<< PLANESCAPE >> How do you defeat the Lady of Pain?

Jeremy Ackerman-Yost · Feb 13, 2004

Of course, all this came up originally in the context of the Blood War actually ending and the fiends uniting, as mentioned here www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=76035&page=1

The wonderful thing about Planescape is that it is (as others have said) about belief. If all the fiends got their act together, they would quickly develop the belief that they were invincible, that they could, in short, do anything. After they had overrun a few hundred primes, sucked large sections of the Outlands right into the Lower Planes, slapped Primus around like a red-headed step-child, chased the Githzerai right out of Limbo, and were making serious assaults on the Upper Planes, a LOT of other beings throughout the multiverse would also begin to believe the fiends were unstoppable and could, in fact, do anything. Like, for example, conquer Sigil. In any setting but Planescape, the question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin is pretty academic. But I ask... How much belief does it take to spin Sigil on its axis?

Once the Plot Device of the Power of Belief comes crashing into the Plot Device of the Lady of Pain, right *after* the ending of the Plot Device known as the Blood War, well, I think there's a case to be made we'd have a new Plot Device (or two or three) on our hands.

Besides, the Lady of Pain as a plot device is there to prevent the PCs from doing all kinds of kooky things, not to prevent the DM from running interesting stories.

And really, what's more important: Having fun (and D&D Armageddon sounds pretty fun to me

), or maintaining a status quo for the sake of someone else's published material?

Plus, not to get off on a rant here... but why does what someone else might or might not want to do with the Lady of Pain get people's panties in a bunch? If I decide that in my game the Lady of Pain can be taken out of the picture by a Pixie with a Sleep arrow or that she's really just misunderstood and that a reasonably handsome PC with a bouquet of flowers could melt her hard heart and turn her into the Lady of Roses and Unicorns, does that somehow cheapen everyone else's Planescape game?

Arnwyn · Feb 13, 2004

Shemeska said:
And oh, w/ regards to 'Pages of Pain' by Troy Denning. Nice story, interesting novel, but there's a reason why it isn't considered to be canonical to the setting.

I'd love to see where that's actually said... (and, no, Monte Cook saying it's "wacky" doesn't cut it). Got a reference?

Canis said:
Plus, not to get off on a rant here... but why does what someone else might or might not want to do with the Lady of Pain get people's panties in a bunch?

I'm not sure anyone is really saying that.

Are they?

Carnifex · Feb 13, 2004

Plus, not to get off on a rant here... but why does what someone else might or might not want to do with the Lady of Pain get people's panties in a bunch? If I decide that in my game the Lady of Pain can be taken out of the picture by a Pixie with a Sleep arrow or that she's really just misunderstood and that a reasonably handsome PC with a bouquet of flowers could melt her hard heart and turn her into the Lady of Roses and Unicorns, does that somehow cheapen everyone else's Planescape game?

I believe that Calico_Jack was looking originally for official stuff for killing off the Lady of Pain, rather than saying 'in my game, I did this'.

Alzrius · Feb 13, 2004

This has probably been said before, but I just wanted to point it out again. The Lady of Pain is not omniscient, nor omnipotent.

As Hardhead mentioned, the Focrux from Harbinger House could shield anything in its area of effect from detection.

Likewise, a god can get into Sigil, though it's damn near impossible. Likewise, there's nothing technically stopping someone from ascending from mortal to god while in Sigil.

The Lady of Pain forces gods from Sigil by channeling her power against them in the form of unbearable agony. It is possible to resist that power however, though even for a greater god, it took a supreme amount of effort.

There doesn't seem to be a direct way of fighting the Lady of Pain, per se. However, the presence of a god in Sigil destabilizes it - and by extension, the rest of the multiverse. Presumably, if it can be destabilized enough, Sigil will be destroyed, along with the Lady of Pain, and the destroyer could then step up and reshape the multiverse as he or she saw fit, becoming the overgod of that new cosmos. Even for a greater deity though, this requires days in Sigil.

It's also worth noting that the Lady's known form (woman with a bladed headdress in a kimono) isn't her true form. Die Vecna Die (which IS canon, though many of the Planescape fans wish it were otherwise) mentions in passing that the Lady could take her "true, resplendent" form to battle Vecna when he tries to destroy Sigil (though she doesn't), but doing so would instantly destroy Sigil and the multiverse.

LGodamus · Feb 13, 2004

I think the whole bloodwar thread ..is more interesting if you dont destroy the lady..or sigil. There has to be some last bastion for the PCs to strike out from otherwise there isnt much point of having it as a setting for roleplaying now is there?

Jeremy Ackerman-Yost · Feb 13, 2004

Carnifex said:
I believe that Calico_Jack was looking originally for official stuff for killing off the Lady of Pain, rather than saying 'in my game, I did this'.

That is the way he phrased it, but I followed this thing from over on the other thread, where it was originally about the Fiends taking over Sigil, and the argument started because some people insisted that taking over Sigil is impossible because the Lady is uber and would never allow it.

Personally, I would be looking for ways for the fiends to temporarily get around the Lady rather than destroying her. For one thing, I like her, and would eventually want her back in place if the game ran that way. For another, Paka's image of a refugee Lady of Pain in the Outlands really struck a chord with me.

