Planescape in Dragon Mag. - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Planescape in Dragon Mag.

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
zombiegleemax
Dec 15, 2005 22:59:12 Well, I am sure that most of you noticed who made this month's cover of Dragon. Personally, I was thrilled that PS was featured, however, I am also pretty disappointed in the whole ordeal.

First of all, I am thrilled that the Lady made the cover. I can't tell you how pleased I was to see her, but honestly, it took me a coupld of seconds to recognize her. This is because she was illustrated with a set of breasts the size of Pamela Anderson. Now, I have nothing wrong with artistic licence, and personally I thought the illustration to be of excellent quality. Call me a PS snob, but I just think it is inappropriate to depict the Lady as female. Yes she is called the Lady, but the whole mystique about her is that no one knows anything about her, much less if she even really is a Lady. I just don't think it's right to give her such a huge pair of Melons. The Lady is not a sex symbol!
This being said, I still thought the picture was cool.

As for the article. It was mostly disappointing. It seems they just got some guy to write it who knew next to nothing about the planes. First, it lacked the style of planescape writing. It didn't even have the word berk in it once. Next, the information was mostly useless and inaccurate. The article was called Dead Factions and featured info on various factions destroyed by the Lady. First, it says that the Signers and Godsmen join up and form the Mind's Eye. However, it list nothing about this new Mind's Eye. It lists various old factions including the Communals, the Expansionists, and a couple others. Among those listed are the Sons of Mercy. Of course, this is nonsense as the Sons of Mercy are not, and never were a faction. They are a group, yes, but faction, no. The Incantifiers are also listed as a Faction. However, I don't really think the Incantifiers ever were a full fledged Faction. I have always considered them a more of a sect.

The information covered, though interesting, is mostly useless in a PS campaign as all the Factions listed are no longer. Now, this article might be usefull if you are considering running an Expansionist Era, or Great Upheaval Era PS campaign... (see my previous post FACTION TIMELINE), but if you are playing during the most common time period (5-15 years pre faction war) then most of what you find in this article will prove mostly esoteric in nature.

If WOTC is going to hire people to write about Planescape, would it kill them to hire a good writer who actually knew something about the flavor of the campaign?

P.S.- Does anyone know about the new 3rd Planar Handbook? Is it worth the buy, or is crapola like the MOTP?
#2
ripvanwormer
Dec 15, 2005 23:36:40
As for the article. It was mostly disappointing. It seems they just got some guy to write it who knew next to nothing about the planes. First, it lacked the style of planescape writing. It didn't even have the word berk in it once. Next, the information was mostly useless and inaccurate. The article was called Dead Factions and featured info on various factions destroyed by the Lady. First, it says that the Signers and Godsmen join up and form the Mind's Eye. However, it list nothing about this new Mind's Eye. It lists various old factions including the Communals, the Expansionists, and a couple others. Among those listed are the Sons of Mercy. Of course, this is nonsense as the Sons of Mercy are not, and never were a faction. They are a group, yes, but faction, no. The Incantifiers are also listed as a Faction. However, I don't really think the Incantifiers ever were a full fledged Faction. I have always considered them a more of a sect.

Monte Lin's been on the Planescape mailing list forever, and while I haven't seen the article I'm pretty confident he knows his stuff.

The "style" bit may be an editorial decision, rather than a decision of the author's.

Information on the Mind's Eye can be found in Faction War and in the Planewalker.com materials. They're not a new thing, and they're not the focus of this article.

The Sons of Mercy were indeed a faction before the Great Upheaval, and became a faction again after the Faction War.

The Incanterium was also, at one point, a full fledged faction. "Centuries ago, a faction called the Incanterium schemed and maneuvered in the kriegstanz of Sigil's factions..." - PSMCII.

The information covered, though interesting, is mostly useless in a PS campaign as all the Factions listed are no longer.

They're not destroyed, only mazed. They may be back. The Expansionists, in particular, are on the rise again sice Vartus Timlin escaped from his own maze.

