Planescape Characters

[kingcomrade]

Ha! I'd make an argument against the vice versa
Torment, though, doesn't necessarily have to be existential. Anna and Fall-From-Grace are certainly in that category, but Morte and Dak'kon aren't. Morte is present out of guilt, and Dak'kon out of honor and debt, just as Deionarra is bound out of love.

Thanks for the bit above, you articulated the characterizations well enough as I couldn't, as I've discovered a couple times when I try to detail some of the characters to people who haven't played the game.

 

[Drakron]

But he regains those memories, doesn't he. Practical, Paranoid, and Good are nothing more than his own memories of himself. Also, are you saying that if your girlfriend, or wife, were to suffer amnesia, she would no longer be your girlfriend or wife? It's a difficult question, but I think you're being too flippant with it. Even without amnesia, people do change, but that isn't the same as saying that there are two different people, one from last year and one from today.

Yes, he regains then far later but what you consider to be "self"?

Those memories were not him, TNO at that point already walked his own path and knowledge of his past actions will be viewed by the TNO from a point of view created by his actions during the game.

There is were your argument fails, self is created by decision, having a much of memories of actions were he had no decision makes him a spectator.

Burnt up into a cinder, I think Annah would mind. She and Fall-from-Grace reveal more about themselves in what they don't say than in what they do say. Notice what Annah says about Pharod when they find him in hell; he was the closest thing she ever had to family. And Grace lives with an inescapable sense of loss, for the innocence of a demon of the abyss. She lies to herself that she's over it, but there is no such thing and she knows it.

You missing the point.

She loved TNO and that is why she was with him, everything is irrelevent since THE REASON of why she was with TNO was she loved him.

Also as I pointed out the sudden raise in temperature was noticed by TNO, not her and you are "guessing" a character motivation at best with is something I dislike.

Annah motives like everyone motives are given by Ravel.

The point is that their torment is existential because it arises from their own natures at war with themselves. It has no possible answer, because they can never escape from themselves. Deionarra suffers unrequited love, but her own soul is not at war with itself. There isn't a part of herself that wants to love and another that can't; she just loves. She may suffer if TNO doesn't love her back, but that's an external conflict, not an internal one. Within herself, she is whole.

Oh please ...

WHAT FUCKING PART DONT YOU GET THAT THE FUCKING REASON WHY THEY WERE WITH TNO WAS THEY WANTED TO!

The Rune of Torment attracted people with a Torment to TNO but the bond was created by the TNO.

TNO pratical incarnation used Deionarra because she had the gift to predict the future and he knew she loved him and follow him forever, her chains to him were created by her.

Same with everyone on the game, none of this "war with itself bullshit" ... god damn I fucking HATE PS:T fanboys since they to needless created huge bullshit around the game in order to ... I dont even know WHAT!

Likely to reason why its so "deep", I read similar crap about Halo and I cannot wait for the movie to come out just to laught in their faces.

The most existential character would be the Nameless One himself. No matter what he does, it will end up badly for him. But in the end he rises above the bleakness of existentialism and learns to embrace his destiny of eternal torment, which is the ultimate victory over the futility of existence. Christ I love this game.

ARGH!

TNO makes a deal to escape the whole "fight in the blood war" deal he had and goes badly (the whole memories issue) and decides memories are too important so he destroys the immortality deal and goes to the Blood War.

Now was there any need for the "existentialism" or any reference for TNO?

Its shit like this that makes me want Atari to sell the PS to Bethsoft and then they make PS:T2 ...

 

[kingcomrade]

Did you just compare the depth of Halo to that of PS:T? And in the most immature manner you could think of?

I have another question for you. When was the last time you, on your own, picked up a book and read it?

 

[DorrieB]

Ha! I'd make an argument against the vice versa

Trust me, everyone has broken a few hearts in their time, although often they don't even notice.

Torment, though, doesn't necessarily have to be existential. Anna and Fall-From-Grace are certainly in that category, but Morte and Dak'kon aren't. Morte is present out of guilt, and Dak'kon out of honor and debt.

