D&D 5E 5e: Stat the Lady of Pain...so we can overthrow her

[ArmoredSaint]

I don't understand why getting rid of the lady of pain arouses such ire in the breasts of Planescape fans.

The setting could still be made to work without her, and I want to see her gone.

 

[Dungeonosophy]

I don't understand why getting rid of the lady of pain arouses such ire in the breasts of Planescape fans.

The setting could still be made to work without her, and I want to see her gone.

The OP is not about deleting the Lady of Pain. I understand that her role is integral to the Planescape/Sigil setting.

Yet why not have an Ultra-Ultra-Epic-Level adventure where the PCs themselves can defeat her and themselves become the Lords and Ladies of Sigil?

 

[jonesy]

The setting could still be made to work without her, and I want to see her gone.

Instead of saying that just propose an alternative. How would you make the setting work?

 

[Yora]

I assume it goes something along the lines of "If you don't want the Lady of Pain in the setting, then you are not getting what the setting is about".
Which I just can't get phrased in a positive way.

But I think for most people, who are really enthusiastic about the setting, it's a lot more than the sum of it's parts. While the presence of the Lady of Pain is not neccessary, the people who want her gone completely seem to do so for all the wrong reasons. It isn't just the lady that is affected by it, but the entire way the setting is approached. It is meant to be ambigious and unfair. That's what makes Planescape unique. Removing the lady because she is all powerful and random also removes the uniqueness from the setting.
The charm of the setting is "sometimes crazy things happen for no reason and there's nothing you can do but accept it and go on with your business". With that aspect removed, it's just a city with strange architecture.

 

[Dungeonosophy]

It is meant to be ambigious and unfair. That's what makes Planescape unique. Removing the lady because she is all powerful and random also removes the uniqueness from the setting.

Yora, I understand what you're saying.

I don't mind that Sigil, as a setting in its own right, starts off with that tone. That is unique. But by the end of the campaign, the D&D heroes ought to have defeated her, or have died trying.

 

[jonesy]

There's a reason why epic level rules haven't had much success. The game should CHANGE when the characters get that powerful. The things they can do, and the things for them to do should become far more meaningful. But instead you spend the majority of your time still adding more kill-stuff-more-efficiently skills to your character sheet.

 

[Dungeonosophy]

There's a reason why epic level rules haven't had much success. The game should CHANGE when the characters get that powerful. The things they can do, and the things for them to do should become far more meaningful. But instead you spend the majority of your time still adding more kill-stuff-more-efficiently skills to your character sheet.

Wouldn't you agree that combat should play some role in Immortal-level adventures? Would we just discard the many monsters in the BECMI Gold Box set and the Epic-Level Handbooks?

Besides Planar Exploration and Social Challenges, God-level play sessions would involve building an Astral Dominion, gaining Followers, commanding world-sized armies, and other "Sim" style play.

But the OP is focused on the next level of play--beyond Epic, and beyond Immortal/Divine: Overdeity-level play. In BECMI D&D, this would be an Old Ones Rules Set "Grey Box" beyond the "Gold Box". Overdeity PCs would be designing Cosmologies and Crystal Spheres. They would be competing or cooperating with the Overdeities of other Cosmoses and Spheres. There would even be the occasional combat with Overdeity-level monsters and NPCs. The Overdeity PCs would be approving or disapproving the ascension of Gods and the formation of Pantheons. They would be exploring other Realities, behind and beyond the fabric of the various Cosmologies.

Is this such a bad thing for 5e?

 

[El Mahdi]

Is this such a bad thing for 5e?

In your opinion it seems it isn't.

In my opinion, it is most certainly, a very bad, boring, and uninteresting thing.

"Impossible" is just an obstacle to overcome.

She's the one who's going to be cowering to avoid provoking my and my companions' ire. We are D&D heroes, and we are going to assail her world so hard, she'll change her name to "The Lady of I-never-knew-such-pain-existed-before-I-was-smacked-down-by-the-new-Lords-of...wait...what's that shadow...aaaaahhh...my skin!...AAAAAAAAAAAAAEEEEEEEEEEHHHHHHHHhhhhhhnnngg...".

Fixed it for ya...

 

[Dungeonosophy]

In your opinion it seems it isn't.

In my opinion, it is most certainly, a very bad, boring, and uninteresting thing.

Fixed it for ya...

Man, you guys are no fun.

At least I found a handful of red-blooded D&D heroes who are willing to resist the worship of the nihilistic un-deities at the center of some D&D settings.

Fair enough though...I was inconsiderate to some of the posters here.

 

[El Mahdi]

Man, you guys are no fun.

Sometimes this is very true of me...but far from my greatest sin.

At least I found a handful of red-blooded D&D heroes who are willing to resist the worship of the nihilistic un-deities at the center of some D&D settings.

Fair enough. I also appreciate those willing to resist the status quo...just as long as they don't insist upon purposeful ignorance of the consequences.

Fair enough though...I was inconsiderate to some of the posters here.

Were you...? I didn't think so. I've found this a very interesting, informative, and fun thread. A bit tongue-in-cheek while still presenting very interesting aspects of setting design, mystery, and worthy in-character portarayal of player-character motivations. And wittily fun in the process.