Planescape Do You Care About Planescape Lore?

GX.Sigma said:

On one hand, it seems fine for the core game to not reference anything Planescape-related. From a non-Planescape perspective, this allows you to make up your own details about cosmology and planar creatures. From a Planescape perspective, the core game's vague descriptions represent what "everyone knows" about the Planes, and then the Planescape product goes on to show that it's not like that at all.

On the other hand, especially for monster descriptions, I want it to be as detailed as possible. If you don't use Planescape lore, you're senselessly ignoring tons of detail that has been added over the years.

Click to expand...

The problem is, I don't want any of that lore because that lore comes directly tied to a specific setting. If I don't want Planescape specific elements, like the Blood War, for example, then most of the monster lore becomes superfluous.

And, my biggest problem is whenever changes are suggested, we have to first look if it counters a specific setting's flavour. It's like saying we cannot change minotaurs because minotaurs are all pirates and sailors. We cannot have labyrinth dwelling minotaurs, because that counters what's established in Dragonlance.

I'd much prefer a loose outline of monsters in the Monster books, enough to give me some reason to use these creatures, and leave all the setting specific stuff to specific settings. Because, if you add in the Planescape specific elements into the creatures, then I have to strip that out so I can use those creatures in any setting that doesn't use Planescape cosmology, like, for example, Eberron.

Hussar said:

The problem is, I don't want any of that lore because that lore comes directly tied to a specific setting. If I don't want Planescape specific elements, like the Blood War, for example, then most of the monster lore becomes superfluous.

Click to expand...

All lore is tied to a setting, even if it's just "the world of D&D" (i.e., the lowest common denominator of Greyhawk, the Realms, etc.). What if Orcs in my world are a proud but not always chaotic evil race of seafaring warrior-poets? What if I want Dwarves and Drow to be combined into one race, and have them be slaves of the evil High Elves? Both of these are actual things from a D&D setting I'm working on, and I don't feel that the classic D&D lore of orcs and elves is oppressing me. I can just ignore the lore if I want to. It's my game, after all.

The simple fact is, you can either have a lot of detail or a little detail.

If there's a lot of detail, DMs can be free to use the detail that's there, or ignore it if they think of something better.

If there's only a little detail, then every DM has to come up with details for every monster they want to use. See the problem there?

Hussar said:

And, my biggest problem is whenever changes are suggested, we have to first look if it counters a specific setting's flavour. It's like saying we cannot change minotaurs because minotaurs are all pirates and sailors. We cannot have labyrinth dwelling minotaurs, because that counters what's established in Dragonlance.

Click to expand...

Not everything is core. It's not like there's one "D&D minotaur" that is the only kind of minotaur in all of D&D. The core books can describe a default minotaur, and Dragonlance can say "minotaurs are different in this world." And that's fine.

Hussar said:

I'd much prefer a loose outline of monsters in the Monster books, enough to give me some reason to use these creatures, and leave all the setting specific stuff to specific settings. Because, if you add in the Planescape specific elements into the creatures, then I have to strip that out so I can use those creatures in any setting that doesn't use Planescape cosmology, like, for example, Eberron.

Click to expand...

You know how much effort it takes to strip out setting specific lore? None. Why does it hurt you to have that detail in there? You can just ignore it. You don't even have to read it. If you already know what a daemon is in your setting, you don't need that lore anyway.

[MENTION=518]JeffB[/MENTION]
Said it best on the very first post of this thread.

I like egs of cosmology. I thought 4E did it best myself, even though I enjoyed some Planescape back in the day. At least there was plenty of space to 'do what you like' in the 4E set up.

GX.Sigma said:

All lore is tied to a setting, even if it's just "the world of D&D" (i.e., the lowest common denominator of Greyhawk, the Realms, etc.). What if Orcs in my world are a proud but not always chaotic evil race of seafaring warrior-poets? What if I want Dwarves and Drow to be combined into one race, and have them be slaves of the evil High Elves? Both of these are actual things from a D&D setting I'm working on, and I don't feel that the classic D&D lore of orcs and elves is oppressing me. I can just ignore the lore if I want to. It's my game, after all.

Click to expand...