Dak'kon? The abstract is real to him (as it is for everyone), but literally, physically real to him, since he is githzerai. In limbo, thoughts and concepts are reality. His soul is chained by his own word, and it can't be broken without breaking his soul as well. To yearn for nothing for freedom and know that you can never be free, that's torment right there.

Morte too. Tormented by unresolved guilt that cannot be resolved.

Look at it this way. Dak'kon isn't bound by the Nameless One, he is bound by Dak'kon (he says so himself). Morte could walk away any time, but wherever he goes, he'll carry his unresolved guilt with him. You can't escape yourself. Annah could walk away, but she would still be an outcast and desperately lonely. Grace could leave, but she'd still be a fallen succubus. And what's to become of poor Nordom, I wonder?

But if Deionarra said bollocks to the Nameless One, I'm out of here, what inescapable internal conflict would she carry with her? Apart from very, very poor judgment in choosing a boyfriend, she seemed perfectly happy with herself.

 

[WouldBeCreator]

But if Deionarra said bollocks to the Nameless One, I'm out of here, what inescapable internal conflict would she carry with her? Apart from very, very poor judgment in choosing a boyfriend, she seemed perfectly happy with herself.

Maybe I'm being obtuse, but it seems like this misses the point. If Morte could really and truly say "bollocks" to TNO, he would also be out of his bind. The problem is that he could leave TNO but could never *leave* him. Deionarra has no more control over her love for TNO than Morte has over his guilt or Dak'kon has over his honor. Each character is bound to TNO by a strong emotion, and in that sense it is their *selves* that they are fighting. I don't see why a bond of love isn't any more an aspect of one's self than a bond of honor or of guilt.

In fairness, in Dak'kon's case you're making an argument that he would literally be destroyed by forsaking TNO. But, (A) that makes this a practical, not an existential bond, and (B) it's not clear to me that the same isn't true of Deionarra, whose connection to the world of the living is TNO. If she stopped loving him, she would cease to exist, although there might be some afterlife waiting for her. (It's unclear to me how afterlife works in Planescape, since you can move between the planes during life and the afterlife seems just to be another plane. But in any event, Deionarra as a woman would cease to exist and she'd become a lemure, or something.)

 

[kingcomrade]

I didn't get that part of Dak'kon's githzerai-ness, though now that I think about it it makes more sense. It does fit into Planescape's subjective reality motif.

What's the difference between guilt and love? Deionarra's love will go forever unrequited (I would think it eternal love, especially considering she loved him even after death). I don't know if she chose to love TNO, if that even matters. If she just decided to up and leave, she would have to live with the idea that she could never have her love returned from the man of her dreams (or something like that). Not only that, but she couldn't just up and leave. TNO wasn't just her choice of a boyfriend or something so banal. At least, I don't think it was meant to be.

 

[kingcomrade]

Creator- She was permanantly bound to the Fortress of Sorrows because she died there in one of TNO's previous lives. You remember how one of the characters mentions that every time TNO should've died, someone else dies in his place and their shadow (spirit) goes to the Fortress of Sorrows (or is released to come hunt him down)?

 

[Drakron]

Did you just compare the depth of Halo to that of PS:T? And in the most immature manner you could think of?

I have another question for you. When was the last time you, on your own, picked up a book and read it?

1) No, I just pointed that fanboys tend to see more that what is actually in the game ... go to a Halo fanboy and he going to start to babble how great the story is at some point despite being a "OMG, SUPERWEAPON IS GOING TO DESTROY THE UNIVERSE!!!".

It irritates me, most stories are simply but fans will obsese over the game and start to see things that were not intended and can only be seen by extreme analize and connection of rather week points.

That is why movie adaptations of games will invariable fail, if they stick to the game they have to cover all the nut theories that the obsesive fanbase come up and if they dont they will be acused by the fans of not being "faithful".

That is why I used Halo, its story is standart drivel but you are going to find fanboys saying it have a great story.

2) Last was a collection H.P. Lovercraft stories, several months ago.

