Worst Official DM NPCs In Published RPG Settings

[deaddmwalking]

NPCs shouldn't enforce the status quo. There's no reason to. If the party wants to change it, why can't they?

I'm all for giving players agency, and that means they can have meaningful impact on a setting. That said, if the setting were easily changed, it would already be different, right?

The more a setting changes, the less useful published setting material is for your group. Expecting that the setting will remain similar enough that you can continue to use supplements isn't entirely crazy. Doing otherwise might be ivory tower 'better' but in practice, creates new problems (lack of creativity on the part of the GM being the major one).

[ColorBlindNinja61]

I'm all for giving players agency, and that means they can have meaningful impact on a setting. That said, if the setting were easily changed, it would already be different, right?

Look at D&D. Most D&D settings don't have the Wish Economy or end up as a Tippyverse, despite that being an entirely logical outcome of the rules.

EDIT: And nothing in the setting preventing this. I initially forgot that part.

The more a setting changes, the less useful published setting material is for your group. Expecting that the setting will remain similar enough that you can continue to use supplements isn't entirely crazy. Doing otherwise might be ivory tower 'better' but in practice, creates new problems (lack of creativity on the part of the GM being the major one).

Perfectly valid points. Though YMMV on published materials. I often find they're poorly designed, and end up being more work than if I simply made up my own material.

[PhoneLobster]

NPCs shouldn't enforce the status quo. There's no reason to. If the party wants to change it, why can't they?

You don't realise it. But what you are stupidly saying is that no NPCs should ever oppose the party.

You still haven't grasped that the problem with setting police isn't them existing, isn't them doing their job, isn't even them being of any given high level or whatever, it is exclusively them being too hard to defeat at the time PCs encounter them.

When the low level PCs say "I want to rob that guy" they fight the low level setting police, when the higher level PCs say "I want to change the world" they fight the high level setting police. Those encounters should be challenging and engaging but achievable at the times they happen.

If they are impossible to win that is the only problem. Well. Only problem other than them not happening at all because you stupidly declared that ALL such setting police should be banned.

[ColorBlindNinja61]

You don't realise it. But what you are stupidly saying is that no NPCs should ever oppose the party.

At this point, I'm convinced you're willfully misconstruing what I'm saying. Or else you are utterly lacking in reading comprehension.

[PhoneLobster]

That's because you keep thinking that setting police are by some internal definition automatically and inherently "the bad ones" and not just NPCs policing a setting.

You keep conflating execution and function, not just in what you are saying, but rather clearly in how you even understand these concepts.

[ColorBlindNinja61]

That's because you keep thinking that setting police are by some internal definition automatically and inherently "the bad ones" and not just NPCs policing a setting.

You keep conflating execution and function, not just in what you are saying, but rather clearly in how you even understand these concepts.

No, you're deliberately being obtuse. I've explained what I actually mean numerous times. If you're going to refuse to understand what I'm saying, this conversation is over.

[Omegonthesane]

That's because you keep thinking that setting police are by some internal definition automatically and inherently "the bad ones" and not just NPCs policing a setting.

You keep conflating execution and function, not just in what you are saying, but rather clearly in how you even understand these concepts.

No, you keep conflating the function of level-appropriate challenges with the function of GM Penis NPCs.

The function of the various things you are calling "setting police" is not to enforce the status quo. Their function is to be defeated by the PCs, ideally while forcing the PCs to demonstrate the full extent of their superhuman powers in order to realise that defeat.

The function of, say, the Lady of Pain, by contrast, is to ACTUALLY enforce the rules of the setting. Not to be vanquished for trying.

[PhoneLobster]

The function of the various things you are calling "setting police" is not to enforce the status quo.

No, their function is to maybe be defeated by PCs, if the PCs are the right level and care enough to take the risk/cost. In the mean time they really do enforce the setting norms, on other characters and on PCs before the PCs are ready enough or motivated enough to oppose them.

Setting police, executed well, are an excellent way of not just generating level appropriate challenges but also creating long term narrative, setting flavor and providing explanations for setting norms that are the setting standard but are not permanently cast in inflexible iron.

And understanding the cut off between good and bad setting police, instead of just defining setting police as the bad ones and calling it a day, can lead to better GMing and setting design practice.

Pointing and laughing at an execution of setting policing so bad it might as well be a strawman, like the lady of pain, then refusing to acknowledge the possibility of alternatives in that role that actually work is largely just worthless wank.

edit: And also...