Yup, totally agree. Now, if you told me that core D&D had to include your version of these races, I'd tell you the exact same thing. Please keep your peanut butter out of my chocolate.

The simple fact is, you can either have a lot of detail or a little detail.

If there's a lot of detail, DMs can be free to use the detail that's there, or ignore it if they think of something better.

If there's only a little detail, then every DM has to come up with details for every monster they want to use. See the problem there?

Click to expand...

Except there is an additional problem that you're ignoring. If there is a lot of detail then every single subsequent presentation of that monster must adhere to what came before it. It's inherently limiting. All yugoloth must hate gods, despite the fact that that never actually appears outside of a specific setting. To the point where setting fans complain if it's not included in core.

Not everything is core. It's not like there's one "D&D minotaur" that is the only kind of minotaur in all of D&D. The core books can describe a default minotaur, and Dragonlance can say "minotaurs are different in this world." And that's fine.

Click to expand...

So, why can't Planescape be the same? D&D has a default Yugoloth, or Slaad, or whatever, and Planescape has a different one. We could have Aberration Slaad in core and Outsider Slaad in Planescape. What's the problem?

You know how much effort it takes to strip out setting specific lore? None. Why does it hurt you to have that detail in there? You can just ignore it. You don't even have to read it. If you already know what a daemon is in your setting, you don't need that lore anyway.

Click to expand...

It hurts me because every single setting book published must adhere to that lore. Every Slaad must be a Planescape slaad. Every Yugoloth, demon or various other outer planar creature must be a Planescape compatible creature. Why? Why can't core demons have nothing to do with the Blood War? Why do Succubus have to be demons? How does it bother Planescape fans if Eladrin in core are blink elves, but in Planescape they are elf angels?

Why do Planescape fans get to dictate core elements when no other setting fans do? After all, as you say, you can just ignore it. It shouldn't bother a Planescape fan in the slightest if a Demon and a Devil and a Yugoloth are used in the same encounter in a module, on the same side. They can just ignore it if they want.

But, we we ram Planescape elements into core, we cannot have that encounter in a module because it would violate the Blood War elements.

I'm still utterly baffled why fans of a specific setting get to determine how core looks.

Hussar said:

Why do Planescape fans get to dictate core elements when no other setting fans do? After all, as you say, you can just ignore it. It shouldn't bother a Planescape fan in the slightest if a Demon and a Devil and a Yugoloth are used in the same encounter in a module, on the same side. They can just ignore it if they want.

Click to expand...

I'm not so sure I agree with you here. If Warforged became core, I would expect them to look like Eberron warforged. If Kender became core, they should look like Dragonlance kender.

Perhaps the better example is draconians/dragonborn. Dragonborn could have easily been called draconians. They're basically the same thing: humanoid dragon men. Except then we'd expect the differentiation by dragon species type and the death effect that is part of DL draconians. So WotC simply made something similar and gave it a new name.

That should be the model. Don't "repurpose" monsters, because then you are taking something away from the people who liked the previous version.

Stoat said:

Serious question. When did Eladrin (as outsiders) enter the game and what were they? I don't remember them from 1E or 2E.

Click to expand...

AFAIK, they were introduced in Planescape MC Appendix II, which added guardianals and rilmani as well to have a specific planar race for each of the 9 classic alignments. The eladrin were the CG race and were basicly super elves or a powerful planar fey race. Or they were at least elvish enough that 4e's eladrin don't bother me. (I'm more annoyed by archons, didn't they change from the LG race to some kind of evil elemental? Now THAT is an unnecessarily radical change.)

Stormonu said:

I sooo like the name Outlands better than Concordant Opposition. Sounds like something a sage would call it instead of someone whose actually been there.

Click to expand...

Concordant Opposition is a really clunky name. Wasn't it Jeff Grubb that came up with it in MotP rather than Gary? Not sure Outlands was great choice for a plane that was put in the middle of the other outer planes though.

Hussar said:

Although, I think a lot of people are mixing Great Wheel Cosmology with Planescape, but, then again, that's probably sour grapes.

Click to expand...

