# Why I dislike Sigil and the Lady of Pain



## MerricB

I've made a few comments recently about how I'm not fond of Sigil, Planescape or the Lady of Pain. So, here's an explanation for why I feel that way. I'm not particularly fond of Planescape in 2E/3E, but I really dislike the idea in 4E.

In particular, I really, really dislike how the Lady of Pain devalues the gods. I'm not opposed to areas that gods can't enter (see Death's Reach), but the reason they can't enter there is far more convincing than the fiat that enables Sigil.

Then too, Planescape is part of the extreme fragmentation of D&D, so I've always been opposed to it on that principle. (I also am not fond of DiTerlizzi's artwork, and I despise the cant).

One of the best times I had recently was the PCs meeting the Raven Queen, and them being speechless as a result. This was a god - their god - and she held the power of life and death over them. That's what I want from the gods: these are the creators of humanity and demihumanity, and they should be loved and occasionally feared.

This is not to say that the gods are omnipotent and invulnerable - by no means - but can you really imagine the Zeus of Greek mythology or the Odin of Norse mythology being unable to affect the Lady of Pain? The influence of Greek and Norse mythology is extremely visible on the 4E mythology, and it'd be nice to see the gods in a similar position of power.

Odin is a more vulnerable figure than Zeus, to be sure. The Norse gods are suitably wary of the Giants (who correspond to the power of the old Primordials in 4E, although the Primordials are somewhat of a fusion of the Giants of Norse mythology and the Titans of Greek mythology). In numbers lies strength, and though no single giant could stand against Thor with Mjollnir in hand, given enough numbers, you'd at least get an interesting fight. Although interesting might mean "end of the world". Certainly Utgard-Loki, king of the giants in Utgard according to one legend, was only able to "best" Thor with illusions, and after Thor's visit no longer wished to test Thor's might at all.

Interestingly, one of the key "D&Disms" of the epic plotline - that of Orcus slaying and supplanting the Raven Queen - is actually very similar to Odin's slaying of Ymir, and Zeus's slaying of Kronos. (There's also the Idun incident...)

Returning to Sigil, one effect of the Lady of Pain's existence is that suddenly atheism - in an otherwise theistic cosmos - becomes an option. And, thus, you get the factions. Completely irrelevant outside of Sigil, because the morality and ethics promulgated by the gods actually apply elsewhere. It sort of works in the confused state of mythological affairs that was 2E, where there seems to be 1001 gods or more, but with the tighter set of mythology in 4E, even if the gods don't work as tightly together as a pantheon as the rest of mythology implies they should, the factions stick out like a sore thumb. Thankfully they're mostly not there in 4E.

The idea of meeting places - civilisation - in the Astral Sea is an interesting one. Personally, I'm very fond of the City of Brass (dating back to the cover of the old Dungeon Masters Guide), but with Sigil, I really need something more than "it exists because of the Lady of Pain". Who uses it? Why do they use it? What is the civilisation of the outer planar creatures that requires such a meeting place to exist?

"An angel and a devil sit down at a bar" sounds like a good start to a story, but why would that meeting ever take place? Is it a forced contrivance to tell a story, or does it make sense within the mythology you have? In 4E, it looks forced to me.

The civilisation of the Efreet gives rise to the City of Brass, and the trade opportunities there for high-level characters, and thus I can justify it. I don't have such a justification for the City of Doors.

Cheers!


----------



## Lancelot

My justification for the City of Doors is... well... because it's the City of *Doors*.

In other words, exactly what it says on the label. Sigil has the highest concentration of portals anywhere in the Multiverse. For those who have dealings on interests in other planes (angels, devils, proxies of the powers, adventurers, merchants, philosophers, etc), it's like being the CEO of a global business living in Chicago or New York, compared to living in Topeka. You have fast access to nearly anywhere you want to go. You can respond quickly to business opportunities elsewhere. You hear rumors quicker, due to the increased flow of traffic through the doors.

The City of Brass, meanwhile, is like (former) Detroit. It is (was) a center of industry. It's not known as a travel hub; it's a place where things get made, where you can deal with *one* very powerful faction, where you might gain access to ancient secrets and knowledge. But it's rare that the travel agencies book a stopover there for tourists traveling from Celestia to Faerun.

So, the City of Doors is the travel hub. It's the place-to-be if you're "in the business" (whatever that may be - quests, souls, proselytizing). What about the other folks who live there? Well, they're just kinda trapped. Sure, there are many flights, leaving by the hour. But sometimes the tickets to where you want to go are just too pricey for the poor schlub who'd really like to go to that island paradise. And sometimes the tickets can't be had at any price (...because the ticket is the heart of a brass dragon, or the taste of the color purple, or some other weird portal key). So, they're trapped. Sure, they could probably hop through that unkeyed portal over there to the Astral Sea (githyanki), Baator (devils) or Gehenna (don't even ask). But, all things told, it's probably better to just stay trapped in the Cage (Sigil's unofficial name amongst the lower classes).

As for the Lady of Pain, I see her in this fashion... given the description of Sigil above (i.e. the travel hub for the planes, and the smart place to be for anyone "in the business"), the Lady exists because, if she didn't exist, the multiverse would have to invent her. 

Why? Because whoever controls the travel hub of the planes, controls all business in those planes. Sure, there are other methods of travel between planes. There are slower and harder to find routes. You could go for an _astral projection_ or use _shadow walk_ or _plane shift_ or whatever strikes your fancy, but portals are your travel-method-of-choice if you're not an uber-powerful spellcaster. And if someone controls the majority of the portals, they get to choose which philosophies spread from plane-to-plane... which gods can quickly and easily spread their faith... which merchants get access to supply and demand... which adventurers can go questing on what planes.

Every entity of any power will want a piece of that. Every god will fight to the death to control it. It's like giving a single religion, or nation, control over the Internet. They can exclude anyone else from playing on the 'Webs. That leaves other communication channels available to other groups, but none are nearly as effective.

This results in one of two outcomes: either a never-ending war for control, where gods and worlds and dimensions are dropping like flies... or there's something preventing that war from happening. There's some power which prevents that colossal battle for control.

I contend that the Lady of Pain is that power, and that she exists because the multiverse itself requires her existence to prevent a war for dominance which can only end when either one philosophy/god controls all of the "doors" (no remaining conflict = no more adventuring), or the multiverse itself is destroyed.

She's not necessarily a power that is stronger than the gods. She's not there to rubbish their power, or be an uber-Zeus. She's there because she has to be there, and she may be nothing more than a personification of a force that resists conflict and ultimate destruction (e.g. for the Marvel fan-boys out there... she's Eternity; she personifies the multiverse and acts as an opposing force to death/chaos, but she is not a god/entity in herself).


----------



## Incenjucar

It's funny that you mention the Raven Queen, since she's a mere mortal who took the powers of a full-fledged and extremely powerful god, and who has already managed to make a few races of her own since. If the gods can be devalued by other beings being able to affect them, she's a far greater offender. The Lady appears to have gotten her power from a god as well, but unlike the Raven Queen, she's extremely limited by it. Not to mention that 4E has primordials - which slaughtered gods, but can themselves be slaughtered by PCs. Not to mention the Obyriths. And the Far Realm _things_.

The Lady of Pain's ability to hold proper deities off is like Vecna's ability to obtain secrets. Doors are essentially her portfolio, much to her detriment, and Sigil is her Astral Demesne... or her Domain of Dread.

I don't know what you mean about "fragmentation." Planescape UNIFIED every setting in D&D, and Sigil has been known to have Athasians walking around. 

Zeus and Odin? How much have you read about them? You know that Zeus was once _drugged and tied up_ by the other gods? The king of the gods got _roofied._ Odin is very much doomed, and had to get some of his powers from outside sources to begin with, like a warlock. They are mighty, but they have many limitations. Indeed, deities usually make mortals BECAUSE of their limitations, and their limitations are much of what make them interesting today - there's a reason that there's so much focus on Sigil being the Lady's "cage."

D&D atheism comes in two forms, often accounted for outside of Planescape (Faerun's atheists are screwed, for example). 1) No belief that the gods exist at all. 2) No belief that the gods are actually gods. The former is common where the gods can't touch the mortal world directly, and so cannot prove themselves, and the latter is common where the gods do appear, but then are jerks. This is how many real people would react, so I don't see the issue.

Your _aesthetic_ issues with the flavor of Sigil itself... well hey, your tastes are your tastes. Every artist has critics, and not everyone likes thick use of slang and accents - many can't stand "Aye lad" and "Ye be well m'dear" and so forth.

Angels and devils associating with one another is hardly unusual. Devils are fallen angels, so they have something in common, and angels work for ANY deific cause, which devils often have a hand in.

That you seem to think that Sigil exists because of the Lady of Pain suggests that you haven't read all the lore on it.

I would hazard to guess that, while it's absolutely 100% cool for you to prefer D&D your way, your views don't reflect what was actually written in the last three or so editions. It's cool if you don't want Sigil in your game, everyone has their tastes, but if you wish to argue about it I feel it would help if you studied the topic in more depth.


----------



## Saeviomagy

My problem with the lady of pain is that she's a cliched super powerful being with no explanation for why she's there or why she does what she does. It stinks of lazy writing to me. Sigil could have existed without her and it would have been better off for it.


----------



## Tequila Sunrise

Well, Merric, just about every reason you have for disliking Sigil are exactly the reasons I love it! I love the attitude, the cant, the factions, the chance an angel and a devil might share a drink (even if it happens but once a century), the 1001 gods, the infinite planes, the enigma that is the Lady.

I guess it's mostly a matter of taste, but I have a few comments:



MerricB said:


> In particular, I really, really dislike how the Lady of Pain devalues the gods. I'm not opposed to areas that gods can't enter (see Death's Reach), but the reason they can't enter there is far more convincing than the fiat that enables Sigil.



I'm not familiar with Death's Reach; what prevents the gods going there?



MerricB said:


> Then too, Planescape is part of the extreme fragmentation of D&D, so I've always been opposed to it on that principle. (I also am not fond of DiTerlizzi's artwork, and I despise the cant).



You just made a little bit of me die. Toni is my fave D&D artist, bar none.

Okay, less melodramatically: are you simply apathetic about Toni's work, or do actively not like it? If the latter, is there something in particular you don't like about it?



MerricB said:


> This is not to say that the gods are omnipotent and invulnerable - by no means - but can you really imagine the Zeus of Greek mythology or the Odin of Norse mythology being unable to affect the Lady of Pain? The influence of Greek and Norse mythology is extremely visible on the 4E mythology, and it'd be nice to see the gods in a similar position of power.



Aren't they, even with the Lady's presence? I mean, even in Greek and Norse myth, there are things that even the gods fear.



MerricB said:


> Returning to Sigil, one effect of the Lady of Pain's existence is that suddenly atheism - in an otherwise theistic cosmos - becomes an option.



I wouldn't say _suddenly becomes an option_. Even without the Lady's presence, D&D gods aren't infallible and they don't grant anything that mortals can't grant themselves. Who needs gods when the local war veteran *cough* warlord *cough* can heal as well as their clerics can?

Sure, atheism is more common in Sigil largely thanks to the Athar, but it's not like atheism is untenable otherwise.



MerricB said:


> The civilisation of the Efreet gives rise to the City of Brass, and the trade opportunities there for high-level characters, and thus I can justify it. I don't have such a justification for the City of Doors.



I'm confused -- doesn't the same justification apply to Sigil?


----------



## Incenjucar

How many of the Planescape books have you read, Saeviomagy?

Mind you, I haven't read all of them, but I've read quite a few and while there is always the mystery in the Lady's story, there is a rather strongly hinted set of possibilities.


----------



## AuraSeer

I use Sigil but not the Lady of Pain. I don't see the logic behind having a literally unbeatable uberdeity just for one city and travel hub.

Some individual campaign settings already have mind-crogglingly powerful uberdeities of their own. The most well known is Ao of the Forgotten Realms, who is as far above deities as they are above mortals. He can depower an entire pantheon without half trying. And if he's not enough for you, there's at least one higher step that's as much more powerful again-- a being that Ao himself kneels to and calls Master.

If the Lady is powerful enough to keep even Ao and his master out of Sigil, I have to ask why her only demesne is this one city, and why she has a form mortals can comprehend at all.

But assuming she's not powerful enough to keep those beings out, then they stay out for reasons of their own. And if they stay out by choice, I think it's perfectly reasonable that the same is true of the "ordinary" gods as well.

In the absence of a Lady, PCs may ask why evil, chaotic, or selfish gods do not enter Sigil or set up temples there. The response they get from the gods is: "Mind your own business, puny mortal."


----------



## Siberys

My favorite settings are Eberron and Dark Sun, and in both cases, the presence of an extended omniverse doesn't quite mesh with what I consider to be their 'feel'. It's no surprise, though, since both have their own cosmology and neither has active deities, which always seemed to me to be necessary defining features of PS.

That's what I don't like about Planescape; it's all-inclusive, multi-world setup doesn't mesh well with my goals, which is usually to run an Eberron or Dark Sun campaign, not an Eberron or Dark Sun Heroic Tier. It's a standing fluff rule in my games that Sigil and all of its baggage simply doesn't exist, again due to the thematic conflicts it usually gives rise to. A friend of mine who is a big fan of Torment repeatedly asks about going to Sigil, which I refuse for that very reason.

That all said, an out-and-out PS campaign almost entirely set in Sigil could be fun.


----------



## Tequila Sunrise

AuraSeer said:


> Some individual campaign settings already have mind-crogglingly powerful uberdeities of their own. The most well known is Ao of the Forgotten Realms, who is as far above deities as they are above mortals. He can depower an entire pantheon without half trying. And if he's not enough for you, there's at least one higher step that's as much more powerful again-- a being that Ao himself kneels to and calls Master.



What about the third option: what if the Lady, Ao and all the other other uberdeities are one and the same?

They all exist as a result of writer fiat anyway, so why not put all the apples in one basket?


----------



## pemerton

MerricB said:


> I've made a few comments recently about how I'm not fond of Sigil, Planescape or the Lady of Pain. So, here's an explanation for why I feel that way.



I just XPed you recently for the capsule reviews, so can't XP for this. But I mostly agree. I very much dislike Planescape (I have a few Planescape modules, and as written they all strike me as railroady to the extreme). The Lady of Pain does nothing for me, although I could perhaps tolerate her as a Bombadil-like character confined to her own little demiplane. The factions also do nothing for me (and as a professional philosopher, I find the characterisation of them as "philosophers with clubs" failry bizarre - they don't seem to be doing what I recognise as philosophy).

I have toyed with using Sigil in my campaign (given that quite a bit of 4e lore presupposes it) but in the following way: by setting up a contrast between, on the one hand, the self-conception of the Sigil-ites (as the centre of the multiverse, ultra-sophisticates who look down their noses at "primers", etc) and on the other hand, the obvious squallor and degradation that is Sigil (their torus stinks and is grimy, they have no artistic, social or political culture of any value, and they even tolerate demons in their bars!). The idea would be to give the players either (i) a contrast with which to reaffirm their PCs' moral integration into the real (mortal) world, or (ii) an option for a PC who want to embrace nihilism completely.

(This presentation of Sigil is sort-of based on taking every criticism levelled at Bohemians by conservatives, and actually making it true of Sigil - dada-ising the dada-ists, if you like.)



MerricB said:


> I despise the cant.



I wouldn't say I despise it, but I find it inane. (In the same way that I find Jar Jar Binks creole inane, or would find it inane to describe a campaign setting where all the inhabitants sound like Peter Sellers' imitation of an Indian accent in The Party.)

To me, it simply reinforces a prior sense that American English is much more removed from British English than is Australian English. (At least some elements of cant are part of the English that I grew up speaking as a child, like "berk" as a derisive term for a person.)

My brother, who is married to an American, told me once about his attempt to explain to her the rhyming slang used in the TV series Minder. They call a 10-pound note a "monkey", he explained, because "monkey" is short for "monkey wrench", which denotes a form of spanner, and "spanner" rhymes with "tenner". To which she responded, "Why would you call a 10-pound note a tenner?"

I feel that if you know the answer to that question, then cant will not excite you so much, because it's already implicit in your everyday speech!


----------



## erleni

I'm just on the opposite side. I always loved Sigil and the Lady, especially the sense of mistery about her powers and her connection to the city.

To us it was very simple: the Lady is the local goddess. Outside of the city she has no powers, while inside she's able to control almost everything, including the portals and the mazes. That's why other gods can't enter her realm and why in Harbinger House there was a plot to create a god inside Sigil.

The factions were fantastic (Bleak Cabal and Sign of One being my fav). 

What I didn't like about Planescape was the Great Wheel, as it felt too much as a straightjacket.

Regarding Di Terlizzi, he's not my favourite artist in D&D but he did a good job overall and matched the feeling of the setting.


----------



## S'mon

I've never much liked Sigil, and never used it any of my campaigns.  I'm not sure why they felt it was a good idea to include a mangled version of it in 4e.

OTOH I'm fine with the idea of planar nexus cities with lots of portals.  If they're for everyday use I'd generally rather they be the creation of an actual or current civilisation, like the Efreet's City of Brass, or more likely a race of human sorcerer-kings.  I like humans - I practically choked on reading the 4e DMG's "Humans are boring!" declaration.


----------



## Mirtek

For all her supposed awesomeness, I always saw the Lady as simply yet another greater power.

She hasn't really done anything to proof that she is more powerful than other greater powers.

a) She slew a greater power. Yes, greater powers can slay each other

b) She keeps other powers out. Power can keep other powers out of their domains. Except when some power sneaks into Sigil anyway

c) The way she had to fight Vecna, at this time a greater power himself. They both fight so similar (and the fact that they fought at all instead of the Lady merely snipping her finger to evict or slay Vecna) tells me that she is just another greater power with simply a very attractive divine realm (aka Sigil)


----------



## Klaus

I love Sigil, and I love the Lady (not took keen on them dabus, otoh, I prefer Gloomwrought's keepers).

The Lady isn't a god, she's a "tool" for DMs to use as they will. She might be the future self of a PC in one campaign, or the mother of all deities in the other. She gives the DM a way to control otherwise incompatible beings and NPCs long enough to form a campaign setting.


----------



## RangerWickett

If I were to justify it, I would say that gods rely on belief for their power, and Sigil is sort of a hub of skepticism, so gods have a hard time deploying their power there.

