Why I dislike Sigil and the Lady of Pain

[I'm A Banana]

Personally, I don't see a lot of resemblance between the Planescape factions and Buddhism or Nietzschianism.

Very minor character resemblances (such as the Godsmens' belief in reincarnation heirarchy), but more than exist in Bog Standard D&D.

Because if the source of divine power isn't divinity, but merely superhuman otherworldly beings, than a cleric is no different from a warlock wearing a mitre.

Indeed, that's part of the point. In 2e, when PS came about, there wasn't a character class who could gain power from devil-worship, but the idea that gods were relatively small (in comparison to most worlds) was driven home pretty powerfully. Sure, Zeus might chuck lightning bolts down on your little backwater homeworld, but that's not everywhere, and it ain't here. If you worship Zeus as a planewalker, it's not because he chucks lightning bolts down, it's because there's a particular idea he embodies that you favor (forex, with Zeus, it might be the power of the masculine patriarch, expressed through chucking lightning bolts). Otherwise, perhaps it's part of your cultural or personal identity or story. You worship Zeus because he helps people where YOU come from, because he helped liberate YOUR world from the titans, because you've been personally aided by a timely lightning bolt. Zeus isn't there for all, he's there for YOU, and you have the spells to prove it!

For divinity to be genuinely divinity, than the gods have to merit worship - genuine worship, not just admiration because of their power. Which is to say, that they must be creators or sustainers of being and value in some fairly fundamental sense. To doubt this, it seems to me, is to doubt the existence of the divine power source. Which verges on being incoherent, given the way the game mechanics are set up.

"Magic" is belief in PS. It's not being a creator or a sustainer that gives you the power to grant Cure Light Wounds, it is (in Planescape), being the concentration of millions' of peoples' hopes and dreams, having THEM believe in you, worship you, and dedicate their lives to serving you. That nebulous quality gives real magical power to deities, which they then share back with the people via the divine power source. A god has power because people believe in them. It is the same reason the Abyss exists.

Possibly there's something else, too (the Athar certainly believe there's something beyond divinity that the gods are just a spigot for), but the basic "greybeard understanding" is that the divine power source is raw faith, given magical utility via a god.

Is the god WORTHY of that worship? Well, in some cases, clearly not. Evil deities are a dime a dozen, and demon lords and devil princes and eladrin nobles all get their share of ritual and belief, despite their patent and often obvious unreliability as divine beings. But people worship them, ascribe them importance, and, even knowing that Juiblex is a bubbling malevolence who wants to dissolve you, might truly believe that this is what the world needs, and so signs up for Team Blex.

In that case, though, you wouldn't really be worshipping the god, would you? The god would bear the same sort of relationship to the thing/principle being worshipped as does Christ to divinity on the Arian account of Chrit's nature.

And via the god, that principle lets the faithful blast holy light and heal the sick. Pretty awesome.

 

[Ryujin]

In 4e user of the Divine power source have explicitly been "invested with the authority to wield... on behalf of a deity, faith, or philosophy." Under this framework things like Secular Humanism and Atheism would qualify as 'philosophies', potentially granting use of the Divine power source. Disbelief in gods can grant the same power as belief in Pelor

 

[Incenjucar]

I know a little bit of the history of philosophy in Greece. I'm a professional philosopher (although I work in modern, not classical, philosophy).

As I stated upthread, my problem with the factions is not that they have clubs, but that they're not doing philosophy - that is, they don't seem to be motivated by (prima facie, tenable if not conlcusive) reasons.

The philosophy that they do isn't especially focused on, but the factions all have fairly clear views on the universe that significantly differ from one another. Moreover, their philosophies grant them RESULTS, in the form of powers and abilities. Moreover, while they're philosophy-centric, they're still political factions as much as a bunch of folks sitting around debating whether pleasure or pain are more valid sensations to experience the multiverse through.

 

[Tymophil]

I know a little bit of the history of philosophy in Greece. I'm a professional philosopher (although I work in modern, not classical, philosophy).

As I stated upthread, my problem with the factions is not that they have clubs, but that they're not doing philosophy - that is, they don't seem to be motivated by (prima facie, tenable if not conlcusive) reasons.

I am referring to the ancient Greece (so-called presocratic) philosophers way to litterally live by their philosophy.

If you were a Cynical, you did not profess cynism... Instead, you lived like a cynical, ate like a cynical, dressed like a cynical, and essentially were a cynical. This is a sclose as factions go in my vew.

