Talk:Planescape

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rewrites[edit]

This page needs major rewrites. If anyone stumbles upon this page please help me out here. 204.210.16.56

Also: You're missing the Audio CD and it's accompanying Accessory (The Player's Primer to the Outlands [2610]) 75.92.217.27 (talk) 01:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's there under Boxed sets. 24.12.74.21 (talk) 02:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outer planes[edit]

Ok people who actually edit this page, there needs to be some kind of precedent for the Outer Plane pages. What's going to be the precedent here? (Outer Plane)? (fictional land)? disambig. pages? response requested. Shoecream 07:28, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)

(Outer Plane) seems fine to me. (fictional land) is too ambiguous - I can think of at least three other fictional Elysiums off the top of my head. -Sean 19:19, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Also, it seems counterproductive to disambiguate places that aren't actually ambiguous - I'm not aware of any other Baators or Mount Celestias, and neither is Google. -Sean 19:21, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Now using Planename (plane) when necessary, otherwise just the name of the plane. ··gracefool |☺ 07:26, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Post faction-war PS[edit]

This isn't the current state of the PS campaign setting, at least w/r/t the factions, but most people play in pre-FW PS. Should this be updated? taion 09:38, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't know enough to write it myself, but we can have a paragraph about the faction war, then the current list of factions, and then a list of factions which ceased to exist after FW. Ausir 11:16, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I've added a section on the fates of the factions post-FW with information from Dragon #315.--Filby 19:04, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Article series box[edit]

I'd like to make some sort of box for the Planescape articles, see History of the United States and Boldog for examples. What do you guys think? Should I do a footer box (like the boldog one) or vertical box? Should I even make one? Sepearate ones for the Outer Planes? I'd appreciate all kinds of discussion about this topic here. —Shoecream 04:02, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking of inserting a quick info box, like the one of the page for Everway, that way basic information is easy accessible. Don't want to distract from the topic, but I do think the two ideas are related. VidGa 07:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Encompassing?[edit]

The article says the Planescape setting "encompasses all of the other Dungeons and Dragons worlds", which was true when the setting came out, but isn't any more (Krynn and Toril have entirely different cosmologies in 3rd edition, which possibly link through the Plane of Shadow). Does this need clarified?

I don't think it should be clarified in this article. This is still true for Planescape; the new cosmologies are only described in the Dragonlance and FR campaign settings. From my POV this was a pretty bad move for WotC and to my understanding many people have completely disregarded the change, continuing to treat the Great Wheel as it was before. Also, the new Toril and Krynn cosmologies are rather vague in description and have introduced many inconsistencies (e.g. Elminster could have never visited Oerth). Of course, this is just me rambling as this is not the place to discuss my views, but still, I think the article should remain as it is and the new cosmologies should be described in their respective campaign settings articles. Then again, a single sentence clarifying the issue or giving directions on further information would be useful. In fact, I think I'll add write something myself right now. Denis Kasak 23:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel that "local" cosmologies should have any affect on "overall" cosmologies. For example, in Diomin, a "campaign setting" by OtherWorld Creations, the world of Diomin has it's own, local, cosmology. In its varation on Wizards, that class draws their arcane power from beyond Diomin's local, three-tiered cosmology. Problem solved, IMO. Bear Eagleson 13:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I changed the introduction, because it seemed a little redundant (heck, it used encompass twice!), so I took out that sentence. It may be of some importance though, but I think there's enough to warrant a seperate section for it. (For example, Dark Sun should be mentioned, as should Ravenloft and even Spelljammer)FrozenPurpleCube 14:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Dark Sun is touted as possibly not even existing in a seperate Material Plane or being reachable through Phlogiston, Ravenloft is a Demi-Plane which means it is simply seperate from any cosmology and Spelljammer is travel between settings within the same Material Plane. If we mention Dark Sun then we have to mention Ebberon and possibly every other Material Plane. Enigmatical 22:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, at the least, we can stick to merely officially published settings, and only those with some significance to their relationship with Planescape. For example, Ravenloft's Demiplane of Dread being in the Ethereal, or Dark Sun's non-attachment. And Spelljammer would exist as an example of travel between worlds while remaining on the Prime Material Plane. I'm not sure whether I'd include Eberron or not, since it was published after Planescape. I could go either way with it. FrozenPurpleCube 02:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find any reference at all which states taht Ravensloft has any connection at all to the Ethereal. As it is a demi-plane made up of "domains" which have a mist between them (not to be confused with the Ethereal plane), I dont think you can actually say the two are connected. Mention is given however of this demiplane having "tainted" other demiplanes such as the demiplane of dreams as well as the 4 elemental planes. Enigmatical 05:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I recall, the reference in Planescape was that all demiplanes exist in the Ethereal. Regarding the region of dreams, I seem to recall it being mentioned as part of the Ethereal as well, though I'm not sure about "demiplane" status, unless each individual dreamscape is its own demiplane. --Bear Eagleson

