How do you capture a wizard?

[Jack_Simth]

Yes, statistical analysis works in the real world, if done thoroughly enough to even out any statistical errors. What I am saying is that an "infinite area" is an absurdity in the real world, and trying to do a statistical analysis for an infinite area will produce likewise absurd results.

How's it absurd? As nearly as I can tell, you basically just keep saying, over and over, that it simply isn't right.

As nearly as I can tell, you've quoted no game text.
As nearly as I can tell, you've shown no math.
What, pray tell, are you basing this on? I'd like a suitable page reference, please, when you claim that there are not an infinite number of solars.

There are two problems with using an encounter table to determine population density. First, it just doesn't work, some creatures show up far too often, some creatures not at all. Using, for example, the forest encounter table in the DMG we find that 5% of all creatures in the forest are 5th level lizard folk with 2 centaur companions, and that wood elves and green dragons do not exist.

No, that just gives you meaningful encounters selected at random. Wood Elves and Green Dragons are either not intended to be encountered at random, or are not considered meaningful encounters.

Further, you are assuming that an encounter table is uniform across the entire plane, rather than just a sampling from an area PCs are likely to be in.

Do you have any actual evidence from the texts that they're not intended to be used in arbitrary areas of the plane?

Let's turn the question around, though. Where do you get that RAW says there are NOT an infinite number of Solars in existence in the default D&D cosmology? Or where RAI says there are NOT an infinite number of Solars in existence in the default D&D cosmology? Source, please. I've given you mine for why I think RAW says there are. I may have simply missed it, but I have not seen you do so.

[Talakeal]

How's it absurd? As nearly as I can tell, you basically just keep saying, over and over, that it simply isn't right.

As nearly as I can tell, you've quoted no game text.
As nearly as I can tell, you've shown no math.
What, pray tell, are you basing this on? I'd like a suitable page reference, please, when you claim that there are not an infinite number of solars.

No, that just gives you meaningful encounters selected at random. Wood Elves and Green Dragons are either not intended to be encountered at random, or are not considered meaningful encounters.
Do you have any actual evidence from the texts that they're not intended to be used in arbitrary areas of the plane?

Let's turn the question around, though. Where do you get that RAW says there are NOT an infinite number of Solars in existence in the default D&D cosmology? Or where RAI says there are NOT an infinite number of Solars in existence in the default D&D cosmology? Source, please. I've given you mine for why I think RAW says there are. I may have simply missed it, but I have not seen you do so.

I never made the claim that there were not an infinite number of solars. My claim was that you are trying to combine areas of real world math with abstract game mechanics and claiming that the result is RAW.

Demanding that I prove a negative is an impossibility, and a classic logical fallacy.

There is nothing that says there is an infinite number of solars or isn't an infinite number of solars. You made that claim that, by RAW, there ARE an infinite number of solars, and I am saying that is not neccessarily the case.

The only evidence you have presented by this claim is using real world statistical analysis based on a random encounter table. Real life does not have infinites, and real world statistical formulas do not give meaningful results when infinite values are plugged in.

Further, random encounter tables are, as per the DMG, NOT statistically accurate representations of what lives in an area, but rather a random assortment of creatures which a player might find in a location.

The manual of the planes which you are quoting, also says they are not indicitave of the infinite variety of the planes, rather they are a good sampling of creatures you might encounter while travelling the planes.

If you demand a RAW refutation, which again wasn't my goal, the closest I can come is this: Isn't it stated in several places that the Baatezu are finite and are thus outnumbered by the infinite Tanarii, and Baatezu are listed on the outer planar encounter tables, thus by your logic they must be infinite, which is wrong by RAW.

[Malachei]

We love the game, but boy can it be broken so easily.

Indeed, and while this sometimes makes me sad, because I do love the game, it is, in part, what spurs 90% of the discussions on this forums. :)

As nearly as I can tell, you've quoted no game text.

Indeed, a good point, and this is why I have asked for explicit RAW evidence on the infinite number of solars in my last post (I think two pages before). I've not seen it yet.

Houserules

My use of the term houserule was mostly for illustrational purposes. You can also term it "your decision" or "DM's call". I'm not trying to take sides here (and I like aspects of both schools, actually), when I say: There is a school of thought here, let's call it RAI school, that tries to apply, well, let's call it common sense or practical adjudication to fill gaps the RAW have not explicitly stated or are in conflict. Then there is another school of thought, let's call it the RAW school, stating this represents houseruling, because everything that is not RAW must be, by definition, a houserule. Both schools have their advantages when arguing certain topics, but sometimes, the arguments are a bit pointed or vigorous.

