Dragonlance Dragonlance "Reimagined".

[Neonchameleon]

No, it really isn't. Because it wasn't just the Kingpriest. The Kingpriest and thousands of clerics and paladins under his command were in the process of committing genocide all over Ansalon. The Kingpriest and his clerics were about to begin using thought police (literally) to root out evil, where anyone who committed an evil thought was going to be killed.

It was never about just the Kingpriest.

And we come back once again to the other core problem - The Kingpriest not being in any sense of the word good - but Dragonlance canon would tell us that he was good and we have the literal Word of God (in this case Fizban/Palatine, the leader of the Gods of Good) that the time of the Kingpriest was when good held sway. As for mechanical stats then as far as I know the Kingpriest has only been statted once - in the d20 Legend of the Twins on page 56. And guess what? In the Kingpriest's statblock he's Lawful Good.

The Kingpriest of Istar is treated both in-setting and out as Good by the extremely screwed up definitions Dragonlance has of good. This is a Problem.

As for "free will" mass murder pretty obviously takes away free will. So it should be off the table if that's the issue. And if "anyone who had an evil thought was going to be killed" then that gets pretty paradoxical and they should start off by killing whoever came up with that evil idea. So clearly they weren't going to kill anyone who had an evil thought by any normal definition of the word evil.

And one final screwed up piece of the Dragonlance cataclysm puzzle - the Cataclysm was not sent because the Kingpriest was a "Lawful Good" psychopath. Or for the attempted massacres. It was sent explicitly because of the Kingpriest's personal hubris because he tried to personally command the gods. It absolutely was about the Kingpriest and because of the Kingpriest's actions the gods committed a widescale massacre.

On a tangent pre-4e D&D Paladins have always been morally toxic - and it's always worth linking UrsulaV's paladin rant

That's an exceptionally reductionist take. And, again, it's not supported by the text. Again, I really have to ask if you've ever actually read the books or the modules.

Have you? Because you seem to be claiming things in this thread (not least of which being Takhsis being a god of chaos not one of evil) that are in opposition to fundamentals of the setting.

 

[Zardnaar]

And we come back once again to the other core problem - The Kingpriest not being in any sense of the word good - but Dragonlance canon would tell us that he was good and we have the literal Word of God (in this case Fizban/Palatine, the leader of the Gods of Good) that the time of the Kingpriest was when good held sway. As for mechanical stats then as far as I know the Kingpriest has only been statted once - in the d20 Legend of the Twins on page 56. And guess what? In the Kingpriest's statblock he's Lawful Good.

View attachment 262433
The Kingpriest of Istar is treated both in-setting and out as Good by the extremely screwed up definitions Dragonlance has of good. This is a Problem.

As for "free will" mass murder pretty obviously takes away free will. So it should be off the table if that's the issue. And if "anyone who had an evil thought was going to be killed" then that gets pretty paradoxical and they should start off by killing whoever came up with that evil idea. So clearly they weren't going to kill anyone who had an evil thought by any normal definition of the word evil.

And one final screwed up piece of the Dragonlance cataclysm puzzle - the Cataclysm was not sent because the Kingpriest was a "Lawful Good" psychopath. Or for the attempted massacres. It was sent explicitly because of the Kingpriest's personal hubris because he tried to personally command the gods. It absolutely was about the Kingpriest and because of the Kingpriest's actions the gods committed a widescale massacre.

View attachment 262434

On a tangent pre-4e D&D Paladins have always been morally toxic - and it's always worth linking UrsulaV's paladin rant

Have you? Because you seem to be claiming things in this thread (not least of which being Takhsis being a god of chaos not one of evil) that are in opposition to fundamentals of the setting.

2E villians handbook has some good examples of a villain for every alignment.

And any alignment can be carried to extreme.

 

[Hussar]

Have you? Because you seem to be claiming things in this thread (not least of which being Takhsis being a god of chaos not one of evil) that are in opposition to fundamentals of the setting.

So, basically, if they change the alignment of the Kingpriest to Lawful Evil, then all the complaints go away?

Because, I'll be perfectly fine with that. I never really considered the Kingpriest to be Good. Never really thought all the much about it at all to be honest. So, change the Kingpriest to evil (because, well, he probably should be) and then poof, all the problems are solved. It's perfectly morally justified to wipe out the evil empire after all.

I never said that Takhisis wasn't evil. I DID say that she wasn't Lawful. Which, again, I think I maybe mistaking my own head canon for this. I never understood how Tiamat or Takhisis was Lawful since they resided in the Abyss. And, I would point out that Lady Chaos is one of her titles, so, I'm not all that far off.

But, again, my point is, if someone hates the setting, will never buy the setting and thinks the setting is bad, why on earth would I listen to that person when updating that setting?

 

[Neonchameleon]

So, basically, if they change the alignment of the Kingpriest to Lawful Evil, then all the complaints go away?

The complaints about The Kingpriest himself are that he is evil - and that's a simple fix.

This doesn't change the complaints about Paladine canonically declaring that the Kingpriest was good. Or being a psychopath and wiping out the whole civilization not because of it being evil but because The Kingpriest personally tried to command the gods.

It's perfectly morally justified to wipe out the evil empire after all.

Is it? Especially when the reason wasn't because they were an evil empire but because one person (even if the leader) tried to command the gods. I've already provided a screenshot of the PDF to prove this.

The long and the short of it is that (a) Paladine explicitly stated that Good held sway just before the Cataclysm and (b) The Cataclysm wasn't because Ishtar was an evil empire. It was canonically because one single man got too arrogant.