Sigil is too important to too many people and factions, and so the only god that can exist there is a god of skepticism. Who is the Lady of Pain? No one knows. Fits great for me.

I, for one, dislike settings where there are no metaphysical mysteries. If everyone agrees, "Yup, Mystra's where magic comes from, and this is her exact backstory, and how she interacts with all these other gods who also have exact backstories," then that removes a huge component of the human experience, which is Having No F-ing Idea What the Truth Is.

Without Sigil, you've got a bunch of planes and a bunch of gods who can claim to be greater entities and lord it over whatever domain they claim as their own. But Sigil lets you say, "Even you, little god, are just a belief. An idea. Beliefs can change, and ideas can be forgotten."

Maybe even doubt can die, but I would mourn it greatly.


----------



## Aenghus

I have issues with Sigil and the Lady of Pain myself. I found the setting to be too cynical and deconstructionist, too shades of grey like Eberron. The division between ignorant hick primes and sophisicated cynical residents I found grating. The cant annoyed me. The factions I found shallow and specious, the treatment of alignment as team jerseys insulting. In many ways Planescape was designed as a parody of old fashioned D&D, and it fell flat for me becuase I like old-fashioned D&D.

Part of this is the most local fan of Planescape enjoyed it for many of the reasons I give as negatives above. He saw paladins as Lawful stupid idiots at best, facists at worst. His angels were more evil than his devils, everyone was out for themselves, and most of his PCs were typical 90's edgy anti-heroes in a dingy noir world. Yuck!

And the Lady of Pain herself is a very dangerous type of NPC. She's an untouchable, cryptic figure of great power that is in close proximity to the PCs. To a certain mindset she's a constant reminder of how small you are compared to her. She can easily be used as a means of torturing PCs, or as a means of suicide by bored players. She's a mystery no answers exist for, in a setting that PCs can aspire to and may ultimately achieve godhood (or other forms of apopheosis). 

The only way I can think of to make the Lady of Pain less of a pain to to keep her remote, seen in the distance or not at all. Demonstrate that interacting with her is a bad idea, and avoiding her is entirely possible.


----------



## Rune

MerricB said:


> Returning to Sigil, one effect of the Lady of Pain's existence is that suddenly atheism - in an otherwise theistic cosmos - becomes an option. And, thus, you get the factions. Completely irrelevant outside of Sigil, because the morality and ethics promulgated by the gods actually apply elsewhere.




You, it seems, prefer for your D&D gods to have a tangible presence.  That certainly works.

When I run games, the gods are usually (much) more remote, thereby making atheism a reasonable philosophy for characters in the game.  As far as a non-believer is concerned, so-called "divine" magic is no more divine than a wizard's magic missile.  On the other hand, those who do believe, are actually required to have _faith_ to do so!

To further complicate things, even those who worship the same deity in these games, rarely worship the same _concept_ of that deity.  Sometimes, these worshipers directly oppose each other--and they still both get their prayers answered.  Atheists tend to view these conflicts as further evidence in support of their philosophy.

My point is, it is entirely possible to play D&D in such a way that morality and ethics are promoted by the _worshipers_ of the gods, rather than the gods, themselves!


----------



## GMforPowergamers

MerricB said:


> I've made a few comments recently about how I'm not fond of Sigil, Planescape or the Lady of Pain.






> In particular, I really, really dislike how the Lady of Pain devalues the gods. I'm not opposed to areas that gods can't enter (see Death's Reach), but the reason they can't enter there is far more convincing than the fiat that enables Sigil.




May I just say I agree with 90% of what you said Merric...if not more, but let me tell you how I made sigil (I like the basic idea) make since in my worlds...


The Lady of Pain was a child of both a primordial and a God pre the divine war... both her parents where killed in the war and she (like the primal spirits) lashed out at both sides. When the war ended she still hated the gods...but was smart enough to know she could not win. The Gods then made a non aggression pact with her...and Sigil was born.

The deal was magic... If she leaves the city of doors she loses her power, but if the gods enter so do they... she is also very powerful on her own.

this lead to one epic moment in my world...

[sblock=my omg moment in epic levels] The lady of pain beat to crud, bleeeding and dieing begging the PCs for help...  The ghoul king had eaten the flesh of a dead god, and absorbed some power, and had a plan spaning artafact he was testing for orcus...then entered the city(not being part of the deal he didnt lose the power) stood in the way of the lady of pain, and when she went to throw him into a maze he stoped it and said "In a big city like this you take arguements like this up the ladder, but a back woods guy like me...I just want to take this outside..." when he attacked her he ripped her through the planes, and almost killed her...eating her flesh and gaining more power [/sblock]

having a city of doors in witch the gods do not interfere or enter with a very powerful force in charge is a good plot point...


----------



## Tymophil

MerricB said:


> I've made a few comments recently about how I'm not fond of Sigil, Planescape or the Lady of Pain. So, here's an explanation for why I feel that way. I'm not particularly fond of Planescape in 2E/3E, but I really dislike the idea in 4E.



I, personnaly dislike the idea that a certain setting is a good or a bad idea for a certain edition of D&D. By the way I am a big fan of the PlaneScape setting and especially of the Lady of Main, the factions, the Dabus, the Cant, etc.
I don't plan to play this setting in D&D4 at the moment, but Sigil and the Planes are a place I would gladly play in again with D&D4.



MerricB said:


> In particular, I really, really dislike how the Lady of Pain devalues the gods. I'm not opposed to areas that gods can't enter (see Death's Reach), but the reason they can't enter there is far more convincing than the fiat that enables Sigil.



This is one of the ideas I really like about the Lady of Pain and Sigil. It shatters our expectations about the Gods and the Multiverse. A place where the Gods are too much like mortals portray them is dull for me. 



MerricB said:


> Then too, Planescape is part of the extreme fragmentation of D&D, so I've always been opposed to it on that principle. (I also am not fond of DiTerlizzi's artwork, and I despise the cant).



Mainstream D&D settings (Greyhawk, Forgotten Planes, Mystara, Golarion, Points of Light) are not my cup of tea. If I get the notion that "I could do it myself", then it doesn't appeal to me. There are ideas in PlaneScape that could not come off of my head, and it sparkled my imagination.



MerricB said:


> One of the best times I had recently was the PCs meeting the Raven Queen, and them being speechless as a result. This was a god - their god - and she held the power of life and death over them. That's what I want from the gods: these are the creators of humanity and demihumanity, and they should be loved and occasionally feared.



The lady of Pain would not diminish in any way the awe of your players, because it is not a character to be loved, feared, understood, tec. It is something to be avoided...



MerricB said:


> This is not to say that the gods are omnipotent and invulnerable - by no means - but can you really imagine the Zeus of Greek mythology or the Odin of Norse mythology being unable to affect the Lady of Pain? The influence of Greek and Norse mythology is extremely visible on the 4E mythology, and it'd be nice to see the gods in a similar position of power.



I dislike the 4E Mythology. I much prefer when the mythology is so alien to the game (and game mechanics) that it gives life to the setting. For exemple, I never link any god to an alignement in my games.



MerricB said:


> [snip]
> Returning to Sigil, one effect of the Lady of Pain's existence is that suddenly atheism - in an otherwise theistic cosmos - becomes an option. And, thus, you get the factions. Completely irrelevant outside of Sigil, because the morality and ethics promulgated by the gods actually apply elsewhere. It sort of works in the confused state of mythological affairs that was 2E, where there seems to be 1001 gods or more, but with the tighter set of mythology in 4E, even if the gods don't work as tightly together as a pantheon as the rest of mythology implies they should, the factions stick out like a sore thumb. Thankfully they're mostly not there in 4E.



Factions added a lot of flavour to the game, but needed some maturity on the player side of things. Religiuon, in Fantasy and in the Real World, doesn't have to make sense, and should avoid trying to make sense. The whole Philosophers with clubs idea was very realistic once you know a little bit of the history of philosophy in Greece. It is a mine of idea for a mind such as mine.



MerricB said:


> The idea of meeting places - civilisation - in the Astral Sea is an interesting one. Personally, I'm very fond of the City of Brass (dating back to the cover of the old Dungeon Masters Guide), but with Sigil, I really need something more than "it exists because of the Lady of Pain". Who uses it? Why do they use it? What is the civilisation of the outer planar creatures that requires such a meeting place to exist?



In my opinion, Sigil doesn't exist because of the Lady of Pain. Sigil is, the Lady of Pain is, and it's a matter of philosophical debate wher the come from, where they go to, how they occured, etc. It is very unhealthy to ask question about the Lady of Pain...



MerricB said:


> "An angel and a devil sit down at a bar" sounds like a good start to a story, but why would that meeting ever take place? Is it a forced contrivance to tell a story, or does it make sense within the mythology you have? In 4E, it looks forced to me.



This is just why I like this setting : it raises more questions than it answers question. These are the seeds for my creation. You may prefer other hooks for your creativity to sparkel.



MerricB said:


> The civilisation of the Efreet gives rise to the City of Brass, and the trade opportunities there for high-level characters, and thus I can justify it. I don't have such a justification for the City of Doors.
> 
> Cheers!



Personnaly "trade opportunities" would be a nice thing to pile up... But only there is mystery. This is what I find in Sigil. Some fantasy place that makes sense is, in my mind, an oxymoron.

This only happende when Monte Cook wrote "Faction Wars". In my opinion, he killed the magic of the line by applying mundane goals and rules to this setting.


----------



## Ryujin

I think that, for simplicity sake, in 4e I would just make The Lady a successful "Planeshaper" who, as a result, has absolute power within her own plane. At least that makes it fit within general mechanics and 4e cosmology.

Then I'd just call it a day. I've never used the city, in a campaign, though I can see the utility of it.


----------



## d2OKC

Probably off-topic (and I apologize if it is too far off), but this thread has been really inspirational to me. I've been kind of stumped about how (and when) to reveal certain information to my players during epic tier (which I wanted to take place in Sigil and make heavy use of some of the elemental planes), and this thread has lead me to exactly the places and "people" I needed. So, thanks, I guess?

And, some of the posters here have suggested that others may not be up-to-date on their Sigil/Planescape lore. Where is the best place to go to do so? Is there a well-made wiki? Or would someone have to go read the novels set there? It would be helpful to know where to get that knowledge. Thanks, again.


----------



## Shemeska

d2OKC said:


> And, some of the posters here have suggested that others may not be up-to-date on their Sigil/Planescape lore. Where is the best place to go to do so? Is there a well-made wiki? Or would someone have to go read the novels set there? It would be helpful to know where to get that knowledge. Thanks, again.




Planewalker.com has a decent wiki, but the site had some navigation problems a little while back. Its worth a look though. A shame the 2e pdfs aren't for sale anymore, they would have been your best best.

Avoid the novels. For the love of God avoid the novels.

Play a few hours of Planescape: Torment and you'll have a good feel for the setting's atmosphere and tone.


----------



## Shemeska

Aenghus said:


> The only way I can think of to make the Lady of Pain less of a pain to to keep her remote, seen in the distance or not at all. Demonstrate that interacting with her is a bad idea, and avoiding her is entirely possible.




She's more background element and plot device than NPC. Keeping her a remote, depersonalized point of mystery and setting mystique seems to work best IMO. In six years of running games in Sigil she showed up twice, and not once during those two times did she speak or have any meaningful communication with the PCs.

If you don't know what she is, don't have stats, don't even know if she's a god, or even if she's alive, you can't interact with her the same way as a mundane, prosaic NPC. This gets under some peoples' skin, but I suspect it's also a playstyle issue at work here as well.

For all we know she's trapped, and an object of pity, or a martyr for the pain of the multiverse, or a nascent godling forever unable to breach the cusp of divinity and consigned to act out her frustration only on those who mock her with worship. Or she's a living personification of Sigil. Or she's the original paragon of neutrality. Or she's a being from another multiverse. Etc Etc. It's an awesome concept.


----------



## Tequila Sunrise

Shemeska said:


> Avoid the novels. For the love of God avoid the novels.



Are they simply run-of-the-mill-teen-D&D-fantasy bad, or bad in some other way? I ask because you don't often have negative comments about PS stuff.


----------



## d2OKC

Cool, thanks, Shemeska!


----------



## Shemeska

Tequila Sunrise said:


> Are they simply run-of-the-mill-teen-D&D-fantasy bad, or bad in some other way? I ask because you don't often have negative comments about PS stuff.




They have some instances of blatantly going against some of the setting's rules in some truly wtf  ways: The Lady of Pain's griffon riding shock troops. Yeah. The three book 'Blood War' trilogy should be ignored. 

The other novel, Troy Denning's 'Pages of Pain' is an interesting and pretty decent read on its own, but I wouldn't present it as canonical to the setting in any way.


----------



## TarionzCousin

Saeviomagy said:


> My problem with the lady of pain is that she's a cliched super powerful being with no explanation for why she's there or why she does what she does. It stinks of lazy writing to me. Sigil could have existed without her and it would have been better off for it.






erleni said:


> I'm just on the opposite side. I always loved Sigil and the Lady, especially the sense of mistery about her powers and her connection to the city.
> 
> To us it was very simple: the Lady is the local goddess. Outside of the city she has no powers, while inside she's able to control almost everything, including the portals and the mazes. That's why other gods can't enter her realm and why in Harbinger House there was a plot to create a god inside Sigil.






Klaus said:


> The Lady isn't a god, she's a "tool" for DMs to use as they will. She might be the future self of a PC in one campaign, or the mother of all deities in the other. She gives the DM a way to control otherwise incompatible beings and NPCs long enough to form a campaign setting.






RangerWickett said:


> If I were to justify it, I would say that gods rely on belief for their power, and Sigil is sort of a hub of skepticism, so gods have a hard time deploying their power there.
> 
> Sigil is too important to too many people and factions, and so the only god that can exist there is a god of skepticism. Who is the Lady of Pain? No one knows. Fits great for me.






Shemeska said:


> She's more background element and plot device than NPC. Keeping her a remote, depersonalized point of mystery and setting mystique seems to work best IMO. In six years of running games in Sigil she showed up twice, and not once during those two times did she speak or have any meaningful communication with the PCs.
> 
> If you don't know what she is, don't have stats, don't even know if she's a god, or even if she's alive, you can't interact with her the same way as a mundane, prosaic NPC. This gets under some peoples' skin, but I suspect it's also a playstyle issue at work here as well.
> 
> For all we know she's trapped, and an object of pity, or a martyr for the pain of the multiverse, or a nascent godling forever unable to breach the cusp of divinity and consigned to act out her frustration only on those who mock her with worship. Or she's a living personification of Sigil. Or she's the original paragon of neutrality. Or she's a being from another multiverse. Etc Etc. It's an awesome concept.



I have colorfully highlighted sentences I particularly like. I'm just lazy like that. 

I like the idea that the Lady of Pain is not just a local goddess; she is something else. The idea of Sigil as being free of the gods' influence really appeals to me. It's neutral territory. It isn't the Lady's realm, per se; it's a place where no deity has overt influence. 

The Lady herself is a mystery. To me, that makes Sigil and the Planescape setting *more *interesting. That puts all the Powers' plans into the covert realm, behind the scenes. I like that.

Planescape isn't traditional fantasy. To me it's a weird hybrid of multiple mythologies, philosophies, and the endless multiverse. That's why I love it.


----------



## DracoSuave

(from the Planescape point of view)

To understand the Lady of Pain, you have to understand what Sigil is.

Sigil is not just 'some city full of doors' tho obviously that's part of it.

It's the physical and metaphysical centerpoint of the Outlands.

The Outlands are the plane of absolute neutraility and balance.  For every good action there is an evil action.  For every spot of chaos there is a spot of law.

This is not some conscious effort on the part of civic-minded neutral beancounters (tho those do exist)... it's the absolute power of the entire plan itself.  It is as absolute as the Elysium's requirement that to travel you must perform acts of kindness.  If you die in battle in Ysgard, you come back the next day as if it never happened.  If you wish to do certain magics in Carceri, you must perform an act of treachery.  If you listen to the winds of Pandemonium, you go insane.

These are not the work of gods, these are the fundamental laws of each universe.

Sigil is the absolute center of the Outlands.  It is the absolute center of truest neutrality.  Gods, however, have the ability to shape and change the laws around them to suit themselves.  Gods can enter the outer parts of the Outlands without problems.  But near the Spire, they have no reach.  And on top of the spire, above it... the power of the Outlands is the strongest.

So if a God enters Sigil... then there are only two possible reactions:  Either the god is denied entry, or a god must be created to oppose him.  

The former is the better option.

The Lady of Pain is just one aspect of that balance.  Her job is not to prevent action, but to balance actions that require her to do so.


....lastly... atheism is not a rational choice for planars.  The closest you get are the Athar, who believe that the powers are just extremely powerful entities, but are not all-powerful dieties to be worshipped.  This is not atheism in the classic 'those things don't exist' sense, cause they obviously do, but it's closer to gnosticism, where 'those things exist, but not as you think they are.' sense.


----------



## Shemeska

DracoSuave said:


> ....lastly... atheism is not a rational choice for planars.  The closest you get are the Athar, who believe that the powers are just extremely powerful entities, but are not all-powerful dieties to be worshipped.  This is not atheism in the classic 'those things don't exist' sense, cause they obviously do, but it's closer to gnosticism, where 'those things exist, but not as you think they are.' sense.




I'm not sure where some of the Athar = Atheism and Sigil/LoP makes atheism a valid option is coming from. A large portion of the Athar faction actually believes in something which is about as close as you can get to monotheism in D&D: the so-called "Great Beyond" which is their name for a transcendant, unknowable, omnipotent being beyond the gods.

Their former factol Terrance was an adherent of that philosophy. And they got spells via worship of the concept, and it was always a big question if they were actually gaining spells from that entity, or gaining it by worship of the concept itself even if there was nothing behind it, or if it was being supplied (perhaps unknowingly) by all of the other gods out there.


----------



## I'm A Banana

MerricB said:


> In particular, I really, really dislike how the Lady of Pain devalues the gods. I'm not opposed to areas that gods can't enter (see Death's Reach), but the reason they can't enter there is far more convincing than the fiat that enables Sigil.




I personally am happy to see that the gods are not all-powerful in a cosmological mash-up. There are Forces Beyond Gods. It is infinity turned up to 11. 

