D&D 5E Do you care about setting "canon"?

[Maxperson]

Heh, never minding that one of Tanis' parents would have actually LIVED through the cataclysm. That's not important, I guess.

It's really not important at all. Elves have different lifespans and memories than humans do.

But, the point is, NONE of the characters in Dragonlance were presented as atheist. The whole point of the campaign was to return the gods to their rightful place. That's the basic conceit of a War of the Lance era campaign.

That a small handful of people that are specifically geared to be believers weren't atheists in no way means that atheists don't belong in the setting.

A point of view held by absolutely no one in the entire setting.

How do you know? The entire setting consists of millions of NPCs. Not even 1% of them were detailed, so you have no way of knowing if your claim is true or not.

It's a setting with no hope before the War of the Lance and the return of the gods. The heroes had just spent five years searching for any sign of the gods prior to the opening of Dragons of Autumn Twilight. Does that sound like people with no interest in the gods to you?

It sounds like a group of believers to me. A group that undoubtedly encountered a number of atheists in the years before the war.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It's really not important at all. Elves have different lifespans and memories than humans do.



That a small handful of people that are specifically geared to be believers weren't atheists in no way means that atheists don't belong in the setting.



How do you know? The entire setting consists of millions of NPCs. Not even 1% of them were detailed, so you have no way of knowing if your claim is true or not.

It sounds like a group of believers to me. A group that undoubtedly encountered a number of atheists in the years before the war.

Not to mention the apathetic agnostics.

One of of my favorite DL characters was a warlock/rogue called Donnar, who had seen evidencee of the gods in his youth, and concluded that they were not worth worshipping, and everyone should be thankful they weren't around. They burned a world to punish an empire, and then left. When the gods came back, he didn't take it well.

 

[Shasarak]

Goldmoon was a cleric all the way through and was the impetus behind the entire Heroes of the Lance. Their very first adventure is to retrieve the Disks of Mishakal. Additionally, Tania, Flint, and Sturm were all believers. Raistlin's backstory has him debunking false prophets and nearly getting lynched for it if Carmen had not rescued him. Tasselhoff becomes a believer through his interactions with Fizban (who is, in any case a god). Did I miss anyone?

Thats the thing, Goldmoon was not a Cleric at all - she had the Blue Crystal Staff that everyone wanted. It was not until she got to Xak Tsaroth that she even learned of the Gods "plan".

If I could quote from the book:

"Once upon a time, the great God, Paladine-"
"Paladine?" the child interupted. "I've never heard of a God named Paladine"
"Paladine is one of the ancient Gods, child. No one has worshipped him for a long time"

And, how does battling the goddess of evil become a big FU to the spirit of the game? And, note, that's the novel line, not the actual RPG. AND, note, trying to kill Takhisis is seen and presented as a BAD THING. Everyone, including the good guys, tries to stop him. And, his reward for this is being tied to a rock Prometheus style and having his innards ripped out on a daily basis.

And the setting remains unchanged.

Well that is the point. No one gives too hoots if you just dont believe in the Gods but Raistlin was giving the setting a big FU by trying to kill one, which is why they were trying to stop him.

Heh, never minding that one of Tanis' parents would have actually LIVED through the cataclysm. That's not important, I guess.

His mother very well may have lived through the cataclysm but you do know that she died after giving birth to Tanis, right? Or is that fact not important?

But, the point is, NONE of the characters in Dragonlance were presented as atheist. The whole point of the campaign was to return the gods to their rightful place. That's the basic conceit of a War of the Lance era campaign. Which brings me to my point about this character. The basic conceit of this character is that the gods should take a long walk off a short pier and leave Krynn to its own devices. A point of view held by absolutely no one in the entire setting. The basic conceit of the setting is that the return of the gods brings hope to the people of the setting who were basically just slowly dying off before the War. It's not like everything was goodness and light before the War of the Lance starts. You have false prophets all over the place, you have the various races either outright fighting each other or, at best, retreating further and further from each other. The various elements of society were either brutally enforced or breaking down.

It's a setting with no hope before the War of the Lance and the return of the gods. The heroes had just spent five years searching for any sign of the gods prior to the opening of Dragons of Autumn Twilight. Does that sound like people with no interest in the gods to you?

The only one searching for Gods was Tanis - the rest were meant to be investigating rumours of evil spreading through the land, but in reality they were each just doing their own things, finding out what happened to Sturms Father, Taking the Wizard Test for Raistlin and Caramon, becoming King of the Gully Dwarves for Flint.

And what does Tanis say of his quest? "as we discovered long ago, the only clerics and priests in this world serve false gods....The [true] clerics vanished 300 years ago during the Cataclysm"

So you could treat the game like a Player would after reading the Dragonlance handbook and on the other hand you could use the novels to give your character a back story much more suited to someone actually living on Krynn.

 

[pemerton]

It's certainly the theme of War of the Lance and after that, but prior to the start of the War of the Lance it was about there being no gods or dragons, and atheists are right at home in that sort of environment.

When I'm thinking of a DL game, I'm thinking more of something that evoke the DL thematic, rather than just using the geography/history as a "neutral" setting.

One of of my favorite DL characters was a warlock/rogue called Donnar, who had seen evidencee of the gods in his youth, and concluded that they were not worth worshipping, and everyone should be thankful they weren't around. They burned a world to punish an empire, and then left. When the gods came back, he didn't take it well.

Just from what you say hear, this sounds like something of an anti-DL game - a bit like playing "rebels against Gondorian tyranny" in a Middle Earth game.

atheism definately fits that theme. It's a different personal arc than the faithful character whose faith is rewarded or the bitter character who believes the stories and thus distrusts the gods, but the doubter discovers proof that the faithful are actually right story is certainly a valid "rediscovering the gods" story.