Sour grapes? Nah. The cosmology is being mixed with Planescape, probably because of all the detail Planescape brought to it. The name Great Wheel itself comes from PS if I'm not mistaken. IIRC, the 1e PHB had the planes in a box, not a circle.

GX.Sigma said:

You know how much effort it takes to strip out setting specific lore? None. Why does it hurt you to have that detail in there? You can just ignore it. You don't even have to read it. If you already know what a daemon is in your setting, you don't need that lore anyway.

Click to expand...

I'm going to have to take Hussar's side on this one. Too much specific flavor gets damn hard to ignore, especially when the players assume everything is being flavored that way.

Hussar said:

Except there is an additional problem that you're ignoring. If there is a lot of detail then every single subsequent presentation of that monster must adhere to what came before it. It's inherently limiting. All yugoloth must hate gods, despite the fact that that never actually appears outside of a specific setting. To the point where setting fans complain if it's not included in core.

Click to expand...

If they commit to carrying forward established lore, they shouldn't contradict established lore. I don't see why that's a problem.

Hussar said:

So, why can't Planescape be the same? D&D has a default Yugoloth, or Slaad, or whatever, and Planescape has a different one. We could have Aberration Slaad in core and Outsider Slaad in Planescape. What's the problem?

Click to expand...

Because the Planescape Slaad is the "core" D&D Slaad (actually, the only D&D slaad). OD&D and 1e (the Greyhawk default setting) said "these monsters are from the Outer Planes." Forgotten Realms had those creatures, and said they were from those same Outer Planes. MotP and Planescape came along and said "You know those Outer Planes we're always talking about? Here's more details about them and the creatures that come from there." The Planes were never a separate setting.

Hussar said:

It hurts me because every single setting book published must adhere to that lore. Every Slaad must be a Planescape slaad. Every Yugoloth, demon or various other outer planar creature must be a Planescape compatible creature.

Click to expand...

That's not true at all. You can have Eberron demons be different from the traditional D&D demons, or whatever. Again, not everything is core.

Hussar said:

Why can't core demons have nothing to do with the Blood War?

Click to expand...

Because it adds a layer of detail to them, and makes them more separate from devils, and what do we gain from not having that extra detail?

Hussar said:

Why do Succubus have to be demons?

Click to expand...

Because they have been ever since 0e. Why change it?

Hussar said:

How does it bother Planescape fans if Eladrin in core are blink elves?

Click to expand...

Two reasons: 1) that's not what eladrins are, and 2) why not just call them high elves?

Hussar said:

Why do Planescape fans get to dictate core elements when no other setting fans do?

Click to expand...

Greyhawk and Realms fans absolutely do.

Hussar said:

After all, as you say, you can just ignore it.

Click to expand...

It seems we just don't see eye to eye on the basics of what "core lore" should be. I (and D&D R&D) are in favor of the idea that D&D should emphasize its rich history of lore. How would you describe what you want to see in the "core" of a new edition of D&D?

I had played probably my best rpg moments in Planescape settings. I know that if there wasn't Planescape i wouldn't be here now. I will not boast about the merits of Planescape, i am sure many ppl did it, however it is one of the first things i check/anticipate when i new edition comes out (that is 3e/4e).

Sorry GX.sigma, but you are plain WRONG when you say daemons and slaads have been created by PS, dismissing the previous scarce, but not inexistent lore.
For my taste, less is more, and I think 4e stroke a good balance with its PoL take of the implied setting. As many posters on these boards have benn saying again and again, it enables many play styles at the same time : scene framing, adventure paths, building outward a la BXCMI, and stays compatible with a classic sandbox if you add enough elements in order to close the gaps.
This approach is, imho, the truer to many Appendix N sources (Moorcock, Vance, Lieber,...) than a completist full canon take (Tolkien like ?).
The various D&D settings should be considered as Appendix N entries : they inform the core and should be supported by it, but don't get to define it.

Cyberen said:

Sorry GX.sigma, but you are plain WRONG when you say daemons and slaads have been created by PS, dismissing the previous scarce, but not inexistent lore.

Click to expand...

That's not what I meant. What I meant was, Planescape didn't create its own new versions of these creatures; it built on the lore that was already there.