Planescape Do You Care About Planescape Lore?

[pemerton]

As far as I know, Yugoloths themselves have never shown up in core D&D in any edition.

Mezzodaemons and Nycadaemons are in Appendix E of the DMG and show up on its encounter tables. They're also in Fiend Folio, as has been noted upthread.

Bingo, if there needs to be a default cosmology, which I don't think there needs to be, The Great Wheel (Planescape without the dressing) makes the most sense

OK, but that means Gygax's PHB names for the planes, and the classic Monster Manual descriptions for their inhabitants. (Eg no Blood War.)

That's not true; 1st Ed PHB, DMG, MM, MM 2, Deities & Demigods, Manual of the Planes.

These sources don't have the Planescape backstory, however. Nor the moral relativist/"belief" oriented outlook that seems to be characteristic of Planescape. For example, there is nothing at all in these books to suggest that a devil and an astral deva might sit and drink together in a bar.

the only things Planescape added were Sigil and the factions.

Planscape just added some window dressing to the core D&D multiverse

And a huge amount of backstory about the outer planes - for instance, that daemons have some special hatred for gods; the Blood War; that demons and devils have a secret origin related to the "yugoloths"; etc.

What we don't want is a bland MM like the 4e one with virtually no lore for each monster

Your characterisation of the 4e MM is highly disputable. Look at the entries for goblins (and hobgoblins and bugbears), for orcs, and for gnolls - you'll see far more lore than in the AD&D MM. Look at the entry for demons and devils - you'll see respectively a history of the Abyss, and a tourist's guide to the Nine Hells. Look at the entry for spiders and you'll learn that Lolth was once a god of fate. The only thing missing from the bulette entry is their love of hobbits, which is probably excusable in a game world in which halflings are river folk rather than burrowers.

There is very little substance to this oft-repeated claim about the 4e MM, as came out on a thread late last year comparing the 4e entries to the 2nd ed Monstrous Manual entries.

 

[RichGreen]

Your characterisation of the 4e MM is highly disputable. Look at the entries for goblins (and hobgoblins and bugbears), for orcs, and for gnolls - you'll see far more lore than in the AD&D MM. Look at the entry for demons and devils - you'll see respectively a history of the Abyss, and a tourist's guide to the Nine Hells. Look at the entry for spiders and you'll learn that Lolth was once a god of fate. The only thing missing from the bulette entry is their love of hobbits, which is probably excusable in a game world in which halflings are river folk rather than burrowers.

There is very little substance to this oft-repeated claim about the 4e MM, as came out on a thread late last year comparing the 4e entries to the 2nd ed Monstrous Manual entries.

The demon and devil entries aren't bad at all, but have a look at the displacer beast and the dryad. Where the monster is only one page, there is very little story text.

EDIT: part of the issue for me is that the lore is split between the introductory paragraph and the lore DC table. Somehow this makes it seem thinner.

Cheers


Rich

 

[Quickleaf]

Just to be straight here, I have nothing against the Great Wheel. It's Planescape that I find grating. Mostly its being forced to incorporate Planescape lore into the core cosmology just to pander to a very vocal group of gamers.

If I understand you right, you're arguing that TSR/Wizards of the Coast injected unwanted elements of Planescape into other settings? And you don't want them to do that same thing in 5e? Can you give an example of that?

 

[Hussar]

Not so much into other settings, mostly because I don't play those other settings, so, I cannot comment.

But certainly into core. If you buy a generic D&D module in 3e, if it has anything to do with the planes, it has to follow Planescape canon. Any planar monster has to follow Planescape canon.

I mean, look at the criticisms of Angels in 4e. It's not that angels are bad, or boring or poorly written. It's that they aren't Planescape angels, thus, they're bad. If you look at angels in 1e, in the MM2, for example, and in modules like Isle of the Ape (where Solars and Devas are both used), there is no mention of the Blood war or anything like that.

