Talk:Lady of Pain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons, which collaborates on Dungeons & Dragons-related articles. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Serpent 2 Ok 3 Harmonium 4 Sadism 5 Help with big crazy theory 6 Alignment 7 what the crap 8 Removal of cleanup templates

[edit] Serpent

What is The Serpent? It is mentioned in the article, but I can't find anything about it. Does anyone have a link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.93.52.71 (talk) 01:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

See Mok'slyk --Yst 02:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that Mok'slyk doesn't appear outside of that comic, (and the sources on that page outside of that comic should probably be removed) and the perspective of the other sources on who or what the Serpent is or might be, are considerably conflicted. Shemeska 03:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ok

I fail to see what the link at the bottom of the page has to do with the Lady of Pain. So I'm going to remove it. Whispering 03:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Harmonium

The Harmonium seems to have pledged allegieance to the Lady of Pain. Does anyone know why this is? (DrZarkov 22:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC))

Errr what does Apollo have to do with the Lady Of Pain LOL--Edit... -signed-Your friendly everyday Anon ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.202 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Sadism

Does this character gain any pleasure from punishing those who slight her and if so, would she qualify for the category fictional sadists?66.24.224.205 04:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as anyone can tell, the Lady gains no particular pleasure from anything at all. The word inscrutable is aptly used, here. As with anything else, she may or she may not. No one really knows. However, the character on whom she was based, A. C. Swinburne's Lady of Pain should indeed be considered a fictional sadist, and is termed "Our Lady of Torture" in that poem. --Yst 15:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help with big crazy theory

I came across a theory that may have been presented in official material (making it outside the realm of fan speculation) but I can't find it again. It had to do with some organization offering that the Lady of Pain was the physical embodiment of the outer planes, the feminine, immaterial half of the multiverse. The theory went on to state that when the end of the multiverse came around, the masculine, material half of the multiverse would be formed from the fusion of the elemental inner planes and the Prime Material. The inner and outer halves of the multiverse would then begin a battle of sorts that would completely wipe out existence.

It was a cool little writeup, and could be valuable information to anyone researching the Lady of Pain for any sort of game or fanfiction. If anyone can find it, it might be worth adding.

[edit] Alignment

The Alignment of the Lady has to be True Neutral. Sigil is placed on top of an infinitely tall pillar in the exact center of the infinite Outlands. The only thing keeping Sigil from toppling is the Lady's neutrality. 88.90.177.235 10:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Which verifiable source are you using for this information? (The same question applies to the assertion of lawful neutral as well, I freely admit). --Pak21 11:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The Lady of Pain is listed as a LN female of an unknown race on page 142 of the Planar Handbook, published by Wizards of the Coast in July 2004. My rough understanding is that this wasn't popular with Planescape fans, so maybe there should be mention of fan reaction?Nmathew 16:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Such a mention would best be documented.--Robbstrd 04:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't well received by the original setting authors either, and if I can source and quote their responses, it might be worth including as well. The alignment doesn't fit well with the character's known history and activities, and that, plus the intentional mystery surrounding The Lady being a setting sacred cow, are why the stat had such a poor response from fans. Shemeska 00:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Found the source Shemeska was talking about. http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20040808a —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.237.119 (talk) 21:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not actually what I was talking about. Those are comments by the authors of the Planar Handbook, while I was speaking about comments on the Planar Handbook by several authors of the original Planescape setting, made during a chat on the book 'Beyond Countless Doorways' that was pretty critical on the stance taking by the PlHB authors. Shemeska (talk) 00:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] what the crap

Could someone just cite the relevant Planescape sourcebook(s) for this article? It shouldn't be too hard. The number of [citation needed] and [attribution needed] tags is excessive to the point of being comical. Someone seems to have an vendetta against this article rather than anything else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.64.13 (talk) 02:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I would if I had the time, and plan to if I do happen to find the time. Gavin appears to know so little about the topic in question, he shouldn't be tagging the article like he did, because with even a superficial knowledge of the subject, it's clear that those tags border on vandalism.Shemeska (talk) 03:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of cleanup templates

I must ask Shemeska not remove the cleanup templates [1] without making any improvements to the article. In this instance, the reasons given where "Removed two improper tags in this section" is based on POV, not any improvement such as citations from reliable sources. The reasons why the templates need to remain related to the following sentences:

1. "Swinburne's Lady of Pain resembles her D&D successor in some ways".
2. "Furthermore, with the D&D character she shares her absence of compassion, her moral neutrality, and the brutal indifference of her actions. She differentiates herself, however, in appearing decadent, where D&D's Lady of Pain is austere."