Athas, Ravenloft and Spelljammer[edit]

The following information from page 13 and 14 of the Spelljammer book "The Complete Spacefarer's Handbook" may help with any comments about Athas and Ravenloft.

Athas: "The world of the Dark Sun campaign is not on the spacelanes where Realmspace, Krynnspace and Greyspace can be found."
"The current inhabitants have no knowledge of spelljamming. There is no way to know whether the closely guarded library of some sorcerer king concelas an anchient tome revealing the basic concepts of wildspace."

This suggests that spacefarers don't know how to get to Athas and no Athasians know how to get into wildspace, but doesn't say that it is impossible. Similar logic must apply to Planescape - Athas would probably be a place that you can't easily find. Dark Sun must be mentioned somewhere. You need to hunt for a reference in one of its products. Why not try to Planescape mailing list? They might be able to help.

Ravenloft: ..."Ravenloft lies within no crystal sphere. It cannont be reached by travelling through the phologiston. A spelljamming ship sailing into Ravenloft's night soon enters the mist at the border of the demiplane and is quickly turned back."
"Although spelljammming provides no escape from Ravenloft, outside spelljammers are not safe from the Demiplane of Dread. The mists of Ravenloft can appear even in wildspace."..."Only in the phlogiston, which blocks all planar travel, can one remain safe from the reaching tentacles of the Demiplane of Dread.

This means that all of the (prime) material plane (except the phlogiston) can be connected to Ravenloft. I can see how upper and lower planes might have special relationships which block or aid into Ravenloft, but can't see why the transitive planes would block travel. Again the Planescape mailing list may help you find a reference in one of your books. Any travel into Ravenloft would be one way travel, so I wouldn't expect planewalkers to have much knowledge of the plane.

As for Spelljammer and Planescape, you might want to refer to the Pirates of Gith. These creatures live on the Astral Plane and make raids into the wildspace of the (prime) material plane. They are always eager to steal the living ships of the Elven Navy as they have the ability to planeshift the entire ship into the astral plane. Spelljammer also features organisations called Planar Churches (which would seem to be Planewalker friendly), however as Spelljammer predates Planescape no proper connection with Planewalking organisations on those planes was made in a SJ product. You might be able to find references to the Planar Churches in Planescape documents.

Good luck! Big Mac 22:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editing links[edit]

Just editing out some links that just redirect to this page. Kind of pointless to have them redirect to themselves. Whispering 02:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cant[edit]

Does anyone know where there is any information on the Cant? It's a pretty essential part of the setting.--69.166.45.32 23:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I posted Cant definitions here: http://swiftbow.comicgenesis.com/About.html#Cant Should this be merged onto the main Planescape page? Swiftbow 06:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Pictures ?[edit]

Maybe a picture of the Planescape universe should be added?

I have a picture, but it is a scan from the 2nd edition AD&D DMG. Does that violate wikipedia copyright restrictions, even if it is properly credited? Swiftbow 06:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have the picture as well, I think it should be added. --Karimi 18:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I went ahead and uploaded it. Not sure I entered the licensing correctly... if not, fixing is good ;) Swiftbow 05:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great pic, the only problem with it is that Sigil isn't there.--Karimi 06:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm... does yours have Sigil? Maybe we should post that too/instead. Swiftbow 22:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I took so long to reply , been busy. Anyway, I have a poster that looks exactly like the one at this site : http://reicher.neostrada.pl/download/maps/Outlands.jpg I think its a better pic, more detailed and has Sigil.--Karimi 02:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Xaositects[edit]

This seems like a horrible idea - they are an entire seperate thought, though derived from this universe.