 

[WouldBeCreator]

Creator- She was permanantly bound to the Fortress of Sorrows because she died there in one of TNO's previous lives. You remember how one of the characters mentions that every time TNO should've died, someone else dies in his place and their shadow (spirit) goes to the Fortress of Sorrows (or is released to come hunt him down)?

Despite playing the game through a couple of times, I can't remember it that vividly, so I'll just take your word for it. But isn't she in the crypt of the Dustmen area, not in the FoS? (Granted, the Crypt is close to the Door to the FoS, but still . . . .)

obsese

That's the perfect word for what fanboys do, since it combines both their physique and their attitude!

 

[kingcomrade]

@Drakron- I asked that last question because PS:T is as much of a novel or story as a game. Have you never done any literary analysis? Video games are perfectly capable of being deep, and even if there are nuances that were unintended by the authors, they're still fun to explore, and acceptable if you abstract the game into it's own little bubble.

 

[Drakron]

. (It's unclear to me how afterlife works in Planescape, since you can move between the planes during life and the afterlife seems just to be another plane. But in any event, Deionarra as a woman would cease to exist and she'd become a lemure, or something.)

Err ... the planes ARE the afterlive, people that are LG get send to a LG plane as people who are CE get stuff on a CE plane.

Of course what happens when a planar dies is ... I think they either get reborn in the Prime plane (and repeat the circle) or they merge with the plane eventually reborn as a planar at some point.

 

[kingcomrade]

But isn't she in the crypt of the Dustmen area, not in the FoS?

Well yeah, she isn't physically bound to the Fortress of Sorrows. Neither are the shadows. They hunted him down in that alleyway-with-a-face, didn't they? But that's where they hide and languish, along with his mortality, as well as their initial destination when they die in TNO's place.

 

[DorrieB]

self is created by decision, having a much of memories of actions were he had no decision makes him a spectator.

So, those decisions you made a few years back, when you didn't know any better, are you saying that wasn't you?

Same with everyone on the game, none of this "war with itself bullshit" ... god damn I fucking HATE PS:T fanboys since they to needless created huge bullshit around the game in order to ... I dont even know WHAT!

My own fault, for talking above your head. Sorry.

 

[WouldBeCreator]

But isn't she in the crypt of the Dustmen area, not in the FoS?

Well yeah, she isn't physically bound to the Fortress of Sorrows. Neither are the shadows. They hunted him down in that alleyway-with-a-face, didn't they? But that's where they hide and languish, along with his mortality, as well as their initial destination when they die in TNO's place.

As I say, I'm not trying to argue with you, I just don't remember it that well and I was thrown off by your statement "their shadow (spirit) goes to the Fortress of Sorrows (or is released to come hunt him down)." Since D was neither hunting nor in the FoS, I wondered if she was in some third category. But this is totally tangential and is just a fact question, and I'm sure you're right on the facts, so no need to belabor it further.

 

[kingcomrade]

Well, my post comes off as more combatative than I meant, but the shades are basically just 1d characters (they died in TNO's place and hate him for it, which is why they try to hunt him down), not just mindless monsters.

I'm not sure about Deionarra. She didn't die in his place, at least in the literal sense. I'm not quite sure how the system was supposed to work, but it could be that she DID die in his place and that the system is a bit more abstract (e.g. a person doesn't just keel over when TNO is killed). I do know she died in the Fortress of Sorrows with TNO in one of his earlier lives when he was ambushed by his either his mortality or one of the shades. Or Ignus. I don't remember which.

 

[DorrieB]

Maybe I'm being obtuse, but it seems like this misses the point. If Morte could really and truly say "bollocks" to TNO, he would also be out of his bind. The problem is that he could leave TNO but could never *leave* him. Deionarra has no more control over her love for TNO than Morte has over his guilt or Dak'kon has over his honor. Each character is bound to TNO by a strong emotion, and in that sense it is their *selves* that they are fighting. I don't see why a bond of love isn't any more an aspect of one's self than a bond of honor or of guilt.

Fair point. I suppose it comes down to how you personally fill in the blanks. I see Dak'kon's, Annah's, Grace's, and Morte's suffering as fundamental to their being, and Deionarra's as incidental to hers.