One of the pro sides of the RAW school is that in fact, nobody of us has definite knowledge of RAI, and hence, talking about RAI is speculation. One of the pro sides of the RAI school is that many agree the game does not work as designed, because RAW does not cover important aspects or leads to huge issues, balance and otherwise.

My point is, that if we want to apply the RAW school's principles, then all of us need to agree that RAW is the full rules text. Saying where RAW ends or focusing RAW only on a stat block is pretty deliberate and subject to interpretation, and thereby would remove a benefit the RAW-school has. The argument, that RAW is only crunch and flavor text is not RAW, is, IMO, a personal preference and not valid: Flavor and crunch are integrated in the RAW and often, the designers do not indicate which is which. There are no signs, saying "RAW begins here". They mix flavor and crunch, and they do not state: "This part of the text is RAW, this part is for your flavor enjoyment, you can ignore it".

The RAW-school often vigorously fights any point in a discussion that is not clearly based on RAW and says everything else is a houserule. But if we decide to follow this school of thought, we really need to stay consistent: Then, unless there is clear, unmistakable evidence (!) that something is unambiguously (!) defined in RAW, it is not supported by it. And a discussion drawing conclusions from what RAW might imply is then talking about RAI again.

Infinite Planes

The fact that RAW tells us that a plane is infinite does not automatically imply a class of creatures on it is infinite. I think that is plain logic.

However, I must say the point that if the creature is on an encounter table that applies all over the plane is a good one. However, the plane, even if infinite, has specific locations (which is a bit of an issue in terms of placing that location), which are given in RAW. In places, encounter tables would be different. So a specific encounter table does not necessarily aptly represent the plane's infinity. It is here, where the problem lies:

The rules don't need planar infinity as a mathematical construct, and they don't use it as a mathematical construct. They use planar infinity as a philosophical construct. If we take infinity as a mathematical construct, we run into all sorts of issues. One being that IMO, the RAW clearly imply that there are more lower-level outsiders than higher-level outsiders. If both are infinite, this statement is not correct.

Also, Solars are not just your run-of-the-mills monster. They are the highest servants of a lawful good deity and work closely with them, and they interact with the god. As the deity is still part of the action economy, its closest servants are a finite number (but this includes RAI assumptions, of course).

Therefore, my case is that there is no definite RAW support for the claim that Solars are an infinite number. I asked for specific RAW text that indicates otherwise.

The main problem, however, is that we are not told how to deal with the infinity assumption of planes. For instance I could not Greater Plane Shift to a precise location, because on an infinite area, there is no precise location. My point is that I believe (RAI school speculation, here) the designers went for planar infinity because they would not have to specify planar size and shape. Thereby, they avoided having planes as planets, or having people "fall off the plane". Unfortunately, did not foresee that infinity as a concept brings a couple of conflicts within RAW.

Mmmkay, at this point, I'm invoking DFTT and leaving the thread. When people mistake houserules for RAW and newbs think they know more than those who have contributed to published works, nothing meaningful will result.

You've lost me with this comment. Obviously, the point is not that easy to answer, and the rules evidence not that clear, and has not been given.

I think you mistake your opinion for fact.

And whether members have contributed to anything or are new, is completely irrelevant to this discussion (otherwise, we should exchange CVs before starting discussions). Also, what is a newb? For instance, I've followed the forum many years before registering and I know others have, as well. What in your eyes, makes one member's contribution more valid than another's?

[Jack_Simth]

Indeed, a good point, and this is why I have asked for explicit RAW evidence on the infinite number of solars in my last post (I think two pages before). I've not seen it yet.

I've given you page references. The Manual of the Planes puts Solars on the Heavenly Encounters tables and the Beatific Encounters tables - page 152. It also defines several planes that use those encounter tables as infinite in size (The Seven Heavens of Celestia, the Twin Paradises of Bytopia, The Blessed Fields of Elesium, The Olympian Glades of Arborea - pages 132, 136, 138, and 144, respectively). The Manual of the Planes has an update booklet for 3.5, and is directly referenced in the 3.5 Planar Handbook. It's a perfectly valid place to look.

Infinite Planes

The fact that RAW tells us that a plane is infinite does not automatically imply a class of creatures on it is infinite. I think that is plain logic.