No, you keep conflating the function of level-appropriate challenges with the function of GM Penis NPCs.

No, you are conflating setting police NPCs with GM Penis NPCs. Remember the thing where my initial complaint with the misuse of DMPC in this thread and in general is that it conflates a whole bunch of different things together?

You're doing it right there.

[Omegonthesane]

The function of the various things you are calling "setting police" is not to enforce the status quo.

No, their function is to maybe be defeated by PCs, if the PCs are the right level and care enough to take the risk/cost. In the mean time they really do enforce the setting norms, on other characters and on PCs before the PCs are ready enough or motivated enough to oppose them.

There is not actually a meaningful distinction between "exists to potentially be defeated by the PCs" and "exists to certainly be defeated by the PCs". The function is still that when the time comes that the PCs force a confrontation, the result is that the PCs are victorious.

blah blah blah

Pointing and laughing at an execution of setting policing so bad it might as well be a strawman, like the lady of pain, then refusing to acknowledge the possibility of alternatives in that role that actually work is largely just worthless wank.

The Lady of Pain does not serve the function you describe, she serves the function of absolutely forbidding any change to the setting and crushing any PC attempt to try. She is not a good idea executed badly, she is a bad idea executed exactly to spec.

You are the only one that has conflated anything in this entire thread. It's been entirely clear that the objection is to NPCs that restrict PC agency and either are absolutely unstoppable, like Caine or the Antediluvians or the Lady of Pain; or are clearly intended to be absolutely unstoppable, like Elminster or the Deathlords. This is not the function of "setting police" that you describe. You are meant to one day defeat the dragon; you are never, ever, in a million years, meant to be able to become strong enough to defeat Elminster.

This has been explained multiple times. Why the fuck are you still in the thread if you're not interested in that specific topic?

[ColorBlindNinja61]

I know Elminster is the most infamous Penis Extension NPC in D&D, but how do Mordenkainen and Raistlin compare? I know Raistlin is laughably built (something like a 10 in CON), but Mordenkainen isn't. They're not nearly as well known (EDIT: Mordenkainen isn't), are they actually worse than Elminster?

[Emerald]

The Lady of Pain does not serve the function you describe, she serves the function of absolutely forbidding any change to the setting and crushing any PC attempt to try. She is not a good idea executed badly, she is a bad idea executed exactly to spec.

Why is preventing large-scale changes to the setting a bad idea, exactly?

Every setting has a certain set of cosmological, thematic, tonal, etc. assumptions that distinguish it from other settings and provide a reason to use that setting over other ones. Dragonlance is an epic fantasy setting all about the clash between Good and Evil (mediated by Neutrality), meddling gods and their relationship with mortals, large-scale war (with dragons!) and its effect on the common folk, and so on. Dark Sun is a post-apocalyptic survival setting all about the tyranny of the Sorcerer-Kings, the hostility of everything from environment to monsters to other people, the scarcity of resources and magic, and so on. If you want to run a campaign about the clash between Law and Chaos or resisting an illithid invasion of the PCs' homeworld, Dragonlance isn't the setting for that; if you want to run a campaign about warring pantheons of gods or uplifting a world in a Magi-Industrial Revolution, Dark Sun isn't the setting for that.

In that context, mechanisms to prevent large-scale changes to the setting are a good thing. The Prism Pentad series was all about making large-scale changes to the Dark Sun setting and pretty much every fan of the setting hated it because it rendered the setting basically-unrecognizable and killed or removed most of the unique aspects of the setting. A player who likes Dark Sun (or Dragonlance, or Eberron, or...) shouldn't have to worry whenever they join a game in that setting that the players and/or DM are going to accidentally or intentionally torpedo the setting.

Planescape isn't just "Sigil and the Great Wheel and outsiders and stuff" (the Great Wheel originated in 1e Greyhawk pre-Planescape and the cosmology is the same in 3e post-Planescape), in the same way that Dark Sun isn't just "D&D, but everyone's a poor psionic PC in the desert." Rather, it's a setting about (among other things) approaching the planes and their inhabitants from a perspective of exploration and "big picture" philosophy rather than viewing the planes as just bigger dungeons and demon princes as just things to be stabbed in the face until they stop moving. For that, having a "home base" in the planes that allows a party to quickly travel lots of places and that's safe from divine or other meddling is necessary, and the Lady of Pain ensures that Sigil is that place and remains that place.