Multiverse <> Parallel Universes[edit]

Just for clarification. The concept of the Multiverse in D&D is different to the fictional concept of Parallel Universes. The intention behind a multiverse in D&D is that each DM can have his own universe, allowing him to have any aspect desired in there without infringing upon the worlds of someone else. In this context they are not necessarily "Parallel" to each other (ie they dont have to be similar at all) while it is not excluded. A prime example of this is the Dark Sun setting which is said to be in a different universe to the Forgotten Realms. If the term "multiverse" was described using the Parallel Universes theory then it would indicate that a "similar" world such as Athas would exist in the Forgotten Realms setting. This is not the case and neither universe is known to overlap at all. Enigmatical 05:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From all of the material I've read, the world of Athas uses many unique demi-planes and pocket dimensions instead of the basic 'inner planes' common to most prime material worlds, which controls it's particular worlds functions instead of said inner planes. i.e. it is cut off from the outerplanes of planescape but still part of the cosmology of the material planes. The dead go to their own immediately surrounding area instead of the outerplanes etc, but it isn't a "separate universe", it is simply cut off from the astral plane that binds the rest of the multiverse together by a plane known as "the black". So it is squarely in the multiverse setting, and not a parallel universe. I believe it's called the D&D 'multiverse' instead of 'universe' because it has many separate "infinite" realms, e.g. each infinite self-contained universes in themselves, but multiple. 67.5.147.229 22:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I recall, Planescape's explanation is that despite the Athasian's thinking their Inner Planes are different, it is really the Planescape cosmology inner planes being called by the Athasian names. I think this is explained in the Ruvoka monster description in both the Dark Sun Monstrous Compendium II: Terrors Beyond Tyr and the Planescape Monstrous Compendium Appendix III. The other idea I recall is that perhaps Athas's paraelemental planes are different, and again this may relate to the "Athasian idea" vs "Planescape cosmology" idea. Bear Eagleson 16:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I know the dragonlance campaign setting is this way, (i.e. all of the lower planes are referred to as "The Abyss", i.e. Baator, The Grey Waste, etc, are all considered simply part of The Abyss.) Though from what I read of Darksun; the planes there actually work quite different, at least according to the "perservers & defilers" book that I once owned, and they don't know of the 'outerplanes' at all, all of the dead from Athas can't get beyond 'the black' just as astral travellers can't. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that there're no gods in Athas, I believe it was mentioned that there were once gods, only they abandoned it. So no divine powers to worship to make the bridge out to the astral and the outerplanes, either that or 'the black' was a barrier set up by the gods so that the champions of Raajat, had they succeded, couldn't rampage the multiverse. 67.5.159.38 02:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, it is still correct to use the term Multiverse and not Parallel Universes as in no D&D literature at all is it stated that all universes are a copy of the others with slight variations. Instead thy are all considered extremely distinct and different, thus allowing each DM to make his own universe the way he sees fit. Enigmatical 22:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

The majority of the external links on here are to fan sites or resource portals. Could someone go through the list and reduce it (to a max of about four)? Chris Cunningham 15:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. You ruined the video game. You will not ruin the RPG. --Jesse Mulkey 19:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the external links should be reduced. Planescape came out in 1994 and a plethora of fan sites sprung up as a result. 12 years later it's more about quality independent content not cloned TSR copyright content. Breno 00:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely far beyond the WP:EL guideline. May I suggest a link to the Open Directory Project's Planescape (not Torment) directory:
instead of all those fanlinks? — Saxifrage ✎ 00:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Justifications for trimming external links[edit]

Pulled all Wizards/TSR links as Wizards no longer sells/promotes the Planescape product.
This page contains Dungeon Master story ideas and is probably not geared toward a casual Planescape wiki user.
Component of planewalker.com - site already listed.
Site offline. Parked domain name.
Site only consists of scanned copyright TSR images.
Site only consists of copyright TSR book content.
Abandoned fan site - modified May 19, 2004 4:03:01 PM
Image copyright TSR
Abandoned fan site - modified July 17, 2004 9:30:27 AM
Abandoned fan site - modified December 2, 2005 1:54:51 AM
Site offline.