So if we are "rediscovering the Gods" then should not everyone start as an Atheist?

When I'm thinking of an atheist, I'm thinking more of someone who denies or scorns the existence of the gods, rather than a doubter.

The latter could be interesting, but would require the player to play with a degree of awareness and orientation towards the arc which would (I think) be fairly sophisticated for RPGing. Especially D&D, which doesn't have systemic elements to support that sort of character-based play.

 

[pemerton]

I don't mind alternate takes and what-ifs, but the issue I'd have is when the what-if is present is THE default.

Plain, vanilla D&D should be traditional, familiar, and "boring."

<snip>

The bitter reaction to 4e was that it didn't give vanilla

I've never understood this. In what way is 4e not vanilla D&D? (Other than storm giants?)

As I've posted already in this thread, 4e by default supports B10, D2 and G2. I've used it for bits of Q1 too, and I'm sure it could do D3 (though in my game we did P2 instead as a our "drow module").

The things that 4e changes - eladrin, angels, archons, PS more generally - were always boutique parts of trad D&D, not vanilla elements.

 

[Maxperson]

Not to mention the apathetic agnostics.

One of of my favorite DL characters was a warlock/rogue called Donnar, who had seen evidencee of the gods in his youth, and concluded that they were not worth worshipping, and everyone should be thankful they weren't around. They burned a world to punish an empire, and then left. When the gods came back, he didn't take it well.

Exactly. There are many ways to play out the disappearance and return of the gods.

 

[Maxperson]

When I'm thinking of a DL game, I'm thinking more of something that evoke the DL thematic, rather than just using the geography/history as a "neutral" setting.

The DL setting is more than the War of the Lance and the heroes of the war. You seem to want to invoke their limited aspect of the setting, and not the setting itself. You also seem to think that an atheist is somehow out of theme with a setting where the gods disappeared. It's not.

The theme is not, "The gods exist." It is not, "The gods came back." The theme is "The gods abandoned Krynn for centuries and then returned." Atheism is a clear part/result of the abandonment.

Just from what you say hear, this sounds like something of an anti-DL game - a bit like playing "rebels against Gondorian tyranny" in a Middle Earth game.

What's wrong with playing someone from Harandor who resents Gondor's occupation and is fighting back?

When I'm thinking of an atheist, I'm thinking more of someone who denies or scorns the existence of the gods, rather than a doubter.

I agree. Atheism, though, is very much in line with the DL setting where he gods have been gone for centuries.

 

[QuietBrowser]

Just from what you say hear, this sounds like something of an anti-DL game - a bit like playing "rebels against Gondorian tyranny" in a Middle Earth game.

Honestly, it sounds fine and logical to me. Let's face it, the return of the gods and their departure in the first place in Dragonlance were only treated as good and bad things respectively because that's what the authors (devout Mormons) believed they should be seen as - let's be honest, who here thought that the Cataclysm was at all a measured, justified response? Who didn't think the gods got told off properly for expecting mortalkind to immediately cower afterwards, especially since we know they took all the clerics away beforehand and then didn't send them back to tend to the injured or preach about how the Kingpriest, beloved "champion of good", had been misleading them? Mortals are supposed to be the ones at fault? It looks to me more like the gods got sniffy over being told off to me!

Seriously, a lot about Dragonlance grinds my gears, but the presentation of the gods as somehow actually morally perfect and superior, despite acting like classic pagan style gods (read: hubristic, arrogant, and prone to bringing their troubles upon themselves), is one of the biggest flaws.

Come to think of it, it's been too long since I read the first Chronicles book, but I'm pretty sure there's a part where someone - Tanis, I believe - actually does express doubt about whether or not they should want the gods to come back, even if they are the only source of healing magic in the setting.

When I'm thinking of an atheist, I'm thinking more of someone who denies or scorns the existence of the gods, rather than a doubter.

Except "I don't think god/s exist" is the very definition of an atheist. Actively scorning or denying the existence of gods is maltheism, which nobody seems to be able to use straight - the Athar are classic D&D maltheists, and really in any of the established D&D settings outside of Eberron, maltheism would replace "atheism" entirely, since the gods are demonstrably real. You can argue about whether or not they are real gods, or if they deserve worship, but arguing that they don't exist is like arguing that fire won't burn you or water won't drown you.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

When I'm thinking of a DL game, I'm thinking more of something that evoke the DL thematic, rather than just using the geography/history as a "neutral" setting.

Just from what you say hear, this sounds like something of an anti-DL game - a bit like playing "rebels against Gondorian tyranny" in a Middle Earth game.


When I'm thinking of an atheist, I'm thinking more of someone who denies or scorns the existence of the gods, rather than a doubter.

The latter could be interesting, but would require the player to play with a degree of awareness and orientation towards the arc which would (I think) be fairly sophisticated for RPGing. Especially D&D, which doesn't have systemic elements to support that sort of character-based play.

Then change the word "doubter" to atheist and deal with the argument as it was intended, please. I was using doubter in the medieval sense, wherein it literally refers to atheism. Ie, a denial of the existence of the divine.

 

[Shasarak]

Except "I don't think god/s exist" is the very definition of an atheist. Actively scorning or denying the existence of gods is maltheism, which nobody seems to be able to use straight - the Athar are classic D&D maltheists, and really in any of the established D&D settings outside of Eberron, maltheism would replace "atheism" entirely, since the gods are demonstrably real. You can argue about whether or not they are real gods, or if they deserve worship, but arguing that they don't exist is like arguing that fire won't burn you or water won't drown you.

I thought Athar are Atheist because they do deny that Gods exist, claiming that "Gods" as we know them are just more powerful creatures not actually Gods in the same way that a Cargo Cult is not actually worshipping a God even though John Frum may actually exist.