Dragonlance is screwed up in its understanding of alignment. If you read the actual canon there are three core issues that tie into each other

• The Good gods are not in fact good even if they are probably less evil than the evil ones. And no this isn't "complexity". This is that they aren't good to the point that it's entirely in line with their morality to declare the Kingpriest lawful good.
• The White Robe mages are either basically non-existent (seriously, how many can you name?) or actively supportive of what is at best a Lawful Neutral system that sacrifices people.
• "Balance between good and evil" is an abstract touted by the books - and is actually evil.

You could remove the goal of "balance between good and evil" without harming the setting. And you don't need to change that much to actually make Paladine good (starting off by turning the Kingpriest evil) - but it needs doing. And turning the mages from G/N/E to L/N/C would make theme actively useful and distinct.

I never said that Takhisis wasn't evil. I DID say that she wasn't Lawful.

Your exact words were "Again, Takhisis is the Queen of CHAOS. Not evil."

But, again, my point is, if someone hates the setting, will never buy the setting and thinks the setting is bad, why on earth would I listen to that person when updating that setting?

And my point is who in this thread has said that they hate the setting, and will never buy the setting? (Other possibly than @Micah Sweet not buying it). People hate elements of it. Like Gully Dwarfs. And Kender. And the various alignment screwups.

 

[Hussar]

The complaints about The Kingpriest himself are that he is evil - and that's a simple fix.

This doesn't change the complaints about Paladine canonically declaring that the Kingpriest was good. Or being a psychopath and wiping out the whole civilization not because of it being evil but because The Kingpriest personally tried to command the gods.

Is it? Especially when the reason wasn't because they were an evil empire but because one person (even if the leader) tried to command the gods. I've already provided a screenshot of the PDF to prove this.

The long and the short of it is that (a) Paladine explicitly stated that Good held sway just before the Cataclysm and (b) The Cataclysm wasn't because Ishtar was an evil empire. It was canonically because one single man got too arrogant.

Dragonlance is screwed up in its understanding of alignment. If you read the actual canon there are three core issues that tie into each other

• The Good gods are not in fact good even if they are probably less evil than the evil ones. And no this isn't "complexity". This is that they aren't good to the point that it's entirely in line with their morality to declare the Kingpriest lawful good.
• The White Robe mages are either basically non-existent (seriously, how many can you name?) or actively supportive of what is at best a Lawful Neutral system that sacrifices people.
• "Balance between good and evil" is an abstract touted by the books - and is actually evil.

You could remove the goal of "balance between good and evil" without harming the setting. And you don't need to change that much to actually make Paladine good (starting off by turning the Kingpriest evil) - but it needs doing. And turning the mages from G/N/E to L/N/C would make theme actively useful and distinct.

Your exact words were "Again, Takhisis is the Queen of CHAOS. Not evil."

And my point is who in this thread has said that they hate the setting, and will never buy the setting? (Other possibly than @Micah Sweet not buying it). People hate elements of it. Like Gully Dwarfs. And Kender. And the various alignment screwups.

Fair enough.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

So, basically, if they change the alignment of the Kingpriest to Lawful Evil, then all the complaints go away?

I think the best way to go about DL is remove alignment entirely. have 'good' and 'evil' be with unreliable 'everyone THINKS they are the hero'

 

[DarkCrisis]

I think the best way to go about DL is remove alignment entirely. have 'good' and 'evil' be with unreliable 'everyone THINKS they are the hero'

Kingpriest THOUGHT he was doing good though. And he was a nice old man who would absolutely help anyone who asked.

Are you evil if you actually truly think you are doing good and good works?

His last straw was demanding the gods give him ultimate power so he could truly fix the world.

Again yes he was committing evil acts (or having them done in his name) but he was a true believer.

Evil (in D&D) tends to do things knowing it’s wrong and to self serve. KP was trying to help his fellow man he just went the absolute worst way about it.

Also keep in mind most people of the world had taken up his ideals. Demanding the gods for favors. Hence why any true clerics who still held the faith were taken to the heavens before the Cataclysm.

It’s very much a Great Flood analogy with a pseudo Satan replacement mixed in. And yeah yeah real religion. Just saying the writers took it from somewhere (just like the discs)

 

[Fifth Element]

No, it really isn't. Because it wasn't just the Kingpriest. The Kingpriest and thousands of clerics and paladins under his command were in the process of committing genocide all over Ansalon.

So destroy the Kingpriest and these thousands of clerics and paladins.

 

[Fifth Element]

Balance between good and evil" is an abstract touted by the books - and is actually evil.

Important point. There should NOT be a balance between helping people and harming them. If you believe that harming people is as important as helping them, you are evil.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Kingpriest THOUGHT he was doing good though. And he was a nice old man who would absolutely help anyone who asked.

many evil people THINK they are good. Many Racists people THINK they are helping by separating races... THINKING you are right doesn't make you good. Your actions do

Are you evil if you actually truly think you are doing good and good works?

if what you do is evil it makes you evil... Genocide is ALWAYS evil

His last straw was demanding the gods give him ultimate power so he could truly fix the world.

BUT... he was evil

Again yes he was committing evil acts (or having them done in his name) but he was a true believer.

If I shoot 100 people and my defense is "I was helping" does that make me a good person?

Evil (in D&D) tends to do things knowing it’s wrong and to self serve. KP was trying to help his fellow man he just went the absolute worst way about it.
Also keep in mind most people of the world had taken up his ideals. Demanding the gods for favors. Hence why any true clerics who still held the faith were taken to the heavens before the Cataclysm.

and again... evil actions are evil. You don't get to be 'good' and try to commit genocide.

It’s very much a Great Flood analogy with a pseudo Satan replacement mixed in. And yeah yeah real religion. Just saying the writers took it from somewhere (just like the discs)

Real religion has no part in this discussion or board