Now, the Lady of Pain didn't have to be a thing in the first place; the setting designers could have just said that Sigil is how Sigil is because reasons to ensure Sigil's inviolable neutrality, and that would have been fine. And perhaps that would have been a better approach, because then you wouldn't see DMs having the Lady interfere directly with the PCs or splatbook writers have her meddle with the Factions, completely misunderstanding her role...but in that case the setting would still resist being changed, so that really has nothing to do with it being an NPC rather than a setting conceit that keeps the status quo.


Of course, if a group wants to play in a setting but change some of the trappings of the setting or allow the PCs to make large-scale changes, that's certainly possible. You want to play in a Dragonlance game where the War of the Lance went differently? Go for it; there are even alternate setting writeups in several splatbooks to help the DM figure out how things would go. You want to play in a Dark Sun game where gods are a thing? Go for it; there are previous Ages you can play in, or the DM can say that the hints about there once having been gods are true and one of them has been sealed away for a bazillion years. You want to play in a Planescape campaign where the Blood War spills into Sigil and the demons start conquering the multiverse? Go for it; Vecna once found a loophole around the Lady's protections, maybe Asmodeus or Demogorgon did too.

But that's the kind of thing that only makes for a good campaign every once in a while. If every Dark Sun campaign is about overthrowing a Sorcerer-King and every Planescape campaign is about someone trying to invade Sigil then 99% of the setting is thrown away in favor of the same ol' same ol', like if every Dragonlance campaign was just running through the original Dragonlance adventure path for the Nth time, so specific powerful NPCs or other conceits that ensure a good degree of stability at the setting level is a good thing.

You are the only one that has conflated anything in this entire thread. It's been entirely clear that the objection is to NPCs that restrict PC agency and either are absolutely unstoppable, like Caine or the Antediluvians or the Lady of Pain; or are clearly intended to be absolutely unstoppable, like Elminster or the Deathlords. This is not the function of "setting police" that you describe. You are meant to one day defeat the dragon; you are never, ever, in a million years, meant to be able to become strong enough to defeat Elminster.

For all that people complain about Elminster, he's been dunked on multiple times--captured by an archfiend and needed to be rescued, lost duels against other big-name wizards, had important artifacts stolen from him by Sharrans, depowered and/or went insane multiple times, and so on.

He's not a deus ex machina who micromanages and/or killsteals parties of low-level PCs for shits and giggles, as some like to portray him, he's the guy who can narrate a bunch of sourcebooks because he's been everywhere and seen it all. Less Gandalf, more The Doctor.

And while some DMs certainly do misuse him as a DM mouthpiece or Gary Stu self-insert, those DMs can do the same with Szass Tam or the Simbul or Telamont Tanthul or other fuckoff-powerful wizards who have the same kinds of plot-device-level spells and powers at their disposal and much more of a reputation for actively meddling in things, and barely anyone complains about them.

I know Elminster is the most infamous Penis Extension NPC in D&D, but how do Mordenkainen and Raistlin compare? I know Raistlin is laughably built (something like a 10 in CON), but Mordenkainen isn't. They're not nearly as well known (EDIT: Mordenkainen isn't), are they actually worse than Elminster?

Nah, neither has anywhere near the meddlesome tendencies that Elminster does. Mordenkainen is all about preventing any one faction from gaining too much power on Oerth, but if you're not at "flood the entire planet with balors" levels of Evil he basically doesn't care about you. Raistlin eventually wanted to become a god and kill everyone, and actually succeeded at it, but he was eventually persuaded that it wasn't all it was cracked up to be and undid his ascension and during the whole process he didn't really care about any particular mortals whom he didn't know personally.

[angelfromanotherpin]

I know Elminster is the most infamous Penis Extension NPC in D&D, but how do Mordenkainen and Raistlin compare? I know Raistlin is laughably built (something like a 10 in CON), but Mordenkainen isn't. They're not nearly as well known (EDIT: Mordenkainen isn't), are they actually worse than Elminster?

It depends which version of them. Gygax guarded Mordenkainen's original character sheet like it was a state secret, but people made some pretty shrewd guesses and he's almost always just a very high-level single-classed magic-user/wizard with improbably good stats. That's fine in the earlier editions when 'builds' aren't really a thing, but it degrades severely once you hit 3e and he looks like a chump for having neither a specialty nor a prestige class.

