Planescape: Torment Ending

[Clowndoe]

On Planescape's ending...very similar thematically to Bioshock Infinite, to the point where I suspect the latter was heavily informed by the former. I'll never understand why Infinite's ending was controversial and reviled in some quarters while Planescape's was universally beloved, but I suspect it's some combination of http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ItsPopularNowItSucks and the fact a distressing number of people still seem to believe the game was a screed on racism and/or a rigorously scientific demonstration of quantum mechanics in action.

The themes are similar but that's not the problem as far as I know. The reason I had a problem with Bioshock's ending was a lack of internal consistency, e.g. killing yourself to prevent a section of futures from happening is fine, but isn't it implied that in half of the universes you would refuse to kill yourself, thus making the act moot? Among other things.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Making that leap and deciding on your class seems like such a commitment in baldur's gate that I'm almost too scared to make it.

In WoW or similar games I just solved it by having a ton of characters of varying classes. But you can't really do this in Baldur's Gate, unless you make your whole party, but then you miss out on a large part of the game - recruiting teammates and the interactions they lead to.

Typically I'd play fighters when I was little, nowadays it's definitely more towards mages/sorcerers. I think I will be bored if I choose anything else!

Maybe I could dual-class it?!???

You still have the opportunity to play with the other classes via your party members, and there's some good casters in the mix to be had. Clerics have a lot of casting power of their own, and their anti-undead abilities are gold. Of course you can go any way you want...you can't really gimp yourself...so long as you're prepared to commit a party slot to bringing Anomen along and tolerating his personality, and/or running a completely evil party so you can have Viconia. Aerie is a split class Cleric, but I found her insufficient to the task of attending to the party's Clerical needs all on her own.

The themes are similar but that's not the problem as far as I know. The reason I had a problem with Bioshock's ending was a lack of internal consistency, e.g. killing yourself to prevent a section of futures from happening is fine, but isn't it implied that in half of the universes you would refuse to kill yourself, thus making the act moot? Among other things.

The Quantum Mechanics angle was always fuzzy, with Elizabeth representing an enormous deus ex machina element that makes any kind of elaborate jigsaw plotting rather pointless. The game was thematically consistent. I think it set out to tell an emotional/personal story, and largely succeeded.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

I dunno how I feel about new characters though, do they fit in well enough?

It is hit and miss. Most of them don't provide anything unique to the experience. The only exception is Neela who is a wild mage (a kit you could also choose). Basically she gets improved spells per day like a specialist mage but has some chance of something going wrong with the spell - going wrong could, in this case, be beneficial (making your spell play out as though you were a much more powerful mage) or harmful (it could kill you). Those drawbacks are reduced over time making her unreliable early on and a powerhouse late into BG2.

All told, they all could be left at the wayside as the cast between BG1 and 2 was fairly complete already giving you access to just about any type of character you'd want to have. Having a blackguard is nice if you want to build an evil party and some of the party interactions are fun. In some cases, Beamdog built characters poorly. I can't tell you the example directly but suffice it to say that the way one of the NPCs comes to join your party doesn't make much sense regardless of your alignment.

I want the continued storyline of having one character through bg1 and 2 as well, so I need to replay bg1 to get this. I remember the dwarf fighter I made when I was little had like max charisma, low strength and all kinds of terrible stats. He was definitely not a force to be reckoned with!...

If nothing else it makes the transition progress much simpler as there are lots of kits you might want to use in BG2 that weren't naturally available in the first game. I personally didn't have any problems running either out of the box. Also, take heart that a great many of the mods that added content to the game still work in the Enhanced Editions. My personal favorite is the one that lets you skip that dreadful first dungeon in BG2.

There are also a handful of improvements to the UI but for the most part it stays true to the clumsy Infinity Engine interface you (may) have grown to love.

 

[Artea]

Planescape Torment's ending is simple but extremely effective. The Transcendent One is a part of you, your mortality that has taken on a life of its own. By killing your mortality, you literally end your life. Better is to merge with it, and regain your mortality and your identity. Unfortunately, that also means the forces that govern the afterlife can finally track you. And you go to hell. Merging with the Transcendent One is the best option (if you can do it), since it gives you enough power to stave off those forces just long enough to resurrect your companions and say goodbye.