I think it's kind of essential for a cosmological mash-up to have gods that are not all-powerful, especially if Philosophy is one of the defining pillars of the setting, since you want people to be able to doubt and question them, rebel against them, pronounce them dead, compare and contrast them, ignore and defy them, or believe in them for reasons beyond "He is big and shoots lightning and can kill things and lives in a paradise far away."

That's my take, anyway.  



> Then too, Planescape is part of the extreme fragmentation of D&D, so I've always been opposed to it on that principle. (I also am not fond of DiTerlizzi's artwork, and I despise the cant).




Eh...tastes vary.  I don't know what you mean by "extreme fragmentation of D&D" though?



> One of the best times I had recently was the PCs meeting the Raven Queen, and them being speechless as a result. This was a god - their god - and she held the power of life and death over them. That's what I want from the gods: these are the creators of humanity and demihumanity, and they should be loved and occasionally feared.




That's great for a setting where most of the adventures take place in the Mortal World, but Planescape rejects that idea. Immortals are fairly common beings, everyone has their own view, and the gods, while very powerful, are ultimately nothing special. Part of that bag is the use of philosophies as a core element -- you want to include characters who are inspired by fantastical takes on ideas of right and wrong and life and death beyond the simple animal awe. You want to have characters who can spout Buddhism and Nietzsche, and that requires a different take on the nature of the gods. In PS, the awe is not that there are powerful entities, but rather that there are things _beyond_ the most powerful entities. 



> This is not to say that the gods are omnipotent and invulnerable - by no means - but can you really imagine the Zeus of Greek mythology or the Odin of Norse mythology being unable to affect the Lady of Pain? The influence of Greek and Norse mythology is extremely visible on the 4E mythology, and it'd be nice to see the gods in a similar position of power.




Why do gods _have to_ be that powerful? Why is it a prerequisite for your fantasy funtimes? Why can't the gods -- in certain settings -- be petty, vulnerable, and small-minded? Why can't clerics believe in their deity not because he's the biggest, strongest thing around, but because he represents something the cleric feels is sacred on a level that suffuses the entire multiverse, rather than just the little island where that god is worshiped?



> Returning to Sigil, one effect of the Lady of Pain's existence is that suddenly atheism - in an otherwise theistic cosmos - becomes an option. And, thus, you get the factions. Completely irrelevant outside of Sigil, because the morality and ethics promulgated by the gods actually apply elsewhere. It sort of works in the confused state of mythological affairs that was 2E, where there seems to be 1001 gods or more, but with the tighter set of mythology in 4E, even if the gods don't work as tightly together as a pantheon as the rest of mythology implies they should, the factions stick out like a sore thumb. Thankfully they're mostly not there in 4E.




I get that if you don't like weak gods, that not liking atheistic or agnostic factions would follow, but I don't get why you can't have weak gods? Maybe it's just a "personal taste" thing.



> The idea of meeting places - civilisation - in the Astral Sea is an interesting one. Personally, I'm very fond of the City of Brass (dating back to the cover of the old Dungeon Masters Guide), but with Sigil, I really need something more than "it exists because of the Lady of Pain". Who uses it? Why do they use it? What is the civilisation of the outer planar creatures that requires such a meeting place to exist?




Trade and travel hub of the multiverse, a "safe haven" for all walks of life that links to every other reality that could ever be, as easy as walking through a door.



> "An angel and a devil sit down at a bar" sounds like a good start to a story, but why would that meeting ever take place? Is it a forced contrivance to tell a story, or does it make sense within the mythology you have? In 4E, it looks forced to me.




Philosophies is the reason. The angel and the devil have more in common in PS than they might in other settings, since they might, for instance, both believe that power should be dictated through an authority. They sit down at a bar to discuss why they each love their leader so much, and find their ideas matching up snugly, much to their disturbance.



> The civilisation of the Efreet gives rise to the City of Brass, and the trade opportunities there for high-level characters, and thus I can justify it. I don't have such a justification for the City of Doors.




City of Brass isn't connected to Everywhere, it's just big on the elemental scene. 

----

I'm not exactly trying to _convince_ you to like it. Y'know, like what you like, I don't care. But maybe we can drill down to a fundamental place. You don't seem to like it mostly because you don't like trivializing the Gods. What's wrong with trivializing the Gods, for you?


----------



## Tequila Sunrise

Shemeska said:


> They have some instances of blatantly going against some of the setting's rules in some truly wtf  ways: The Lady of Pain's griffon riding shock troops. Yeah. The three book 'Blood War' trilogy should be ignored.
> 
> The other novel, Troy Denning's 'Pages of Pain' is an interesting and pretty decent read on its own, but I wouldn't present it as canonical to the setting in any way.



Ah, so it's not that PS novels are particularly bad; just that they don't agree exactly with PS splats. Thanks.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> Eh...tastes vary.  I don't know what you mean by "extreme fragmentation of D&D" though?



I think he's referring to TSR's bad business practice of putting out dozens of splats for a dozen different settings, so that D&D's consumer base got fragmented into the PS fans, the DS fans, the FR fans, etc.


----------



## Quickleaf

MerricB said:
			
		

> "An angel and a devil sit down at a bar" sounds like a good start to a story, but why would that meeting ever take place? Is it a forced contrivance to tell a story, or does it make sense within the mythology you have? In 4E, it looks forced to me.



Scenario A: Guardian angel is opposed by old friend turned into a corrupted devil after the fall - each secretly holds out that they'll bring the other to their side. Devil imperils angel's ward, offering to meet with angel to discuss terms for the devil backing down. Hehehe. They need a neutral meeting ground, so Sigil it is...again. 

Scenario B: In 4e there are evil angels, one of whom leads Bane's holy war against Erathis, appearing to warlords in fevered dreams. To break a stalemate, the evil angel of Bane does the unthinkable and courts the aid of a devil who once belonged to Erathis' entourage. Naturally, this must be done covertly, and so they arrive in disguise in Sigil at the devil's favorite watering hole.

Scenario C: Promised sanctuary by a wide-eyed cleric, a succubus claiming to seek redemption, flees to Sigil to be escorted through a portal to Celestia...located in a tavern cavorts by the faithful. An angel unexpectedly bars their way, ready to strike down the "fiend and her play thing." The cleric asks to be given a chance to prove the succubus' sincerity. "Shall we sit down and get to know each other then?" asks the succubus arching her brow.

Sure "an angel and a devil sit down at the bar" sounds like the start to an offbeat joke, but from a role-playing perspective that scene has tons of potential man!


----------



## DracoSuave

Nineball said:


> As for "An Angel and a Devil talk at a bar," if you make it passive, it's going to be boring."




Actually, in one of my default Planescape locales, I had a tavern setting in the Low Ward.  It was run by fiends and generally a dangerous place for non-adventurers to be.  It was used as a place for the ne'er-do-wells to meet and discuss business, but it also was a great place for adventurers to find jobs the factions didn't want out in the open.

One of the set pieces was a constant, passive, astral deva playing a game of chess with an erinyes.  As far as everyone knew they'd been playing forever.  No one knew why they were.  It was just a mystery to everyone.

But what it did was set up the idea that alignment-based-hate was not as important here as it would seem at first glance.  That there were layers beyond the axis of good vs evil and that, in Sigil, other things are going to be more interesting.  It told the Paladin that if he started hating on everything evil... it wasn't going to turn out well here.

Sometimes the right set piece can really create atmosphere in a campaign.


----------



## TarionzCousin

One thing that I think deserves to be called out is that even those of us who love Planescape, Sigil, and the Lady of Pain know that it was a bit out of the ordinary. We aren't trying to convert anyone, just sharing why we like it so much. 

Yes, it's weird--but it's our kind of weirdness.


----------



## DracoSuave

TarionzCousin said:


> One thing that I think deserves to be called out is that even those of us who love Planescape, Sigil, and the Lady of Pain know that it was a bit out of the ordinary. We aren't trying to convert anyone, just sharing why we like it so much.
> 
> Yes, it's weird--but it's our kind of weirdness.




That's kinda the point behind Planescape... everything is out of the ordinary, even by Planescape standards, which is to say, that everything is out of the ordinary.

Kinda defining the planar attitude, really.


----------



## Doombybbr

the angel and devil sharing a drink would probably be a bit like this
devil:"so what brings you to this plane"
angel:"I killed a guy and got sent here... how about you"
devil:"I foiled an evil guy's plan so I wasn't evil enough for hell anymore"


----------



## DracoSuave

Sigil isn't purgatory.  It's just very well connected and neutral.

It's more likely they'd be there to avoid getting summoned.  Sigil doesn't allow that sort of shinanegan.


----------



## Felon

I'm not sure that the OP provided much to rebutt, as it was mostly just bullet points of things that he personally doesn't care for. To each their own.

To answer his question, I can certainly imagine Zeus being unable to oppose the Lady of Pain. He wasn't omnipotent. He had to do battle with the likes of the Titans and Typhon (the latter of whom served him a whoopin' by some accounts). These are fictional beings, so who's to say who trumps whom? 

We are never told opnely that the Lady is unilaterally more powerful than the gods, it's only inferred from her ability to keep them out of Sigil. But occam's razor doesn't always lead you to the right conclusion. Sigil may just afford her that one trump card that prevents her from having to confront any gods. 

The OP doesn't explain what's wrong with atheism being an option. It's just another thing he doesn't like. Seems like aetheism doesn't need a place like Sigil to flourish if the aetheism is interrupted as rejecting the notion that gods deserve to be worshipped. I've played plenty of characters that wanted nothing to do with the gods.


----------



## Dice4Hire

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Why do gods _have to_ be that powerful? Why is it a prerequisite for your fantasy funtimes? Why can't the gods -- in certain settings -- be petty, vulnerable, and small-minded? Why can't clerics believe in their deity not because he's the biggest, strongest thing around, but because he represents something the cleric feels is sacred on a level that suffuses the entire multiverse, rather than just the little island where that god is worshiped?




Well, the 4E gods are not all powerful. Just look at the Dawn War and the deity deaths that occurred in it. They did not even create the world, but basically upsurped the creation of the Primordials. 

I like the idea of the gods being pretty much opportunistic and there being a lot of gods out there, only a few who are 'invited' to take part in one section of creation, as it allows other gods to come in and try to take over.


----------



## Shemeska

TarionzCousin said:


> One thing that I think deserves to be called out is that even those of us who love Planescape, Sigil, and the Lady of Pain know that it was a bit out of the ordinary. We aren't trying to convert anyone, just sharing why we like it so much.
> 
> Yes, it's weird--but it's our kind of weirdness.




Which is sort of the point of the setting. You're in a place where the metaphysical is physical, and often you're playing mortal PCs interacting with concepts made flesh. It's supposed to be overwhelming. It's supposed to be horrific. It's supposed to be beautiful. It doesn't always have to make sense. 

But its atmosphere and style shouldn't insert itself into how I expect other people to play their campaigns on Oerth or Toril or Athas or Golarion. It's out of the ordinary. But some of us adore for precisely that reason.


----------



## Shemeska

Felon said:


> We are never told opnely that the Lady is unilaterally more powerful than the gods, it's only inferred from her ability to keep them out of Sigil. But occam's razor doesn't always lead you to the right conclusion. Sigil may just afford her that one trump card that prevents her from having to confront any gods.




It was the story of Aoskar the now dead god of portals and planewalking that really brings home the idea that the Lady is on some level more powerful than a god. But Prince Levistus isn't a god and he forcibly shrank the size of the deity Set's domain (which is inside of Levistus's layer of Hell). It might be something like a home field advantage. Her Serenity might be utterly powerless outside of Sigil, we just don't know.

Here's a little something related to deities wanting to get inside of Sigil, and ways The Lady handles the issue rather than simply blocking them entry.

[sblock]And I'm suddenly taken by the picture of an elderly barmy huddled under a makeshift shelter in the Hive, clutching a blanket around his shoulders against the faintly acidic rain, rocking back and forth with a wild look in his eyes.

A group of tieflings wanders past and they hear him muttering to himself, "Almost time almost time almost time... cannot call them back before it's time... not yet not yet not yet..."

One of them pauses and against better judgement leans in and asks the poor old fool what he's talking about. The old barmy gets a wild gleam in his eyes and works himself into a fit. "I'm a god you know! I'm a god! When She's not watching, I'll make Her pay! You'll see! Just you wait!"

The tieflings laugh at the tramp and leave him sitting there in the rain, still muttering to himself, lost in his own delusions. A block away as they wander into the Bottle and Jug, away from the rain, one of the tiefers recalls something his grandfather told him years before about a crazy man just like the one they'd seen, a crazy old man that he'd seen, and his grandfather before him had seen. A thousand years had passed since that nameless man entered Sigil with dreams of power and glory, needing only to wait for the moment that Her Serenity no longer watched him, needing only to wait to call to his proxies to return his divinity and restore him to his deific glory.

A thousand years had passed, and so had his proxies. One by one they'd abandoned their god, taking his divinity for themselves, or delivering it to other rival gods, some even selling it like the choice sweetbreads of infants to any archfiends willing to pay for the chance to dine on the fragments of divinity. A thousand years had passed and he had nothing left but the eager hope of toppling The Lady, but oh he had to wait, he had to wait until the time was right, and then he would be the victor.

You see, not all Mazes are physical things. Not all Mazes are imposed from without.[/sblock]


----------



## Shadeydm

Shemeska said:


> Here's a little something related to deities wanting to get inside of Sigil, and ways The Lady handles the issue rather than simply blocking them entry.
> 
> [sblock]And I'm suddenly taken by the picture of an elderly barmy huddled under a makeshift shelter in the Hive, clutching a blanket around his shoulders against the faintly acidic rain, rocking back and forth with a wild look in his eyes.
> 
> A group of tieflings wanders past and they hear him muttering to himself, "Almost time almost time almost time... cannot call them back before it's time... not yet not yet not yet..."
> 
> One of them pauses and against better judgement leans in and asks the poor old fool what he's talking about. The old barmy gets a wild gleam in his eyes and works himself into a fit. "I'm a god you know! I'm a god! When She's not watching, I'll make Her pay! You'll see! Just you wait!"
> 
> The tieflings laugh at the tramp and leave him sitting there in the rain, still muttering to himself, lost in his own delusions. A block away as they wander into the Bottle and Jug, away from the rain, one of the tiefers recalls something his grandfather told him years before about a crazy man just like the one they'd seen, a crazy old man that he'd seen, and his grandfather before him had seen. A thousand years had passed since that nameless man entered Sigil with dreams of power and glory, needing only to wait for the moment that Her Serenity no longer watched him, needing only to wait to call to his proxies to return his divinity and restore him to his deific glory.
> 
> A thousand years had passed, and so had his proxies. One by one they'd abandoned their god, taking his divinity for themselves, or delivering it to other rival gods, some even selling it like the choice sweetbreads of infants to any archfiends willing to pay for the chance to dine on the fragments of divinity. A thousand years had passed and he had nothing left but the eager hope of toppling The Lady, but oh he had to wait, he had to wait until the time was right, and then he would be the victor.
> 
> You see, not all Mazes are physical things. Not all Mazes are imposed from without.[/sblock]



Reading this further entrenched me in the I hate the lady of pain/worst example of lazy game designer fiat ever camp. I like the idea of the city of Doors but no thanks for the lop or the cant. no no no


----------



## Incenjucar

Shadeydm said:


> Reading this further entrenched me in the I hate the lady of pain/worst example of lazy game designer fiat ever camp. I like the idea of the city of Doors but no thanks for the lop or the cant. no no no




How is that _lazy_?

What is your definition of lazy?

Are orcs, goblins, elves, and dwarves lazy?

What would constitute not-lazy?


----------



## Viking Bastard

Shemeska said:


> Here's a little something related to deities wanting to get inside of Sigil, and ways The Lady handles the issue rather than simply blocking them entry.
> 
> [sblock]And I'm suddenly taken by the picture of an elderly barmy huddled under a makeshift shelter in the Hive, clutching a blanket around his shoulders against the faintly acidic rain, rocking back and forth with a wild look in his eyes.
> 
> A group of tieflings wanders past and they hear him muttering to himself, "Almost time almost time almost time... cannot call them back before it's time... not yet not yet not yet..."
> 
> One of them pauses and against better judgement leans in and asks the poor old fool what he's talking about. The old barmy gets a wild gleam in his eyes and works himself into a fit. "I'm a god you know! I'm a god! When She's not watching, I'll make Her pay! You'll see! Just you wait!"
> 
> The tieflings laugh at the tramp and leave him sitting there in the rain, still muttering to himself, lost in his own delusions. A block away as they wander into the Bottle and Jug, away from the rain, one of the tiefers recalls something his grandfather told him years before about a crazy man just like the one they'd seen, a crazy old man that he'd seen, and his grandfather before him had seen. A thousand years had passed since that nameless man entered Sigil with dreams of power and glory, needing only to wait for the moment that Her Serenity no longer watched him, needing only to wait to call to his proxies to return his divinity and restore him to his deific glory.
> 
> A thousand years had passed, and so had his proxies. One by one they'd abandoned their god, taking his divinity for themselves, or delivering it to other rival gods, some even selling it like the choice sweetbreads of infants to any archfiends willing to pay for the chance to dine on the fragments of divinity. A thousand years had passed and he had nothing left but the eager hope of toppling The Lady, but oh he had to wait, he had to wait until the time was right, and then he would be the victor.
> 
> You see, not all Mazes are physical things. Not all Mazes are imposed from without.[/sblock]




Where is this from? I did something similar in my old PS game (and I suspect I yoinked it from somewhere):

A crazy old crone hung around at the PCs’ regular inn in Sigil. She sold information on the planes to passersby—good, sometimes life-saving info—but the information was vague and rambling and needed to be deciphered to be useful. She had been in Sigil as long as anybody remembered. She was paranoid and apparently delusional, always ranting about _them_ and _her_; vague figures who stood in the way of her true self. She kept pets—mostly rats, cats and insects and, one time, a baby wyvern—who she would refer to as her subjects, her admirers, or as custodians of her power. There were many stories surrounding her: that she used to be a demon lord or a mighty witch who went bonkers, but it was still generally assumed she was just another barmy, just one who’d been there a while.

Long after the PCs first met the crazy lady, the PCs had to take the LoP temporarily out of commission* so they could sneak a dormant power through Sigil (as a part of a big honkin’ quest to take down the usurper of the dormant power’s domain). The LoP was placed out of sync with Sigil for one hour and the place went nuts; portals would randomly open and close and suddenly every berk with a connection to divine powers seemed to double in levels.