P.S.- Does anyone know about the new 3rd Planar Handbook? Is it worth the buy, or is crapola like the MOTP?

You wouldn't like it.
#3
zombiegleemax
Dec 16, 2005 0:23:35 I wouldn't be surprized if the writer did know his stuff, but wasn't allowed to go all on PS for the article. Thus, if he is reading my opinion of the article, I can only say that even though I have my doubts, I still loved to see PS in Dragon.

As far as the Incantifiers go, I have my doubts. I know that there is reference that they might have been, or were at one time a faction. However, I feel that this falls into the catagory of what is cannon. I simply do not believe that the incantifiers could have ever been a faction and will never plays as though they were. The reason is simply: Supply and Demand. There are simply not enough magic items to supply an entire faction of magic item eating members. Think about Alouvious Ruskin (I know I mispelled that... player not DM remember...). After she was killed, think about how many magic items that were found in her place that had been absorbed by the old hag. Now multiply that by numbers that would constitute an entire faction. There simply is not enough magic in the multiverse.

Now, perhaps that was the reason for the fall of the faction. Who knows. However, I just cannot see an Incantifier faction unless it occured during the time of troubles when there were dozens of factions each having very small numbers. Even then, were I a guvner, I would greatly scrutinize the 'philiosophy' behind the organization. There doesn't seem to be one. What is it? "Look here berk! The Multiverse is made up of magic items. The only way to conquer the multiverse is to syphon that energy into yourself!". It just doesn't make sense. The whole organization is more of a magic cult than a philisophical faction.

But that's just my opinion.
#4
ripvanwormer
Dec 16, 2005 0:41:00
The reason is simply: Supply and Demand. There are simply not enough magic items to supply an entire faction of magic item eating members.

The Incanterium wasn't just a faction; for a time, they were the most powerful faction in Sigil. That's why they were mazed.

You're confusing the Incanterium with the Incantifers. The Incanterium didn't eat magic items; they were basically just Takers or Guvners who believed that magical knowledge was more important than anything else. The magic-eating thing didn't come till much later, after the old faction had been more or less destroyed.
#5
Shemeska_the_Marauder
Dec 16, 2005 16:16:37 I enjoyed the article immensely. I was a bit underwhelmed by the last PS article Dragon had done for the previous campaign classics issue, but they really blew me away with this one. The detail on the Incanterium and the Communals I rather liked, and the faux 'Lightbringer' was a nice touch in the Expansionist material.

The little line about Alisohn Nilesia's fate didn't hurt my opinion either ;)
#6
andyr
Dec 16, 2005 19:10:58 ... what new 3rd planar book is this?
#7
ripvanwormer
Dec 16, 2005 21:00:52
... what new 3rd planar book is this?

This one.
#8
kismetrose
Dec 17, 2005 2:37:51 I just barely got January's Dragon with the Lady on the cover, and I think it's sad: it's not that the artist is bad, it's just that nothing is left to the imagination as it's supposed to be.

The Lady's garments, as I recall seeing them in older products, could in no way be construed as form-fitting. If she had breasts it was anyone's guess. The Lady didn't need breasts, or to show them.

And there's something about the blades that bother me, probably because they look like they are attached to a helmet rather than being a part of her.

I did feel disappointed that the article didn't use the cant or the rhythm of other Planescape materials. But I have to finish the article before I say anything more about it. :D
#9
andyr
Dec 17, 2005 7:28:26
This one.

Oh, right. By 'third planar book' I assumed the poster meant something along the lines of MotP/PH.

And yeah, I'm not a massive fan of that cover art of the Lady either.
#10
ripvanwormer
Dec 17, 2005 9:53:09
Oh, right. By 'third planar book' I assumed the poster meant something along the lines of MotP/PH.

And yeah, I'm not a massive fan of that cover art of the Lady either.

Oh, I see. I didn't know what you were talking about.