The irony is that the reason the Nameless One sought immortality in the first place was to have enough time to right his wrongs so that he wouldn't go to hell. But because of his immortality and the memory loss that came with, he ended up committing even more crimes and every time he died and came back to life, it also took someone else's life. Finally going to hell and accepting punishment was - ironically - the way he was released from his torment.

 

[Ubiquitous Duck]

I dunno how I feel about new characters though, do they fit in well enough?

It is hit and miss. Most of them don't provide anything unique to the experience. The only exception is Neela who is a wild mage (a kit you could also choose). Basically she gets improved spells per day like a specialist mage but has some chance of something going wrong with the spell - going wrong could, in this case, be beneficial (making your spell play out as though you were a much more powerful mage) or harmful (it could kill you). Those drawbacks are reduced over time making her unreliable early on and a powerhouse late into BG2.

All told, they all could be left at the wayside as the cast between BG1 and 2 was fairly complete already giving you access to just about any type of character you'd want to have. Having a blackguard is nice if you want to build an evil party and some of the party interactions are fun. In some cases, Beamdog built characters poorly. I can't tell you the example directly but suffice it to say that the way one of the NPCs comes to join your party doesn't make much sense regardless of your alignment.

I want the continued storyline of having one character through bg1 and 2 as well, so I need to replay bg1 to get this. I remember the dwarf fighter I made when I was little had like max charisma, low strength and all kinds of terrible stats. He was definitely not a force to be reckoned with!...

If nothing else it makes the transition progress much simpler as there are lots of kits you might want to use in BG2 that weren't naturally available in the first game. I personally didn't have any problems running either out of the box. Also, take heart that a great many of the mods that added content to the game still work in the Enhanced Editions. My personal favorite is the one that lets you skip that dreadful first dungeon in BG2.

There are also a handful of improvements to the UI but for the most part it stays true to the clumsy Infinity Engine interface you (may) have grown to love.

That was the aspect of wild mages that always made me kind of turn away from them, the chance of exploding. It reminded me of using mages in Warhammer and necessarily your best guy would blow his head off in turn one, so I stayed away. If playing hardcore I wouldn't like one of my team to be wild, but I guess you'd just reload if you died yourself!

I thought the character list was plenty enough in BG1 & BG2 and I was often drawn to the character as to whether they'd be in my team or not. I didn't always take the necessarily 'best' people. When I was little, I chose little people, so my team was only halflings, gnomes, dwarfs. Dunno why, but it was apparently my thing.

I imagine it would be hard to introduce new characters that wouldn't stick out like a sore thumb, but there are some of the originals that I'm sure I've never met and I never made a team of 'evil'.

I can't say that I ever used mods on it before. Just not something I've looked into at all. I have done that first dungeon in BG2 far too many times, as I have a problem with making new characters, rather than continuing with one guy. So I always get put off when trying to get back into BG2, as I remember I have to do that first dungeon I've done countless times.

I don't know if I 'loved' the UI, but I think the nostalgia kick-in will need it to be prompted properly!

First I have endeavoured to complete Planescape though and have spent over 2 hours in the mortuary poking zombies and pulling apart skeletons. Think I need to take a week off work and blitz these games hardcore, being able to play 1-2 hours at a time is just painful! I need the free time of a kid again.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

I imagine it would be hard to introduce new characters that wouldn't stick out like a sore thumb, but there are some of the originals that I'm sure I've never met and I never made a team of 'evil'.

The only evil character I'd ever hang out with was Viconia and she doesn't actually act evil. One of the new evil characters is in more or less the same boat - the game claim neutral evil when all evil she does is in the simple name of self-preservation.

I have done that first dungeon in BG2 far too many times, as I have a problem with making new characters, rather than continuing with one guy. So I always get put off when trying to get back into BG2, as I remember I have to do that first dungeon I've done countless times.

I can probably find the exact mod again but the one I used basically alters (and shortens) that opening cutscene of being tortured and places a new NPC in the dungeon who will take you all the way to the end and will give you options on exactly how you want to skip things. It also collects the loot and dumps it in your inventory (and on the floor) - at least the loot worth taking (so you don't have 15 bows and 25 short swords worth a collective 100 gold).