And the crazy lady was suddenly revealed to be an ancient demon goddess who’d snuck into Sigil in mortal form _eons_ ago. Her plan was to go godly as soon as the opportunity to take over Sigil presented itself but that moment never came. She slowly went crazy—her mortal form degraded over the thousands of years, but she could never die or it would release her power.

Her religion was long forgotten and she was but a faint whisper of what she once was, but she was still a force to be reckoned with: she was gigantic, rampaging around the city in her terrible but awesome form. She knew she didn’t have the power to control Sigil, but she _could_ break the cage that had held her.

The PCs felt responsible and decided that one PC would split from the party and finish the mission while the other three stayed behind and deal with the goddess situation. They could not defeat the goddess, but they were able to delay her long enough for LoP to return and throw her out. Then she mazed the PCs.


* The solution IIRC was an ancient hymn, composed on a prime material world to stop an ancient evil power. It could only be sung once, for the multiverse would adapt. Sadly, the hymn could not be sung in time to save the world (that was now an apocalyptic wasteland), because the ancient evil forbade sound.​
And _that’s_ why I love Planescape. YMMV.


----------



## Quickleaf

[MENTION=509]Viking Bastard[/MENTION]
And then?  Inquiring minds want to know what happened to your mazed PCs?


----------



## Shemeska

Viking Bastard said:


> Where is this from?




I wrote it around two years ago as a random messageboard post either on Planewalker or the WotC boards. I don't particularly recall which board exactly, but it was just a little random bit of response fiction to some thread there.


----------



## Viking Bastard

Quickleaf said:


> [MENTION=509]Viking Bastard[/MENTION]
> And then?  Inquiring minds want to know what happened to your mazed PCs?




I ran them through the maze in Planescape: Torment. One of the players had played the game and caught on pretty fast. So. Heh. They finished the Lady of Pain's perplexing maze in record speed. Best laid plans and all.

The PCs exited the maze into the Outlands and wanted to return to their friend, but they did not dare go back through Sigil. The PC that had escaped Sigil with the trinket got it into the right hands, a band of renegade priests. The priests were able to harness the dormant power's power to summon the other PCs. (I just wanted to keep the story running.)

The usurper was defeated and the plane's true power restored. The PCs went on to wander the planes and did eventually return to Sigil.


----------



## erleni

Shemeska said:


> It was the story of Aoskar the now dead god of portals and planewalking that really brings home the idea that the Lady is on some level more powerful than a god. But Prince Levistus isn't a god and he forcibly shrank the size of the deity Set's domain (which is inside of Levistus's layer of Hell). It might be something like a home field advantage. Her Serenity might be utterly powerless outside of Sigil, we just don't know.
> 
> Here's a little something related to deities wanting to get inside of Sigil, and ways The Lady handles the issue rather than simply blocking them entry.
> 
> [sblock]And I'm suddenly taken by the picture of an elderly barmy huddled under a makeshift shelter in the Hive, clutching a blanket around his shoulders against the faintly acidic rain, rocking back and forth with a wild look in his eyes.
> 
> A group of tieflings wanders past and they hear him muttering to himself, "Almost time almost time almost time... cannot call them back before it's time... not yet not yet not yet..."
> 
> One of them pauses and against better judgement leans in and asks the poor old fool what he's talking about. The old barmy gets a wild gleam in his eyes and works himself into a fit. "I'm a god you know! I'm a god! When She's not watching, I'll make Her pay! You'll see! Just you wait!"
> 
> The tieflings laugh at the tramp and leave him sitting there in the rain, still muttering to himself, lost in his own delusions. A block away as they wander into the Bottle and Jug, away from the rain, one of the tiefers recalls something his grandfather told him years before about a crazy man just like the one they'd seen, a crazy old man that he'd seen, and his grandfather before him had seen. A thousand years had passed since that nameless man entered Sigil with dreams of power and glory, needing only to wait for the moment that Her Serenity no longer watched him, needing only to wait to call to his proxies to return his divinity and restore him to his deific glory.
> 
> A thousand years had passed, and so had his proxies. One by one they'd abandoned their god, taking his divinity for themselves, or delivering it to other rival gods, some even selling it like the choice sweetbreads of infants to any archfiends willing to pay for the chance to dine on the fragments of divinity. A thousand years had passed and he had nothing left but the eager hope of toppling The Lady, but oh he had to wait, he had to wait until the time was right, and then he would be the victor.
> 
> You see, not all Mazes are physical things. Not all Mazes are imposed from without.[/sblock]




That's the magic of Planescape. Like Orcus walking through the Planes disguised as Thanatos, driven mad by the Last Word and looking for his wand, while in the meantime slaying gods left and right in their own realms.


----------



## TerraDave

I am so use to bending and breaking D&D tropes that Merrics concerns kind of surprised me. In that context, have the LoP die, be some sort of collective or organization, or better yet, do the Wizard of Oz thing and have it all be a front with a whacky punchline. (on the other hand, the "supperficial" elements of Sigal can come across as very anoying, but I think you could also have fun with them).


----------



## pemerton

Tymophil said:


> The whole Philosophers with clubs idea was very realistic once you know a little bit of the history of philosophy in Greece.



I know a little bit of the history of philosophy in Greece. I'm a professional philosopher (although I work in modern, not classical, philosophy).

As I stated upthread, my problem with the factions is not that they have clubs, but that they're not doing philosophy - that is, they don't seem to be motivated by (prima facie, tenable if not conlcusive) reasons.



Felon said:


> The OP doesn't explain what's wrong with atheism being an option. It's just another thing he doesn't like. Seems like aetheism doesn't need a place like Sigil to flourish if the aetheism is interrupted as rejecting the notion that gods deserve to be worshipped. I've played plenty of characters that wanted nothing to do with the gods.





Kamikaze Midget said:


> I think it's kind of essential for a cosmological mash-up to have gods that are not all-powerful, especially if Philosophy is one of the defining pillars of the setting, since you want people to be able to doubt and question them, rebel against them, pronounce them dead, compare and contrast them, ignore and defy them, or believe in them for reasons beyond "He is big and shoots lightning and can kill things and lives in a paradise far away."
> 
> <snip>
> 
> the gods, while very powerful, are ultimately nothing special. Part of that bag is the use of philosophies as a core element -- you want to include characters who are inspired by fantastical takes on ideas of right and wrong and life and death beyond the simple animal awe. You want to have characters who can spout Buddhism and Nietzsche, and that requires a different take on the nature of the gods.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Why do gods _have to_ be that powerful?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Why can't the gods -- in certain settings -- be petty, vulnerable, and small-minded?



Personally, I don't see a lot of resemblance between the Planescape factions and Buddhism or Nietzschianism. But putting that to one side, I can see why you might want to downplay the gods in a certain sort of fiction - it's central to REH's Conan, or Lovecraft, for example, that the "gods" are not really GODS.

I can't speak for Merric, but I personally find this incompatible with D&D as it is presented in its core rulebooks, and particularly the existence of clerics and paladins. Because if the source of divine power isn't divinity, but merely superhuman otherworldly beings, than a cleric is no different from a warlock wearing a mitre. (Which, of course, works perfectly in Conan!)

For divinity to be genuinely divinity, than the gods have to merit worship - genuine worship, not just admiration because of their power. Which is to say, that they must be creators or sustainers of being and value in some fairly fundamental sense. To _doubt _this, it seems to me, is to doubt the existence of the divine power source. Which verges on being incoherent, given the way the game mechanics are set up.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> Why can't clerics believe in their deity not because he's the biggest, strongest thing around, but because he represents something the cleric feels is sacred on a level that suffuses the entire multiverse, rather than just the little island where that god is worshiped?



In that case, though, you wouldn't really be worshipping the god, would you? The god would bear the same sort of relationship to the thing/principle being worshipped as does Christ to divinity on the Arian account of Chrit's nature.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> Personally, I don't see a lot of resemblance between the Planescape factions and Buddhism or Nietzschianism.




Very minor character resemblances (such as the Godsmens' belief in reincarnation heirarchy), but more than exist in Bog Standard D&D. 



> Because if the source of divine power isn't divinity, but merely superhuman otherworldly beings, than a cleric is no different from a warlock wearing a mitre.




Indeed, that's part of the point.  In 2e, when PS came about, there wasn't a character class who could gain power from devil-worship, but the idea that gods were relatively small (in comparison to most worlds) was driven home pretty powerfully. Sure, Zeus might chuck lightning bolts down on your little backwater homeworld, but that's not everywhere, and it ain't here. If you worship Zeus as a planewalker, it's not because he chucks lightning bolts down, it's because there's a particular idea he embodies that you favor (forex, with Zeus, it might be the power of the masculine patriarch, expressed _through_ chucking lightning bolts). Otherwise, perhaps it's part of your cultural or personal identity or story. You worship Zeus because he helps people where YOU come from, because he helped liberate YOUR world from the titans, because you've been personally aided by a timely lightning bolt. Zeus isn't there for all, he's there for YOU, and you have the spells to prove it!



> For divinity to be genuinely divinity, than the gods have to merit worship - genuine worship, not just admiration because of their power. Which is to say, that they must be creators or sustainers of being and value in some fairly fundamental sense. To doubt this, it seems to me, is to doubt the existence of the divine power source. Which verges on being incoherent, given the way the game mechanics are set up.




"Magic" is belief in PS. It's not being a creator or a sustainer that gives you the power to grant _Cure Light Wounds_, it is (in Planescape), being the concentration of millions' of peoples' hopes and dreams, having THEM believe in you, worship you, and dedicate their lives to serving you. That nebulous quality gives real magical power to deities, which they then share back with the people via the divine power source. A god has power because people believe in them. It is the same reason the Abyss exists. 

Possibly there's something else, too (the Athar certainly believe there's something beyond divinity that the gods are just a spigot for), but the basic "greybeard understanding" is that the divine power source is raw faith, given magical utility via a god.

Is the god WORTHY of that worship? Well, in some cases, clearly not. Evil deities are a dime a dozen, and demon lords and devil princes and eladrin nobles all get their share of ritual and belief, despite their patent and often obvious unreliability as divine beings. But people worship them, ascribe them importance, and, even knowing that Juiblex is a bubbling malevolence who wants to dissolve you, might truly believe that this is what the world needs, and so signs up for Team Blex.



> In that case, though, you wouldn't really be worshipping the god, would you? The god would bear the same sort of relationship to the thing/principle being worshipped as does Christ to divinity on the Arian account of Chrit's nature.




And via the god, that principle lets the faithful blast holy light and heal the sick. Pretty awesome.


----------



## Ryujin

In 4e user of the Divine power source have explicitly been "invested with the authority to wield... on behalf of a deity, faith, or philosophy." Under this framework things like Secular Humanism and Atheism would qualify as 'philosophies', potentially granting use of the Divine power source. Disbelief in gods can grant the same power as belief in Pelor


----------



## Incenjucar

pemerton said:


> I know a little bit of the history of philosophy in Greece. I'm a professional philosopher (although I work in modern, not classical, philosophy).
> 
> As I stated upthread, my problem with the factions is not that they have clubs, but that they're not doing philosophy - that is, they don't seem to be motivated by (prima facie, tenable if not conlcusive) reasons.




The philosophy that they do isn't especially focused on, but the factions all have fairly clear views on the universe that significantly differ from one another. Moreover, their philosophies grant them RESULTS, in the form of powers and abilities. Moreover, while they're philosophy-centric, they're still political factions as much as a bunch of folks sitting around debating whether pleasure or pain are more valid sensations to experience the multiverse through.


----------



## Tymophil

pemerton said:


> I know a little bit of the history of philosophy in Greece. I'm a professional philosopher (although I work in modern, not classical, philosophy).
> 
> As I stated upthread, my problem with the factions is not that they have clubs, but that they're not doing philosophy - that is, they don't seem to be motivated by (prima facie, tenable if not conlcusive) reasons.



I am referring to the ancient Greece (so-called presocratic) philosophers way to litterally *live *by their philosophy.

If you were a Cynical, you did not profess cynism... Instead, you lived like a cynical, ate like a cynical, dressed like a cynical,  and essentially were a cynical. This is a sclose as factions go in my vew.

The way you portray the world is, for you, the way the world is and your behaviour is the best way to fit to this world.


----------



## pemerton

Ryujin said:


> In 4e user of the Divine power source have explicitly been "invested with the authority to wield... on behalf of a deity, faith, or philosophy."



That passage is from p 60 of the PHB.

Here are some other relevant passages:

Clerics and paladins call down the wrath of their gods to sear their foes with divine radiance, or they invoke their gods’ mercy to heal their allies’ wounds. (p 7 )


Divine magic comes from the gods. The gods grant power to their devotees, which clerics and paladins, for example, access through prayers and litanies. (p 54)

All clerics choose a specific faith to which they devote themselves. Usually this faith is the worship of a specific patron deity—for example, Moradin, Pelor, or Erathis. Sometimes clerics are devoted to churches that venerate groups of deities or even philosophies. (p 61)

As fervent crusaders in their chosen cause, paladins must choose a deity. (p 90)​
The reference to "philosophies" as an alternative to faith in a god or gods is mentioned only twice, both times in relation to clerics. I'm not sure what to make of it. There are at least two interpretations I can think of. One is that, consistent with the other references to divine magic coming from the gods, clerical adherents of a philosophy draw their power from those gods who embody/uphold that philosophy. The second is that, in a desire to maintain some consistency with earlier editions, the 4e designers incorporated contradictory descriptions of the divine power source into the rules.

I think the second interpretation is more likely as a matter of historical conjecture. I personally prefer the first interpretation as a way of trying to make the game coherent.



Ryujin said:


> Under this framework things like Secular Humanism and Atheism would qualify as 'philosophies', potentially granting use of the Divine power source. Disbelief in gods can grant the same power as belief in Pelor



I think you're right that these examples push up against the limits of "philosophies" as sources of divine power.

My problems with this approach to divine power are metaphysical and psychological. Metaphysical, what is the source of this power which is neither Arcane (whether obtained via study and practice like a wizard or swordmage, by being imbued with power like a sorcerer, by bargaining with an entity like a warlock, or by evocation of the underlying harmony of the cosmos like a bard) nor Primal (obtained from the lingering spirits and memories of one's ancestors and the world of which they are a part) nor Psionic?

If the answer is "faith" or "conviction" - and this is distinguished from the psionic power of a monk or ardent - this takes me to my second problem, which is the psychological one of what exactly this mental state is, which a cleric of secular humanism possesses, but a learned sage who remains in his library/tower despite the encroaching orcish hordes lacks?

I can work out what an initiate of a god is doing differently from others, such that s/he wields power. S/he has been initiated! But the faith/conviction/belief thing doesn't work for me, because the distribution of the _power_ in the gameworld fiction doesn't really seem to correspond to the distribution of any salient mental state.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> Indeed, that's part of the point.  In 2e, when PS came about, there wasn't a character class who could gain power from devil-worship, but the idea that gods were relatively small (in comparison to most worlds) was driven home pretty powerfully.



OK, I can see this, but for the reasons I've tried to articulate I'm not sure it works for 4e.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> Sure, Zeus might chuck lightning bolts down on your little backwater homeworld, but that's not everywhere, and it ain't here. If you worship Zeus as a planewalker, it's not because he chucks lightning bolts down, it's because there's a particular idea he embodies that you favor (forex, with Zeus, it might be the power of the masculine patriarch, expressed _through_ chucking lightning bolts). Otherwise, perhaps it's part of your cultural or personal identity or story. You worship Zeus because he helps people where YOU come from, because he helped liberate YOUR world from the titans, because you've been personally aided by a timely lightning bolt. Zeus isn't there for all, he's there for YOU, and you have the spells to prove it!
> 
> "Magic" is belief in PS. It's not being a creator or a sustainer that gives you the power to grant _Cure Light Wounds_, it is (in Planescape), being the concentration of millions' of peoples' hopes and dreams, having THEM believe in you, worship you, and dedicate their lives to serving you. That nebulous quality gives real magical power to deities, which they then share back with the people via the divine power source. A god has power because people believe in them.



Just trying to state your picture back at you, so you can see if I've got it right - widespread hope/conviction vests a god or similar entity with power, which that god can then share with initiates (like clerics). So gods aren't creators/sustainers as I characterised them upthread, but an important category of patrons. (There seems to be some resemblance here to Glorantha.)

I can see how that's feasible and highly workable for a game. Right off the bat it suggests at least one sort of interesting conflict - "faithful", in this world, presumably means in the first place loyalty to the divine patron, but also - given the dependence of the divine patron on widespread conviction - loyalty to/honouring of the underlying values/hopes/commitments. Those two dimensions of faith could be fun to drive a wedge between. (The same wedge can be driven in the approach to gods I am articulating from what I take to be the 4e perspective, but I think with more difficulty - because of the tighter union beteen god and value - and therefore with different metaphysical implications.)

I still feel that it doesn't work for a game with warlocks - at least, not without something more being said about how the different categories of patronage work. I also feel that it doesn't fit with the idea that philosophies or hopes that are divorced from deities can give rise to divine casters. As you say



Kamikaze Midget said:


> And via the god, that principle lets the faithful blast holy light and heal the sick. Pretty awesome.



This doesn't seem to leave room for divine power without divinity. Or, alternatively, it suggests some sort of puzzling situation where the hopes and convictions of atheists give rise to a god of the non-existence of gods, who is the source of power for atheist clerics.

(By the way, couldn't XP you for a good post.)


----------



## pemerton

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Very minor character resemblances (such as the Godsmens' belief in reincarnation heirarchy), but more than exist in Bog Standard D&D.



I think I'm the only person who looks at bog standard D&D and sees a rich palette for thematically rich depictions!



Incenjucar said:


> The philosophy that they do isn't especially focused on, but the factions all have fairly clear views on the universe that significantly differ from one another. Moreover, their philosophies grant them RESULTS, in the form of powers and abilities.



I don't really find their views all that clear or coherent, especially in light of the contrasts that are meant to be set up. In several cases - especially the solipsist ones (I can't remember what they're called) it puzzle me that a significant number of people would group together to - do what? - I want to say "pursue that doctrine", but the notion of collective pursuit of solipsism is contradictory! (I'm reminded of an episode related by Bertrand Russell - after publishing that solipsism could not be demonstrably proved false, 
Russell received a letter from a woman expressing her pleasure that someone else took solipsism seriously, at which point Russell himself ceased to do so!)

