Dragonlance Dragonlance "Reimagined".

[Hussar]

That was me. But the 2-axis alignment actually dates back to 1977, with the Dungeons and Dragons Basic Set. So there were 7 years between when the 9 alignments first came out and when the first dragonlance book was written.

But not when the adventures were being created and when the books were being written.

But, AGAIN, WHO CARES? We don't play during the Cataclysm, it's entirely background to the campaign and it's based pretty solidly in well known mythology. What does it matter? Again, Tolkien does EXACTLY the same thing in his writing and we don't keep banging the drum about how Adventures in Middle Earth shouldn't be played. The gods striking down the overweening proud is a pretty well established trope in fantasy.

I'm honestly utterly baffled why this is even an issue. Look, I'm about as left as it comes when we start talking about race and these sorts of issues, but, I really don't see the issue here. If the campaign was about the players causing the Cataclysm? Maybe? Then it might be an issue. Or if the Cataclysm was directed at a specific group of people? Maybe? But the old timey religion of smiting is part and parcel to a LOT of modern belief structures. Again, this is just the Atlantis story.

 

[Vaalingrade]

DL is the most alignment focused setting second only to Planescape and it really give Planescape a run for its money. IS it really at all surprising that rebooting it is causing an alignment argument?

I would ask why, if the Cataclysm is so unimportant because we're not playing during it, why even have it in the reboot, but clearly it's not the only morally dubious thing in the setting: see the Tower of of the Friends of Humanity. Dubious morals is like... a thing for DL, like making jokes out of neurodivergence using short folk and straightening your multiple moustaches. And it would be one thing if the narrative if not the characters in universe see it as morally dubious, but it really seems to side with that dubiousness and the Correct Thing To Do.

 

[Hussar]

DL is the most alignment focused setting second only to Planescape and it really give Planescape a run for its money. IS it really at all surprising that rebooting it is causing an alignment argument?

I would ask why, if the Cataclysm is so unimportant because we're not playing during it, why even have it in the reboot, but clearly it's not the only morally dubious thing in the setting: see the Tower of of the Friends of Humanity. Dubious morals is like... a thing for DL, like making jokes out of neurodivergence using short folk and straightening your multiple moustaches. And it would be one thing if the narrative if not the characters in universe see it as morally dubious, but it really seems to side with that dubiousness and the Correct Thing To Do.

See, this isn't terribly productive.

Do you think Gully Dwarves are going to make the cut going forward? I certainly don't. So, yuppers, you're 100% right that there are some seriously cringeworthy things in the original stuff. No argument from me. But, since that's not going to be in the reboot, then it's not really something you can point to as a problem with the setting, is it?

As well as the Tower of High Sorcery. You've ignored the fact that the choice is, tightly control wizardry, or watch every wizard die. That's the choice. And, note, the general population is perfectly happy to kill every wizard. And, judging from the Unearthed Arcana stuff, likely that won't make the cut either, so, congratulations, you win.

Sure, I understand the alignment argument, but, I don't get the absolute hostility about it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Have you ever considered going into the books with an open mind? You seem to believe that it must be exactly the same for it to be any good, and any deviance bothers you. It might do you a world of good to read these books and not compare it to the old ones, but to treat it as its own thing.

It would be a lot easier to take new products on their own merits if they stopped splattering the old names over their new ideas and trusted that their design work would reveal its value on its own.

 

[Hussar]

It would be a lot easier to take new products on their own merits if they stopped splattering the old names over their new ideas and trusted that their design work would reveal its value on its own.

Well, no.

That's not how marketing works. You cannot deny the power of name recognition. But, with name recognition does not necessarily come anything more than a passing familiarity with the brand. So, it's very, very powerful to whack an old name onto an idea and then change that idea.

Hell, we're playing a version of "Dungeons and Dragons" that would be completely unrecognizable to someone from 1980. Or 1990 for that matter. The idea that D&D shouldn't be called D&D because it's different just isn't going to fly.

And, let's not forget, that a lot of these ideas change over time. Dragonlance from 1986 compared to Dragonlance in 1996 is a very, very different beast. A whole lot of things got changed in 10 years. And a whole of things got rewritten. The only thing is that now, instead of those changes only being seen by a tiny handful of die hard fans that kept up with it, the new Dragonlance will be seen by an audience that probably dwarfs the size of the original audience.

Which means that there are a lot more things to pay attention to. Writing for the couple of thousand people who were going to see DL back in the day is different now. It just is.

It's kind of like the changes to the Ring of Power series on Amazon. Yuppers, they changed Middle Earth. Very much. But, there's a difference between some Oxford professor writing a book that he could only get published in a vanity press and the billion dollar investment Amazon is doing. Of course there will be changes. That's inevitable. And, that's art. We have a thousand different takes on Shakespeare. A hundred different takes on Sherlock Holmes. I have no idea how many takes on Frankenstein. So, yeah, we're going to get a new take on Dragonlance.

And that's a good thing. Otherwise Dragonlance goes the way of Nimh. Or Thieves World. Or Lankhmar.

New authors bringing in fresh takes and new ideas is a good thing.

 

[Zardnaar]

Well, no.

That's not how marketing works. You cannot deny the power of name recognition. But, with name recognition does not necessarily come anything more than a passing familiarity with the brand. So, it's very, very powerful to whack an old name onto an idea and then change that idea.

Hell, we're playing a version of "Dungeons and Dragons" that would be completely unrecognizable to someone from 1980. Or 1990 for that matter. The idea that D&D shouldn't be called D&D because it's different just isn't going to fly.