Think I need to take a week off work and blitz these games hardcore, being able to play 1-2 hours at a time is just painful! I need the free time of a kid again.

I've been trying to play through Fallout 2 again which is similar. The minimalist interface really works against that game because it hides literally every special action behind a context menu or in the "Skills" button. Considering how many times you might have to spam a skill before it works, having to click three times just to make an attempt gets tedious.

 

[nuttshell]

Did Baldur's Gate enhanced edition bring the rules and classes of bg2 into bg1 or does it have the limited listing as it always did?

I think I'm going to buy it regardless...

I don't know about BG2:EE but BG1:EE was exceptionally poor. Just buy both old games on GoG and install them along the Big World Mod - http://www.shsforums.net/files/category/72-big-world-project/
If you are feeling unsecure about mods, read this: http://www.gog.com/forum/baldurs_gate_series/my_bg_bg_ii_big_world_and_mod_installation

What BWP does is essentially merge BG1 and 2 and BG1 will use assets, UI, classes, mechanics, effects, some sounds, some interiours etc. from BG2 if they are better and you leave the installation on default. You can also install many more mods with the BWP, like additional characters or quests (make sure to check out "Unfinished Buisiness" - unfinished original quests from bioware, finished by fans).

My tip on classes: Play fighter till lvl 7 then dual to Mage.
Also: Viconia is a great priest in BG2 with a Girdle of Frost Giants Strength and later Crom Faer. You will want Edwin in your party too. (both evil)

You can import savegames from BG1 to BG2 even without the BWP mod.

Edit: I don't know how people can even compare Bioshock: Infinite to Planescape: Torment aside from the minute similarities in their names.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Edit: I don't know how people can even compare Bioshock: Infinite to Planescape: Torment aside from the minute similarities in their names.

And the enormous similarities in their primary themes? Both are meditations on the karmic fallout of violence and the eventual redemption of the protagonist through an act of self-sacrifice.

 

[Terminal Blue]

My main question(s) is around the ending of the game. I have a really fractured memory of it, but I remember there was a very brief cutscene where The Nameless One picks up his weapon and walks towards his fate in hell/purgatory/however you see the realm/plane he is in.

It's the Blood War. The endless war between the two (well, technically three) races of fiends in D&D which was a major focus of the Planescape setting.

Basically, when the nameless one was still mortal he committed some unforgivable crime which ensured he would end up in hell. His fate was always to end up on the lower planes being used as cannon fodder in the Blood War. In fact, avoiding this fate was the reason he sought to become immortal in the first place. With his mortality restored, his fate is now due.

The ending is deliberately ambiguous though. While the endless one's fate is grim enough that he was willing to break the order of nature and condemn hundreds if not thousands of people to eternal torment just to avoid it, D&D (and Planescape in particular) is full of strangeness and the nameless one is quite an exceptional person for having lived so many lifetimes. So while I would say it's a fairly bittersweet ending about acceptance, there's room for disagreement.

 

[Yozozo]

Edit: I don't know how people can even compare Bioshock: Infinite to Planescape: Torment aside from the minute similarities in their names.

And the enormous similarities in their primary themes? Both are meditations on the karmic fallout of violence and the eventual redemption of the protagonist through an act of self-sacrifice.

Not to sound too much like Vaihlor, TNO is *not* redeemed yet at the end of the game. If he kills the Trancendent One, he is trying to avoid his fate, as with willing himself out of existence.

Choosing to merge with TTO on the other hand, and being dragged into the Blood War, that is when TNO has the opportunity to actually redeem himself, it is the start of his redemption. Until then, everything you do is really just stopping the Trancendent One... stopping himself. He is the cause of (and solution to) most of the problems in the game, including the issues half your NPC companions have!

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Not to sound too much like Vaihlor, TNO is *not* redeemed yet at the end of the game. If he kills the Trancendent One, he is trying to avoid his fate, as with willing himself out of existence.

