NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 5658685" data-attributes="member: 48965">Ok, this is totally untrue. 3.5's default world was Greyhawk.  That is because it was in the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer.   Okay, and there's plenty more where that came from in the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer.  Uhm, those would be cultist, followers, clerics, etc. of Heironeous. You see S&S is much more humanocentric in it's feel. This is one fo the things that gives 3.5/Greyhawk a more S&S feel than 4e.  The basilisk thing is just an example of the creature being tied into the default world... a better example would be the Dwarf/Giant animosity which is also represented in the mechanics for the dwarf race. As to your questions about Demons, I would say as CE cretures they have no true "allies" but instead have useful resources... and once that usefulness is at an end, well...   Not if you are using the default world of Greyhawk. If you are doing this then there is the same transparency you speak of concerning 4e.  Wait a minute, you're comparing two things... one of which you've never read or played in. That would be like me judging the 4e PoL setting on the basis of having looked over "Keep on the Shadowfell", the "Dungeon Delve" book and just the information on Fallcrest in the DMG. That seems lie a pretty big lack of evidence to base absolute statements on.   I totally disagree with this. Just as a really blatant example of this type of play... one of the factions (the Athar I believe) is based around the belief that the deities everyone worships are nothing but frauds... and guess what there is no answer given to the question of it's validity or not. Let's say your players do prove this true, then the question of where salvation lies and who is really good, and who is evil becomes much more vague. I think again you have a very limited view of what is and isn't possible in a Planescape campaign.  The very exsistence, beliefs, etc. of the Factions in Sigil is, IMO, about thematically loaded play.  It challenegs whether that lawful good god he is devoted to is anything more than a charlatan... and it seems from that premise all that you wrote above is possible.  That's the problems with impressions. You see I'm not saying 4e is impossible to play the way you do (though I thtink it caters to a different style more naturally), I'm not saying that 4e's cosmology is worse than Planescape for this type of play either... but if I went on my "impressions" of 4e instead of reading and playing it for myself I probably wouldn't believe it promoted much beyond linear fight scenes.   Here's one... love vs. duty. Can an angel truly love... can a devil truly love (from the backstories of certain beings it seems possible) now... what if they loved each other and can/does this love supercede their duties? If given the opportunity would the PC's help them or hinder them in this relationship depending upon their own character's beliefs and ideals?  The players can do anything a citizen of Sigil can do... so what stops them from exploring the same themes the DM can in the city of Sigil and upon the Planes... especially if they start play as a planar vs. a clueless berk.  Rituals and skill challenges are the purview of the DM... so you have Epic Destinies, which IMO aren't that different from epic levels in 3.5 (which actually give a player more freedom in defining the thematic conflicts he wishes to explore since he is not locked into a subclass for 10 levels.  There are spells that PC's can use to ravel across th planes, numerous portals in Sigil, and so on. If anything I would say planar travel is less under the control of the DM in 3.5 than in 4e (and if I remember correctly this, like flight and teleportation, were one of those things they purposefully pulled back on in 4e.). There are no Epic Destinies but Prestige Classes and Epic levels serve the same purpose. Greyhawk, which again is the default world of 3.5 has it's own mythology which in turn is a subcateory of the larger mythology of the Planescape setting. As I said earlier this seems to boil down to your particualr fluff preferences as opposed to what can or can't be done because of the setting.   Don't buy it. Again knowledge and lore checks, history checks, precision of some skills, the approach of the majority of published adventures, etc. all support the exploration approach... contrary to how you've interpreted a few personally selected sources.  Actually, since Planescape the campaign setting answers very few of those questions with a definitive answer, I would say it leaves it very much open for DM's and players to explore. In fact many people don'tlike the fact that The Lady of Pain and what she is, can do, etc. isn't defined. Where Sigil came from isn't defined, which factions are right or wrong isn't defined, and so on.   I just listed quite a few things whose meanings haven't been defined. Again I think you might have a different view of Planescape if you read the seting itself instead of getting impressions form various outside/fringe sources.  You do realize you can worship whoever you want in 3.5 right? The only time alignment matters is if you decide to play a divine character. A fighter in 3.5 can worship both a good and evil deity if he wants to. Supplicating Hextor is not in and of itself an evil act, you are projecting your own impressions here, as far as worshipping Hextor and Heironeous would be incoherent in the same way you wouldn't worship The Raven Queen and Orcus isn't it?   Really? Because there is quite alot of details on Fallcrest, Hammerfast, Winterhaven, Thunderspire Labyrinth, Gloomwrought, and so on. Now admittedly, for some strange reason WotC has decided to parse out all this detail across numerous products and formats... but it is very much there.  I think I've listed quite a few elements of Planescape where this is true as well. And on a side note 4e also has it's fair share of defined setting elements as well. Both, IMO have a mixture which is why I don't see any appreciable difference (other than preference) in using one over the other for drifting into narrativist play.   I honestly don't have the time to post something like this permeton, especially as I am playing 4e right now and not Planescape it would be mostly from memory. As to alignment, It really only affects those classes that have chosen it as a thematic definer such as clerics, paladins, druids, barbarians and monks  And I, in turn, am puzzled by how someone that has never read the Planescape campaign setting can have such strong opinions and feelings  on what it is and what it isn't good for. As for narrativist games, I do enjoy them and I have played Heroquest, in the Nameless Streets campaign setting (where the DM defines all kinds of secrets that the players investigate), I don't know if I necessarily prefer them over other styles of play but they are enjoyable with the right group.</blockquote>

Verification