And Deionarra becoming a lemure? You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[Drakron]

So, those decisions you made a few years back, when you didn't know any better, are you saying that wasn't you?

You dont get it?

MY choices dictated the kind of person that I am ... bot the good and the bad ones, you choices is what makes YOU.

If I take over your body and go around doing things for a year and you are aware of my actions but have no control over the does it makes then your actions?

 

[DorrieB]

You dont get it?

MY choices dictated the kind of person that I am ... bot the good and the bad ones, you choices is what makes YOU.

If I take over your body and go around doing things for a year and you are aware of my actions but have no control over the does it makes then your actions?

One of us just isn't clever enough to understand the other one. Who took over whose body? When? Wasn't that 'Being John Malkovich'?

 

[WouldBeCreator]

(1) I always viewed Deionarra as one of the most tragic characters in the game, bound hopelessly to love someone whom she knew despised and would betray her. Dak'kon is perhaps more tragic, and TNO possibly the most. I never found Morte or Grace or Annah particularly heart-wrenching, though they of course had their torments, too. Of course, how tragic their fate was doesn't equate with how existential it was, but I guess it's hard for me to separate the two.

(2) As for this side debating you're having, I kind of agree that it's hard to say that "I" did something when it occured without my volition. TNO's case isn't quite like a normal person -- whose personality of course changes over time -- because he has clear and distinct breaks between selves. The whole problem with most people is the Ship of Theseus (?) issue: where does the old self end and the new one begin? But with TNO, it's clear that the self you're playing never did the prior acts. That personality didn't do them, he has no memory of them, etc. Of course, there's apparently a continuous soul, but disregarding that, it's like saying that "I hate Windows XP because it always crashed my system when it was called Windows 3.1." There are good reason to hate XP, but don't blame it for 3.1 . . . .

 

[DorrieB]

(1) I always viewed Deionarra as one of the most tragic characters in the game, bound hopelessly to love someone whom she knew despised and would betray her. Dak'kon is perhaps more tragic, and TNO possibly the most. I never found Morte or Grace or Annah particularly heart-wrenching, though they of course had their torments, too. Of course, how tragic their fate was doesn't equate with how existential it was, but I guess it's hard for me to separate the two.

Tragic and heartwrenching sure. I cried with Deionarra. I've said so and I'll say it again: I can't play this game without a box of kleenex to go with it. Grace, and Annah, and Morte, too.

(2) As for this side debating you're having, I kind of agree that it's hard to say that "I" did something when it occured without my volition. TNO's case isn't quite like a normal person -- whose personality of course changes over time -- because he has clear and distinct breaks between selves. The whole problem with most people is the Ship of Theseus (?) issue: where does the old self end and the new one begin?

That's the question, isn't it? Is there a part of you that will always be you, regardless of how much you may change? If you change and become a new person, what happened to the old person? And what do you say to the people you hurt, 'That was the old me, this is the new me; no relation'?

The first example still stands. If your wife or girlfriend were to suffer amnesia, and her personality changed as a result, would you still be in love with the same woman? Or would you consider that your love was dead, and this new woman was a complete stranger? It's not an easy one to answer, but it happens to be exactly Deionarra's situation. So what do you think?

 

[roguefrog]

So...

What can change the nature of a man?

 

[LCJr.]

Beer, lots of it.

 

[undertaker]

existential reading... hmmmm.....

I feel that the game is more about existential torment, which is a soul in an impossible conflict with itself from which there is no way out.... The point is that their torment is existential because it arises from their own natures at war with themselves..

Let's not get carried away. An existential torment has little to do with the sort of drama in this game, though your interpretation is actually rather insightful. I would say that an existential torment arises when one's BEING (one's personal purpose if you will) is at conflict with the external world, not one's personality - as is the case of the followers in this game. The Nameless One's party, seems to be in a quest for a change in identity (to solve them being "at war with themselves") but they're not on an impossible quest for metaphysical reconciliation, as is the existentialists' case.

The most existential character would be the Nameless One himself. No matter what he does, it will end up badly for him. But in the end he rises above the bleakness of existentialism and learns to embrace his destiny of eternal torment, which is the ultimate victory over the futility of existence. Christ I love this game.