Choosing to merge with TTO on the other hand, and being dragged into the Blood War, that is when TNO has the opportunity to actually redeem himself, it is the start of his redemption. Until then, everything you do is really just stopping the Trancendent One... stopping himself. He is the cause of (and solution to) most of the problems in the game, including the issues half your NPC companions have!

Fair enough, although we're picking nits. The point I was trying to make is that both games are about interrupting a cycle of violence and tragedy that stems from the protagonist. Neither is fully aware of this until the end of the game, at which point they are offered an opportunity to remedy their sins.

 

[nuttshell]

Both are meditations on the karmic fallout of violence and the eventual redemption of the protagonist through an act of self-sacrifice.

That description is too poetic for B:I; too specific, because P:T has much more to offer and too general to be of any real importance - you could also say: both can be played with a mouse and a keyboard.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

That description is too poetic for B:I; too specific, because P:T has much more to offer and too general to be of any real importance - you could also say: both can be played with a mouse and a keyboard.

Um, no, those two statements aren't remotely analogous at all.

From the tenor of your responses, I'm getting the impression you just don't LIKE Bioshock Infinite, and are therefore galled to see it placed beside an avowed classic such as Planescape Torment. That's unfortunate, but it doesn't change the fact that the two games have identical central themes. Perhaps you think all central themes are interchangeable, and no different than clicking a mouse or changing a channel or flipping the pages in a book. That would certainly be a daring form of artistic critique, and flying in the face of convention worked out for Armond White.

 

[nuttshell]

Um, no, those two statements aren't remotely analogous at all.

From the tenor of your responses, I'm getting the impression you just don't LIKE Bioshock Infinite, and are therefore galled to see it placed beside an avowed classic such as Planescape Torment. That's unfortunate, but it doesn't change the fact that the two games have identical central themes. Perhaps you think all central themes are interchangeable, and no different than clicking a mouse or changing a channel or flipping the pages in a book. That would certainly be a daring form of artistic critique, and flying in the face of convention worked out for Armond White.

Do you even remember P:T? The ammount of stories without plotholes, it could tell? The ammount of characters that were strange and weird because they were otherworldly but consistent and believable? Booker catch!
You can like B:I all you want. You should probably replay P:T if you forgot so much. The two games are worlds apart. Them sharing a few abstract ideas is completely irrelevant.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Do you even remember P:T? The ammount of stories without plotholes, it could tell? The ammount of characters that were strange and weird because they were otherworldly but consistent and believable? Booker catch!
You can like B:I all you want. You should probably replay P:T if you forgot so much. The two games are worlds apart. Them sharing a few abstract ideas is completely irrelevant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theme_(narrative)

I've personally never really considered "what a story is about" to be an "irrelevant or abstract idea" when it comes to enjoying that story. It's possible you consider "the ammount of characters" or "characters that were strange and weird" to be the sole measure of a story's quality. If so, then we are just talking past one another.

I remember Planescape: Torment quite well, as it ranks high amongst my favorite RPGs of all time, so I'm not quite sure it's ready for a replay yet. I appreciate the suggestion though.

 

[nuttshell]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theme_(narrative)

I've personally never really considered "what a story is about" to be an "irrelevant or abstract idea" when it comes to enjoying that story. It's possible you consider "the ammount of characters" or "characters that were strange and weird" to be the sole measure of a story's quality. If so, then we are just talking past one another.

I remember Planescape: Torment quite well, as it ranks high amongst my favorite RPGs of all time, so I'm not quite sure it's ready for a replay yet. I appreciate the suggestion though.

The wiki article is about literal studies. We are talking about games, allthough B:I wants to be a movie very hard. Yes, the wiki article can be applied to movies and games too, however I stand by my notion that the similarity in main themes of these two games is irrelevant. P:T has more themes, more characters, player agency and it did all those well, while B:I fucked it up. P:T is the best RPG I have ever played because it matters, from beginning to end, how I roleplay my character. In B:I I have to playwatch a moron, listen to characters who show no signs of psychosis or mental retardation even though their actions say otherwise when the plot has to move on so I get to see the next nice looking fighting arena.
I was promised a good story and good characters in B:I and what I got was very underwhelming. I think it can be enjoyed for what it is - a somewhat exciting rollercoaster ride but praising it for it's scared hints at themes that deserve mature exploration as if that's "what it's all about"?