The way you portray the world is, for you, the way the world is and your behaviour is the best way to fit to this world.

 

[pemerton]

In 4e user of the Divine power source have explicitly been "invested with the authority to wield... on behalf of a deity, faith, or philosophy."

That passage is from p 60 of the PHB.

Here are some other relevant passages:

Clerics and paladins call down the wrath of their gods to sear their foes with divine radiance, or they invoke their gods’ mercy to heal their allies’ wounds. (p 7 )


Divine magic comes from the gods. The gods grant power to their devotees, which clerics and paladins, for example, access through prayers and litanies. (p 54)

All clerics choose a specific faith to which they devote themselves. Usually this faith is the worship of a specific patron deity—for example, Moradin, Pelor, or Erathis. Sometimes clerics are devoted to churches that venerate groups of deities or even philosophies. (p 61)

As fervent crusaders in their chosen cause, paladins must choose a deity. (p 90)​

The reference to "philosophies" as an alternative to faith in a god or gods is mentioned only twice, both times in relation to clerics. I'm not sure what to make of it. There are at least two interpretations I can think of. One is that, consistent with the other references to divine magic coming from the gods, clerical adherents of a philosophy draw their power from those gods who embody/uphold that philosophy. The second is that, in a desire to maintain some consistency with earlier editions, the 4e designers incorporated contradictory descriptions of the divine power source into the rules.

I think the second interpretation is more likely as a matter of historical conjecture. I personally prefer the first interpretation as a way of trying to make the game coherent.

Under this framework things like Secular Humanism and Atheism would qualify as 'philosophies', potentially granting use of the Divine power source. Disbelief in gods can grant the same power as belief in Pelor

I think you're right that these examples push up against the limits of "philosophies" as sources of divine power.

My problems with this approach to divine power are metaphysical and psychological. Metaphysical, what is the source of this power which is neither Arcane (whether obtained via study and practice like a wizard or swordmage, by being imbued with power like a sorcerer, by bargaining with an entity like a warlock, or by evocation of the underlying harmony of the cosmos like a bard) nor Primal (obtained from the lingering spirits and memories of one's ancestors and the world of which they are a part) nor Psionic?

If the answer is "faith" or "conviction" - and this is distinguished from the psionic power of a monk or ardent - this takes me to my second problem, which is the psychological one of what exactly this mental state is, which a cleric of secular humanism possesses, but a learned sage who remains in his library/tower despite the encroaching orcish hordes lacks?

I can work out what an initiate of a god is doing differently from others, such that s/he wields power. S/he has been initiated! But the faith/conviction/belief thing doesn't work for me, because the distribution of the power in the gameworld fiction doesn't really seem to correspond to the distribution of any salient mental state.

Indeed, that's part of the point. In 2e, when PS came about, there wasn't a character class who could gain power from devil-worship, but the idea that gods were relatively small (in comparison to most worlds) was driven home pretty powerfully.

OK, I can see this, but for the reasons I've tried to articulate I'm not sure it works for 4e.

Sure, Zeus might chuck lightning bolts down on your little backwater homeworld, but that's not everywhere, and it ain't here. If you worship Zeus as a planewalker, it's not because he chucks lightning bolts down, it's because there's a particular idea he embodies that you favor (forex, with Zeus, it might be the power of the masculine patriarch, expressed through chucking lightning bolts). Otherwise, perhaps it's part of your cultural or personal identity or story. You worship Zeus because he helps people where YOU come from, because he helped liberate YOUR world from the titans, because you've been personally aided by a timely lightning bolt. Zeus isn't there for all, he's there for YOU, and you have the spells to prove it!

"Magic" is belief in PS. It's not being a creator or a sustainer that gives you the power to grant Cure Light Wounds, it is (in Planescape), being the concentration of millions' of peoples' hopes and dreams, having THEM believe in you, worship you, and dedicate their lives to serving you. That nebulous quality gives real magical power to deities, which they then share back with the people via the divine power source. A god has power because people believe in them.

Just trying to state your picture back at you, so you can see if I've got it right - widespread hope/conviction vests a god or similar entity with power, which that god can then share with initiates (like clerics). So gods aren't creators/sustainers as I characterised them upthread, but an important category of patrons. (There seems to be some resemblance here to Glorantha.)