Original penis-extension NPC Raistlin (as opposed to very-reasonable PC Raistlin) was very similar, except he was the only mortal to have broken the level cap of the setting, so he stood out more as being speshul. His 3e version came out better than Mordenkainen because he had multiple prestige classes that were all full-casting and did at least some things besides; not optimized, but not actively embarrassing. What really suffered was his 4e version, because Raist famously both had poor CON and used a staff, and in 4e being a staff wizard was CON-based, so the anti-optimization was harsh.

[ColorBlindNinja61]

Why is preventing large-scale changes to the setting a bad idea, exactly?

It's almost always toxic to player agency. If the PCs can't change the setting, they ultimately don't matter in the grand scheme of things. Note that in this context I'm using, "change", very broadly.

Now, the Lady of Pain didn't have to be a thing in the first place; the setting designers could have just said that Sigil is how Sigil is because reasons to ensure Sigil's inviolable neutrality, and that would have been fine. And perhaps that would have been a better approach, because then you wouldn't see DMs having the Lady interfere directly with the PCs or splatbook writers have her meddle with the Factions, completely misunderstanding her role...but in that case the setting would still resist being changed, so that really has nothing to do with it being an NPC rather than a setting conceit that keeps the status quo.

I'm not convinced the Lady of Pain was anything more than a Penis Extension NPC from the start.

For all that people complain about Elminster, he's been dunked on multiple times--captured by an archfiend and needed to be rescued, lost duels against other big-name wizards, had important artifacts stolen from him by Sharrans, depowered and/or went insane multiple times, and so on.

He's not a deus ex machina who micromanages and/or killsteals parties of low-level PCs for shits and giggles, as some like to portray him, he's the guy who can narrate a bunch of sourcebooks because he's been everywhere and seen it all. Less Gandalf, more The Doctor.

And while some DMs certainly do misuse him as a DM mouthpiece or Gary Stu self-insert, those DMs can do the same with Szass Tam or the Simbul or Telamont Tanthul or other fuckoff-powerful wizards who have the same kinds of plot-device-level spells and powers at their disposal and much more of a reputation for actively meddling in things, and barely anyone complains about them.

My main beef with Elminster is that his existence causes plot holes and limits the types of stories you can tell. Forgotten Realms has too many high level NPCs for my liking; I think Elminster gets the most press because he's one of the strongest among them.

I know Elminster is the most infamous Penis Extension NPC in D&D, but how do Mordenkainen and Raistlin compare? I know Raistlin is laughably built (something like a 10 in CON), but Mordenkainen isn't. They're not nearly as well known (EDIT: Mordenkainen isn't), are they actually worse than Elminster?

Nah, neither has anywhere near the meddlesome tendencies that Elminster does. Mordenkainen is all about preventing any one faction from gaining too much power on Oerth, but if you're not at "flood the entire planet with balors" levels of Evil he basically doesn't care about you. Raistlin eventually wanted to become a god and kill everyone, and actually succeeded at it, but he was eventually persuaded that it wasn't all it was cracked up to be and undid his ascension and during the whole process he didn't really care about any particular mortals whom he didn't know personally.

I see.

It depends which version of them. Gygax guarded Mordenkainen's original character sheet like it was a state secret, but people made some pretty shrewd guesses and he's almost always just a very high-level single-classed magic-user/wizard with improbably good stats. That's fine in the earlier editions when 'builds' aren't really a thing, but it degrades severely once you hit 3e and he looks like a chump for having neither a specialty nor a prestige class.

Mordenkainen's build is still way better than Elminster. And he still has Epic Spellcasting all the insanity that it implies.

Original penis-extension NPC Raistlin (as opposed to very-reasonable PC Raistlin) was very similar, except he was the only mortal to have broken the level cap of the setting, so he stood out more as being speshul. His 3e version came out better than Mordenkainen because he had multiple prestige classes that were all full-casting and did at least some things besides; not optimized, but not actively embarrassing. What really suffered was his 4e version, because Raist famously both had poor CON and used a staff, and in 4e being a staff wizard was CON-based, so the anti-optimization was harsh.

I remember Raistlin's 3e statblock having such low CON, a single Power Word Skill spell would take him out.

[merxa]

Dragonlance was a low magic setting, being the only high level wizard when the most dangerous things are stupid dragons and level 10 fighter kings makes you defacto world emperor.