The bit about getting powers just puzzles me - where does the power come from? How are the factions different from wizards guilds, or churches?



Tymophil said:


> I am referring to the ancient Greece (so-called presocratic) philosophers way to litterally *live *by their philosophy.
> 
> If you were a Cynical, you did not profess cynism... Instead, you lived like a cynical, ate like a cynical, dressed like a cynical,  and essentially were a cynical. This is a sclose as factions go in my vew.



Diogenes is not pre-Socratic.

That to one side, yes, Diogenes lived his philosophy. So did the Buddha, at least according to the received histories. It's not clear how many followers Diogenes had, but it's highly arguable that to the extent that later stoicism differs from Diogenes' own cynicism, this is in part to make it more digestible to the post-Alexandrian elite. Marcus Aurelius certainly didn't live in a barrel! (A similar argument can be made in respect of the evolution of Buddhism, although it also has a doctrine of rebirth to help explain why different members of society have different roles to play consistent with their overall pursuit of enlightenment.)

But in any event, Diogenes and Buddha and Marcus Aurelius all teach at least conceivable accounts of human flourishing, based on the relationship between human and natural order, and the attitude that humans should take towards the vicissitudes of the natural world.

This is what is missing, for me, from the factions.



Tymophil said:


> The way you portray the world is, for you, the way the world is and your behaviour is the best way to fit to this world.



See, this bears no connection to any pre-Socratic, Socratic or Hellenistic philosophy that I can think of - none of them contend that the world is shaped by belief, and certainly not by wishful thinking. They all insist that belief and behaviour has to be brought into conformity with the world's demands, although they differ in their accounts of what exactly those demands are, and what conformity with them might require.

And even the more idealist schools of Buddhism, like Yogacara, don't regard the character of the world or the content of belief as _chosen_. And they emphasise the necessity of practice in order to cultivate beliefs consistent with flourishing. They don't suggest that, having formed from the get-go a belief about how the world is (which is also how it ought to be), one then goes out into the world and starts acting on that belief as if it were true.


----------



## Ryujin

How about this: The Psionic power source and the Divine power source are related as to origin, but differ in application. Psionics are the application of will to alter body, or to apply 'force' to an external target. Divinity is a belief so powerful, that it reshapes reality in its own image.


----------



## sciborg3

The very fact that people are bringing in real world examples of religion and philosophy shows me once again why Planescape is one of the greatest of D&D's settings!

I think with regards to the Lady of Pain the thing to remember is not that she's some kind of uber-deity like Ao lording over everyone, but she is a setting mechanic where the DM can decide the truth. 

Perhaps she is a goddess, perhaps she is a projection or construct created by the dabus. Perhaps she is three ratatosks in a dress and a mask and a knife-wig, as one of my favorite theories goes.

They left it up to you to decide - Whether or not this is lazy (whatever that means??) is besides the point. It is a creative idea that spurs creativity.

Things like the Lady of Pain, little mysteries and wonders seeded throughout the setting, are why to this day you see some amazing fiction cropping up on Planewalker and great art produced on sites like DeviantArt.

As for cheapening the gods, the idea that you can level up by hunting monsters and murder them takes away any sense of wonder they ever could have in my opinion.

The Factions' "philosophy", is I think a word used in layman terms, equivalent to ideals or religious beliefs. I think it was a good catch-all term to describe the factions as a whole. I also don't see how having gods around negates factions - many of the faction members were clerics, just as many people in political parties in RL are religious. If anything factions added a new axis in which to characterize NPCs and PCs, so another plus there.

Of course, everyone's mileage will vary. There were problems I had with the setting - the snubbing of the other settings' worlds and gods, the connection of the gods with belief which I never liked even in other D&D sources. But really those are personal preferences that are easily changed.

Really, Planescape was great because it made you think about it even when you weren't playing the game. What are gods? What does it mean to believe in entropy? Can I become a god if I change myself over lifetimes?

Personally I cannot even compare Planescape's richness to the 4e cosmology which I frankly find to be boring. I know others like the mirroring of the Titanomachy, but to me it fell flat in the way others feel Sigil doesn't work. I found the Great Wheel to be the right balance of organization and complexity/chaos, and the streamlined 4e cosmos feels bland and unimaginative from what I've read. However, it's been awhile so if there suggestions I'd love to hear the, - I've heard good things about the Shadowfell stuff and look forward to the Feywild stuff coming up.


----------



## pemerton

Ryujin said:


> How about this: The Psionic power source and the Divine power source are related as to origin, but differ in application. Psionics are the application of will to alter body, or to apply 'force' to an external target. Divinity is a belief so powerful, that it reshapes reality in its own image.



Suppose I buy that - can you give me an answer to my second question, namely, what the relevant psychological state is that clerics have but other fervent individuals lack?


----------



## pemerton

sciborg3 said:


> The very fact that people are bringing in real world examples of religion and philosophy shows me once again why Planescape is one of the greatest of D&D's settings!
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Planescape was great because it made you think about it even when you weren't playing the game. What are gods? What does it mean to believe in entropy?



Well, doing philosophy is part of my day job. Which may be part of why I'm not a big fan of Planescape's take on it.



sciborg3 said:


> I cannot even compare Planescape's richness to the 4e cosmology which I frankly find to be boring.



See, I'm completely the opposite. Dead Gods makes me yawn - as written it's one of the most railroady modules I've ever seen. Whereas the 4e cosmology just keeps giving and giving with game-driving themes and conflicts.

The PCs in my game include a tiefling paladin of the Raven Queen; a ranger-cleric of the Raven Queen; a wizard-invoker who was a lapsed initiate of the Raven Queen but has (over the course of play) become reinitiated, and then moved on from the Raven Queen to devotion to Erathis, Ioun and Vecna - and who also hate devils a great deal; a dwarven fighter-warpriest of Moradin; and a drow chaos sorcerer who is a demonskin adept, and also a member of a Corellon-worshipping secret society dedicated to undoing the sundering of the elves.

Practically any situation I can think of as a GM gets this party moving: undead/Orcus (because of the Raven Queen and Vecna elements); anything arcane (because of the Ioun/Vecna/Corellon elements); anything fey (because of the Corellon-worshipping drow); anything demonic (because of the chaos sorcerer) or diabolic (because of the tiefling, and the Erathis worshipper, who has a happier vision for order and civilisation); anything humanoidish/giantish (because of the Erathis and dwarvish elements); anything draconic/dragonborn (because of the tiefling).

For me, the value of the 4e cosmology is not in its literary cleverness or originality, but in its capacity to so easily generate these game-driving conflicts. In fact, its simplicity and transparency is in my view a virtue - it's very easy for players to pick up on these elements, build them into their PCs, and start playing. The complexity then emerges _in play_ - which is where I prefer to see it, rather than in background notes that only the GM reads.

The only tweak I've had to make to the core cosmology, in order to join some dots in my campaign that otherwise wouldn't have connected, is to make it the case that, after freeing themselves from the giants, the dwarves at some stage became subordinates to a minotaur empire.


----------



## S'mon

pemerton said:


> This doesn't seem to leave room for divine power without divinity. Or, alternatively, it suggests some sort of puzzling situation where the hopes and convictions of atheists give rise to a god of the non-existence of gods, who is the source of power for atheist clerics.




Given that demon lords can't channel Divine power to their cultists, I would restrict Clerics of a Philosophy to philosophies which are essentially quasi-religions; basically gods without the personality.  So for 4e I'd allow Clerics of Buddhism, Clerics of Taoism, but not Clerics of Atheism, Clerics of Scientific Materialism, or Clerics of Nationalism Socialism - a Nazi Cleric could be Protestant, Catholic or Pagan, but couldn't draw their power from National Socialism per se.


----------



## Ryujin

pemerton said:


> Suppose I buy that - can you give me an answer to my second question, namely, what the relevant psychological state is that clerics have but other fervent individuals lack?




Utter, unshakable belief in what grants their 'divine power.'


----------



## pemerton

[MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION], that makes sense to me.

When I ran an Oriental Adventures Rolemaster game, the Buddhists were either Channelling (=divine) (roughly, Pure Land types), Mentalists (=psionic) (Zen and Theravadan, without worrying about the fact that Zen is actually Mahayana) or Hybrid Channelling-Mentalism (for the more esoteric/tantric types).

I treated Taoists as Essence (=arcane) even though Taoism and Zen are similar in many respects, solely because this tended to fit with the depictions of Taoist priests and magicians in early-to-mid-90s Hong Kong films that my group had been into.


----------



## pemerton

Ryujin said:


> Utter, unshakable belief in what grants their 'divine power.'



What bothers me about that is that I don't see it reflected in the actual play of these characters.


----------



## Ryujin

pemerton said:


> What bothers me about that is that I don't see it reflected in the actual play of these characters.




That would be a failure of role play, not of the concept.


----------



## sciborg3

pemerton said:


> Well, doing philosophy is part of my day job. Which may be part of why I'm not a big fan of Planescape's take on it.
> 
> See, I'm completely the opposite. Dead Gods makes me yawn - as written it's one of the most railroady modules I've ever seen. Whereas the 4e cosmology just keeps giving and giving with game-driving themes and conflicts.




Oh, heh, Dead Gods was pretty bad in that regard. But I think that's less a judgement on Planescape as a setting than adventure design issues that, if I recall, a lot of TSR adventures possessed.

Don't get me wrong, I'm actually glad 4e created a new cosmology. What bothered me was the designers claimed to have seen the light and realized that ALL of us had been doing it wrong.

I think everyone is going to have different takes, and 4e provides new ideas and new options. Not everyone is going to like it, just like not everyone is going to like Planescape. For me reading the primordial vs gods, and seeing the elementals with helmets and faceless angels...made me stifle groans of embarrassment for the 4e cosmology.

I do like that the Feywild and Shadowfell border the planes, we'd already seen this stuff elsewhere so it wasn't a great creative triumph but nice to put it as a central feature.

Oh, and someone mentioned preferring Shadowfell's Keepers to the dabus? Er, the Keepers are at least as old as Planescape.

As for the PS backgrounds that no one sees - I think that is group dependent. I remember hearing one amazing story about how players called in their favors and political connections and stopped Faction War before it started. Shemmy's characters (and thus her players), from her excellent story hour, live their backgrounds and almost all of them had planar origins or acclimated well to planar life.

But yeah, we're just tossing opinions. Everyone is going to love different RPGs. I know people who were in love with Kult, but having read the sourcebooks I find it way to over the top horror to scare me. Some people hate Mage Awakening, as did I, but over time I've grown to see it as a worthy successor to Ascension.

Curious, though, if you had to make a faction based on your ideas of what philosophy is, what would its beliefs be?

Edit: Just want to say I am not attacking your game, or saying that your conflicts are boring. I actually think they are really cool and interesting, and...heh...would be served better by the Great Wheel. Again, one man's opinion!


----------



## Quickleaf

Nineball said:


> I don't think you berks are quite grasping it.



There's always some graybeard willing to tell you the truth of the multiverse, but when you've been out there and seen a dozen eternal rewards staring you in the face, well then you'll think before rattling your bone-box.

Primes talk about faith in the gods and afterlives which they will never visit; heh the Godsmen's "Source" is as intangible as they get. But real faith, you don't know real faith till you've stepped through a portal and visited Mount Olympus or sailed the Styx into Hades. Planars know exactly where they'll end up after they're put in the dead book. Worship Corellon, observe his precepts well and you'll spend the rest of your days in Arvandor. It's not just theory, it's  the way things are on the outer planes.

See, faith is about a real choice, cutters, and to make a choice you need to be as well-lanned as you can. You need to know what your options are. Faith on the planes means knowing what afterlife awaits if you worship Zeus or Corellon well...and what awaits you if you fail. It's not just your life on the line, but your eternal life, and you know - with your own eyes - what that means. Is there a greater commitment?

And that's the true power of the gods, the real test of faith.


----------



## pemerton

Ryujin said:


> That would be a failure of role play, not of the concept.



My concern is that it is not only a failure of role play, but that it puts limits on the game that I'm not sure work. I don't think I _want_ a game in which every person of conviction thereby becomes a divine power wielder - I quite like the idea of my non-spellcasting sage who won't leave his tower/library as the orcs approach, because of his conviction in the value and potential of reason over brute force.



Nineball said:


> So it holds to reason that they obviously ain't the best of the best
> 
> <snip>
> 
> See, it goes to reason that there's something above the gods themselves, like I already demonstrated.  It's like a ladder, see?  Each rung's got something above it, and the powers ain't at the top.  That's where the Source sits, that thing that makes up all of us.



This seems to suffer from the same prima facie incoherence as the standard version of the cosmological argument, or the standard version of Plato's one-over-many argument.

If everything has something above it, then it follows that nothing is at the top, and there is no Source.


----------



## Incenjucar

pemerton said:


> If everything has something above it, then it follows that nothing is at the top, and there is no Source.




Unless it runs in a circle, like the relationship between mortals and deities.


----------



## sciborg3

I think worthy of veneration and believing in infallibility are different things. In several polytheistic societies, it seems the gods are fallible and are defeated, at times, with relative ease in comical ways. (I'm thinking of the Monkey King here)

In Greek Mythology, Ares was held by some to be an outright coward, and even Zeus got tricked once in awhile not to mention gutted by Typhon if memory serves.

(edit: As Incenjucar previously mentioned - sorry, forgot to give credit where it's due!)

I think one of the ways to look at the D&D gods is as personal manifestations of the cosmos. In the same way one loves a parent, one can love a god. The love a god, however, is tied to their domain - you love them because they represent the the "living symbol", as Planescape called it, of something you want to see in the world. To worship Nerull is to channel Death, to worship Tempus is to worship War.

Then again, some people might believe that the god is destined to reward them, or destined to ascend as the God of Gods - perhaps with their help, as the worshipers of Vecna believe.

Also, I think clerics get power because they are willing to become vessels for their god's energy and do His or Her work in the world. Loyalty seems a greater requirement than zealousness.


----------



## Tymophil

pemerton said:


> Diogenes is not pre-Socratic.



That's why I added "so-called". In France, where I live, people are taught that philosophy began with Socrates, no matter what. All that was before was meant to lead to Socrates (as Plato portrays it, of course), so even some philosophers that where no pre-socratic are dubbed pre-socratic : archaic compared to the Plato's Socrates.
This was implemented in French education around the XIXth century, to rewrite the history of philosophy to make sure that most materialists would be seen as subpar philosophers. It was easily done as most materialist philosophers (Democritus, Epicurus, etc.) were almost wiped out of the history of philosophy (very, very few original writings remained). The fact that France was a massely christian country and that the country undertook a massive counter-revolution played a huge part...



pemerton said:


> That to one side, yes, Diogenes lived his philosophy. So did the Buddha, at least according to the received histories. It's not clear how many followers Diogenes had, but it's highly arguable that to the extent that later stoicism differs from Diogenes' own cynicism, this is in part to make it more digestible to the post-Alexandrian elite. Marcus Aurelius certainly didn't live in a barrel! (A similar argument can be made in respect of the evolution of Buddhism, although it also has a doctrine of rebirth to help explain why different members of society have different roles to play consistent with their overall pursuit of enlightenment.)
> 
> But in any event, Diogenes and Buddha and Marcus Aurelius all teach at least conceivable accounts of human flourishing, based on the relationship between human and natural order, and the attitude that humans should take towards the vicissitudes of the natural world.
> 
> This is what is missing, for me, from the factions.



You forget that, in the PlaneScape setting what you believe shapes reality. If the people of a certain place change their beliefs, the place will change its location in the Multiverse.

Anyway, what you conceive as true may or may not have any relation to what is or is not. Even when the evidence is given, many people stick to their beliefs however irrational they are. Palto's idealism is still seen as concievable, even though it is in plain contradiction with what little we know about the Universe. Still it is taught/believed in most advanced countries at one point or another as a great idea to look at the world.



pemerton said:


> See, this bears no connection to any pre-Socratic, Socratic or Hellenistic philosophy that I can think of - none of them contend that the world is shaped by belief, and certainly not by wishful thinking. They all insist that belief and behaviour has to be brought into conformity with the world's demands, although they differ in their accounts of what exactly those demands are, and what conformity with them might require.
> 
> And even the more idealist schools of Buddhism, like Yogacara, don't regard the character of the world or the content of belief as _chosen_. And they emphasise the necessity of practice in order to cultivate beliefs consistent with flourishing. They don't suggest that, having formed from the get-go a belief about how the world is (which is also how it ought to be), one then goes out into the world and starts acting on that belief as if it were true.



I was not clear there. You don't *choose* most illusions you actually use to portray reality. Almost nobody does. Even the most materialist amongst us have a hard time disbelieving that there is something "more" about the reality that could be called a "soul".

I guess most people believe that there IS a sky. Even though there is only an illusion created by the interaction of light and the atmosphere. You don't wake up everyday, believing or disbelieving that there is a sky. Yet it comes as a shock when you are taught that there is no sky, and some people don't even believe it when they are given some evidences.

Many people believe that the ARE laws of Nature. This is a largely widespead illusion amongst our societies. How many time do you people saying that objets fall BECAUSE of the law of gravitation. It IS an illusion many people live by, and none of them chose it.

If you live by believing that there is an ideal/divine world and a corrupted one. You live in an illusionary world. Did you chose to believe this ? A platonic view of life is clearly an illusion for us nowadays. It was not in his days. Plato did know/believed that the spheres did exist and were perfect, one could argue that he never chose to believe it.

In our world, many people guide(d) their lifes on beliefs that litterally shape(d) their reality. Just look at food : the pythagorians simply never ate beans because... it would be... embarrassing, and not as pythagorean as they wished to be in some situations. Others chose to feed on uncooked, raw food because it paralleled their beliefs. The world around them is shaped by the crop they grow, the livestock they choose to cattle, etc. The world, the reality they live by, is shaped by their conscious beliefs and their unchallenged/unconscious beliefs (illusions they don't, and never, disbelieve) shape their world too. In the end, it is difficult toi see what is real, illusionary, self-delusion, etc.

We don't know much about some philosophies, but it seems from the scarse texts that survived that Cyrenaics and Epicurians did live by their doctrines on an everyday basis. They chose their food, cloths, etc. according to their philosophy.