But, after 2e, every planar creature has to be given a role in the Blood War. But the Blood War was only a Planescape specific element, it had nothing to do with any other setting. But, we still have to take it into account with every single planar discussion, regardless of setting.

Now, in 3e core, this got lifted quite a lot. Very little came in initially. Like I said earlier, 3e was a major relief for me. But, then, over time, it just kept coming back in.

I have no problem with something remaining in the game. That's fine. What I have a problem with is the idea that we cannot change something simply because of what came before. Particularly when we're being told that we cannot change something because it counters a setting specific element.

Eladrin were not a Planescape creature in 3e. They were core. They were right there in the MM. Any Planescape specific lore about them wasn't in the 3e MM. So, changing eladrin into blink elves isn't that huge of a change. You're taking a pretty minor creature that never gained any traction and repurposing it to something pretty closely related.

 

[Li Shenron]

I've always been sorry the Mirror Plane never got much traction beyond a few monsters in later 3E monster books. I love that plane; it's a way more fun transitive plane, IMO, than having two soupy places to wander to get to different locales. (I never ended up playing 4E, but I did admire the cosmology for merging them into one as well as sort of merging Spelljammer into it.)

I really like the Plane of Mirrors too. It's a very different transitive plane. As a matter of fact, I like all transitive planes, and I always strive to make each of them work significantly different than the others.

 

[Kinak]

Nothing in the AD&D Monster Manual tells me where Frost Giants come from, or who rules them. But Greyhawk settles this, in part at least, via the G2 module; and the AD&D DDG tells me that their ruling god is Thrym.

Does that mean that, evermore, the default for D&D is that Frost Giants live in glacial rifts, are ruled by Jarls, and worship the legendary Norse figure Thrym?

No, I'm just saying they shouldn't go around invalidating it.

So, if they go around saying frost giants don't live in glacial rifts, aren't ruled by Jarls, and all worship a specific god that isn't Thrym, that's a problem. But instead, their entry in the MM will note that some of them live in glacial rifts... either stay moot on the subject of titles or mention jarls... and hopefully not try to drag the default gods into anyone's campaigns.

And, despite not caring at all about Greyhawk, I'd be pretty weirded out by default D&D frost giants never living in glacial crevasses and not having jarls.

Does that mean that, evermore, the default for D&D is that Frost Giants live in glacial rifts, are ruled by Jarls, and worship the legendary Norse figure Thrym?

To more directly answers this question: Not evermore, no.

When they're trying to build their inclusive edition of everyone's-one-big-happy-family? Of course stuff needs to be backwards compatible whenever possible.

Just because Planescape had a number of fans isn't, on its own, a reason to make it the default cosmology.

I don't personally like the AD&D/Planescape cosmology. Because, as I imagine you'd agree, there's just too many planes and too few where anything interesting is going on.

But, to the extent that they need to talk about cosmologies at all, they should endeavor to tread the line between the Great Wheel and the World Axis. Precisely because both have fans and they're trying to make 5e inclusive.

I'd like to have something engaging and new too, but that's not what they're trying to do in 5e. If the thread were "should WotC ignore all the fan groups and just try to make the best game they can?" I'd be for it. Heck, if the question were "should WotC just try to move forward on 4e's lore?" I'd be for it, despite not liking 4e.

But that's not what's going on here. The purpose of this thread has been to specifically call out one group of fans to be ignored, which isn't something anyone should be supporting.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[JeffB]

At a certain point, the philosophy on planes/planar creatures made a big shift. Late 1E I would say.

Prior to that, the planar inhabitants were mostly written up with emphasis on what they were doing on a given prime material world (i.e. WHY your PCs might encouonter them in the world), and the plane lore was brief description to reinforce the creatures distinct traits and motives. Planar adventure was largely on small demi planes of inconsequential value in the grand scheme of TGW....i.e. pocket dimensions ala Q1, X2, etc. You went there for a small time, said "WTF are we???", completed your mission and came back home, glad you didn't get stuck wherever that was. Not too different than Elric & Corum.