Not directly, no. However, when you've also got a table that specifies that in an arbitrary point in this infinite space you've got a particular chance of encountering a specific class of creature, then the combination does indeed imply that the specific class of creature is infinite in number, as it yields a positive density that is distinguishable from 0.

This is plain logic. A -> B does not say anything about C. However, if you've got A -> B and B -> C, then A -> C, as well.

However, I must say the point that if the creature is on an encounter table that applies all over the plane is a good one. However, the plane, even if infinite, has specific locations (which is a bit of an issue in terms of placing that location)

It's not hard to place something on an infinite plane. Consider the mathematical construct of cartesian coordinates. Infinite in size, but any point can be defined quite easily. All you need is a single reference point.

, which are given in RAW. In places, encounter tables would be different. So a specific encounter table does not necessarily aptly represent the plane's infinity.

They don't have to apply to the entire infinity. Just the mostly unspecified majority of it. Which is what they're for.

It is here, where the problem lies:

The rules don't need planar infinity as a mathematical construct, and they don't use it as a mathematical construct. They use planar infinity as a philosophical construct.

Source, please. Also, what difference does it make, really?

If we take infinity as a mathematical construct, we run into all sorts of issues.

Not really, given that D&D physics don't work like real life physics when it comes to the planes. Gravity and time explicitly don't work like in real life on the planes. I've linked you to the SRD entries for those already, so I won't do it again here.

One being that IMO, the RAW clearly imply that there are more lower-level outsiders than higher-level outsiders. If both are infinite, this statement is not correct.

It can be, actually. Infinities have orders to them. The integer infinity is smaller than the real number infinity, for instance. Check with your college math professor if you'd like a source.

Also, Solars are not just your run-of-the-mills monster. They are the highest servants of a lawful good deity and work closely with them, and they interact with the god. As the deity is still part of the action economy, its closest servants are a finite number (but this includes RAI assumptions, of course).

Why yes, it does include RAI assumptions.

Oh, hey, you just got done going through a big speech that included "talking about RAI is speculation." - and now you're using something based on it in an argument? This has lead me to the conclusion that there's no point in debating anything with you. I'm stopping here. Have a nice day.

[Malachei]

I find it interesting to see your long reply end with "end of discussion". Why not start with that? It is like ending a discussion with a long monologue and then running off, slamming the door before the other has had a chance to reply.

Personally, if I want to end a discussion, I end it silently or with a short farewell, not with a monologue. Of course, then you don't have the last word.

Anyway, I'll get back to the infinity topic if you decide to still take part in this discussion. I think it brings a couple of issues, and also will lead us off-topic. Infinity poses a number of paradoxes. While you are right in that the infinity of integer numbers is bigger than the infinity of real numbers, the example you gave does not apply here (because we are talking of creatures, which can be countably represented with natural numbers, and countable infinities of natural numbers are the same size).

Also, IMO, no, an encounter table is not sufficient to conclude the numbers of solars, because an encounter table is an example. It does not even claim it represents the plane's population.

Finally, even if there is just one creature of a certain class on a certain plane, it could appear on an encounter table. For instance, the Planar Handbook also lists Hecatoncheires (CR 57, from ELH), a creature born of proto-deities. Are you saying there's an infinite number of Hecatoncheires? If yes, as these are proto-deities (and not all proto-deities become deities), by your logic, there is an infinite number of deities, as well.

But, perhaps, let's get this more back on track: Assuming you'd be a playing a lawful good deity in the D&D 3.5 mythology and cosmology, would you accept mortals messing with your solars?

[Boci]

I find it interesting to see your long reply end with "end of discussion". Why not start with that? It is like ending a discussion with a long monologue and then running off, slamming the door before the other has had a chance to reply.

Personally, if I want to end a discussion, I end it silently or with a short farewell, not with a monologue. Of course, then you don't have the last word.

And you can have stopped your post here, but then you wouldn’t have gotten the last word. Kettle calling the pot black much?

[Talakeal]

I didn't mean to offend you or make you mad, or get drawn into an argument as I seem to have been, and I apologize that this has happened.

My simple point was:

Infinites are an abstract mathematical concept. They do not exist in reality. Attempting to apply abstract mathematical concepts to reality gives results that fly in the face of common sense, i.e. they are absurdities. This is the basis of the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy joke I referenced, as well as most of the humor in Lewis Carol's works, and I was pointing that out.