Below are "geocities" pages. The way they are served up it's hard to tell if the pages are technically "abandoned" as the last modified date is not accurate. If you believe these sites contain quality content wikipedia-worthy then please put your reasoning here and move the link back into the main article.

Breno 17:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


(* Planescape Survival Guide, ongoing online webcomic

Site offline. Parked domain name.)

This site is not down. It has two URLs, the above, and http://swiftbow.comicgenesis.com, which the first redirects to. I know, because it is my comic.

You also gave no justification for removing the official Wizards/TSR comic (* Unity of the Rings Online Planescape Comic) which is very indicative of the setting, and very useful to new players, or anyone curious about Planescape in general. Swiftbow 06:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to reduce the number of external links and increase the amount of actual article information. When attempting to access www.planescapecomic.com when trimming the site did not redirect to swiftbow.comicgenesis.com but it does today. Now looking at the site it is not Norton compatible [1] so I'm having trouble seeing the comic. Interested in helping with an article rewrite? Breno 17:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yeah, that would be comicgenesis' image/bandwidth protection stuff. There is a workaround for Norton, but I'll have to go look for it. (ah, here it is: http://cgwiki.comicgenesis.com/index.php/I%27m_running_a_firewall_and_I_can%27t_read_CG_comics%21)
I'd be happy to help rewrite, not sure exactly how much you're thinking needs to be changed, though. Which sections do you think need the most work? Swiftbow 20:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link to sects not valid[edit]

the planescape sects page has been deleted, it should have been merged here if nothing else


Baldur's Gate II[edit]

Is it worth noting that Baldur's Gate II and its expansion have some references to the Planescape setting?

It may be worth a minor note in the section which talks about torment. Enigmatical 01:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction imprecision?[edit]

"As its name suggests, [...], as originally developed in the Manual of the Planes by Jeff Grubb." Planescape existed during D&D 2e, well before the Manual of the Plane (unless the first edition of the book is refered, which should be mentionned, then, because the links is to the a page that only mentions briefly a previous Manual of the Planes.). This statement strikes me as a little odd.

Lunargent 16:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

petition[edit]

Should the article mention this petition with 3K signatures?

http://www.petition online.com/ps35esns/petition.html

Mathiastck 22:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Bits[edit]

This article feels like it's missing some things.

  • The most glaring omission is that there is no mention whatsoever of the Cant, which was a HUGE part of 2e Planescape.
  • It should also be mentioned that 2e Planescape had a strong focus on philosophy, which was unusual for an official D&D Campaign World. The Factions and the very nature of Sigil were based on personal philosophies, and many of the well-fleshed-out supporting characters were personified philosophical quandaries. I'm not sure how to say that without original research, maybe someone can find a reference?
  • It should be mentioned that the Planescape cosmology is still present in the modern (3-3.5) published material, though it is only vaguely similar in its post-Faction War state, and without the recognizable art and writing styles or the philosophical bent.
  • I read a lengthy interview somewhere stating that the original designers were not terribly happy with the Faction War supplement and the way it essentially castrated the campaign world. I believe they said that it was not meant to be the end, but that the line was dropped before they could follow up, but that may be my poor memory at work. If a reference can be found, I feel this is worth a mention.

--Daeval (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I think the most glaring omission is a failure to disclose what platforms the game was available for. -Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.100.224.95 (talk) 01:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pen and paper? 67.175.176.178 (talk) 03:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

spamfilter[edit]

i had to edit another posters post about a petition above to get this page to save. it seems the site in question if blocked from being added to pages and prevents pages from being edited with it in them. i didn't delete the link entirely, but changed it. shadzar-talk 15:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability disputed[edit]