In PlaneScape you can shake all these kind of beliefs/illusions because they can be challenged. They can be challenged because they can be true or false /dispelled depending or your faction. When you chose the faction for your player character, you don't simply say that the PC chose to believe this or that. He simply believes this or that.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost

pemerton said:


> If everything has something above it, then it follows that nothing is at the top, and there is no Source.




Oh, it's turtles all the way down, mate.  But I've only got 60' of Darkvision, so anything further down than that might as well be "the Source" instead of just a slightly bigger terrapin.


----------



## DracoSuave

Quickleaf said:


> And that's the true power of the gods, the real test of faith.




HHAhahaahahahaHAHAHAHHAhahahahahHAHAHAHHAHAHhahahahahaHAHahahahahAHHAHaHAHHAhahahahHAHAHAHhahahahHAHAHHAHHAHAhahahhAHAHHAhahahahHAHAHHAHAhahahaHAHAHhaho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho hoHAHAHAHAhahaahahahaha ha ha ha ha ha ho....

ho... 

hee...

um...

Right, ol cutter's bones clicky clankin' away in its locked box, spillin the darks where the light'll get at it.  The sixes and sevens be showin' ya the one way, which is seventeen ways, but then that's all good cause those ways have ways, and you're likely to get lost if you're don't use a map as the papers for your petition, right?

But enough jink and some knight'll scribble drawings on yer little pocketbook of dogma.  The worst cross trade is tradin' crosses, as me mum used to say before the slaad popped her chesty.  Or was it 'OHGODTHEPAINGETMYPILLSBOY?' 

Right, where was I?  Does it matter, when the past is all some big pie, no fillin' to it, just crust and the hope of molten cherries or lava to greet the tasting tongue, tripping over its testimony.  What does it all mean?  You can preach on about yer powers or yer source or yer sauce or yer self or whatever... and the catch of it is everyone's got the right of it.  And everyone is so barmy about their incorrectness it makes a Bleaker sane and a Sensate to cross her legs.

Ain't that the rub eh?  When you can find any answer you seek, every answer becomes tossed salad, even when two people's answers are opposite.  They combine together and explode in a bright hellish flash of philosophy and a cacophony of argument.

And what is left?

Hats.  Fine felt hats, made from the finest felts.  And hatstuff.  In the end, that's all you need to care about.  Is your hat nice?  With a nice hat, all the chaos of the 'verse ain't so bad?  This one suits you nicely.  It even has a feather, which will ward off Mercykillers and other fashion police, or my name isn't Three-Tongued-Quasit of Xaos.

And here's a dark for you... that name's as made up as the rest of this place.


----------



## Ryujin

pemerton said:


> My concern is that it is not only a failure of role play, but that it puts limits on the game that I'm not sure work. I don't think I _want_ a game in which every person of conviction thereby becomes a divine power wielder - I quite like the idea of my non-spellcasting sage who won't leave his tower/library as the orcs approach, because of his conviction in the value and potential of reason over brute force.




Then you need not have such a game. Consider Divine certitude to be a transcendent belief structure, that goes beyond simple conviction, to the level of being able to warp reality. If a non-Divine character wants to demonstrate that sort of conviction to a cause, then perhaps he should do so by multi-classing into Cleric, Avenger, etc.


----------



## Balesir

I love Planescape, but I think it is actually a fairly poor fit for the D&D systems, oddly.  I think this is because I find it quite "Simulationist" biased (in the Forge sense); it seems to me to be at its best when explored for its own sake, rather than when it is used as a context for fronting up to challenges or addressing 'themes'.  As an exploratory setting, the thing to explore is ideas - what could be cooler?

As an aside, they called the factions "philosophers with clubs"; had Planescape been developed later I think "internet philosophers" might have captured the sense better 

Does that mean many or most factioneers are simply argumentative and largely ignorant of actual philosophy?  Well, of course!


----------



## pemerton

Balesir said:


> I love Planescape, but I think it is actually a fairly poor fit for the D&D systems, oddly.  I think this is because I find it quite "Simulationist" biased (in the Forge sense); it seems to me to be at its best when explored for its own sake, rather than when it is used as a context for fronting up to challenges or addressing 'themes'.



This I agree with! (Which is why I personally don't like it.)


----------



## DracoSuave

How is it simulationism?

There's no attempt to simulate anything; the tone of the books were that everything was so unreal and epic there was no WAY to simulate everything.

And any attempt at simulation would run into so many exceptions that there's no point doing that either.  Outside of a short set of rules on how magic functions in each plane... it pretty much left it at that.

It was 3rd edition Manual of the Planes that was simulationist... but Planescape itself never was.  There were never rules for how many believers would cause a planar shift.  There were never rules for how many portals would be in a given area and where they must go in Sigil.  You'd buy thick boxed sets with maps that had no scales, that were just very pretty diterllizi art of a rendering of a plane, with hundreds of pages which might boil down to ten pages of crunch if you were lucky.

A lot of the point of the campaign was that there couldn't BE such rules.  Only the Guvners believed in that nonsense.  The designers sure as hell didn't.

Ask any cutter, it was a narrative paradise, not some clueless simulationist hell.


----------



## pemerton

DracoSuave said:


> How is it simulationism?



It's a version of high concept simulationism (as described at The Forge). That is, it's about exploration of pre-determined material.


----------



## DracoSuave

pemerton said:


> It's a version of high concept simulationism (as described at The Forge). That is, it's about exploration of pre-determined material.




In otherwords 'simulationism' through 'stripping out the simulationist elements of the game system.'

Is it just me, or did that essay just find a way to define simulationism as simply a complex term for make-believe, stripping out the game system elements itself that attempt to aid in simulation, as opposed to the common definition of a game system being used to simulate elements of a world in opposition to arbitrarianism.

By their reckoning, a game like Amber is more simulationist than a game like Rolemaster... 

In other words, by that definition, you hate games that let you pretend to do things?

Help me figure this out here.


----------



## S'mon

DracoSuave said:


> In otherwords 'simulationism' through 'stripping out the simulationist elements of the game system.'
> 
> Is it just me, or did that essay just find a way to define simulationism as simply a complex term for make-believe, stripping out the game system elements itself that attempt to aid in simulation, as opposed to the common definition of a game system being used to simulate elements of a world in opposition to arbitrarianism.
> 
> By their reckoning, a game like Amber is more simulationist than a game like Rolemaster...
> 
> In other words, by that definition, you hate games that let you pretend to do things?
> 
> Help me figure this out here.




The Forgey definition of "simulation" is extremely broad, yes.  It should probably be called "exploration".


----------



## DracoSuave

Balesir said:


> As an aside, they called the factions "philosophers with clubs"; had Planescape been developed later I think "internet philosophers" might have captured the sense better
> 
> Does that mean many or most factioneers are simply argumentative and largely ignorant of actual philosophy?  Well, of course!




When you live in a realm where belief that everything is chaos and disorder actually gives you the ability to point at someone and remove their ability to speak coherently, or where your belief that the universe is best when put under your benevolent dictatorship gives you the ability to change minds to befriend you and follow your word... that's what -clubs- means.  The Fated have a greater propensity for self-sufficiency, the Sensates have greater immunity to negative experiences... in the planes, what you believe is both a source of power and a battleground.  

Interestingly, I think this would be a good use of themes in 4th edition, to reflect the abilities granted by faction.


----------



## pemerton

DracoSuave said:


> In otherwords 'simulationism' through 'stripping out the simulationist elements of the game system.'
> 
> Is it just me, or did that essay just find a way to define simulationism as simply a complex term for make-believe, stripping out the game system elements itself that attempt to aid in simulation, as opposed to the common definition of a game system being used to simulate elements of a world in opposition to arbitrarianism.
> 
> By their reckoning, a game like Amber is more simulationist than a game like Rolemaster...



I don't know Amber well enough - but Rolemaster is, in terms of that essay, "purist-for-system" - whereas eg Call of Cthulhu and Pendragon are paradigms of high concept simulationist games.



DracoSuave said:


> In other words, by that definition, you hate games that let you pretend to do things?



No - I don't like games that predetermine he thematic significance of what will be pretended. I like this to come out as an element of actual play.

If you're interested, there's an active thread about this on the General forums. Come and join in!


----------



## DracoSuave

pemerton said:


> No - I don't like games that predetermine he thematic significance of what will be pretended. I like this to come out as an element of actual play.




Aha!  That I -do- get.


----------



## Ryujin

pemerton said:


> I don't know Amber well enough - but Rolemaster is, in terms of that essay, "purist-for-system" - whereas eg Call of Cthulhu and Pendragon are paradigms of high concept simulationist games.




Amber is rather unique, in role playing, in that it's 'diceless.' Your character's attributes are fixed, determining the outcome of any contest. Any way that you spin it, that's about as far from the traditional definition of 'simulationist' as you can get.


----------



## Balesir

*S'mon* and *pemerton* already gave some good responses, but I'll add a few specifics:


DracoSuave said:


> In otherwords 'simulationism' through 'stripping out the simulationist elements of the game system.'



It's unfortunate that "simulationist" has acquired a "common" meaning that I find ambiguous, loose and not very useful.  As far as I can make out, it is usually taken to mean "system heavy" or "sticks to 'simulating' elements from the "real" world", or some combination of both of these.  For the main streams of roleplaying - fantasy (where sticking to the "real" world is just limiting) and sci-fi (where the idea of _not_ simulating the "real" world to some degree is anathema) - this usage seems to me to be redundant and unhelpful.

The Forge meaning is much more unambiguous, centred on actual play aims and interesting to me personally as an "ambition of play".



DracoSuave said:


> Is it just me, or did that essay just find a way to define simulationism as simply a complex term for make-believe, stripping out the game system elements itself that attempt to aid in simulation, as opposed to the common definition of a game system being used to simulate elements of a world in opposition to arbitrarianism.



It defines Sim as 'make believe' *for its own sake*.  All roleplaying involves make believe to some degree to make it work; for those times when you are focussing on a Sim agenda, exploring that make believe together is the main purpose of the activity.

Taken from this angle, Sim does not need extensive rules, at all.  It may take a realm of 'fluff' that describes a setting and base play on "rules" and guidelines that are developed during play based on that fluff.  Planescape seems very suited to this approach, to me.  The danger of "arbitrarianism" comes in if (1) the game is operated with an "all powerful" GM and (2) that GM begins to see/treat the game as a competitive excercise, either spontaneously or due to some "gamist" behaviour on the part of the players.  A good way to counteract this, in my view, is giving a substantial part of the traditional "GM's power" to the players or the group as a whole (something you should never do in a gamist game).



DracoSuave said:


> When you live in a realm where belief that everything is chaos and disorder actually gives you the ability to point at someone and remove their ability to speak coherently, or where your belief that the universe is best when put under your benevolent dictatorship gives you the ability to change minds to befriend you and follow your word... that's what -clubs- means.  The Fated have a greater propensity for self-sufficiency, the Sensates have greater immunity to negative experiences... in the planes, what you believe is both a source of power and a battleground.



Yes, I realise all that - but that isn't really "philosophy", as such, is it?  It's a set of hypotheses concering a setting where belief has real power - hypotheses that might, themselves, be philosophised about, but that are used/wielded by believers, rather than by philosophers.



DracoSuave said:


> Interestingly, I think this would be a good use of themes in 4th edition, to reflect the abilities granted by faction.



I think you could represent the factions using themes, yes, but I think that all PS would be in 4E is a pretty backdrop for a challenge-based or theme-based game.  I don't see all that much point in using the setting that way, but YMMV and it should certainly be possible.


----------



## Incenjucar

DracoSuave said:


> Interestingly, I think this would be a good use of themes in 4th edition, to reflect the abilities granted by faction.




Absolutely. The benefits you could get from being in a faction in 2E are not entirely unlike themes.


----------



## pemerton

Ryujin said:


> Amber is rather unique, in role playing, in that it's 'diceless.' Your character's attributes are fixed, determining the outcome of any contest. Any way that you spin it, that's about as far from the traditional definition of 'simulationist' as you can get.



I agree it makes it not purist-for-system. But it doesn't settle the question of high concept simulationism. Is the GM's role to set up situations which the players then drive forward in accordance with their own conception of the "point" or "stakes" or "theme" of the conflict? Or is the GM's role to set up situations, and adjudicate them, in such a fashion that the players will have an "Amber experience" (whatever exactly that is)?

Pendragon and Cthulhu are written to be run the second way, which is why The Forge calls them high concept simulationist games. What Balesir is saying in calling Planescape simulationist, and what I agree with, is that Planescape is meant to work something like this too.


----------



## Ryujin

pemerton said:


> I agree it makes it not purist-for-system. But it doesn't settle the question of high concept simulationism. Is the GM's role to set up situations which the players then drive forward in accordance with their own conception of the "point" or "stakes" or "theme" of the conflict? Or is the GM's role to set up situations, and adjudicate them, in such a fashion that the players will have an "Amber experience" (whatever exactly that is)?
> 
> Pendragon and Cthulhu are written to be run the second way, which is why The Forge calls them high concept simulationist games. What Balesir is saying in calling Planescape simulationist, and what I agree with, is that Planescape is meant to work something like this too.




Arguments to the contrary, I tend to disregard the term "High Concept Simulationism" out of hand. To my mind you have simulationism, on the one extreme, and what I would refer to as pure role playing, on the other. Various game systems fall somewhere along that line, either tending toward one extreme or the other, in the same way that the political landscape tends to work.

.... though I actually tend to see politics as a circle, rather than a line, but that's a point for another place and time.


----------



## Balesir

Ryujin said:


> Arguments to the contrary, I tend to disregard the term "High Concept Simulationism" out of hand. To my mind you have simulationism, on the one extreme, and what I would refer to as pure role playing, on the other. Various game systems fall somewhere along that line, either tending toward one extreme or the other, in the same way that the political landscape tends to work.



I think that's because you are thinking of "simulationism" in the rather confusing, non-Forge sense of "simulating the real world" and "mechanics heavy to remove judgement calls".  The Forge's use of "Simulationism" does not imply either of these things - it means that the focus of actual play - and what is socially recognised and congratulated during play - is exploration and exposition of the game setting for its own sake.  This stands in contrast to "gamism" (where good tactics or good die rolls are lauded and the focus is on overcoming in-game challenges with player skill) and "narrativism" (where introducing crunchy thematic elements is lauded and the focus is on developing knotty theme questions/challenges).

"High Concept Sim" involves exploring a genre or fascinating game setting (which is where I think PS sits); "Purist for System" involves (trying to) develop a setting-based rule set to model a specific, imagined setting.  Purist for System agenda includes the "fluff led rules" stuff, broadly speaking; 'rules led fluff' is generally/typically Gamist, instead.



Ryujin said:


> .... though I actually tend to see politics as a circle, rather than a line, but that's a point for another place and time.



...and I agree with you somewhat but, as you say, that's for another venue.


----------



## Ryujin

That's because I disagree with the basic concept behind Forge's use of the term 'simulationism.' Simulation, to me, is about recreating the mechanical world. If you want a word to mean something different, than the long-time acknowledged meaning of that word, create a new one. The confusion isn't mine, it's created by that piece.


----------



## sciborg3

pemerton said:


> No - I don't like games that predetermine he thematic significance of what will be pretended. I like this to come out as an element of actual play.




Can you give an example of this - not necessarily Planescape related? Just having a hard time understanding what you mean.

thanks!


----------



## DracoSuave

The more I hear 'high-concept simulationism' the more I want to hear 'narrativism' which is probably the more appropriate word.

'Simulationism' in this case taken to mean using the game mechanics to simulate aspects of the game world.  For example, Traveler using dense mechanics to simulate the random smattering of planets and possible atmospheres, tech levels, etc.  That's simulationism.

Narrativism would be using the game mechanics in order to fuel and reward narratives, without necessary regard to simulation of the world itself.  

They aren't necessarily in opposition:  Mage: The Awakening has game mechanics that encourage gameplay based on narrative principles, as well as character motivations.  But it also has a rich simulationist approach to the magic system.

On the other hand, you have narrativist games like Over The Edge which have absolutely no desire to simulate anything, as everything is arbitrary.  But the mechanics are based entirely around narrative blurbs about your character's strengths and frailties.  What your character is informs the game mechanics more than what a gun can do or how wealth is generated.

But seriously.  Forge might as well use the term 'role-playing game' to describe 'simulationism.'  And the term 'gamism' is ugly.  A better term for it would be 'arbitrarianism' where the game presents a complete system without regard to simulation OR narration.  Game mechanics just exist because of the necessity of game mechanics.

Then again, you could just as easily describe it as 'unevolved' or 'first generation' as D&D was around before narrativism or simulationism were found to be desired elements by certain gaming groups.  Calling D&D 'non-simulationist' in this regard is like calling the first televisions 'anti-color'.  It's not an element of design, it's an element of preceding the element in question.


----------



## Balesir

Ryujin said:


> That's because I disagree with the basic concept behind Forge's use of the term 'simulationism.' Simulation, to me, is about recreating the mechanical world. If you want a word to mean something different, than the long-time acknowledged meaning of that word, create a new one. The confusion isn't mine, it's created by that piece.



Simulation (as a general term) has never been restricted to the "mechanical world".  You can simulate social interactions, worlds with alternative physics and carefully defined "magic"; if "simulationism" was restricted to meaning "simulating the real world" we would need to invent a new word (independent of roleplaying gaming) to mean "simulating some other reality".  The very fact that saying "simulate another reality" makes sense demonstrates that this is not what the word means.

Absent this clash of meaning, The Forge (and Ron Edwards, specifically) is free to define a specific meaning, within the general meaning, for discussions pertaining to roleplaying systems on his own site.  Others may find this meaning useful, and provided it is specified as the particular meaning in use, this is valid, also.



DracoSuave said:


> The more I hear 'high-concept simulationism' the more I want to hear 'narrativism' which is probably the more appropriate word.



*pemerton* has already explained, with admirable brevity, the difference between Narrativism (which he likes) and High Concept Simulationism (which he doesn't).  In the first the 'plot' is created/generated by the players, in the second it is set by the genre and the system and is there to be explored by the players rather than created by them.  Those two cases might look the same to you, but I see the distinction quite clearly.