As for D&D, the planes do not run on abstract math OR reality. They run on in character belief, GM imagination, and abstracted rules mechanics. If you want to believe there are infinite Solars, go ahead, there is nothing saying you are wrong. But if I want to say there aren't, there is nothing saying I am wrong either. I personally believe there are probably 2-12 solars per deity, but there is nothing saying that I am right or wrong either, that's just the gut feeling I get from reading the fluff.

As for RAW, it doesn't go either way. I do not count encounter tables as RAW, they are certainly written, but they aren't rules. It is clear to me that they are sample possibilities for what might exist at a given location, in the same way that the sample characters in the PHB are not RAW.

And you can have stopped your post here, but then you wouldn’t have gotten the last word. Kettle calling the pot black much?

In his defense, he said that is what he would do if he were leaving the discussion, and then continued to say he does not wish to leave the discussion and if the other poster would care to continue he has the following points.

[Aharon]

@Jack Simth
I like the effort you put into your calculation.

In the DMG (p. 77), it is specifically stated when rolls on the random encounter tables occur:
When PCs are in the area/doing something.
Obviously, in-game, the distinction can't be made. This strongly infers that the encounter tables were intended as a tool for this specific purpose only, and that you can't derive general frequencies from them.

They are also specifically created with an average EL in mind.

The DMG states on p.95 [...]The sample encounter tables presented in the section on terrain features ... were constructed using the procedure described below[...]

The creation process on p. 98 includes the following:
[...]Once you have every entry for your encounter table ready, you need only assign percentages to the table. You can rigorously adjust the percentages to ensure that the encounter table yields an EL exactly equal to your target EL, but frankly it isn't necessary. Simply assign larger chances to the lines you know generate encounters close to your target EL.[...]


I'm aware that both arguments don't change your math - non-zero probality times infinite space yields infinite creatures - however, the process of probability distribution assignment in conjunction with the limited applicability (PCs only) clearly shows that the encounter tables do not reflect the true in-game distribution of creatures, but only the out-of-game desire to achieve interesting random encounters

[Malachei]

And you can have stopped your post here, but then you wouldn’t have gotten the last word. Kettle calling the pot black much?

No, as I have not left the discussion, and I assumed there are still participants. i'm happy to see your post amd those of others prove my assumption right.

[Boci]

No, as I have not left the discussion,

But Jack_Simth had left the discussion. Responding to their last comments is fine, but not whilst making a point about the importance to them of having the last word since by addressing his points you are doing the exact same thing.

[Tvtyrant]

But Jack_Simth had left the discussion. Responding to their last comments is fine, but not whilst making a point about the importance to them of having the last word since by addressing his points you are doing the exact same thing.

Not really, no. Jack-Simth through out an article of considerable length, and then excused him/her self from the discussion so as to not have to defend it. It is hardly the same, or even similar, to call him/her on doing so.

[Boci]

Not really, no. Jack-Simth through out an article of considerable length, and then excused him/her self from the discussion so as to not have to defend it. It is hardly the same, or even similar, to call him/her on doing so.

There's nothing wrong with attempting to get your opinions across one last time before you bow out of a discussion, especially since you can be pretty sure whoever you were debating with will respond. And that isn't a problem either, but if you are continuing the debate then you have write to pull the "last word" card because you are guilty of the same thing.

[Malachei]

I didn't mean to offend you or make you mad, or get drawn into an argument as I seem to have been, and I apologize that this has happened.

I think it is the usual procedure, the usual result, and hence, nothing to be sorry about. Actually, in this particular case, I think it might produce important results.

Infinites are an abstract mathematical concept. They do not exist in reality. Attempting to apply abstract mathematical concepts to reality gives results that fly in the face of common sense, i.e. they are absurdities. This is the basis of the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy joke I referenced, as well as most of the humor in Lewis Carol's works, and I was pointing that out. As for D&D, the planes do not run on abstract math OR reality. They run on in character belief, GM imagination, and abstracted rules mechanics.

I think it was a valuable contribution you pointed that out. Very clearly, these discussions always end at the point where we find that the game, indeed, requires more than applying RAW 1:1. The act of designing a campaign, defining challenges, running a character is a creative one. It requires adjudication and judgment, and it is inherently linked to the complete RAW, and it needs mechanics just the same as it needs context.

@Boci: You've expressed this three times now, and I think I have understood what you tried to get across. In a way, I disagree, but I respect your point. Do you want to dwell on it or shall we get on with the solars?

