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:

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?

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?

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.)

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!