And, let's not forget, that a lot of these ideas change over time. Dragonlance from 1986 compared to Dragonlance in 1996 is a very, very different beast. A whole lot of things got changed in 10 years. And a whole of things got rewritten. The only thing is that now, instead of those changes only being seen by a tiny handful of die hard fans that kept up with it, the new Dragonlance will be seen by an audience that probably dwarfs the size of the original audience.

Which means that there are a lot more things to pay attention to. Writing for the couple of thousand people who were going to see DL back in the day is different now. It just is.

It's kind of like the changes to the Ring of Power series on Amazon. Yuppers, they changed Middle Earth. Very much. But, there's a difference between some Oxford professor writing a book that he could only get published in a vanity press and the billion dollar investment Amazon is doing. Of course there will be changes. That's inevitable. And, that's art. We have a thousand different takes on Shakespeare. A hundred different takes on Sherlock Holmes. I have no idea how many takes on Frankenstein. So, yeah, we're going to get a new take on Dragonlance.

And that's a good thing. Otherwise Dragonlance goes the way of Nimh. Or Thieves World. Or Lankhmar.

New authors bringing in fresh takes and new ideas is a good thing.

Alot of those fresh takes are also terrible. A lot of reboots also fail. Do you really think in 30 years time people will care about 5E spelljamner or Dragonlance vs the originals now?

They'll get the initial sales bump just like every other 5E product then most likely go the way of Ravnica or Theros. No one cares that much about them now.

I could be wrong of course but we will see.

 

[Hussar]

Alot of those fresh takes are also terrible. A lot of reboots also fail. Do you really think in 30 years time people will care about 5E spelljamner or Dragonlance vs the originals now?

They'll get the initial sales bump just like every other 5E product then most likely go the way of Ravnica or Theros. No one cares that much about them now.

I could be wrong of course but we will see.

Actually, I think you're mostly supporting what I said. Ravnica or Theros, outside of the Magic community are unknown properties. Unless you are a Magic player, it's extremely unlikely you'd know what either of those were, and, you'd need to have played Magic fairly recently as well. Ravnica came out in 2005, so, it's got a bit more legs. But Theros only came out in 2013.

Those two settings are largely what happens when you don't have the brand awareness behind them. Compare that to Ravenloft. Even people who played D&D back in the 80's probably heard of Ravenloft. It has considerably wider brand awareness than Ravnica. And, it is immensely popular. Far more popular now than it ever was back in the 2e days.

We'll see how the legs are on Spelljammer. It's been a month, and it's sitting at 400 (ish) of all books on Amazon. For a module to appear there at all is unprecedented, but, let's see a Christmastime what it's still doing. Bit early to tell.

But, I'd point out that the Ravnica book, if it was produced by anyone other than WotC, would be considered probably one of the best selling products of all time. It's still in the top 10000 of all books on Amazon after 4 years. That's FANTASTIC. Or, to put it another way, the Ravnica guide has likely outsold any TSR era setting other than the big 3 (FR, Greyhawk and Dragonlance). It's only "no one cares that much about them now" because of how well the other stuff is doing.

We do need to keep perspective.

 

[Faolyn]

Again, don't take this up with me - take this up with the various writers throughout history that have used this story starting with Plato a few thousand years ago.

No. Because this isn't the fault of various writers or real-world religions throughout history. This was the fault of Weiss and Hickman for trying to sell us a game where genocide was considered a good act.

But not when the adventures were being created and when the books were being written.

But, AGAIN, WHO CARES? We don't play during the Cataclysm, it's entirely background to the campaign and it's based pretty solidly in well known mythology. What does it matter? Again, Tolkien does EXACTLY the same thing in his writing and we don't keep banging the drum about how Adventures in Middle Earth shouldn't be played. The gods striking down the overweening proud is a pretty well established trope in fantasy.

Obviously everyone cares, or there wouldn't be so many arguments about Dragonlance's alignment. And not just on this forum--when I was looking up the kingpriest, I found other arguments about it on several other forums.

Also, just because Tolkien did it doesn't mean that it's OK, or that it's OK for Dragonlance to continue it. And Middle-Earth wasn't a D&D setting that used the D&D alignment system (I've never played MERP, but I took a look at its charsheet and didn't see anything like an alignment section.)

I'm honestly utterly baffled why this is even an issue.

I can't imagine why you're baffled. When the game presents a horrible thing as good, why wouldn't people be upset about this?

If the books had said "these gods decided to go against their natural Good alignment by committing this evil act, and this act forevermore tainted their Goodness," then I don't think people would have a problem with it. But instead, the Gods of Good are still considered to be Good--again, even though these gods then abandoned the world for centuries.

Look, I'm about as left as it comes when we start talking about race and these sorts of issues, but, I really don't see the issue here. If the campaign was about the players causing the Cataclysm? Maybe? Then it might be an issue. Or if the Cataclysm was directed at a specific group of people? Maybe? But the old timey religion of smiting is part and parcel to a LOT of modern belief structures. Again, this is just the Atlantis story.

I don't think that the gods that sank Atlantis were considered to be Gods of Goodness.

 

[Faolyn]

It would be a lot easier to take new products on their own merits if they stopped splattering the old names over their new ideas and trusted that their design work would reveal its value on its own.

Again. You should learn to view each version on their own merits.

 

[Faolyn]

Alot of those fresh takes are also terrible. A lot of reboots also fail. Do you really think in 30 years time people will care about 5E spelljamner or Dragonlance vs the originals now?

They'll get the initial sales bump just like every other 5E product then most likely go the way of Ravnica or Theros. No one cares that much about them now.

I could be wrong of course but we will see.

But at least they're available. And just as importantly, people today who look up 5e Spelljammer or Dragonlance (or Ravenloft, or the Realms) can find out all the information about the older versions. And then they have a choice of which version they want to use, or what combination of the versions they want.

But without the reboot, people would go "Dragonlance who?" and the setting would truly die.