DracoSuave said:


> 'Simulationism' in this case taken to mean using the game mechanics to simulate aspects of the game world.  For example, Traveler using dense mechanics to simulate the random smattering of planets and possible atmospheres, tech levels, etc.  That's simulationism.



That's a form of simulationism, sure.  So is Mage: the Ascension modelling its marvellously innovative magic system - or Pendragon modelling the Arthurian Age or Call of Cthulhu modelling H.P.Lovecraft's horrific imaginings.



DracoSuave said:


> Narrativism would be using the game mechanics in order to fuel and reward narratives, without necessary regard to simulation of the world itself.



And without specifying what the theme of those narratives are going to be.  Every game will generate a narrative, just as every game will have some sort of coherent "world model".  That is one reason why just defining the words "narrativist" and "simulationist" (not to mention "gamist") in the "common meaning" way is not useful for discussion.



DracoSuave said:


> They aren't necessarily in opposition:  Mage: The Awakening has game mechanics that encourage gameplay based on narrative principles, as well as character motivations.  But it also has a rich simulationist approach to the magic system.



M:tA is a cool game, but it is in no way "Narrativist" in the Forge sense.  It might be possible to generate some Nar play with it, but the themes of Magick are already set by the game system, they are not amenable to independent exploration.  In other words, it's primarily a Simulationist supporting system.



DracoSuave said:


> On the other hand, you have narrativist games like Over The Edge which have absolutely no desire to simulate anything, as everything is arbitrary.  But the mechanics are based entirely around narrative blurbs about your character's strengths and frailties.  What your character is informs the game mechanics more than what a gun can do or how wealth is generated.



OtE, on the other hand, is amenable to Nar play, I think (having never actually _played_ it, mind).



DracoSuave said:


> But seriously.  Forge might as well use the term 'role-playing game' to describe 'simulationism.'



Sigh - that has been addressed so many times it's wearing really thin.



DracoSuave said:


> And the term 'gamism' is ugly.  A better term for it would be 'arbitrarianism' where the game presents a complete system without regard to simulation OR narration.  Game mechanics just exist because of the necessity of game mechanics.



Other than that you hate what you think Gamism is about, do you actually have any justification for this?  Good Gamism supporting rules are anything but arbitrary and will both simuate a coherent world and generate a narrative - neither of which make the result either Simulationist or Narrativist nor even mean that it will primarily support those modes.

Seriously, if you don't want to bother to understand, fine, but don't just attack what you clearly don't comprehend.



DracoSuave said:


> Then again, you could just as easily describe it as 'unevolved' or 'first generation' as D&D was around before narrativism or simulationism were found to be desired elements by certain gaming groups.  Calling D&D 'non-simulationist' in this regard is like calling the first televisions 'anti-color'.  It's not an element of design, it's an element of preceding the element in question.



I get that you dislike Gamism - or, at least, what you label as Gamism in your own mind - but dismissing what other people enjoy as "what you have before you add something worthwhile" because you don't personally care for it is just rude.


----------



## DracoSuave

Balesir said:


> *pemerton* has already explained, with admirable brevity, the difference between Narrativism (which he likes) and High Concept Simulationism (which he doesn't).  In the first the 'plot' is created/generated by the players, in the second it is set by the genre and the system and is there to be explored by the players rather than created by them.  Those two cases might look the same to you, but I see the distinction quite clearly.




A more accurate designation would be system-enforced themism vs player-inspired themism.  Neither of these concerns have anything to do with smiluation--Planescape, for example, has absolutely no means to *simulate* the tone.  It simply has the tone and players are free to narrate it or not.

That simply reduces 'high concept simulationism' to the idea that a game has a specific tone.... that makes Ravenloft 'high concept simulationism' because it has a horror tone.



> That's a form of simulationism, sure.  So is Mage: the Ascension modelling its marvellously innovative magic system - or Pendragon modelling the Arthurian Age or Call of Cthulhu modelling H.P.Lovecraft's horrific imaginings.




No arguing that.



> And without specifying what the theme of those narratives are going to be.  Every game will generate a narrative, just as every game will have some sort of coherent "world model".  That is one reason why just defining the words "narrativist" and "simulationist" (not to mention "gamist") in the "common meaning" way is not useful for discussion.




So the second a game has a set genre, tone, or theme it suddenly turns from narrativist to simulationist, regardless of whether the game system itself has means to support that simulationism?

That's why I say they might as well have 'role playing game.' 



> M:tA is a cool game, but it is in no way "Narrativist" in the Forge sense.  It might be possible to generate some Nar play with it, but the themes of Magick are already set by the game system, they are not amenable to independent exploration.  In other words, it's primarily a Simulationist supporting system.




By this definition, D&D is a simulationist system because it carries a continual tone involving the attainment of power and escalation of stakes, inherent to the game system on a fundamental level.

The system does not reward breaking away from the fact you're in a game with levels kicking down doors and slaying monsters.



> OtE, on the other hand, is amenable to Nar play, I think (having never actually _played_ it, mind).




OtE is a postmodernist game tho, which the game mechanics are designed to support.  In a sense, would that make it a 'Higher Concept Simulationist' game?

That's why I dislike the term... it -really- is so broad it has absolutely no meaning.  Once set in stone, it's impossible to find anything that isn't 'High concept simulationist' if it isn't rolemaster-like.

That's where the conclusion 'simulationism might as well mean "roleplaying game"' comes from.



> Sigh - that has been addressed so many times it's wearing really thin.




So?  Doesn't change its meaninglessness as a phrase by itself, when other, more precise phrases, meaning more precise things, are available.



> Other than that you hate what you think Gamism is about, do you actually have any justification for this?  Good Gamism supporting rules are anything but arbitrary and will both simuate a coherent world and generate a narrative - neither of which make the result either Simulationist or Narrativist nor even mean that it will primarily support those modes.




Where did I say I hated the gamist approach?  I'm simply stating what it is:  A system designed to be internally consistant as a game, rather than as a vehicle for simulationist OR narrativist purposes.  Initial iterations of D&D did this because there simply was no concern for those things... they weren't concepts in rpg design because rpg design was a brand new thing.



> Seriously, if you don't want to bother to understand, fine, but don't just attack what you clearly don't comprehend.




I am trying to understand but the phraseology and definitions used are loose and poor at best.  I understand enough to understand (and respect) the complaint against Planescape as a game.  However the game isn't 'simulationist.'  It's a setting that has a tone.  That's not 'simulationism' as the tone is not enforced by the system in any way.  It's simply there.  You can take the information provided, and remove the tone, and everything plays just as well.

How is that simulationist when the system does not attempt simulation?



> I get that you dislike Gamism - or, at least, what you label as Gamism in your own mind - but dismissing what other people enjoy as "what you have before you add something worthwhile" because you don't personally care for it is just rude.




I don't dislike simulation.  I recognize cause and effect; things that were invented prior to game design incorporating ideas of hard simulation (Rolemaster) or narrative focus (storyteller) simply don't have those ideals in the design, any more than TVs are going to have color before color tvs were invented.

It's not a disparagement at all.


----------



## Ryujin

Balesir said:


> Simulation (as a general term) has never been restricted to the "mechanical world".  You can simulate social interactions, worlds with alternative physics and carefully defined "magic"; if "simulationism" was restricted to meaning "simulating the real world" we would need to invent a new word (independent of roleplaying gaming) to mean "simulating some other reality".  The very fact that saying "simulate another reality" makes sense demonstrates that this is not what the word means.
> 
> Absent this clash of meaning, The Forge (and Ron Edwards, specifically) is free to define a specific meaning, within the general meaning, for discussions pertaining to roleplaying systems on his own site.  Others may find this meaning useful, and provided it is specified as the particular meaning in use, this is valid, also.




Just to be absolutely clear on this, I never said "the real world." I said "the mechanical world" as in the mechanics of the world, in which the game exists. Magic is a mechanic but it isn't a mechanic of the real world, except in sappy love songs from the 1970s. 

I stand by my comments.


----------



## pemerton

DracoSuave said:


> The more I hear 'high-concept simulationism' the more I want to hear 'narrativism' which is probably the more appropriate word.



Just adding to what Balesir already said - there's a difference between pre-packaged theme or genre (Dragonlance, Cthulhu, Planescape in my reading of it etc) and theme generated during play by the participants in the game.

The Forge calls the former high-concept simulationism, the latter narrativism. Nothing much turns on the words chosen (though I don't feel any great pressure to depart from a fairly clearly established usage). But the difference between the two playstyles is very big.



sciborg3 said:


> Can you give an example of this - not necessarily Planescape related? Just having a hard time understanding what you mean.



In Call of Cthulhu, it's a presupposition of the game, which then shapes the flow of play, that meddling in things humanity was not meant to know will put your PC on an inevitable downward spiral.

In my current 4e game, one of the PCs is a chaos sorcerer who is a Demonskin Adept. A question on the table is whether this meddling in things we weren't meant to know will put that PC on an inevitable downward spiral. I don't want the mechanics or the fictional setup of the gameworld to already answer that question. It's something that the whole table (including the player of that PC, and me as GM) will discover by actually playing the game. One method used to force the discovery is me (as GM) putting the player's PC in situations where spiralling downward is a possible option and consequence.

Achieving the second sort of playstyle, rather than the first, depends on a mix both of mechanics (getting rid of mechanical alignment is, in my view, an important first step) and GMing techniques.


----------



## Balesir

DracoSuave said:


> So the second a game has a set genre, tone, or theme it suddenly turns from narrativist to simulationist, regardless of whether the game system itself has means to support that simulationism?
> 
> That's why I say they might as well have 'role playing game.'



I think, to be fair, your confusion is a mix of (a) you not recognising what the Forge "agendas" actually refer to and (b) some lax usage by me and others of some of the terms when referring to systems and players.

To try to be clear: according to the terms as defined on The Forge, there can be no such thing as "a Simulationist system" or "a Gamist player", etc., etc.  The "agenda" refers exclusively to the focus of social recognition during play.  Examples to illustrate this might help:

- In my 4E game I see a player manoeuvre their ranged striker character into a position adjacent to a nasty monster in a flanking position with a marking fighter - and then make a ranged attack against it.  The monster has an opportunity attack, but if it uses it it will still get hit by the ranged striker attack (with flanking and prime shot bonuses) _*and*_ will take a Combat Superiority strike (with flanking!) from the fighter.  The players applaud the player of the striker.  High fives are exchanged. Kudos is awarded.  This is a pretty clear example of "Gamist" play; the challenge has been stepped up to, and player skill is moving things towards victory in an "efficient" way.

- In a military style setting, the player characters are conducting an infiltration accompanied by a 'local guide' NPC.  The party are ambushed; as the fight draws to a close, one PC turns and one-shots the guide, then looks around the table, declaring "our mission parameters have just changed, gentlemen".  Approbation and applause ensues; the interest and tension around the table ratchets up a notch.  It seems very likely that Narrativist play is afoot.

- During a Vampire game, the PCs are escaping on motorcycles after "acquiring" some key information from a hostile group. One of the PCs has a mortal pillion passenger who was part of their "cover" in the heist.  To evade final capture, the PC deliberately makes a highly risky move that doesn't come off and they crash - the pillion and the pursuers (all mortal) are dead or crippled, but the PC uses blood to recover enough to walk away.  The rules are ambiguous about whether this sort of "accident" should trigger a Humanity roll, but the player thinks it should, since, in their mind, the crash was at least negligent on the part of the PC, who knew he would be able to survive it while the pursuers (and pillion) wouldn't.  The other players nod and express appreciation of the "in keeping" interpretation of the game events.  This is pretty likely a Simulationist agenda in action.

- Playing D&D, a player tries for a difficult DC check and rolls a 20 - a crit!  Everyone cheers!  This is most likely a Gamist agenda at work.

Note the commonalities: an instance of play, social interaction (often non-verbal as well as verbal) to give recognition and appreciation of a specific type of introduction into the 'play space'.  This is the core of what The Forge "agendas" are about.

When we talk about "a Gamist system" or "a Narrativist player", with reference to the definitions used on The Forge, we are, strictly speaking, using the terms wrongly.  Usually it boils down to laziness (at least on my part); it's a short form to mean "a system that supports Gamist play particularly well", or "a player who generally prefers a game where Narrativism is the main focus of the game's social agenda".  To those who already grok the meanings of the agendas, these phrases are pretty easy to "decode", but in a forum like this it's bad form to use them, because it makes the terms look like they mean something other than they do - mea culpa.

Does that help any, to make it clearer?


----------



## Aenghus

The simple reason I disliked the planescape setting as it was generally run is it runs counter to my own preferences. 

My favourite class from 1e to 3e was cleric. And I typically ran conventional, slightly naive LG clerics. 

Planescape seems to me to be a deconstruction of conventional D&D, poking fun at the old way of doing things. And my preferred character class and personality was utterly out of place in the setting, fit only as the target of snide humour.

The whole 90's move to "dark and edgy" never hooked me in, and I think planescape is D&D's contribution to that movement.

This visceral reaction probably soured me on everything related to the setting. I saw the factions as silly and the dark humour imbedded in the setting unfunny.

So, not for me.


----------



## Piratecat

Planescape meshes incredibly well to my play style. The best part of my various campaigns have centered around Planescape (Sigil or otherwise) or around the concept of belief influencing reality that I grabbed from the first box set. The themes really resonates with the sort of games I like to play: consequences, dependencies, small actions that create huge ripples, and quickly-changing cultures that require the players to think on their feet.

I also love the fact that you have a way to let low level PCs interact with vastly more powerful creatures. That doesn't mean they'll be shown any respect, of course, but it's a nice conceit. Add to this the conceit of a city-based campaign (my favorite type) with instant dungeon or wilderness adventures on a whim (via portals) and I'm completely sold.

I'll also admit that I like the idea of the Lady of Pain as an unknowable cipher, but that's because I like mysteries. I neither need, want, or particularly care about stats or a background for her. She doesn't generally affect my games, other than the knowledge that everything takes place in her shadow.

...I'll give the cant a miss, though. BerkBerkBerk.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost

Aenghus said:


> The whole 90's move to "dark and edgy" never hooked me in, and I think planescape is D&D's contribution to that movement.




I prefer to think of it as post-irony D&D.  There's nothing particularly dark and edgy about a great deal of planescape.  I mean... modrons?


----------



## DracoSuave

Canis said:


> I prefer to think of it as post-irony D&D.  There's nothing particularly dark and edgy about a great deal of planescape.  I mean... modrons?




To be fair, Modrons aren't a Planescape thing per se.

Tho rogue modrons are.

But yeah, planescape is a very self-aware setting that doesn't take D&D too seriously at all.  

Dark and Edgy would have you dealing with demons all the time with the abject horror of doing so staring you in the face causing you to doubt yourself and your motivations OH GOD THE ANGST.

Planescape has you deal with the demons, see the abject horror, and then you shrug your shoulders and go 'It's just petitioners.  It's what they want' before taking a trip to Ysgard for a drink.


----------



## Piratecat

Canis said:


> I prefer to think of it as post-irony D&D.  There's nothing particularly dark and edgy about a great deal of planescape.  I mean... modrons?



Modrons are entirely 1e and far pre-date Planescape. 

Interestingly, I see the setting very differently than you do. For me it overflows with majesty and wonder. It's designed to keep players on their toes and plays well to philosophically-themed adventures, where there's a lot more at stake than treasure. If the players are getting too comfortable with the setting's predictability, I'd argue you're possibly missing some gameplay.


----------



## DracoSuave

Balesir said:


> Does that help any, to make it clearer?




I really do appreciate your trying to explain it to me, it does help.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost

Piratecat said:


> Modrons are entirely 1e and far pre-date Planescape.
> 
> Interestingly, I see the setting very differently than you do. For me it overflows with majesty and wonder. It's designed to keep players on their toes and plays well to philosophically-themed adventures, where there's a lot more at stake than treasure. If the players are getting too comfortable with the setting's predictability, I'd argue you're possibly missing some gameplay.




I would guess my pithy comment did little to illustrate how I really feel about Planescape.  I don't think of it as a "jokey" setting, although it is full to the rafters with jokes (and unlike most settings, the jokes work).  But then, so is life.  Irony and humor are central to my view of life in general, and are not anathema to wonder at all.  At my day job I can wonder at the beauty of what I'm working on, and then have one of them promptly fart in my face.  I can be involved in a surgery that elegantly establishes that living beings are fundamentally sacks of meat, and acknowledge that without losing my ability to walk into the next room and be moved by a poetic moment.  You need both wonder and humor to properly appreciate the world.  And in my line of work, the ability to achieve clinical distance from both at a moment's notice doesn't hurt, either.  If you're denying wonder, you're lost, but if you're denying how silly living beings (especially humans) are, you're living in a dream.

The Factions are, in their way, brilliant.  Human beings have a strong tendency to laugh at anything they can't quite get their head around.  Well, either laugh or try to kill it.  Which pretty much describes how the Factions view each other: objects of ridicule or ideas to be destroyed.  Planars, after all, have concrete answers to some of mankind's most pressing philosophical questions.  But instead of using that information to step past boundaries, they just created a different set.  They can see how silly the boundaries and divisions of Primes are (worlds, nations, races, etc), but they are rabidly invested in a different set of boundaries.  Those boundaries are probably illusory as well, but a little bit of understanding, as usual, just made people more dangerous.  And those boundaries are simultaneously airily philosophical and entirely mercenary and practical.  That's human nature in a nutshell.  It's simultaneously sad and wonderful.  Ridiculous and admirable.  To die for an idea, in a place where you have proof that certainty is a mug's game....  That's life.  It's also Planescape.

Life (both real life and life on the Planes) is inherently ridiculous.  Planescape is comfortable with that without the setting becoming a joke.  That was an achievement.

Man.... I think most of that sounds bleaker than I intended.  I guess the wonder part really is harder to put into words.


----------



## Quickleaf

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]
I see "high concept simulation" and "narrativism" as a spectrum (to use Forge terms I really don't like), not radically opposed. Planescape does have a core concept - belief shapes the multiverse - but within that overarching concept there is a lot of room for a developing narrative based on emergent gameplay. If that feels too confining or too undefined/vague, then Planescape probably isn't a good choice. OTOH if you find richness  toward the middle of the spectrum, then Planescape might be appealing.

[MENTION=71571]DracoSuave[/MENTION]
If rogue modrons aren't a reason to play Planescape I don't know what is. I mean they're just cute as a button, in an M.C. Escher-esque way.