Did you experience some traumatic event during a planescape campaign? Complaining about the lady of pain is like lamenting heaven is filled with angels or it's windy in the plane of air. I don't know of any player who thought they lacked agency because they couldn't douse the plane of fire. Short of destroying sigil, bringing in a bunch of gods or a standing army of outsiders, I don't know what exactly was off limits for the city. Bad GM misuses powerful NPC, news at 11.

Going back to dragons heist it had a lot of these 'celebrity' moments, the campaign opens in the yawning portal where a troll shows up. The party is level 1, so the famous barkeep -- a high level fighter with 4 attacks and an artifact sword, does the heavy lifting, and to ensure the first fight -- and what might be the very first fight ever for a new player, isn't watching the GM rolling dice and playing against themselves while they watch as observers, the module throws in some stirges with the troll so they can participate.

Later on, once the PCs inherit an old mansion, the nearby detective is secretly a conflicted rakshasa (cr 13), keep in the mind the party is about level 3.

In the first dungeon (PCs are lvl 1, 2 at most) they encounter a named ilithid (cr 7) who could wipe them with a single action mind blast but decides to 'run away' instead!? Of course if the party happens to enter through the back of the dungeon it makes the run away plan super ackward to perform.

The party also gets to meet the current blackstaff, will each get a powerful and famous mentor, and possibly be facing a beholder crimeboss that runs skullport, the arch mage manshoon, legendary drow (cr 15), or powerful nobles (the weakest of the 4 but still a high level spellcaster).

I think the intention was to create these 'oh wow' cool moments but just as likely can make the party feel relatively impotent and unnecessary. Certainly plenty of chances for inexperienced or 'bad' GM to accidentally or purposively cockslap PCs.

[ColorBlindNinja61]

Complaining about the lady of pain is like lamenting heaven is filled with angels or it's windy in the plane of air. I don't know of any player who thought they lacked agency because they couldn't douse the plane of fire.

No, it's not. Angels have stats, they can be killed. The Lady of Pain is purposefully designed to fuck with the players. Do I need to quote the section where she infects the Independents with a deadly disease (no save), again?

EDIT: Furthermore, the Elemental Plane of Fire has rules, the PCs can protect themselves from it. The DM can't just say, "LOL, you pissed off the Elemental Plane of Fire, it kills you!"

Short of destroying sigil, bringing in a bunch of gods or a standing army of outsiders, I don't know what exactly was off limits for the city.

You mean like actually being able to rule the city instead of being President of the Anime Club? Because as written, the Lady of Pain prevents the players from doing that.

Bad GM misuses powerful NPC, news at 11.

Stop. The Lady of Pain was written to be a Penis Extension NPC. It's abysmal design that people shouldn't defend. It's not the 90s anymore. That shit in inexcusable.

[Harshax]

Do seemingly harmless NPCs with surprising hidden powers count? I’m think of a 0-level human with almost maximum psionic potential beating the shit out of players in the Lost Carverns of Tsojcanth.

[merxa]

Again, do you complain the plane of water is filled with a liquid that will drown you with no save? That literally nothing can be done to remove this liquid from the plane?

The lady of pain could just be a concept given form, it would be like arguing against the nature of causality with the cogs of Mechanus.

A DM could allow their PCs resolve these problems, DM fiat cuts both ways.

Did the 7 heavens have stats? Were there rules for collapsing Mt Celestia? Did 2nd edition stat up Moradin? Does it really matter that 3rd ed had rules for divinities?

Your hate hard on for the Lady of Pain is pretty silly, it's akin to complaining the PCs can't break the 4th wall and kill the GM, it willfully misunderstands why she exists -- plenty of people acknowledge her reason for existence could have been done differently, but it wasn't, so what, she's certainly memorable. I'm not going to judge rules written in the 90s by whatever new standard people think is the one true way now.

What evidence do you have she was written with the express purpose of cock slapping players? You have written testimony from the original designers? I vaguely recall the setting material explaining her existence was for the express purpose of explaining why sigil could remain sigil, and not be filled with gods and spill over from the bloodwar or why low level PCs could have adventures in sigil without getting enslaved the first time they ran into a chain devil.if you have any evidence beyond some bygone anecdote of some shitty game you played 20 years ago please tell us, I'm interested in reading it.

[ColorBlindNinja61]

Again, do you complain the plane of water is filled with a liquid that will drown you with no save? That literally nothing can be done to remove this liquid from the plane?