I can see how that's feasible and highly workable for a game. Right off the bat it suggests at least one sort of interesting conflict - "faithful", in this world, presumably means in the first place loyalty to the divine patron, but also - given the dependence of the divine patron on widespread conviction - loyalty to/honouring of the underlying values/hopes/commitments. Those two dimensions of faith could be fun to drive a wedge between. (The same wedge can be driven in the approach to gods I am articulating from what I take to be the 4e perspective, but I think with more difficulty - because of the tighter union beteen god and value - and therefore with different metaphysical implications.)

I still feel that it doesn't work for a game with warlocks - at least, not without something more being said about how the different categories of patronage work. I also feel that it doesn't fit with the idea that philosophies or hopes that are divorced from deities can give rise to divine casters. As you say

And via the god, that principle lets the faithful blast holy light and heal the sick. Pretty awesome.

This doesn't seem to leave room for divine power without divinity. Or, alternatively, it suggests some sort of puzzling situation where the hopes and convictions of atheists give rise to a god of the non-existence of gods, who is the source of power for atheist clerics.

(By the way, couldn't XP you for a good post.)

 

[pemerton]

Very minor character resemblances (such as the Godsmens' belief in reincarnation heirarchy), but more than exist in Bog Standard D&D.

I think I'm the only person who looks at bog standard D&D and sees a rich palette for thematically rich depictions!

The philosophy that they do isn't especially focused on, but the factions all have fairly clear views on the universe that significantly differ from one another. Moreover, their philosophies grant them RESULTS, in the form of powers and abilities.

I don't really find their views all that clear or coherent, especially in light of the contrasts that are meant to be set up. In several cases - especially the solipsist ones (I can't remember what they're called) it puzzle me that a significant number of people would group together to - do what? - I want to say "pursue that doctrine", but the notion of collective pursuit of solipsism is contradictory! (I'm reminded of an episode related by Bertrand Russell - after publishing that solipsism could not be demonstrably proved false,
Russell received a letter from a woman expressing her pleasure that someone else took solipsism seriously, at which point Russell himself ceased to do so!)

The bit about getting powers just puzzles me - where does the power come from? How are the factions different from wizards guilds, or churches?

I am referring to the ancient Greece (so-called presocratic) philosophers way to litterally live by their philosophy.

If you were a Cynical, you did not profess cynism... Instead, you lived like a cynical, ate like a cynical, dressed like a cynical, and essentially were a cynical. This is a sclose as factions go in my vew.

Diogenes is not pre-Socratic.

That to one side, yes, Diogenes lived his philosophy. So did the Buddha, at least according to the received histories. It's not clear how many followers Diogenes had, but it's highly arguable that to the extent that later stoicism differs from Diogenes' own cynicism, this is in part to make it more digestible to the post-Alexandrian elite. Marcus Aurelius certainly didn't live in a barrel! (A similar argument can be made in respect of the evolution of Buddhism, although it also has a doctrine of rebirth to help explain why different members of society have different roles to play consistent with their overall pursuit of enlightenment.)

But in any event, Diogenes and Buddha and Marcus Aurelius all teach at least conceivable accounts of human flourishing, based on the relationship between human and natural order, and the attitude that humans should take towards the vicissitudes of the natural world.

This is what is missing, for me, from the factions.

The way you portray the world is, for you, the way the world is and your behaviour is the best way to fit to this world.

See, this bears no connection to any pre-Socratic, Socratic or Hellenistic philosophy that I can think of - none of them contend that the world is shaped by belief, and certainly not by wishful thinking. They all insist that belief and behaviour has to be brought into conformity with the world's demands, although they differ in their accounts of what exactly those demands are, and what conformity with them might require.

And even the more idealist schools of Buddhism, like Yogacara, don't regard the character of the world or the content of belief as chosen. And they emphasise the necessity of practice in order to cultivate beliefs consistent with flourishing. They don't suggest that, having formed from the get-go a belief about how the world is (which is also how it ought to be), one then goes out into the world and starts acting on that belief as if it were true.

 

[Ryujin]

How about this: The Psionic power source and the Divine power source are related as to origin, but differ in application. Psionics are the application of will to alter body, or to apply 'force' to an external target. Divinity is a belief so powerful, that it reshapes reality in its own image.

 

[sciborg3]

The very fact that people are bringing in real world examples of religion and philosophy shows me once again why Planescape is one of the greatest of D&D's settings!

I think with regards to the Lady of Pain the thing to remember is not that she's some kind of uber-deity like Ao lording over everyone, but she is a setting mechanic where the DM can decide the truth.