That, along with the image of Vecna tearing out his other eye (see the thread I linked earlier) is what sold me on the idea of a D&D Armageddon campaign. If I was involved in a game with experienced players, I would SO be pushing this idea.

Shemeska · Feb 13, 2004

Alzrius said:
It's also worth noting that the Lady's known form (woman with a bladed headdress in a kimono) isn't her true form. Die Vecna Die (which IS canon, though many of the Planescape fans wish it were otherwise) mentions in passing that the Lady could take her "true, resplendent" form to battle Vecna when he tries to destroy Sigil (though she doesn't), but doing so would instantly destroy Sigil and the multiverse.

While Die Vecna Die uses Sigil it was never an actual Planescape product, nor was it coordinated with the Planescape team when it was written. It's the equivalent of a Dragonlance product using Elminster, having him beaten senseless by Tasselhoff and expecting FR to incorporate this into its own canon material.

Planewalker's take on the canon of 'Die Vecna Die' is that while the events of the module did in fact happen, some of those events happened a bit differently, and not at all for the reasons the module gives on the last few pages (ie. its interpretation of The Lady is getting chucked). For what it's worth I was in favor of this, as opposed to the other viewpoint which was to shun the module entirely and ignore that it was ever made.

Alzrius · Feb 13, 2004

Shemeska said:
While Die Vecna Die uses Sigil it was never an actual Planescape product, nor was it coordinated with the Planescape team when it was written. It's the equivalent of a Dragonlance product using Elminster, having him beaten senseless by Tasselhoff and expecting FR to incorporate this into its own canon material.

Be that as it may, it's still a 100% canon product. Ultimately, the internal politics of it don't matter - the product was released by WotC under the AD&D 2E logo, and nothing in it directly contradicts previous material. I know a lot of PS fans would say that it does, but things like explaining the Lady aren't a contradiction - they're expounding on things that were previously left unexplained; those fans aren't pointing out a discrepancy, they're pointing out what they don't like.

Planewalker's take on the canon of 'Die Vecna Die' is that while the events of the module did in fact happen, some of those events happened a bit differently, and not at all for the reasons the module gives on the last few pages (ie. its interpretation of The Lady is getting chucked). For what it's worth I was in favor of this, as opposed to the other viewpoint which was to shun the module entirely and ignore that it was ever made.

It bothers me that the view that was never considered was that the module happened in it's entirety exactly as written. From a player's perspective, no major darks were revealed, since notations about things such as the Lady's true form were all made in DM-only sections.

I'm glad Planewalker is continuing PS, I really am, but they're retconning a canon product simply because its something the majority of them personally disagree to. That's mixing a personal preference in with a professional function, and is a major strike against them in my book (which, I know, doesn't count for anything; I'm just saying it).

Shemeska · Feb 13, 2004

Alzrius said:
Be that as it may, it's still a 100% canon product. Ultimately, the internal politics of it don't matter - the product was released by WotC under the AD&D 2E logo, and nothing in it directly contradicts previous material. I know a lot of PS fans would say that it does, but things like explaining the Lady aren't a contradiction - they're expounding on things that were previously left unexplained; those fans aren't pointing out a discrepancy, they're pointing out what they don't like.

*nod* I can see your point here and I'll respectfully disagree.

However let me pose this question then: what makes the Planewalker decision regarding 'Die Vecna Die' w/ regards to Planescape different from the 3e FR decision to radically alter its cosmology from the Great Wheel to a set of unique planes (that were mostly just deity domains back in 2e) and selectively pick and choose which 2e planes to keep in name and concept, yet the FR Abyss isn't the same as the Great Wheel Abyss. They invalidated a slew of previous material in the process, and of course not everyone is happy with their decision.

[It's a convulted rationale there on their part, and I can't say I like entirely, but stay with me here for the comparison]

Alzrius · Feb 13, 2004

Shemeska said:
However let me pose this question then: what makes the Planewalker decision regarding 'Die Vecna Die' w/ regards to Planescape different from the 3e FR decision to radically alter its cosmology from the Great Wheel to a set of unique planes (that were mostly just deity domains back in 2e) and selectively pick and choose which 2e planes to keep in name and concept, yet the FR Abyss isn't the same as the Great Wheel Abyss. They invalidated a slew of previous material in the process, and of course not everyone is happy with their decision.

[It's a convulted rationale there on their part, and I can't say I like entirely, but stay with me here for the comparison]

I personally don't agree with it either. However, the difference is that that decision came from the top. Canonity is source-based. There has to be a singular authoritative voice that declares what is official and what is not. This authority has the ability to declare that previous things of theirs are no longer canon; in essence, they can declare when they're implementing a new paradigm in place of an old one.

Planewalker, while invested with a measure of authority by WotC, is still taking on a retcon that is beyond their scope. I do not perceive them as having the authority to declare that a product that WotC themselves has no canonity issues with, must now be partially non-canon - authority over what is and is not canon flows from the top down, not from the bottom up. I don't like the 3E FR retconing of the cosmology and deity realms, but that's a personal pet peeve, and has no impact on the fact that that's how it is now.