Retcon the dumb "Faction War" and bring back the FULL on Blood War?

[Alzrius]

But it's not just from "our standpoint." It's how the game, and the facts of the cosmos, are written in most editions of D&D.

That's a meta-game construct far more than an in-game cosmological principle.

The game is written in terms of having a focus on the mortal world because that's what most gamers are inherently familiar with, and will want to play in. A medieval-fantasy world is the standard, and is present in most high fantasy media, from Lord of the Rings to Final Fantasy, and so the game is naturally constructed to appeal to that type of setting and play-style.

That's in no way an indicator that the mortal plane is the most important plane, with all of the existing primarily in terms of how they (and their inhabitants) relate to it.

There are some in-game indicators of the mortal realm's importance in the overall planar structure, certainly. Gods require worship for sustenance, and so have machinations among mortals. The flow of souls goes to the Outer Planes from the Prime (though, as Shemmy noted, they don't originate from there, but rather "ripen" there). But neither of those things explains why fiends should have any greater desire to torment mortals than, say, angels, or for that matter, each other.

but at its core, the game needs to support the basic archetypes on which it's built.

Well clearly that's not true, or Planescape wouldn't have been as successful as it was.

My point is that the source material that puts the mortals at the center of everything (which both predates and postdates the interpretations that don't) is, IMO, the better/more interesting/more mythically archetypal one.

That's your opinion, and we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.

I can understand where you're coming from with the idea that fiends should be evil to the exclusion of all other "humanizing" factors, but I find that to be limiting, both in-game and out-of-game.

It's limiting in-game because it naturally reduces the roles you can have fiends play. They're locked into a single mindset (with minor variations for, say, alignment, or particular fiend type, such as succubus-evil versus balor-evil), and so lose a great deal of individual identity and motivation. I think that quickly makes them cardboard cutouts, which isn't what I want my monsters to be.

It's limiting out-of-game because, given that we humans are the ones playing it, trying to adequately portray a truly non-human mindset is very difficult at best. Maybe this says more about me than the point I'm trying to make, but I don't think I could adequately impress upon my players what it means to have a creature who, for all its power, intelligence, and eternal life -to say nothing of being able to access the wider cosmos - is content to keep doing the same thing over and over on such a small scale.

 

[AllisterH]

The type of "humanized" evil I think Ari is talking about is what *Ravenloft* should have as its signature....

 

[Mouseferatu]

There are some in-game indicators of the mortal realm's importance in the overall planar structure, certainly. Gods require worship for sustenance, and so have machinations among mortals. The flow of souls goes to the Outer Planes from the Prime (though, as Shemmy noted, they don't originate from there, but rather "ripen" there). But neither of those things explains why fiends should have any greater desire to torment mortals than, say, angels, or for that matter, each other.

And here, too, we must agree to disagree. Since what souls do here is what determines what happens to them in the Outer Planes--and who gets them--yeah, I think it does explain why most outer planar critters are focused on us.

(Plus, as I said, in my view, it's just part of who/what they are. They have no choice.)

Well clearly that's not true, or Planescape wouldn't have been as successful as it was.

Planescape was a single setting, not the entire game. And there are quite a few people who liked Planescape in spite of some of this; I'm one of 'em.

It's limiting in-game because it naturally reduces the roles you can have fiends play. They're locked into a single mindset (with minor variations for, say, alignment, or particular fiend type, such as succubus-evil versus balor-evil), and so lose a great deal of individual identity and motivation. I think that quickly makes them cardboard cutouts, which isn't what I want my monsters to be.

I don't find that limiting because

A) There's still nigh-infinite variation in how they do what they do, even if not in the why.

B) There are plenty, plenty of villains other than fiends out there. Fiends fit a huge number of "villain slots," but there's no reason they must fit all of them.

It's limiting out-of-game because, given that we humans are the ones playing it, trying to adequately portray a truly non-human mindset is very difficult at best. Maybe this says more about me than the point I'm trying to make, but I don't think I could adequately impress upon my players what it means to have a creature who, for all its power, intelligence, and eternal life -to say nothing of being able to access the wider cosmos - is content to keep doing the same thing over and over on such a small scale.

I fully accept that fiends need to be portrayed by humans. That's why I have no problem with them often acting more human than they are; I simply object when it comes to be more than an act.

(Heck, I've written multiple entries in the current Codex of Betrayal series in Dungeon. Obviously, if I viewed the fiends as entirely cardboard cutouts, I couldn't have written more than one. But my point is that, yes, they have different methods, different techniques, different preferences, even different minor motivations. It's simply that, at the core, they're evil purely because it's what they are.)

 

[Kobold Avenger]

I'm one for supporting the full on Blood War.

But I also support the Faction War having happened.

First with the Blood War, they have mentioned at many points that the fiends are using it as one big "training exercise" to keep the armies of the fiends strong and ready for the day the Yugoloths Lords, Abyssal Lords and the Lords of Nine decide to bring about Armageddon. They've also mentioned at many points that the Blood War, is something that the Celestials and certain forces of Good are feeding and perpetrating, so that the fiends are occupied with each other instead of them. As the forces of Good know that they absolutely couldn't win a full on battle against the united forces of Evil.

My points with the Faction War, is that they've mentioned many times in the history of Sigil, that the situation with the factions is a constantly changing one. There was the Great Upheaval, which brought an untold number of factions down to 15. And then there was the Faction War, which got them banned... Or did it. As they mention Sigil going back to the guilds. And the way things are, eventually those guilds are going to become more like factions. Remember that one of the primary rules of Planescape is "Unity of Rings" and that will happen again.