What are you talking about? You get checks to avoid drowning! You can use magic to keep yourself from drowning!

The lady of pain could just be a concept given form, it would be like arguing against the nature of casualty with the cogs of Mechanus.

The Lady of Pain is an NPC, full stop. She's not a cosmic concept, stop claiming she is.

A DM could allow their PCs resolve these problems, DM fiat cuts both ways.

Did you seriously just invoke the Oberoni Fallacy?

Did the 7 heavens have stats? Were there rules for collapsing Mt Celestia?

The Lady of Pain is not a plane of existence. Stop comparing her to them. You can wax poetics about her being a concept not a character all day long, that doesn't make it true.

Did 2nd edition stat up Moradin?

Yes, as far as I can tell.

Does it really matter that 3rd ed had rules for divinities?

Of course it does. Having stats means they can be challenged.

Your hate hard on for the Lady of Pain is pretty silly,

And your insistence of defending a blatant Mary Sue grows tiresome.

it's akin to complaining the PCs can't break the 4th wall and kill the GM,

You pretty much just admitted she's a Penis Extension NPC. This statement is very telling.

it willfully misunderstands why she exists -- plenty of people acknowledge her reason for existence could have been done differently, but it wasn't, so what, she's certainly memorable. I'm not going to judge rules written in the 90s by whatever new standard people think is the one turn way now.

Your complete contempt for player agency has been noted.

What evidence do you have she was written with the express purpose of cock slapping players? You have written testimony from the original designers? I vaguely recall the setting material explaining her existence was for the express purpose of explaining why sigil could remain sigil, and not be filled with gods and spill over from the bloodwar or why low level PCs could have adventures in sigil without getting enslaved the first time they ran into a chain devil.if you have any evidence beyond some bygone anecdote of some shitty game you played 20 years ago please tell us, I'm interested in reading it.

Since apparently you didn't read my other post, I'll quote this again.

Even today, she monitors the Free League more carefully than she does any other faction. And, amused by historian's attempts to attribute the massive Indep deaths to some sudden plague, she's created a real plague that's striking the League today. Every time an Indep PC enters Sigil, the DM must secret roll percentile dice for that character. roll of 98 or higher indicates the PC has caught the fever and will die in either ldlO days (if the percentile roll was 98 or 99) or 1d20 hours (if the percentile roll was 00). During that time, the PC remains in a feverish state, unable to fight, speak, or even think coherently. No cure or resurrection attempts will succeed outside of Tradegate; only in that Indep gate-town do they know the dark of curing the plague. (The DM's free to invent the specifics of the cuff. - Ed.)

The Lady of Pain is meant to fuck over the players. This is painfully obvious from the text.

EDIT: I think it's also worth noting that Planescape fans revel in Lady of Pain's Penis Extension NPC status.

[Thaluikhain]

Out of interest, supposing the Lady of Pain didn't randomly off people via plague, if she just sat somewhere where the PCs never saw her, but was given as the reason why Sigil is Sigil, would that be ok?

Not a great explanation of why Sigil is Sigil, but a workable one.

[ColorBlindNinja61]

Out of interest, supposing the Lady of Pain didn't randomly off people via plague, if she just sat somewhere where the PCs never saw her, but was given as the reason why Sigil is Sigil, would that be ok?

At minimum, the Lady of Pain needs stats. Preferably, she wouldn't be a fuck off epic level character, but even that would be better than, "LOL! You lose!"

[merxa]

What are you talking about? You get checks to avoid drowning! You can use magic to keep yourself from drowning!

What are you talking about? Checks only prolong not drowning, it doesn't save you from not needing to make another check to not drown. And the rules set is built to eventually force a character to fail that check. Eventually you drown, no save.

The lady of pain could just be a concept given form, it would be like arguing against the nature of casualty with the cogs of Mechanus.

The Lady of Pain is an NPC, full stop. She's not a cosmic concept, stop claiming she is.

According to setting lore no one knows who or what the lady of pain is.

A DM could allow their PCs resolve these problems, DM fiat cuts both ways.

Did you seriously just invoke the Oberoni Fallacy?

Aren't you fancy? There's no rules that state a DM must abuse an overpowered npc, insisting that happens could be said to be a corollary to the Oberoni fallacy.

Did 2nd edition stat up Moradin?

Yes, as far as I can tell.

That's news to me, please provide us the 2ed stat block.

Does it really matter that 3rd ed had rules for divinities?