There are no reliable source cited as evidence of notability.Please resotre the notability cleanup tempate.--Gavin Collins (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A) You didn't have an issue with the sources cited over a month ago.
B) The sources cited are in fact notable in themselves. The Origins Award is THE award in the RPG industry (a fact you should know), and Pyramid Magazine was one of the primary non-TSR (that is, not related to the publisher of Planescape) magazines - again, something you should know.
The sources are sufficient, and I will not restore the template. Snuppy 01:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion requested[edit]

  • The subject appears to be close to borderline notable. A lot of the content is in-universe, lacking real-world perspective, let alone sourced to independent reliable references. The sections “Factions”, “Sects” and “Rules” are particularly lacking here. However, I would guess that sufficently independent sources surely exist, and I would refer interested contributors to WP:WAF rather than WP:N or WP:AFD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Planescape Comic[edit]

Okay, so a couple editors are complaining about self-promotion and COI (conflict of interest?). As far as an edit war, the revisions past the first weren't from my computer. I do believe the link is relevant in any case, as one of the edits said, it is the only active Planescape related comic, with support from a large number of Planescape fans, niche market though they may be. I am well aware of the notability, no collection of links, etc. issues on wikipedia, but I don't think they apply in this case. I haven't wantonly posted it on the webcomic list page, for example, even though I think it is very close to meeting the notability guidelines.

In any case, I think the justification lies heavily in the fact that people navigating to this page are looking for information on the Planescape topic, which can be rather limited at best. Do not external links exist expressly for the purpose of providing further reading to users beyond the scope of wikipedia? Hell, a previous user even trimmed the Unity of Rings comic (a one-shot story), a completely official publication of TSR.

Anyway, I'm going to leave the external links alone while I wait for a response, but I think the rampant trimming of the external links needs just as much justification as me wanting it there, author of the comic or no. Swiftbow (talk) 06:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's an explicit conflict of interest in putting up links to your own creations on wikipedia, especially when they're tangential to the topic. Anyone else reverting its removal and asking for discussion, I'd leave it in place pending that discussion by multiple people, but not when there's that massive COI present. For the moment I'm removing it again, pending thoughts from any other editors on the topic (preferably beyond IP editors). There's a limit to what's probably kosher to include in external links; for instance I'm not putting up links to my own Planescape associated fiction in the external links section, and if someone else added them, I'm remove them just as much as I removed the link to your comic. If it was a link to a larger collection of Planescape fan material (the Mimir, Planewalker, etc) or a link to one of the original design team members or another D&D author's thoughts on the setting, by all means those sorts of things would stay in the links section - but it's absolutely stretching it to include yours. I'd be less inclined for the removal if you as the author hadn't added it back in with a frequency that borders on breaking the 3RR prohibition (it might, I haven't bothered to check). Others may disagree with me on this point. And they're free to add in their comments, or add the link back if they can justify it.Shemeska (talk) 04:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think that the link should be used on this article; WP:EL states that external links not being used as references should be kept to a minimum. Additionally, being the only Planescape webcomic is not a really valid reason to justify its inclusion, as there are many fan websites that cover various types of Planescape information, and they aren't listed. That isn't to mention the conflict of interest. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would argue for the inclusion of those fan sites as well, so long as they're actually active and allow people a greater understanding of the topic, which I believe is the point of external links. More of these WERE in the external links, until another editor swept through of his own behest a while back. Swiftbow (talk) 07:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The importance of this comic is diminished greatly by the fact that it is only updated about once a month. If it was a real active comic with two or three updates a week its inclusion might be helpful for readers, but currently it's not noteworthy in Wikipedia. 77.130.173.175 (talk) 20:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manual of the Planes and other 3e sourcebooks[edit]

"Published material" section states that the setting "has since been updated in the 3rd Edition Manual of the Planes, the 3.5 Edition Dungeon Master's Guide, and the Planar Handbook in 2004". It's only partially true. The new materials were not a part of the Planescape line, which no longer existed at this point. It's writing style was also different and some concepts (like relations between the Etheral Plane and the Inner Planes) were changed. It probably should be considered as derivative work, not as a part of the setting. --79.189.158.98 (talk) 23:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; that does need to be rewritten to more accurately reflect reality. 108.69.80.49 (talk) 00:02, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Planescape. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:05, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Planescape&oldid=1212476946"