Note that the first quote has not been substantiated by a third party; bald statements without soures are pure speculation. As regards the second, note that this character is fictional; it is not possible to determine whether a fictional character truely has any sort of feelings, and is pure speculation. Both of these statements need to be replaced with substantiated real-world sources, not OR, and the cleanup templates should remain until these issues are addressed.--Gavin Collins (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Gavin, please for wikipedia's sake, have some passing familiarity with the sources, otherwise you need to stop adding so many ill-founded tags. Swinburne's LoP being decadent is right from the Swinburne poem, and the D&D character being austere is one of the standard traits of the character in question. It's not original research if it's openly said in the primary sources are you point that out. It's not original research to say that George Washington resembles George Patton in one way, because both were generals, and a source for their each being generals is cited. With regards to the Swinburne character and the D&D character, had you read the primary sources you would be aware of this. I'll be working on this more over the next week, and in the meantime it would be less of a headache for other editors if you reviewed the various primary sources as they are added.

When the issues are addressed, the cleanup tags will be removed.Shemeska (talk) 21:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The "Creative Origins" section is at least debatable I suppose, and perhaps the notability tag MIGHT be valid depending on the standards you have (though I think that ship sailed years ago on wiki) but every other tag above the Creative Origins section is straight from the primary source material. They're comical and obnoxious and need to go. It's the equivalent of "Spider-Man was bitten by a radioactive spider [original research?]." I mean, why the crap is there a [original research?] tag right after the citation of Die Venca, Die? It relates a fact that happened in the book! How is that orginal research?71.249.64.13 (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

QFT, it's silly. That said, I'm still going to need to look for a solid quotation from one of the original setting authors w/ regards to the Swinburne poem's importance. It may have been an idea that John Winter came up with years ago on the Mimir (in which case it may be really cool speculation), which is where I first became aware of it. However it may have also come from the old TSR Planescape mailing list, which (at least some of) the setting authors read and/or posted on. It may take some time to track it down if it came from there. I do know that the physical details of the D&D character were developed by Dana Knutson, who did the setting concept art, and the sourcing for that won't be that difficult to track down.Shemeska (talk) 21:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty new to wiki, but if someone could just cite the Planescape Campaign Setting box, it would cover about 85% of the citations apparently "needed" in this article. Including her austerity and the fact that her origins are left purposefully mysterious.71.249.64.13 (talk) 22:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• talk, in answer to your first comments, primary sources are not adequate: secondary sources are required to substantiate these statements of opinion - see WP:OR. Its true I know nothing about these sources, but your opinion is insufficient evidence that what has been written here is true - see WP:V. Please remember that the cleanup tags have been placed there so that other editors will address these issues, and in the long term, leaving them in situ until cleanup has been effected will benefit the article. Simply removing the tags does not address these issues and achieves nothing. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll get to those tags that need to be addressed as soon as I can, but a few are still improperly added. We'll deal with those as I get to them. But in the meantime, at least you're willing to admit your ignorance of the topic and its sources.Shemeska (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no opinion expressed above the Creative Origins section. For example, the fact that the authors have left her origin mysterious on purpose for aesthetic reasons is stated explicitly by them in the relevant sourcebook.71.249.64.13 (talk) 15:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

If that is so, please add footnotes so this can be verified; your assertion on its own is insufficient. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Would you stop hitting my ip with big scary warning messages? It's insulting. I have changed one word in this article.71.249.64.13 (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Gavin, be very careful here. There are two different IPs that have started with 71.etc, one of which made personal attacks against you, but not the one you've apparently been harassing. Stop.Shemeska (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Before the next inevitable reversion, I'd like to say that although I understand in-text citations would be ideal, the majority of them are distributed essentially at random. You might as well have a [citation needed] or [original research?] tag after every sentence in the article. As such the cleanup tag asking for in-text citations is ideal in terms of readability at this point.71.249.64.13 (talk) 01:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• It might be better to remove the unreferenced text altogether. Most of the content of this article fails WP:WAF in any case; the cleanup templates are a symptom of this problem.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

While factually correct, it is in desperate need of a total rewrite. If I had my books I'd do it myself.71.249.64.13 (talk) 01:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)