I'm aware that both arguments don't change your math - non-zero probality times infinite space yields infinite creatures - however, the process of probability distribution assignment in conjunction with the limited applicability (PCs only) clearly shows that the encounter tables do not reflect the true in-game distribution of creatures, but only the out-of-game desire to achieve interesting random encounters

I think you are spot-on right here. Thank you for finding that.

Another, more personal comment: I want a game that works, and, besides being fun, is credible and consistent. I am not a balance-fanatic, I don't nerf wizards, and there is little banned stuff. But rules text presents problems, has loopholes and things that can be used to break core concepts of the game (such as the power level of characters). I think where the rules text presents issues, you need a gentlemen/ladies' agreement or you need to rule it out. Usually, I prefer the first to the last, but whatever the course you take, I will make sure that a characters does not jump ~half-a-dozen levels in power just because of acquiring a scroll. I like to defend my reasoning to players, and having solars and their deities exact punishment upon a wish-gating wizard (because they DO care) is one of it. Personally, I found the assumption of infinite solars somewhat arbitrary and constructionist in the first place, because the MM entry describes them as close attendants of a deity, but that is not the main point. The main point is that I am happy to have players that share my gaming philosophy and like to play powerful characters, while not having the ambition to break the game. Some of them know how to do it, but they don't. Thus, they don't force an arms race on me (which the DM, eventually, always wins), and that makes me happy.

I'm not sure if that makes me or my players a minority, or whether that is positive or negative in your eyes and from your gaming style's point of view -- but I feel fine.

[Jack_Simth]

{{scrubbed}}

[Malachei]

So you are back in the discussion and out again? I'm not sure, so I'll answer this:

Hmm? Oh, I just tend to process things in order. If you'll note, I was about halfway through your post on the quoting bits. I stopped when I encountered the contradiction - you specified RAI is nothing more than speculation, then turned around and used RAI in an argument. That was about the third or fourth item I considered "dirty pool" as far as a debate goes, and so convinced me that there's no real point in debating you. So I'm not debating with you further. I hope you have a nice day.

The following is my subjective opinion. Please do not feel further embarrassed by it. I am writing it, because I feel this discussion is going in the wrong direction:

My impression is that you are seeing this discussion too much on a personal level, or perhaps with a win-lose mentality. To me, your reaction is somewhat that of an offended person. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm afraid I cannot really understand what has caused your post in the first place: In my first post, I have conceded that RAI is debatable, and then I've used RAI (admitting it!) for a small point in my overall argument. In my post's introduction, I have explained I appreciate both schools and I can't see what's wrong with using both schools in my argument, as long as I admit when I am using RAI in a point I am making.

On a side note: I think we should all treat another's arguing and opinion here with tolerance. We're not here just looking for a reason to get angry, or to make another person angry, are we?

You may call my RAI-based point a weak point, or standing on uneasy ground, you may even call that a flawed argument, but I don't think this gives you the right to call me playing "dirty pool."

[Fitz10019]

How do you capture a wizard?

Once.

as in, "My father hung me on a hook once... once!"

[Jack_Simth]

So you are back in the discussion and out again?

I'm just not debating you on this topic anymore because we're not using the same set of debate rules, which makes it quite pointless.

My impression is that you are seeing this discussion too much on a personal level, or perhaps with a win-lose mentality. To me, your reaction is somewhat that of an offended person. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Yeah, you're wrong. We're not following the same set of debate rules, so there's no point.

I'm afraid I cannot really understand what has caused your post in the first place: In my first post, I have conceded that RAI is debatable, and then I've used RAI (admitting it!) for a small point in my overall argument.

Basically a self-contradiction. But also as I mentioned: That was the third or fourth instance. Consider:
How many times have you asked for source / proof in this thread? How many times have you been given a page reference / SRD link in this thread? How many times have you been asked for source / proof in this thread? How many times have you given a page reference / SRD link in this thread? From my perspective, you're demanding a level of evidence from others that you're not up to meeting yourself.

Consider again Talakeal's: "Demanding that I prove a negative is an impossibility, and a classic logical fallacy." - when it ceases to be proving a negative simply by a trick of phrasing - 'prove that there are a finite number of solars, even if not a specific number'.

If it were just one instance, I wouldn't much care. But from what I can tell, it's become a pattern, and it's clear we're playing by different rules. And there's little point in the game if the players don't use the same rules.

