Why Planescape?

[Mach2.5]

I think, for any catagory of game book you could think of a top 10 list for, you'll find at least one Planescape book in that list. In adventures, you'd find Dead Gods. In supplements, you'd find Factol's Manifesto and Faces of Sigil. In Adventure Anthologies you'd find The Great Modron March and Infinite Staircase. In the catagory of Lamest Book to Hit the Shelves Outside Some of AEG's Mini Books you'd find A Player's Primer to the Outlands (every setting has at least one flop, thankfully, PS had very few).

If I were just a player, Planescape probably wouldn't be my favorite campaign setting. But as a DM, I found the books themselves to actual be fun to read. There's very few game books that I sit down and read front to back (I have yet to read anything from WOTC at all like that). But the PS books (most of them anyway) were actually a joy to sit and wade through. They were some of the most story based books out there. While not neccessarily everyone's cup of Shemeshka's Poisoned Tea, for those that actually like to read their game books, the PS line was a godsend. Or goddessend. Or fiendsend. Or something like that.

Also on the top of the list, yet often neglected: The Blood War. To have the PCs walk through some unknown portal only to find ten thousand screaming fiends to the right and ten thousand screaming fiends to the left. Kinda puts your players on edge, doesn't it? Try getting a whole group of players in FR to make that *gulp* sound all at the same time.

 

[Orius]

I don't mind them having motives per say, but I think it really ruins the Fiends when it seems you could be walking down the street and a Pit Fiend walks out of a store with a bottle of milk and a pack of Hot Dogs in his hand. Personally, it almost seems as if PS portrays the fiends almost 'comically' at times.

I think that TSR's "Ethics Code" probably had more to do with that than Planescape itself. It's just that the fiends were more present in Planescape that it may have been more apparent.

I think that, to me, the Lady of Pain falls into what I like to call the 'Chosen of Mystra' syndrome.

I disagree. The "Chosen of Mystra", that is Elminster having more power than he should have by the rules, spellfire, etc., seems to have been meant as a way of slapping down cocky PCs. That is a way of showing them there's always someone tougher than them, no matter how powerful they get.

The Lady of Pain was different in some ways. She was basically the reason Sigil stayed a neutral ground, she was the reason Sigil stayed where it was when pieces of Outer Planes could break away and become parts of pther planes. She was more or less necessary to the internal "logic" of the setting. Gods couldn't enter because she could block portals to them. Any one who tried to seize control of Sigil was booted into a Maze. That's why all the factions were there; they were basically thrying to sway Sigil to their ways of thinking so they'd gain contol. That's also why some of the fiends are there, they want to control it too. She's really supposed to be kept in the background, she doesn't care one way or other about PCs, unless they annoy her, which is really stupid.

 

[dagger]

Can't think of a single reason...

I always looked upon plane-hopping to be the most munchkiny aspect of D&D. Don't even try to be like anything basic or mythological, go around slaugthering gods (or at least crashing on their home turf), creating bizarre sub-divisions of time and space for no apparent reason.

I always looked upon the Planes as a Heros/Champions games with no buy limit mixed with heavy drugs...

I have played Greyhawk, forgotten realms, planar campaigns (including Planescape), and multitudes of others. Neither mine nor any I have been involved in have been like that. Being able to plane travel just adds a new dimension to the game.

What it really is, several other campaign settings connected with the main one played on the Prime.

Players and DM's make the game like that, not the setting.

Personally I think plane hopping is not about the next monster slay fest, it’s about the millions of different and interesting characters you can interact with. Not to mention universe spanning plots and universe spanning intrigues.

Ive read through the new Manual of the Planes book twice now and I really like that book. Its one of my favorite 3.0 Wizard books

A DM could run a whole campaign ( NON 'munchkin')from 1st to 30th level just with that freaking book alone! So many interesting and deadly places to visit, its sick.

 

[Henry]

While I'm not one who sees the huge appeal of Planescape (sounds like some think of it as the best thing since deveined chuul ), I have definitely gotten the ideas of what people do see in the setting. This thread has been quite informative in this respect.

 

[Psion]

In Faces of Evil, the PCs could possibly have robbed the Baatezu and Tanar'ri of their Teleport Without Error powers.

That was not in Faces of Evil.

Spoiler

That was in the Squaring the Circle Adventure of Hellbound.

 

[Pants]

I think that TSR's "Ethics Code" probably had more to do with that than Planescape itself. It's just that the fiends were more present in Planescape that it may have been more apparent.[/b]

TSR could still portray them as evil, malevolent creatures without the often human comicness. Essentially, there's always a chance that you'll run into a Babau who's running a coffee shop somewhere in Sigil. The only difference is, its EVIL coffee. Hearing a Babau say 'Want some evil cream with your evil coffee?' makes them... less malevolent.
Sure others will disagree with me (as you have) that the humanization of Fiends is a primary draw for Planescape, but Fiends to me, are evil incarnate. Any human emotions they have will be negative emotions, and they will extremely exaggerated compared to a human's.