Perhaps she is a goddess, perhaps she is a projection or construct created by the dabus. Perhaps she is three ratatosks in a dress and a mask and a knife-wig, as one of my favorite theories goes.

They left it up to you to decide - Whether or not this is lazy (whatever that means??) is besides the point. It is a creative idea that spurs creativity.

Things like the Lady of Pain, little mysteries and wonders seeded throughout the setting, are why to this day you see some amazing fiction cropping up on Planewalker and great art produced on sites like DeviantArt.

As for cheapening the gods, the idea that you can level up by hunting monsters and murder them takes away any sense of wonder they ever could have in my opinion.

The Factions' "philosophy", is I think a word used in layman terms, equivalent to ideals or religious beliefs. I think it was a good catch-all term to describe the factions as a whole. I also don't see how having gods around negates factions - many of the faction members were clerics, just as many people in political parties in RL are religious. If anything factions added a new axis in which to characterize NPCs and PCs, so another plus there.

Of course, everyone's mileage will vary. There were problems I had with the setting - the snubbing of the other settings' worlds and gods, the connection of the gods with belief which I never liked even in other D&D sources. But really those are personal preferences that are easily changed.

Really, Planescape was great because it made you think about it even when you weren't playing the game. What are gods? What does it mean to believe in entropy? Can I become a god if I change myself over lifetimes?

Personally I cannot even compare Planescape's richness to the 4e cosmology which I frankly find to be boring. I know others like the mirroring of the Titanomachy, but to me it fell flat in the way others feel Sigil doesn't work. I found the Great Wheel to be the right balance of organization and complexity/chaos, and the streamlined 4e cosmos feels bland and unimaginative from what I've read. However, it's been awhile so if there suggestions I'd love to hear the, - I've heard good things about the Shadowfell stuff and look forward to the Feywild stuff coming up.

 

[pemerton]

How about this: The Psionic power source and the Divine power source are related as to origin, but differ in application. Psionics are the application of will to alter body, or to apply 'force' to an external target. Divinity is a belief so powerful, that it reshapes reality in its own image.

Suppose I buy that - can you give me an answer to my second question, namely, what the relevant psychological state is that clerics have but other fervent individuals lack?

 

[pemerton]

The very fact that people are bringing in real world examples of religion and philosophy shows me once again why Planescape is one of the greatest of D&D's settings!

<snip>

Planescape was great because it made you think about it even when you weren't playing the game. What are gods? What does it mean to believe in entropy?

Well, doing philosophy is part of my day job. Which may be part of why I'm not a big fan of Planescape's take on it.

I cannot even compare Planescape's richness to the 4e cosmology which I frankly find to be boring.

See, I'm completely the opposite. Dead Gods makes me yawn - as written it's one of the most railroady modules I've ever seen. Whereas the 4e cosmology just keeps giving and giving with game-driving themes and conflicts.

The PCs in my game include a tiefling paladin of the Raven Queen; a ranger-cleric of the Raven Queen; a wizard-invoker who was a lapsed initiate of the Raven Queen but has (over the course of play) become reinitiated, and then moved on from the Raven Queen to devotion to Erathis, Ioun and Vecna - and who also hate devils a great deal; a dwarven fighter-warpriest of Moradin; and a drow chaos sorcerer who is a demonskin adept, and also a member of a Corellon-worshipping secret society dedicated to undoing the sundering of the elves.

Practically any situation I can think of as a GM gets this party moving: undead/Orcus (because of the Raven Queen and Vecna elements); anything arcane (because of the Ioun/Vecna/Corellon elements); anything fey (because of the Corellon-worshipping drow); anything demonic (because of the chaos sorcerer) or diabolic (because of the tiefling, and the Erathis worshipper, who has a happier vision for order and civilisation); anything humanoidish/giantish (because of the Erathis and dwarvish elements); anything draconic/dragonborn (because of the tiefling).

For me, the value of the 4e cosmology is not in its literary cleverness or originality, but in its capacity to so easily generate these game-driving conflicts. In fact, its simplicity and transparency is in my view a virtue - it's very easy for players to pick up on these elements, build them into their PCs, and start playing. The complexity then emerges in play - which is where I prefer to see it, rather than in background notes that only the GM reads.

The only tweak I've had to make to the core cosmology, in order to join some dots in my campaign that otherwise wouldn't have connected, is to make it the case that, after freeing themselves from the giants, the dwarves at some stage became subordinates to a minotaur empire.