Weird planets in lore? - Page 4

On October 11 2011 13:34 nerak wrote:
Have anyone wondered that planets in lore are so... wrong?

I´ll take Bel'Shir as the ultimate exemple. It is a "jungle planet". Its even all covered in green.


But how can that be that the only enviroment of a planet is a jungle? Shouldnt a planet with so much water have at least icy poles?

And of course, there could be a rational explanation, there can always be. For exemple: Bel'Shir have intense and countinuous vulcanic activity, specially in the poles. That and its unique atmosphere keeps all the planet suitalbe for rain forests, although its not the SAME rainforest everywhere.

Now its "fixed", it makes sense right? But they cant just use the same excuse for all the planets... like all the planets have some reason to have the same climate, soil and biosphere everywhere.


What do you guys think?

EDIT: Bel'Shir is a moon XD Complains still applie.

On October 13 2011 15:24 SwitchAUS wrote:
Because sci-fi is all about realism ^.^

On October 14 2011 03:14 joyeaux wrote:
One solution to the colder-at-the poles problem is a thick ozone layer and a far away sun.

If the sun is far away and the atmosphere generates a powerful greenhouse effect, the temperature difference between poles and equator will be negligible

On October 14 2011 04:20 KissKiss wrote:

That might solve temperature, but if we assume these plants use photosynthesis then they will need light too, and the light levels are going to be quite different at the poles compared to the equator.

Of course, you can invent almost any psuedoscientific explanation to explain away just about anything. Realistically though a planet like Belshir is very unlikely. But this is a game where Winged creatures somehow navigate space, so I wouldn't worry too much.

On October 13 2011 15:24 SwitchAUS wrote:
Because sci-fi is all about realism ^.^

Is Korhal in lore supposed to be a city-planet?

I don't really understand your argument... Basically you are saying on one hand, stuff should make sense and be authentic and obey the laws of physics, while on the other hand there should be magic and teleportation 'n shit?

On October 14 2011 20:20 cjin wrote:
Tal'darim are highly religious. As they saw area around the Breath of Creation is jungle, they made a conclusion, that jungle is what the Creator wants, and then terraformed whole rock into jungle.

On October 11 2011 14:07 nerak wrote:
Yeah, but a planet cant be tropical, as it cant be equatorial, thats the point. If its a extra-hot planet, so hot its poles are as hot as Earth´s tropics, how hot will the Equator be?

Of course, I gave that one idea, Bel´Shir could have kinda the same climate everywhere bacause volcans, blablabla. But what of Mar Sara? How is it hot and semi-arid everywhere? I does have seas, that does evaporate. Doesnt the rain falling concentrates anywhere? (for exemple, Earth´s rains are more common in Florida, Amazon, Congo, and not so common in Texas, Mongolia, Europe). The icy-poles problem still applies. If Mar Sara´s poles are warm, its Equator should be inhabitable.

On October 14 2011 14:24 Paradice wrote:
Bel'Shir is not entirely jungle... it has beaches!

Mar Sara.. I don't recall a campaign mission "map out the entire planet of Mar Sara" - and without that, how can you make sweeping generalisations about the entire planet based solely on a few key locations you have seen or read about?

But enough nitpicking. If the question is why the planets are like this, it's because: it can make epic Sci Fi.

There are two types of sci fi: ones where all the planets are kinda like Earth (maybe with some twist), and ones where all the planets are totally different and crazy. Each is valid, but you cannot mix those styles. And for videogames in particular, I daresay a campaign where you explored subtle climate variations on multiple Earthlike planets simply less visually engaging.

Is the gigantic-single-biome planet an example of "lazy" sci-fi? Maybe sometimes. But then sometimes it's freaking Dune.

On October 11 2011 16:02 Greg_J wrote:

If there where 2 suns then in all likely hood the 2 suns and all the planets would be pulled into the same plane by gravity and thus the poles would still be colder so a binary system doesn't really help.

Obviously the planet would still be hotter than a planet heated from just 1 side by an equally powerful sun. But it's poles would still be a lot colder than the equator.