However running into a blank because it's post Faction War Sigil isn't a good one, there's lots of things to explore and expand on in Sigil. And revealing that there's more niche philosophical groups in charge of doing something, is certainly room get creative and throw things in.

 

[Shemeska]

Sliding back towards the topic here:

I adore the Blood War. No surprise there.

I also adore the Faction War. It was damn near poetic in how to pulled together one major metaplot that had been building up to that point. I found it inspiring. I also recognize I'm probably in a minority here in general or perhaps even in specific fans of Planescape in really liking the Faction War. It's a shame the line was folded back into core and they didn't have the opportunity to complete the planned metaplot that FW was to be only one part of.

 

[Chrono22]

As an aside: there is a reason why devils/demons/outsiders in general would want to have a base/basis in the prime. Native outsiders can't be banished back to the prime.
In this sense, taking control of a prime material plane is a good analogy for taking a base on a battlefield. It's a foothold for later conflicts.

 

[Psion]

Ah, I seem to remember some of that. I don't understand entirely where you're coming from though still, because on literally every point you made, I read the material and came away with exactly the opposite reaction.

I'm with you 99% percent. But there is one bit that I think Ari is spot on about. PS canon did say that mortals were not all that important to fiends. This stands out clearly in my mind because it was one thing that never sat well with me and that I explicitly changed in my campaign. I'm a little too married to images of devils' grand scheming against mortality a la Paradise Lost.

Fortunately, it was a very Planescape centered concept that was easily (and IMO necessarily) discarded when you used the Great Wheel as a backdrop for a wider setting.

As for the rest of Ari's discourse, I think Shemmy has the right of it. Ari's view ranges from perspective (yes) that I disagree with (detailed fiends = humanizing them) to not simply not supported by the canon (demons as some sort of unified army... very much not.)

On the humanizing fiends thing. In my perspective (and I accept that it is one), pre-PS, fiends were pretty much cardboard-cutout evil standies to be hewn down by PCs. I believe that one can lend them more detail, add nuance to them, without it humanizing them. And I believe Planescape did so.

The evil-standies type demon was sufficient for me for many years, but after too long, it had worn a little thin and the rich tapestry of evil that PS laid out was very much welcome.

I'll go further and say I think the blood war is a logical outcome of Demons and Devils in D&D. As early as 1e (and probably before), it was stated that there was enmity between demons and devils. But why would such creatures filled with burning hatred stop at mere feelings of animosity?

That being said, after having run some stuff from other planar products, I'll say that allowing mixture of fiends where the distinction is less stark permits some interesting play as well. I wouldn't suggest as a campaign construct is the only way to do things, but it is good grist for campaign material that is a bit richer than ye olde "evil standies" model of demons and devils.

 

[Holy Bovine]

2) No, the player characters are NOT the be all and end all and that damn well needs to stop, it's unhealthy as heck for a game, IMHO.
They are imporant, but the PCs should get grotesquely executed for going to far, like any other berk who commits treason, mass murder, arson, etc, but the PCs get a chance to escape, atone, go on a suicide mission etc, where as any other bozo would get their "family jewels" fed to an ooze an inch at a time!

PCs fling Fireballs, slaughter small armies...so if they do it to the wrong characters, they should get nasty consequences. of course they can try and escape, deduce, foil, deflect etc such within reason
Sometimes it is good for a character ot get executed, or poisoned by some low level berks with high level poison, who're fed up with their homes being burned down...

PCs should feel like fantastic, capable, amazing, fun folk for the players to game, but, it's important for them sitll to feel that they cna get their asses kicked for going too far, or by a nasty beastie. it makes "sense" to any but the most munchkin of players, internally, and is needed ot give the frisson of fear.

What fun is it to sneer at the evil Duke and put a crossbow bolt through his henchman at a parade, if there is no fear of being brutally murdered in revenge if your PC is caught?
Why shoot the henchman and not the Duke? cause you know the Duke's infernal pact will slaughter ALL your PCs people if he's killed...

PCs deserve rewards for trying the wild and fun stuff, and a kick in the pants for the stupid or just plain tragic.

None of this has anything to do with why the Blood War was good or bad. You don't need a war between fiends to make the PCs fear taking on creatures more powerful than themselves.

 

[Nikosandros]

Personally, I've always seen Planescape as its own campaign setting, rather than as an add-on to a "normal" campaign. In the context of a PS campaign, I like the lessened focus on the Prime Material Plane and the more "urbane" fiends bent on diplomatic intrigue while visiting Sigil. I agree with Ari that this is a deviation from the standard D&D assumptions, but IMO this is part of what makes PS distinctive as a campaign setting.

 

[Barastrondo]

I'm probably in the position of not minding either way. I plundered the Blood War for some ideas when it was an extant concern, but wasn't precisely sorry to see it go. I tend to muck around with cosmological conflicts that are a little more mythical in tone, and the law vs. chaos thing is a bit more philosophical in bent. Not that I mind philosophical underpinnings for a mythos; it's just not what I care to do with D&D. The critters are just too loaded with symbolism for me not to draw on a more mythical inspiration.

That said, I'm quite keen on the idea of citadels lining the borders of Hell, and the metal-album imagery that comes of the battles that would be had there. But I'd just as soon muck around with civil wars in Hell, or having the forces of Heaven be the attackers. Demons vs. devils is a delicious set of imagery, but I like it as one of many conflicts, not the driving reason the universe hasn't gone kaboom. If I want a driving reason the universe hasn't gone kaboom, I'd like to put it somewhere in the range of what the players are going to be influencing someday.