When Inarus said "3rd Planar Handbook" he meant the Planar Handbook for 3rd edition D&D.
#11
andyr
Dec 17, 2005 11:39:28 Ah, I getcha now.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 zombiegleemax Dec 15, 2005 22:59:12	Well, I am sure that most of you noticed who made this month's cover of Dragon. Personally, I was thrilled that PS was featured, however, I am also pretty disappointed in the whole ordeal. First of all, I am thrilled that the Lady made the cover. I can't tell you how pleased I was to see her, but honestly, it took me a coupld of seconds to recognize her. This is because she was illustrated with a set of breasts the size of Pamela Anderson. Now, I have nothing wrong with artistic licence, and personally I thought the illustration to be of excellent quality. Call me a PS snob, but I just think it is inappropriate to depict the Lady as female. Yes she is called the Lady, but the whole mystique about her is that no one knows anything about her, much less if she even really is a Lady. I just don't think it's right to give her such a huge pair of Melons. The Lady is not a sex symbol! This being said, I still thought the picture was cool. As for the article. It was mostly disappointing. It seems they just got some guy to write it who knew next to nothing about the planes. First, it lacked the style of planescape writing. It didn't even have the word berk in it once. Next, the information was mostly useless and inaccurate. The article was called Dead Factions and featured info on various factions destroyed by the Lady. First, it says that the Signers and Godsmen join up and form the Mind's Eye. However, it list nothing about this new Mind's Eye. It lists various old factions including the Communals, the Expansionists, and a couple others. Among those listed are the Sons of Mercy. Of course, this is nonsense as the Sons of Mercy are not, and never were a faction. They are a group, yes, but faction, no. The Incantifiers are also listed as a Faction. However, I don't really think the Incantifiers ever were a full fledged Faction. I have always considered them a more of a sect. The information covered, though interesting, is mostly useless in a PS campaign as all the Factions listed are no longer. Now, this article might be usefull if you are considering running an Expansionist Era, or Great Upheaval Era PS campaign... (see my previous post FACTION TIMELINE), but if you are playing during the most common time period (5-15 years pre faction war) then most of what you find in this article will prove mostly esoteric in nature. If WOTC is going to hire people to write about Planescape, would it kill them to hire a good writer who actually knew something about the flavor of the campaign? P.S.- Does anyone know about the new 3rd Planar Handbook? Is it worth the buy, or is crapola like the MOTP?
#2 ripvanwormer Dec 15, 2005 23:36:40	As for the article. It was mostly disappointing. It seems they just got some guy to write it who knew next to nothing about the planes. First, it lacked the style of planescape writing. It didn't even have the word berk in it once. Next, the information was mostly useless and inaccurate. The article was called Dead Factions and featured info on various factions destroyed by the Lady. First, it says that the Signers and Godsmen join up and form the Mind's Eye. However, it list nothing about this new Mind's Eye. It lists various old factions including the Communals, the Expansionists, and a couple others. Among those listed are the Sons of Mercy. Of course, this is nonsense as the Sons of Mercy are not, and never were a faction. They are a group, yes, but faction, no. The Incantifiers are also listed as a Faction. However, I don't really think the Incantifiers ever were a full fledged Faction. I have always considered them a more of a sect. Monte Lin's been on the Planescape mailing list forever, and while I haven't seen the article I'm pretty confident he knows his stuff. The "style" bit may be an editorial decision, rather than a decision of the author's. Information on the Mind's Eye can be found in Faction War and in the Planewalker.com materials. They're not a new thing, and they're not the focus of this article. The Sons of Mercy were indeed a faction before the Great Upheaval, and became a faction again after the Faction War. The Incanterium was also, at one point, a full fledged faction. "Centuries ago, a faction called the Incanterium schemed and maneuvered in the kriegstanz of Sigil's factions..." - PSMCII. The information covered, though interesting, is mostly useless in a PS campaign as all the Factions listed are no longer. They're not destroyed, only mazed. They may be back. The Expansionists, in particular, are on the rise again sice Vartus Timlin escaped from his own maze. P.S.- Does anyone know about the new 3rd Planar Handbook? Is it worth the buy, or is crapola like the MOTP? You wouldn't like it.