----------



## DracoSuave

Quickleaf said:


> [MENTION=71571]DracoSuave[/MENTION]
> If rogue modrons aren't a reason to play Planescape I don't know what is. I mean they're just cute as a button, in an M.C. Escher-esque way.




And you only ever roll initiative once.  Ever.  In your entire adventuring career.

And you get to say things like 'I will be a unique rebel and an individual thinker pending the process of Standard Modron Rogue Form 2234-B/2'


----------



## Mirtek

sciborg3 said:


> As for cheapening the gods, the idea that you can level up by hunting monsters and murder them takes away any sense of wonder they ever could have in my opinion.



 Which wasn't the idead of Planescape ever. All supplements speaking about the powers were full of how immensely powerful immortals anchored deep in the essence of the planes and able to smite even the most powerful mortals like flies they actually are.

The concept of deities as just bigger monsters was pre- and after-planescape


pemerton said:


> What bothers me about that is that I don't see it reflected in the actual play of these characters.



 That's a problem with how the players chose to play their divine characters. I have an avenger who is from a flagellant order, foregoing any (luxurious) wealth and fame by reminding anybody that he is but a servant to a greater lord and occasionally goes into fights bloodied (has no mechanical benefits that only work while bloodied) if he feels that he failed to serve his deity in the last battle (e.g. his OoE target was one one of the enemies that escaped despite him having sworn to slay him for the glory of his deity)

However IIRC one of the reasons for 4e's "once invested the divine power is yours to do with as you please" was to make all divine characters more of their own men/women rather than glorified servants, since it's "not cool" to be only the servant to anyone.


----------



## DracoSuave

Mirtek said:


> Which wasn't the idead of Planescape ever. All supplements speaking about the power were full of how immensely powerful immortals anchored deep in the essence of the planes and able to smite even the most powerful mortals like flies.
> 
> The concept of deities as just bigger monsters was pre- and after-planescape




This.

Second edition in general didn't 'stat up' gods or dieties, like 3rd and 4th edition.  The idea was never to go to a power's domain and write him into the dead book.  If you went to a power's domain, you were considered a cutter if you managed to give him the laugh.  It was acceptable just to get out.

You're more likely to deal with proxies anyways.  Proxies were the real threat because they COULD go into Sigil, and they COULD mess with your business.


----------



## sciborg3

Heh, Mirtek, was actually thinking about post-PS D&D when I wrote that line about cheapening the gods!


----------



## pemerton

Quickleaf said:


> I see "high concept simulation" and "narrativism" as a spectrum (to use Forge terms I really don't like), not radically opposed.



My instiinct is do disagree with this, but it would be good if you could say a bit more.

The reason for my inclination is to disagree is that I think there is a big difference between (i) the goal of evoking, and remaining faithful to, genre, and (ii) the goal of making a thematically interesting or meaningful statement via play.

A practical example from my game, which has a bit of resemblance to one of Balesir's hypotheticals upthread:

The PCs were investigating a demonic ritual in an old temple. On their way through, they had rescued/captured/joined with (it was a bit ambiguous what verb was appropriate!) a tiefling devil-worshipper, who was in the temple also trying to stop the demonic ritual. The tiefling tried to encouage the PCs to seek diabolic boons for assistance, and one PC in particular was leaning this way, but the wizard PC - who had already been established as very hostile to diabolic forces - spoke strongly against the idea, and in the end prevailed.

After the PCs had stopped the ritual, without diabolic assistance, there was an explosion of chaotic energy that caused the temple to start collapsing. The PCs and the tiefling NPC started fleeing to the entrance. As this was happening, the wizard PC decided to kill the tiefling NPC with a magic missile. Mechanically, this was resolved as an Arcana check to "minionise" the NPC. I (as GM) adjudicated it this way for two reasons: (i) there being no larger combat on foot, there was no point at all insisting on use of the regular combat rules; but (ii) by requiring a skill roll, I created a chance for the other players to have their PCs react to the situation - it wasn't a fait accompli that the player of the wizard would get what he wanted.

The skill check succeeded, and a magic missile killed the NPC. The other players (and their PCs) were shocked. Their conception of the wizard PC changed significantly.​
In high concept simulationist play, the main issues here would be things like the conformity of the wizard PC's conduct with his alignment, linking this to the alignment and metaphysical nature of devils and devil-worshipping, etc. From my perspective - admittedly as someone who is generally not that keen on high concept play (Call of Cthulhu one-shots being an exception) - I see it as mostly about _constraints_ - constraints which, in practice, it is the GM's job to enforce.

As it played out at our table, though, my main job as GM was to work out a mechanical method of adjudicating the wizard player's action which also created space for the other players to get involved, all in a fashion that would permit the players to express their own thematic/evaluative points. I see it as not about constraints on expression, but creating the space to permit expression. As experiences at the gaming table, I find these very different.

But like I said at the start of this post, it would be interesting if you could elaborate on your spectrum idea!


----------



## sciborg3

Thanks for the example and your earlier answer pemerton - apparently I have to spread the XP around before I can give you more!


----------



## Quickleaf

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]
I've read your example before and I like how you adapted on the fly.

Are you saying the difference between" high concept" and "narrativism" is primarily mechanical?

I interpreted your scenario to be faithful to the "raiding the old temple" archetype by having the temple collapse when the ritual was stopped Indiana Jones style.

And you've set up a thematically interesting opportunity with this evil tiefling guide (or whatever adjective is right), which different PCs would have different attitudes toward.

Alignment may be part of that conversation but it seems much less important than (a) evoking a "we've got to get out before the temple buries us" sense of urgency, and (b) having the players wonder/debate what to do with the tiefling.

If there hadn't been a time pressure would you have minion-ized the tiefling?


----------



## TarionzCousin

Piratecat said:


> I'll also admit that I like the idea of the Lady of Pain as an unknowable cipher, but that's because *I like mysteries.*



Like why this thread is in the 4E forum? 



> ...I'll give the cant a miss, though. BerkBerkBerk.


----------



## Mirtek

sciborg3 said:


> Heh, Mirtek, was actually thinking about post-PS D&D when I wrote that line about cheapening the gods!



To be fair, it was also pre-Planescape


----------



## Mirtek

pemerton said:


> In high concept simulationist play, the main issues here would be things like the conformity of the wizard PC's conduct with his alignment, linking this to the alignment and metaphysical nature of devils and devil-worshipping, etc.



 IMHO this was not simulationist but rather narrative.

To me simulationist means that every facet of the world is done through the game rules. Things such as your creating a new rule on the fly are not simulationist to me, in a simulationist game the killing of the tiefling would have been played out by the standard combat rules.


----------



## Balesir

Quickleaf said:


> [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]
> I see "high concept simulation" and "narrativism" as a spectrum (to use Forge terms I really don't like), not radically opposed. Planescape does have a core concept - belief shapes the multiverse - but within that overarching concept there is a lot of room for a developing narrative based on emergent gameplay. If that feels too confining or too undefined/vague, then Planescape probably isn't a good choice. OTOH if you find richness  toward the middle of the spectrum, then Planescape might be appealing.



If I may comment on the second part of this, in parallel with the "spectrum" conversation, for me it's like this:

Particular systems or settings don't _prevent_ any of the "agendas" being pursued - especially if they are modified by "houserules" and so on to fit the playing group's style better (a process called "drifting" on The Forge).  So, Narrativist play in PlaneScape would certainly be _possible_; I would just question whether it would really be _supported_.

If you intend or desire to develop a dramatic theme, consciously, through play, why would you start out with a theme already writ large over it with the 'questions' predefined?  Surely that predefined theme is only going to be a distraction, or get in the way, while the emergent development of themes that you are actually aiming at progresses.

Unless you are going to explore the predetermined issues of the setting, those issues just seem to be superfluous - a distraction from what is actually being attempted.  Gamist play in PS hits the same problem; if the idea of belief isn't tied into the game system in some way, it's just a bit of "fluff" that is too complex for its own good.



Quickleaf said:


> [MENTION=71571]DracoSuave[/MENTION]
> If rogue modrons aren't a reason to play Planescape I don't know what is. I mean they're just cute as a button, in an M.C. Escher-esque way.



Oh, yes - rogue modrons (in a Sim, exploratory sense) are way cool!



Mirtek said:


> To be fair, it was also pre-Planescape



Certainly was - the "Deities and Demigods" and "Legends and Lore" books (1E and 2E) were the "culprits", mainly.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Mirtek said:


> However IIRC one of the reasons for 4e's "once invested the divine power is yours to do with as you please" was to make all divine characters more of their own men/women rather than glorified servants, since it's "not cool" to be only the servant to anyone.




It can also create fascinating tensions with people losing faith, turning their back on their gods and actively opposing them, or any number of other stories (the Unwilling Invoker being a local favourite). With temporary investiture it's easy to tell e.g. when a Paladin has fallen.



DracoSuave said:


> Second edition in general didn't 'stat up' gods or dieties, like 3rd and 4th edition.




Out of curiosity, which deities are statted up in fourth edition? The only one that springs to mind is the Queen of the Demonweb Pits (Edit: And demons like Orcus, granted.  But no actual Gods). 3rd, yes. I think it had more deities statted up even than first.


----------



## Siberys

Well, there's Tiamat and Vecna, as I recall. Possibly also Bahamut, Bane, Torag, and Moradin - I can't recall exactly. Basically, though, they're always statted at the very far end of the power curve, meaning you'll only ever face one of them and if you do it's probably the campaign's finisher.


----------



## Mirtek

Siberys said:


> Well, there's Tiamat and Vecna, as I recall. Possibly also Bahamut, Bane, Torag, and Moradin - I can't recall exactly. Basically, though, they're always statted at the very far end of the power curve, meaning you'll only ever face one of them and if you do it's probably the campaign's finisher.



Bane and Moradin have not yet been stated, however their level has been hinted at. E.g. one designer once said that he sees Moradin as a lvl 38 solo and when there were complaints that the dragon article about Bane didn't also have stats for Bane the author said that there would have been no point in using up space for the stats of a lvl 37 solo soldier that no PC could hit on anything but a 20 (however this was before expertise and before the solo-defense-reduction)


----------



## pemerton

Neonchameleon said:


> Out of curiosity, which deities are statted up in fourth edition? The only one that springs to mind is the Queen of the Demonweb Pits (Edit: And demons like Orcus, granted.  But no actual Gods).





Siberys said:


> Well, there's Tiamat and Vecna, as I recall. Possibly also Bahamut, Bane, Torag, and Moradin - I can't recall exactly.



As I recall, Lolth, Tiamat, Vecna and Torog have all been statted up. Dispater - a quasi-deity? - has also been statted up. And then there's a small host of demons and primordials with stats.

The Plane Above makes a point of _not_ statting up Grumsh, and giving stats for exarchs instead, who were gods in earlier editions - Baghtru, Vaprak, Luthic.


----------



## pemerton

Mirtek said:


> IMHO this was not simulationist but rather narrative.



Yes. It was used to try to contrast high-concept simulationism with narrativism.



Mirtek said:


> To me simulationist means that every facet of the world is done through the game rules. Things such as your creating a new rule on the fly are not simulationist to me, in a simulationist game the killing of the tiefling would have been played out by the standard combat rules.



What you're describing here is (in Forge terms) purist-for-system simulationist play.



Quickleaf said:


> Are you saying the difference between" high concept" and "narrativism" is primarily mechanical?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> If there hadn't been a time pressure would you have minion-ized the tiefling?



I think mechanics can be important, but are a secondary issue - you can play narrativist Rolemaster (I know, I've done it) but you will find some of the action resolution mechanics getting in the way.

The rationale for the roll-to-minionize (which I see as an application of page 42) was that the real conflict here wasn't a combat one. The ingame time pressure from the collapsing temple wasn't a factor, but the real life, at-the-table fact that we were focusing on the escape rather than a combat was a big factor.

The lack of page 42 or comparable mechanics in Rolemaster is one of the ways its action resolution mechanics can be sub-optimal for narrativist play, where - at least as my game works - keeping the conflicts in mind is important (because if you don't, you can get caught up in all the mechanical minutiae of a game like 4e or Rolemaster).



Quickleaf said:


> I interpreted your scenario to be faithful to the "raiding the old temple" archetype by having the temple collapse when the ritual was stopped Indiana Jones style.
> 
> And you've set up a thematically interesting opportunity with this evil tiefling guide (or whatever adjective is right), which different PCs would have different attitudes toward.



Of course you're right that the collapsing temple is a genre piece. But what, for me, marks the contrast between narrativism and high concept simulationism, is that the genre piece is a _backdrop_ against which the players do their thing, rather than _the point_.

Is this where you see the spectrum idea coming in?



Quickleaf said:


> Alignment may be part of that conversation but it seems much less important than (a) evoking a "we've got to get out before the temple buries us" sense of urgency, and (b) having the players wonder/debate what to do with the tiefling.



For me, once (b) is the focus, and alignment/genre conventions are not governing the answer to it, you've started to move from high concept to narrativism.



Balesir said:


> Particular systems or settings don't _prevent_ any of the "agendas" being pursued - especially if they are modified by "houserules" and so on to fit the playing group's style better (a process called "drifting" on The Forge).



I'm a big fan of drifting! (Although I think the drifting required to run narrativist 4e is very very minimal.)


----------



## Balesir

pemerton said:


> I'm a big fan of drifting! (Although I think the drifting required to run narrativist 4e is very very minimal.)



I would say I'm a fan of _minor_ drifting; if the "drift" becomes several sheets of closely typed houserules deep, I'm wondering why I don't just start with a different rule set!


----------



## pemerton

[MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION], fair enough! I prefer drifting which can happen via a table consensus in approach - which is how my group drifted RM to narrativist play. (The many, many pages of closely typed houserules weren't to support this drifting, but to turn RM in all its glory from a kit for building an RPG into an actual RPG.)


----------



## Quickleaf

pemerton said:


> I think mechanics can be important, but are a secondary issue - you can play narrativist Rolemaster (I know, I've done it) but you will find some of the action resolution mechanics getting in the way.



Now *that* is an accomplishment! 



> Of course you're right that the collapsing temple is a genre piece. But what, for me, marks the contrast between narrativism and high concept simulationism, is that the genre piece is a _backdrop_ against which the players do their thing, rather than _the point_.
> 
> Is this where you see the spectrum idea coming in?



Exactly. Backdrop, and the degree it plays in your adventures, influences the nature of conflicts and themes that players are likely to interact with. Having a high concept doesn't preclude players having freedom, it just means the backdrop exerts a strong pull on the game, presenting a bandwidth of themes/choices rather than a smorgasbord.

I would say planescape has an extremely strong backdrop to the point that it is almost it's on character, as embodied by the lady of pain. You'd expect to see portals, Sigil, exploring the outer planes, competing philosophies, afterlife themes, and so forth in a planescape game. However the bandwidth of player choice within that context is quite vast IMO: the PCs could be heroes from the prime material world, they could be jaded planewalkers, or some mix of the two, they could be embroiled in faction politics, they could be mercenaries in the blood war, etc. Why is their quest important to them? Which portal do they step through? How do they restore their sense of wonder? Which side do they take in the kriegstanz? Is there such a thing as the lesser of two evils? What can change the nature of a man?

Planescape is about these questions but it's up to the players to answer them (or to ask their own questions).

For me, once (b) is the focus, and alignment/genre conventions are not governing the answer to it, you've started to move from high concept to narrativism.


I'm a big fan of drifting! (Although I think the drifting required to run narrativist 4e is very very minimal.)[/QUOTE]


----------



## pemerton

Quickleaf said:


> Now *that* is an accomplishment!



Thanks! Although it's actually not as bad as it sound - RM's PC build mechanics give players a lot of scope to express theme and develop their PCs over time, and it's action resolution mechanics give players a lot of points of decision-making where metagame priorities can be injected. (In both these respects it's very different from that other well-known purist-for-system game Runequest.)



Quickleaf said:


> For me, once (b) is the focus, and alignment/genre conventions are not governing the answer to it, you've started to move from high concept to narrativism.



OK, makes sense. Thanks for the explanation.


----------



## ArmoredSaint

This thread took a weird turn...

I also hate the lady of pain for many of the same reasons that Merric mentions.  I'd be totally head-over-heels for Sigil if not for her presence.

Who was the writer who invented the lady of pain?  That guy oughtta be keel-hauled...


----------



## Quickleaf

ArmoredSaint said:


> Who was the writer who invented the lady of pain?  That guy oughtta be keel-hauled...



He was the same guy who wrote A1: Slave Pits of the Undercity, I1: Dwellers of the Forbidden City, X1: The Isle of Dread, WGA4: Vecna Lives, ALQ4: Golden Voyages, Oriental Adventures, the Ad&D 2nd edition PHB, the Book of Artifacts, Co-authored the Pool of Radiance game, and worked on several other cRPGs.

This obscure author is David "Zeb" Cook.

And the reports of him being added to the 2001 Origins Hall of Fame are surely greatly exaggerated.


----------



## sciborg3

ArmoredSaint said:


> This thread took a weird turn...
> 
> I also hate the lady of pain for many of the same reasons that Merric mentions.  I'd be totally head-over-heels for Sigil if not for her presence.
> 
> Who was the writer who invented the lady of pain?  That guy oughtta be keel-hauled...




Isn't he also the same guy who invented Sigil or at least helped do so? Really, suggesting someone be physically punished for creating a fictional character you don't like...not really sure what is up with that.

Really, Sigil and the Lady are some of the best ideas I've seen come out of D&D in my opinion. But honestly everyone should feel free to change, stat, or remove her in their own games as they see fit.

Again, my opinion, but I'm glad they were creative and didn't just write in some ban on deities entering with no explanation. I think coming up with something inspires people to build on it if they like it and change it if they don't. Creativity breeds creativity, and for that alone Planescape should be commended.

Can't be a contender if you don't enter the ring.


----------



## Balesir

This stuff about the Lady being "superior to gods" and somehow beyond touching I find quite odd - this is not how I have ever seen her.  She is just another 'Power', similar to all the rest.  The only difference is that she is _inside_ Sigil, not outside.  This gives her control of the portals, and a definite "home ground" advantage (just as all 'gods' have on their own home planes).  I assume that, although she can prevent a(nother) god passing through the portals directly, if another _were_ to get inside Sigil she would be quite vulnerable, in fact.


----------