[Aharon]

@Jack
Does this also apply to me? (See my argument based on DMG-quotes above)
I honestly don't know because I didn't follow the whole discussion.

[Malachei]

I'm just not debating you on this topic anymore

There is no problem in not debating with me. In fact, you're very welcome to. But you do.

because we're not using the same set of debate rules, which makes it quite pointless.

What debate rules are you referring to that you are following and I am not? (See below my comment regarding evidence)

From my perspective, you're demanding a level of evidence from others that you're not up to meeting yourself.

I brought evidence that "Solars are (...) close attendants to a deity" which IMO implied a god cares for them. Tippy said a god does not care for them, because there are "trillions" (and later specified the infinity hypothesis) -- I asked for evidence that there are trillions. I can't find anything wrong with that.

From that point on, people have contributed. I don't think it is a good contribution to say one poster's contribution is valuable, and another's isn't. Actually, before you started to act what seems offended to me, this discussion was pretty much on topic. Personally, I think you are taking this far too personal and with a win-lose attitude. Are we really here to win arguments or, if we can't, say "there's no point in debating with you"? I may be wrong, but I suspect, this discussion has made you angry, which I find sad.

[Talakeal]

Consider again Talakeal's: "Demanding that I prove a negative is an impossibility, and a classic logical fallacy." - when it ceases to be proving a negative simply by a trick of phrasing - 'prove that there are a finite number of solars, even if not a specific number'.

Now you are just being unreasonable. Let me (once again) try and restate my point:

I am not trying to prove that there are a finite number of solars.

I am pointing out that the method you used to prove that there ARE infinite solars does not work without abstract math that was never intended to apply to reality or to the D&D rules and with assumptions about what the encounter tables represent that are not backed up by RAW or, as far as I can tell, RAI.

You can argue a logical argument without disagreeing with the premise. Take for example Aristotle's "Women are inferior to men because men have more teeth." I don't have to prove that men aren't superior to women to point out that both genders have the exact same number of teeth and therefore the argument is invalid.

[Slipperychicken]

Infinites are an abstract mathematical concept. They do not exist in reality.

Wizards don't exist in reality. Magic doesn't exist in reality. Creation doesn't exist in reality. Dragons don't exist in reality. All these things exist in dnd, because the books say so.


The books say infinity, so that's what it is.

[Talakeal]

Wizards don't exist in reality. Magic doesn't exist in reality. Creation doesn't exist in reality. Dragons don't exist in reality. All these things exist in dnd, because the books say so.


The books say infinity, so that's what it is.

The book says the planes have an infinite size. This is RAW and we can all agree on this.

The point of contention is that the books do not say how infinity works, and as we have no game rules or reality to work from there isn't a solid framework for how said infinite plane operates.

If Jack can say that an infinite plain indicates infinite population every possible entity because of abstract math which doesn't apply to real life or the game books, then I can just as reasonably say that infinite amounts of matter equal infinite amounts of gravity and pressure which instantly slay said infinite population due to real life physics.

[Flickerdart]

then I can just as reasonably say that infinite amounts of matter equal infinite amounts of gravity and pressure which instantly slay said infinite population due to real life physics.

However, the population is quite definitely alive (and is described in books) so therefore this is not the case.

[Talakeal]

However, the population is quite definitely alive (and is described in books) so therefore this is not the case.

This is true. I was not trying to make a reasonable argument, merely demonstrate that applying real world math to the game as if it was RAW will result in situations that are against the setting provided.

Think for a moment what infinite characters of all types would actually mean for a second. Why would any single individual person, place, or thing have any importance at all in the multiverse when there are literally an infinite number of exact copies, and indeed an infinite number of infinetely better versions as well?

How would your character even exist when there are an infinite number of epic level wizards who, for absolutely no reason other than a random, infinitely unlikely whim, decided to wish you dead just now?

[Flickerdart]

Isn't the Prime Material not infinite? It's only the other planes that are. That's why you can keep casting Summon spells and never run out of dudes.

[Talakeal]

Isn't the Prime Material not infinite? It's only the other planes that are. That's why you can keep casting Summon spells and never run out of dudes.

The prime material is infinite. Virtually every plane except the demi planes is infinite according to the manual of the planes.

If the prime wasn't infinite I don't know how the argument for infinite population of the outer planes could even be made as most planar creatures are either former mortals or sustained by mortal belief.