#3 zombiegleemax Dec 16, 2005 0:23:35	I wouldn't be surprized if the writer did know his stuff, but wasn't allowed to go all on PS for the article. Thus, if he is reading my opinion of the article, I can only say that even though I have my doubts, I still loved to see PS in Dragon. As far as the Incantifiers go, I have my doubts. I know that there is reference that they might have been, or were at one time a faction. However, I feel that this falls into the catagory of what is cannon. I simply do not believe that the incantifiers could have ever been a faction and will never plays as though they were. The reason is simply: Supply and Demand. There are simply not enough magic items to supply an entire faction of magic item eating members. Think about Alouvious Ruskin (I know I mispelled that... player not DM remember...). After she was killed, think about how many magic items that were found in her place that had been absorbed by the old hag. Now multiply that by numbers that would constitute an entire faction. There simply is not enough magic in the multiverse. Now, perhaps that was the reason for the fall of the faction. Who knows. However, I just cannot see an Incantifier faction unless it occured during the time of troubles when there were dozens of factions each having very small numbers. Even then, were I a guvner, I would greatly scrutinize the 'philiosophy' behind the organization. There doesn't seem to be one. What is it? "Look here berk! The Multiverse is made up of magic items. The only way to conquer the multiverse is to syphon that energy into yourself!". It just doesn't make sense. The whole organization is more of a magic cult than a philisophical faction. But that's just my opinion.
#4 ripvanwormer Dec 16, 2005 0:41:00	The reason is simply: Supply and Demand. There are simply not enough magic items to supply an entire faction of magic item eating members. The Incanterium wasn't just a faction; for a time, they were the most powerful faction in Sigil. That's why they were mazed. You're confusing the Incanterium with the Incantifers. The Incanterium didn't eat magic items; they were basically just Takers or Guvners who believed that magical knowledge was more important than anything else. The magic-eating thing didn't come till much later, after the old faction had been more or less destroyed.
#5 Shemeska_the_Marauder Dec 16, 2005 16:16:37	I enjoyed the article immensely. I was a bit underwhelmed by the last PS article Dragon had done for the previous campaign classics issue, but they really blew me away with this one. The detail on the Incanterium and the Communals I rather liked, and the faux 'Lightbringer' was a nice touch in the Expansionist material. The little line about Alisohn Nilesia's fate didn't hurt my opinion either ;)
#6 andyr Dec 16, 2005 19:10:58	... what new 3rd planar book is this?
#7 ripvanwormer Dec 16, 2005 21:00:52	... what new 3rd planar book is this? This one.
#8 kismetrose Dec 17, 2005 2:37:51	I just barely got January's Dragon with the Lady on the cover, and I think it's sad: it's not that the artist is bad, it's just that nothing is left to the imagination as it's supposed to be. The Lady's garments, as I recall seeing them in older products, could in no way be construed as form-fitting. If she had breasts it was anyone's guess. The Lady didn't need breasts, or to show them. And there's something about the blades that bother me, probably because they look like they are attached to a helmet rather than being a part of her. I did feel disappointed that the article didn't use the cant or the rhythm of other Planescape materials. But I have to finish the article before I say anything more about it. :D
#9 andyr Dec 17, 2005 7:28:26	This one. Oh, right. By 'third planar book' I assumed the poster meant something along the lines of MotP/PH. And yeah, I'm not a massive fan of that cover art of the Lady either.
#10 ripvanwormer Dec 17, 2005 9:53:09	Oh, right. By 'third planar book' I assumed the poster meant something along the lines of MotP/PH. And yeah, I'm not a massive fan of that cover art of the Lady either. Oh, I see. I didn't know what you were talking about. When Inarus said "3rd Planar Handbook" he meant the Planar Handbook for 3rd edition D&D.
#11 andyr Dec 17, 2005 11:39:28	Ah, I getcha now.