Of course it does. Having stats means they can be challenged.

I question your familiarly with the rule set if that's your offhand response.

Since apparently you didn't read my other post, I'll quote this again.

Even today, she monitors the Free League more carefully than she does any other faction. And, amused by historian's attempts to attribute the massive Indep deaths to some sudden plague, she's created a real plague that's striking the League today. Every time an Indep PC enters Sigil, the DM must secret roll percentile dice for that character. roll of 98 or higher indicates the PC has caught the fever and will die in either ldlO days (if the percentile roll was 98 or 99) or 1d20 hours (if the percentile roll was 00). During that time, the PC remains in a feverish state, unable to fight, speak, or even think coherently. No cure or resurrection attempts will succeed outside of Tradegate; only in that Indep gate-town do they know the dark of curing the plague. (The DM's free to invent the specifics of the cuff. - Ed.)

The Lady of Pain is meant to fuck over the players. This is painfully obvious from the text.

EDIT: I think it's also worth noting that Planescape fans revel in Lady of Pain's Penis Extension NPC status.

Waving around some splat book from the 90s isn't a very compelling argument. Besides, there is a save as listed -- with a 3% failure rate, pretty good as far as saves go. You can also be immune by simply not being a member of the Free League. Besides even on failure there is still a means to be saved. So far that's much easier than not drowning on the plane of water.

But, i am curious, if the author attributed this plague to 'an ancient curse' would that have been any better? Would you make some claim that a curse could be undone? But no rules are written for undoing the curse therefore it must be impossible! What a crummy way of playing the game. And if a curse could be undone, why couldn't PCs change the Lady of Pains mind? Again, because there is no specific rule? Isn't that the purpose of a DM, to step in and fill in the inevitable gaps from a setting or rule system? Or is that some mythical construct, and DMs must fall apart as soon as they encounter a question that can't be answered from a quote in a book! My belief in the Oberoni Fallacy insists this must be the one true way to play d&d!

Since you keep insisting the Lady of Pain is this or that, let's just go straight to the horses mouth, the 2ed Planescape Campaign Setting, DM Guide

'Course, it'll cost a cutter a lot of
jink to pay for the job, but there's
enough money on the planes to keep
a dozen wizards in steady work.
The main reason Sigil's got
more of this work than anywhere else is because the
gods can't interfere with the business there — not at the
center of the Outlands, and not on the Lady of Pain's
turf. With nothing to prevent their hand, emigrant
dwarves, cunning tieflings, and practical humans have
all set up shop in relative safety. Relative safety, mind,
because there's always the threat of some offended god
sending a proxy to put a body in the dead-book. Plus,
there's always thieves practicing the cross-trade on lu-
crative targets.

But here is the most direct quote I found on our question:

Bluntly put, as far as a PLANESCAPE
campaign's concerned, the Lady of
Pain's little more than an icon that
crystallizes the mood of the
campaign setting. Player char-
acters should never deal with
her. She doesn't give out
missions, she never grants
powers to anyone, and they
can't rob her temples be-
cause she hasn't got any. If
she ever does make an ap-
pearance, it should be simply
to reinforce the wonder and
mystery of the whole place.
On the other hand, the Lady of
Pain, just by being there, makes all things possible.
She's the one who gets the credit for several effects
that make Sigil (and the entire PLANESCAPE campaign
setting) what it is. She's the one who makes Sigil safe
for characters of all experience levels. She's the one
who blocks the powers from Sigil. She's the one
whose influence prevents gate spells from working
and shields Sigil from the Astral Plane. She's the
one who creates the Mazes that trap Sigil's
would-be conquerors.

So there you go, that is why she exists, the author breaks the otherwise in-character dialog the books are largely written in to address the humans playing the game as well as the human running the game. But you can keep insisting on your hate hard on, and keep telling me I'm a shitty DM or accuse me of whatever else, but you're wrong about the lady of pain being an NPC whose purpose is to cockslap players, at least as originally envisioned by the original planescape creators. It's ok to be wrong, it isn't as ok to keep insisting you hold the truth in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Better luck next time.

[ColorBlindNinja61]

What are you talking about? Checks only prolong not drowning, it doesn't save you from not needing to make another check to not drown. And the rules set is built to eventually force a character to fail that check. Eventually you drown, no save.

Thank you for repeating what I said. You get checks to avoid drowning.

