Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 6397408" data-attributes="member: 48965">Okay that's a much clearer statement that I have no issues with... Even if I do disagree with it.Well in all honesty I don't have the expert rule book... But I do have the actual Karameikos gazetteer and it's got some of the conflicts you're speaking to built in already, especially the chaos (as represented by the vast tracks of monster infested wilderness and humanoid tribes) vs. law (as represented by the efforts of the duke, his people and the original people to survive in and civilize the land).I'm going to agree (possibly for the first time ever) with [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] here... and to add to what he stated... First The Lady of Pain is the only "thing" in the setting that is by default untouchable (though clearly if a DM wanted to allow her to be overthrown there's nothing stopping him from playing it out with his players).  Second, The Lady of Pain is clearly intended in the campaign setting material to be a DM tool that is more akin to a force of nature or something like the powers of Ravenloft (which were also a pure DM tool in that setting) than a NPC or monster... This is probably one of those things not conveyed well through adventures but is pretty clear when you read the setting materials.Again I agree with [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] here (This has to be some type of record, two times in a row <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />).  And again to add on to what he is saying,  the fact of the matter is that, as he alluded to in his statements about The Lady of Pain... might makes right... whoever can impose their beliefs upon others establishes what the "valid "beliefs" of the multiverse are...  IMO, the major questions aren't whether your belief is valid or not... we know how to resolve that in game through play... it instead changes focus to how important are your beliefs being valid and what are you willing to do to make sure your beliefs (as opposed to someone else's ) become tangible and valid across the mutliverse?   But then IMO, this seems very similar to the type of playstyle you seem to be advocating as set out in the quote of Campbell you posted earlier... The only place I find contention at is the fact that nothing forces the PC's to become "mythic figures"... but certainly it is within their capability to become such in the Planescape setting.   I don't think having some secret backstory is all that inimical to your style of play... I mean even 4e has some secret backstory.  I'm not sure how the "quirks" factor into it at all perhaps you could elaborate...Well as I stated earlier you probably only have a fraction of the picture of what Planescape's focus can be (I actually think most published adventures are of the "setting exploration" variety, at least as it is defined by you... so I'm not sure using adventures as your source is a good measure.  But hey, to each his own I'm not trying to convince you to love Planescape... just trying to convince you to maybe actually read the campaign setting before passing judgement.</blockquote>

Verification