 

[BloatedGuppy]

The wiki article is about literal studies. We are talking about games, allthough B:I wants to be a movie very hard. Yes, the wiki article can be applied to movies and games too, however I stand by my notion that the similarity in main themes of these two games is irrelevant. P:T has more themes, more characters, player agency and it did all those well, while B:I fucked it up. P:T is the best RPG I have ever played because it matters, from beginning to end, how I roleplay my character. In B:I I have to playwatch a moron, listen to characters who show no signs of psychosis or mental retardation even though their actions say otherwise when the plot has to move on so I get to see the next nice looking fighting arena.
I was promised a good story and good characters in B:I and what I got was very underwhelming. I think it can be enjoyed for what it is - a somewhat exciting rollercoaster ride but praising it for it's scared hints at themes that deserve mature exploration as if that's "what it's all about"?

If it pleases you to pretend the two games are nothing alike because you like one and dislike the other that is certainly your prerogative. This is, after all, a forum where people regularly attempt to argue that games they dislike aren't even games. I suppose one of the most straightforward solutions to a state of cognitive dissonance is just to ignore facts.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

My main question(s) is around the ending of the game. I have a really fractured memory of it, but I remember there was a very brief cutscene where The Nameless One picks up his weapon and walks towards his fate in hell/purgatory/however you see the realm/plane he is in.

What is your interpretation of the end of this game and what ending did you get?

First off, it helps if you have a working knowledge of the Dungeons and Dragons campaign setting known as "Planescape" - the world in which Planescape: Torment is set.

One of the important aspects of Planescape is the "Blood War". The Blood War is an eternal war in the planes fought between Devils (Lawful Evil) and Demons (Chaotic Evil). In Planescape, these forces never work together - they hate one another and wish to utterly destroy one another. This is one reason why evil never really gets organized and launches an attack on, say, the Heavens (the good aligned planes).

The Blood War is generally not fought in either Hell (Devil land) or the Abyss (Demon country) but rather in one of the planes in between (Carceri, The Gray Wastes, or Gehenna). The Gray Wastes (aka the land of Neutral Evil) is nothing BUT a battlefield, and the native outsiders (Demodands) are mercenaries that work for either side.

The Nameless One (in the final cut scene) arrives in the Gray Wastes and joins the Blood War (for which side, we don't know - likely whichever alignment (Lawful or Chaotic) you played as).

Being dumped into the Gray Wastes as a soldier for the Blood War is often the fate of a neutral evil soul in Planescape. The Nameless One looks pleased about this because it means he is finally being treated as "normal" - he died and went to hell rather than being reborn again. And he's fine with that.

So yeah... not really a lot to interpret there if you are familiar with the setting beyond the video game. It's all pretty straight forward - well, except for which side he joins and the exact meaning of his smile.

 

[nuttshell]

If it pleases you to pretend the two games are nothing alike because you like one and dislike the other that is certainly your prerogative. This is, after all, a forum where people regularly attempt to argue that games they dislike aren't even games. I suppose one of the most straightforward solutions to a state of cognitive dissonance is just to ignore facts.

If it pleases you to pretend that both games are alike because you like both that is certainly your prerogative. This is, after all, a forum where people regularly attempt to argue that games they like have redeeming qualities. I suppose one of the most straightforward solutions to a state of cognitive dissonance is just to ignore facts.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

If it pleases you to pretend that both games are alike because you like both that is certainly your prerogative. This is, after all, a forum where people regularly attempt to argue that games they like have redeeming qualities. I suppose one of the most straightforward solutions to a state of cognitive dissonance is just to ignore facts.

No, I'm just capable of identifying central themes, and can recognize when two are identical. It doesn't require any imagination on my part. Just knowing what a "theme" is and not being motivated to pretend they don't exist for the purposes of arguing on the internet is sufficient.

PS: Do you find this "repeat someone's argument with words slightly altered" routine invigorating? If you're out of energy or will to debate the topic that's fine, but if I wanted to discuss something with myself there are more expedient ways for me to do that.