EDIT: And don't think I didn't notice you ignored that I said you can use magic to protect yourself from the negative effects of planes.

Aren't you fancy? There's no rules that state a DM must abuse an overpowered npc, insisting that happens could be said to be a corollary to the Oberoni fallacy.

You used a well known fallacy in an argument. Own it. No one is insisting the DM will use Penis Extension NPCs to do anything.

Did 2nd edition stat up Moradin?

Yes, as far as I can tell.

That's news to me, please provide us the 2ed stat block.

I will not, because it's irrelevant to this discussion.

Does it really matter that 3rd ed had rules for divinities?

Of course it does. Having stats means they can be challenged.

I question your familiarly with the rule set if that's your offhand response.

Your ignorance of optimization has been noted.

Waving around some splat book from the 90s isn't a very compelling argument.

And yet, all your quotes are from a book from the 90s, you hypocrite. I don't give a shit what your quotes say, they're contradicted by what the Lady of Pain actually does.

It's ok to be wrong, it isn't as ok to keep insisting you hold the truth in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Better luck next time.

Take your own advice, you dishonest asshole.

[ColorBlindNinja61]

So, we talked about the Lady of Pain and Elminster. Are there any other infamous Penis Extension NPCs in D&D?

[Foxwarrior]

The module I've been playing in recently has Iuz show up, knock the players about a bit (without a proper stat block), and then get immediately defeated by a, uh... Machina Ex Deus.

[WalkTheDinosaur]

Hi, longtime lurker. Whether the Lady of Pain is a force of nature or a bullshit metaplot NPC depends on your sources.

Lady of Pain as Force of Nature
In the original boxed set she exists to keep Sigil as neutral ground and has no other agenda. Unless you try to take over or destroy the city or actively antagonize her you never meet her. She fills the plot hole of "why isn't Sigil a territory of some god or an irradiated Blood War hellscape" and then gets out of the way.

That's also how she's presented in Torment which is most people's experience with Planescape. You go into the Mazes to meet Ravel and there's another optional dungeon where you get yourself Mazed on purpose, but the Lady of Pain doesn't have any stake in the game's plot.

Lady of Pain as Dick-Waving Bullshit
Planescape is from the 90s so it has a bunch of poorly written metaplot and railroady modules that fucked it all up. In Faction War the most stupid "controversial" module in the product line, she's the final boss and you aren't allowed to win. She starts the adventure by Mazing all the faction leaders (presumed to be the PCs' bosses) and ends the adventure by SoLing the party's DMPC escort quest in a cutscene. She directly attacks organizations the PCs probably care about and they can't do shit about it. If you haven't read it, the fact that the final confrontation involves the LoP fighting another overpowered plot character with unclear motivations while the PCs watch should give you an idea just how far up its own ass this module is.

The Factol's Manifesto and Uncaged : Faces of Sigil set up a lot of the background for Faction War and also sometimes treat the Lady of Pain as antagonist. Factol's Manifesto has this little blurb about the Lady of Pain giving magical diseases to Free League members for lulz.

Who Wrote What?
The material that presents the Lady of Pain as Planescape's invincible final boss was written by different people than the core boxed set. Core was "designed" by Zeb Cook and edited by David Wise. Those two aren't credited in Faction War, Uncaged, or Factol's Manifesto. The common thread between those books is a guy I've never heard of named Ray Vallese, so I don't know, maybe blame him. Or don't, I have no idea who said what in what design meeting.

Planescape: Torment had Chris Avellone as lead designer and writer, the extremely talented Fallout guy who can't shop for groceries without some sweaty middle-aged nerd trying to suck his dick. Seriously, right there in the canned goods aisle. It's a real problem. Anyway, whatever was going on internally at TSR he probably wasn't part of it and used the Lady of Pain the way Zeb Cook and David Wise originally presented her.

Too Long Didn't Read
The Lady of Pain in the core boxed set and Torment stays out of the way unless you try to blow up the setting or go out of your way to interact with her. She's just there to close plot holes and it's fine.

The Lady of Pain in Faction War / Factol's Manifesto is a player-disempowering Deus Ex Machina who forces the PCs to sit quietly and watch the metaplot unfold. Different writers came onto the line after release and used the Lady of Pain to blow up the setting in exactly the way she was supposed to prevent.

Faction War and the metaplot in general is bad for a lot of other reasons too. My impression is that people who like Planescape treat the original or Torment versions as canon and ignore the metaplot.[/b]