prime Material Plane, the article should state that the Phlogiston's planar status varies. IIRC according to the 3e or 3.5 Manual of the Planes, each solar system is part of a separate material planes and the Phlogiston is presented as an optional transitive plane, however I may be misremembering. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


with 4th edition it seems all things in D&D must change. with those changes it seems planes have become one large region for change. now either the entire article could be written over with each new edition change or errata, or since the article only continues to explain [Plane (metaphysics)] in D&D terms we could just add the planar material somewhere else and list how they have changed with editions. i do NOT think Planescape should be the end-all-be-all definition of planes of existence in D&D as it was just a small look into and not core to D&D planes as a seperate campaign setting. this is effort to reduce the amount of edition specific material in lgiht of potential new editions and help remove edition bias with the cosmology changes described with the 4th edition. if this subject does warant its own article then a major overhaul needs to be done on it. shadzar|Talk|contribs 18:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I am strongly opposed to rewriting the article with a bias towards 4th edition, however I do agree that a revision is needed. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Weasel Word Tags[edit]

There are a lot of inappropriate {{who}} tags throughout the article. Should these be removed, or replaced with tags for vagueness/original research (which I believe was the original intent), or am I misunderstanding something? —Managore (talk) 13:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I replaced a few with {{fact}}... they really don't seem to be appropriate for {{who}} though, I agree. – Zawersh 23:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge raises its ugly head again, but this time with no explanation[edit]

Someone has added a merge template to this page and the Manual of the Planes page, but hasn't given any explaination here. I think this article needs some clean up, but dumping part or all of a different article into this one doesn't seem like something that will help this one. So I'm going to pull the template off of both articles. If you want to add it back, please feel free to do so, but please add an explanation for your tagging in the discussion page - unexplained tags are confusing to a lot of us other wikipedians. (talk) 17:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, there's now an explanation at Talk:Manual of the Planes#Merge raises its ugly head again, but this time with no explanation. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

what the heck[edit]

could weasel words be obscuring here? usu, the weasel tag goes on a page where

1. there are some sort of "high stakes" for the average information seeker who lands on the page to get quality information, right? as in, "if this info were bad, that would be bad for people who trust wikipedia's info, for wikipedia, etc. whereas, here- heck we want valid D&D info on 'pedia, but let's not take ourselves too seriously, no one's gonn get hurt. is there a actual political controversy here or what?

2. there is more than one set of "popular views" on the subject matter, hence an argument between persons interested in the content. these persons may even be outside of wikipedia, but surely some of them are here, fighting over something. otherwise why would one side be trying to coyly couch their POV in weaselyness, right?

I guess I'll leave it there for now. I prob will remove tag unless someone (ideally the tagger) says why there is a true controversy the kind of which warrants such a tag.

Fucking tag monkeys. BingoBob 16:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

idea taken[edit]

in the setting were involved philosophy of esoterism, occultism, theosophy, mysticism and the teachings of enlightenment, but for some reason this is not anywhere duscussed.Te same plans were taken from Hindu philosophy and the idea of reincarnation is also there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Outsoul (talkcontribs) 12:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If you have a source, feel free to add. Thanks! (talk) 16:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
In order for the connections between a game and its source material to be properly addressed, it would have to be admitted that there is some sort of legitimate but informal study and educational value to the playing of such games. I would not recommend holding your breath on at least this last point; if you did so you might pass out or actually asphyxiate. Oh, wait, that's a figure of speech???
Need I also mention that different cultures have different attitudes toward the whole fiction/non-fiction dichotomy? That's something that someone who had actually played the game might appreciate a little bit more easily, having received a proper (Multi-)University education.
As for the original question, the fact is that the West has typically had a very narrow-minded view of the world, both in terms of Judeo-Christian religiosity, and in terms of a Greco-Roman metaphysics of only respecting tangible physical evidence in respect to statements concerning reality. When most of this material was adapted into a body of work as a game, most beliefs of other cultures were considered proper "fodder" for a game as they were considered just more "fairy tale" material. You'll distinctly notice that neither YHWH nor Jesus received stats in Legends & Lore! Is that enough proof of the point? I could always provide more -- please, dare me! --TheLastWordSword (talk) 00:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

"standard" cosmology?[edit]

Why is the Great Wheel refered to on this page (and several other wikipedia articles about the planes of the Great Wheel) as the "standard cosmology"? What's "standard" about it when there were so many campaign settings that didn't use it? Web wonder (talk) 03:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess that just means in 1st - 3rd edition, this was the standard version of the planes in official print sources. (talk) 04:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Talk:Abyss (Dungeons & Dragons)#Canon consistency (talk) 12:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Merged with Neth[edit]

Since Neth and this article have a huge overlap in content, and since Neth appeared in what, a section of a 3rd edition book. It, unlike Ravenloft which has an entire setting built around it, didn't seem important enough to warrant it's own article.Red Macgregor (talk) 01:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)