I disagree. The "Chosen of Mystra", that is Elminster having more power than he should have by the rules, spellfire, etc., seems to have been meant as a way of slapping down cocky PCs. That is a way of showing them there's always someone tougher than them, no matter how powerful they get.

The Lady of Pain was different in some ways. She was basically the reason Sigil stayed a neutral ground, she was the reason Sigil stayed where it was when pieces of Outer Planes could break away and become parts of pther planes. She was more or less necessary to the internal "logic" of the setting. Gods couldn't enter because she could block portals to them. Any one who tried to seize control of Sigil was booted into a Maze. That's why all the factions were there; they were basically thrying to sway Sigil to their ways of thinking so they'd gain contol. That's also why some of the fiends are there, they want to control it too. She's really supposed to be kept in the background, she doesn't care one way or other about PCs, unless they annoy her, which is really stupid.

Hm good point. The Lady fits the 'logic' of PS but the Chosen seem to be uber-NPC's. Although, I will say that if anyone uses either as a slapdown character, then they are being misused.
Also, The Lady seems kinda Deus Ex Machina to me, the powerful entity that can beat you no matter what. Which is essentially a god, however the Lady takes an active role in rooting out those who piss her off. I have this same problem with the Deities on the realms (who seem to project avatars to the Prime every time someone spills some milk ) and the Dark Powers in Ravenloft. Those are exactly the reasons that I have made deities NOT take an active focus in my Campaign World. I can't stand it.

So, if I ever run a PS campaign (and I will... someday) it'll be very different from Canon PS. Very little focus on Sigil at all, no tanar'ri or baatezu and only one Prime.

 

[Carnifex]

TSR could still portray them as evil, malevolent creatures without the often human comicness. Essentially, there's always a chance that you'll run into a Babau who's running a coffee shop somewhere in Sigil. The only difference is, its EVIL coffee. Hearing a Babau say 'Want some evil cream with your evil coffee?' makes them... less malevolent.
Sure others will disagree with me (as you have) that the humanization of Fiends is a primary draw for Planescape, but Fiends to me, are evil incarnate. Any human emotions they have will be negative emotions, and they will extremely exaggerated compared to a human's.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that the fiends of PS were non-evil.

They were all scheming, malevolent and generally really nasty. There weren't fiends who ran coffee shops with 'evil' coffee. If a fiend ran a shop, it was something really unpleasant, and you had to be damn careful about what you were buying, and what you were paying for it with. And the fiend had some appropriately fiendish reason for running it.

There were two exceptions to this that I know of. The first was A'kin, the Friendly Fiend himself - but he was even worse, because he was such an exception in being *nice* to people. Most people believe that it's all just part of another evil scheme, they just can't work out what A'kin is working towards.

The other exception are the risen fiends that occasionally pop up - ie fiends that have become good. These aren't even a Planescape-specific concept, and they were both insanely rare and once again weren't likely to just set up a coffee shop.

 

[Psion]

There were two exceptions to this that I know of. The first was A'kin, the Friendly Fiend himself - but he was even worse, because he was such an exception in being *nice* to people. Most people believe that it's all just part of another evil scheme, they just can't work out what A'kin is working towards.

The thing is that A'kin is a baffling mystery (And a lovely one at that. You could build whole campaigns around what A'kin is really up to.) A'kin's situation is not the norm. So no, there weren't fiendish cofee shops or hot dog stands, and insinuations that there were are a little out there.

The case of A'kin should highlight that comical thing really doesn't exist. People in Sigil assume he is up to something, as if pure malevolence in fiends is an absolute truism. That wouldn't be the case of you could get coffee from demonic peddlars on every corner.

Just because Sigil is a place where you can see fiends does not mean that it's like the fiendish equivalent of Monsters Inc.

 

[Shemeska]

A'kin ranks up there with one of the all time mysteries of the setting along with The Lady of Pain. Honestly, nobody ever had a clue if he was neutral, or a still evil exile, or a really good actor, or just a nice guy.

*obligatory IC rant about mentioning his name*

There's plenty of hints here and there that shed both doubt and support for A'kin being utterly evil to the core, or just a nice guy and maybe a risen fiend to some extent. But its never told out and out in canon, which is a good thing. Tons of wiggle room.

And for the record, A'kin aka The Editor (of the Factol's Manifesto) is being written as the In Character author of the 3e Guide to Sigil forthcoming from Planewalker. *GRIN*

You want malevolent evil I suggest you look at Daru Ib Shamiq, the Baernaloth from Hellbound: The Blood War. Biggest liar on the face of the planes ever... *chuckle* Manipulative sob in the extreme IMHO. Loved him. There was also the depiction of an Ultraloth in one of the Planescape Mounstrous Compendium's in the entry on the Slasrath. The narrators depiction of interacting with it was honestly harrowing. "I knew that I would not be leaving that room alive, or whole."

 

[the Jester]

I hated the cant too much to ever really read the Planescape stuff, but from this thread I'm starting to wish I had. I do have one of the PS MC Annuals, and it's got a lot of cool stuff (including the rast, ravid and devourer) in it.

I may have to try to pick some Planescape stuff up used.