Then towards the late 1980s, the focus changed to essentially making each plane a campaign setting, stating it up, filling it out with lore/story, and focusing as much on the planar inhabitants as much as you would on any race or nation of the prime material world. Early on it was the MoTP, and the Gods and their shenanigans (thanks Avatar Trilogy!) of the Faerunian Pantheon, and later on into Planescape.

This I think is where alot of disconnect comes from. What style you prefer for adventuring. I know I prefer the former from a play perspective for D&D as a DM. For "planar" adventuring I would much rather be playing in Glorantha and Heroquesting or similar. Planescape ruins all the wonder for me. `because it is cut and dried and just D&D teleporting around on other worlds, with weirder monsters than I would encounter at home. (i.e. SOS, different wrapping paper)

 

[Stoat]

I voted "No" with some reluctance.

The 1E Manual of the Planes was one of the first D&D books I ever bought. I really enjoyed reading it, and I've run some interesting adventures using it. There are bits and pieces of the Great Wheel set up that really, really appeal to me. But those bits and pieces are easy to import into other cosmologies. At the end of the day, there's a fair bit about the Great Wheel/Planescape that I don't care for.

Things I don't like about Great Wheel Generally:

1. The focus on alignment. The longer I play D&D, the less the old 9-point alignment chart appeals to me. I think using alignment as an organizational principle is limiting.

2. The treatment of gods/pantheons. Sometimes it's fun to run a game where Thor, Odin and Osiris hang out with Tezcatlipoca, Coyote and Hachiman. But I don't want that to be the default. In a similar vein, the Norse and Greek Pantheons get multiple planes to themselves. A mishmash of Dante and Milton get's an entire plane to itself. The other pantheons wind up scattered about willy-nilly. Where is Xibalba? Where is Tir-na-nog?

3. Surprisingly inflexible. Maybe I want to go ahead and make my own Xibalba or my own Tir-na-nog. Where does they go?

4. Devils and demons aren't integrated into the concept. The devils have Hell. The demons have the abyss. There are also a metric ton of "evil" gods. What is the relationship between the evil gods and the devils/demons? I know Planescape addresses this issue, but the old 1E Great Wheel does not.

Things I don't like about Planescape

1. The cant. It sucks.

2. Sigil. A big, pseudo-Victorian urban setting where philosophers wage war amongst themselves isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it doesn't fit the type of D&D that I prefer. I'd like Sigil better if it was part of an entirely different game.

3. The Blood War. It was shoehorned in to the Great Wheel in 1990, and the seams are showing. Also, it makes demons too lawful.

4. Naming conventions. I understand why "Nirvana" had to go, but I hate "Mechanus." Also on the list of names I dislike: Bytopia, Arborea, Baator, Yugoloth.

In a lot of ways, I think Planescape would work better if it wasn't D&D. I think it would work better using a system with more mechanical emphasis on diplomacy/non-violent conflict resolution and without the overt morality implied by the 9-point alignment grid.

Edit: I also don't like that Plansescape killed Anthraxus.

 

[GSHamster]

Yet, people are still bothered by the fact that eladrin means grey elf in 4e. But, if you take Planescape out of the equation, all they've done is take some obscure monster that was virtually never used, and repackaged it as a player race. But, since that counters Planescape lore, we have been told that 4e is doing it wrong.

What was wrong with simply calling them "Grey Elves", "High Elves", or even "Sidhe"? Why repackage something at all? Dragonlance managed perfectly fine with Silvanesti/Qualinesti/Kagonesti.

Also, do take into account that you are currently losing in the poll. It's looking more like a minority want's to repackage the Planescape fluff, while the majority want to keep it.

 

[Thotas]

One of my favorite thing about Pathfinder is that "Sigil" "Bloodwar" and "Lady of Pain" are intellectual property that Paizo can't use.