RPGWatch Forums - View Single Post - Planescape: Torment ending questions (MASSIVE SPOILERS)
View Single Post


April 2nd, 2013, 15:24
Thanks for the rather indepth exlanation, I'll try to stick to the Torment-related themes to keep this on-topic. I appreciate however the breadth of info (wasn't even familiar with the concept of dharmic religions) provided.

So I thought TNO's ending was just that. Awakening to his true self. Until then, through all his lifetimes, he had been attempting to either escape or overcome his karma. He made an about-face and embraced it instead. And at that instant he was liberated.

I don't think he physically ceased to exist at that moment; we did see him still alive and kicking, in a manner of speaking, in the final cinematic. But in Buddhist terms, that would be his final lifetime, and when the clock would eventually run out on him and it would, whether it would take a day, a year, a century, or an aeon he would be free from the wheel of rebirth.

(Some Buddhists believe that after awakening you stop creating new karma, but you still have to work off the karma you had accumulated before awakening. That's another way of seeing why TNO had to do as he did at the ending.)
What I still have trouble pinpointing is the moment/incident that caused the awakening. As far as I'm concerned the moment that would cause one was his unification with his past incarnations and most importantly the 1st one. Indeed after that happened my TNO changed-improved yet still remained very much the one I was roleplaying and I kept control of his actions/thoughts. The merging with his mortality was a much more "physical" event (at least according to the dialogue between TNO & TTO) that, to me, looked like it resulted in a take-over/acceptance rather than an awakening.

On some Buddhism related questions, again I'll be mostly digging for information rather than arguing:
Originally Posted by Prime Junta View Post
In traditional Buddhism, there's nothing particularly special about death. The thing you call "you" has no intrinsic existence; it's just a stream of moments of consciousness which gives the illusion of continuity, much like a movie consisting of still frames projected in quick succession gives the illusion of motion. This stream is constantly transforming, and can also stop. A hard blow to the head will do that, for example. If it's not hard enough to kill you, it will eventually resume, and because it's drawing from a pool of memories and habits it gives the illusion of being the "same" stream that was interrupted before you got hit on the head.
So what do those memories and habits anchor on if the stream of consciousness is independent?
Sin, however, is IMO the wrong lens with which to look at the game. The crucial difference between sin and karma is that sin involves transgression against universal or divine laws, and imply a judge and punishment (or forgiveness, in the case of Christianity). Something external to you that sees, judges, and punishes or forgives IOW. You can't really have sin without a judge and/or a redeemer.

Karma, however, is entirely impersonal. Suppose you take a really heavy rock, aim carefully, and drop it on your big toe. The result will be intense pain. You do not need a judge sentencing you to that pain, nor an executioner to inflict that pain, nor can any external redeemer free you from that pain. Pain is simply the consequence of dropping a heavy rock on your toe. All the dharmic religions see karma more or less this way. Anything you do will come back to you, as implacably and impersonally as a rock dropped on your toe will cause pain, and a drink of cool water when you're thirsty on a hot day will cause relief.
I'd expect you to have used the heavy rock analogy numerous times to explain such a core concept, but I have to admit it flew right over my head. Not quite sure I see the the difference, either inherent or one focused on the consequences, between an act that is a transgression against a judge or one that due to various laws of the universe results in the person acting being harmed (couldn't come up with better wording).

Originally Posted by Maylander View Post
I've given the ending of PST a fair bit of thought over the years. Given how the D&D setting works (travelling the planes etc), I'd say the ending we see is anything but final. Keep in mind that while TNO is now mortal again, he is probably the most powerful mortal in all the planes as he's gained the memory and knowledge of a thousand lifetimes.

Someone as powerful as TNO shouldn't have much trouble escaping the war by travelling to Sigil, Fearun or whatever.
My main issue with that interpratation, just as with the one suggested by the user Nameless one is that while it works and makes sense, it suggests that the game did not provide closure on TNO's mortality as adequate as the closure it provided to memory/personality torment. I've read discussions on even if TNO could tip the scales of the Blood War but it all feels a bit meta instead of viewing the ending as redemptive (even if unsatisfying).
Hope that makes sense.
I'd just like to interject here and point out that I'm not going to say anything to spoil the mood, Chief. I'll just float here and watch. Don't mind me, just sitting here, floating and watching, that's me.
Kostas is offline


Kostas's Avatar
Dormant Watcher


Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Dear Green Place
Posts: 1,713
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)