Hmmm... a valid reading, though the metaphors at work here seems a little stretched, I am utterly fascinated you actually tried a philosophical approach to a computer game (of all places!).

In a well defined world like Dungeons and Dragons, where the whole cosmology has been outlined, it is usually impossible for an existential situation to occur. In PST, however, the idea of True Death changes this. To the Nameless One, True Death has been denied and the meaning, the ESSENCE of his life, has been rendered empty. His lingering existence between life and death (Sigil being sort of like a purgatory area - and the Nameless One borned in a literal place of death, the mortuary) metaphorically reflects his existential situation. Memories, identities and the physical body (all those scars) dwindles and decays like the characters of Samuel Beckett. There is a prevalent theme of love, perhaps reflecting Schopenhauer's Will to Live, yet torment seems to accompany this love.

The game is focussed on his quest for lost memories and identities, which seem more personal and psychological even, yet it seems to echo our existential situation. In many ways, the Nameless One's torment is ours. His journey - to findout who he is, what his situation is and what he is to do with this situation - is an existential/spiritual journey that many of us has experienced.

Yet the journey is not about the changing of his situation. Whether the Nameless One embraces his former identities or not, whether he has enough wisdom points to merge with the Transcendent One or not, he will always be denied True Death. But the journey is about coming to terms with the given situation. At the end, he changes himself (either by killing his pasts, Nietzsche style, or merging with it like Jaspers theistic existentialism) and accepts the futility of his situation. His situation has not changed, just as our existential situation has not, but there is a tone of triumph - the torment may still be there, but its hold over the Nameless One seems to have been conquered. (Nihilism may be there but its hold over the Ubermensch conquered!)

Intellectually, it might not make that much sense, the game isn't a perfect literary metaphor for the human situation really, it focusses too much on the identity crisis issues - eg. what changes the nature of a man - regret - bah, obviously! But I think DorrieB makes a cogent point in recognizing that the main theme of torment is, in many ways, reflective of the existential crisis that many of us, philosophers or not, has experienced at one time or another. This, I think, makes playing PST such a rewarding experience.

Haha, hope you enjoyed the big ramble from no name poster!

 

[undertaker]

re

That's the question, isn't it? Is there a part of you that will always be you, regardless of how much you may change? If you change and become a new person, what happened to the old person? And what do you say to the people you hurt, 'That was the old me, this is the new me; no relation'?

The first example still stands. If your wife or girlfriend were to suffer amnesia, and her personality changed as a result, would you still be in love with the same woman? Or would you consider that your love was dead, and this new woman was a complete stranger? It's not an easy one to answer, but it happens to be exactly Deionarra's situation. So what do you think?

This is not just amnesia, the Nameless One suffers a radical change in and identity (the game calls it the nature of a man). If your loved ones suffer amnesia, he or she may suffer from loss of long term memory but not their nature, which is a mixture of everything from genetic inheritance to diet to the way he/she had been brought up. A change in the nature of a person will most likely change how you love him/her, if not instantly then over time.[/i]

 

[DorrieB]

Okay, I admit I got a bit away from myself and stretched my own interpretation into funny shapes. But to continue doing it: I'd argue that their impasse is metaphysical, because these are characters faced with eternity, their existence bound within a cage (only, instead of no exit, it has infinite exits, and yet is still a cage). In terms of the story, I don't think they can ever change their identity, hence their conflict is unsurmountable.

Meanwhile, the Nameless One is caught in the torment of Eternal Recurrence (as is everyone, only in his case it's very obvious). My own feeling is that the characters of Camus, Sartre, and Beckett could only despair when faced with this situation, but the Nameless One achieves a sort of amor fati and *transcends* the unsurmountable problem, and possibly shows the others the only possible answer to their own torment.

Cheers for coming to my aid with your evidently impressive knowledge, by the way. I am personally way out on a limb here, myself. But you do see the relevance, don't you? I'm not completely mad, am I?

Haha, hope you enjoyed the big ramble from no name poster!

No, let's have more of this, please! This is the stuff.