Dragonlance Dragonlance "Reimagined".

[Hussar]

I'm coming to the party a bit late, but does Krynn have disease, or infant mortality? Assuming that it does, then somehow there is a reconciliation of those events with the idea of there being powerful, somewhat active good gods.

Whatever form that reconciliation takes, why can't it also be deployed to explain the Cataclysm?

EDIT: I mean, in FR isn't the same sort of reasoning needed to reconcile feudal monarchy (eg Cormyr) with good alignment and good gods?

Shhh. We’re not supposed to talk about this. The only possible interpretation is that any god that allows any evil must be evil.

 

[Faolyn]

I'm coming to the party a bit late, but does Krynn have disease, or infant mortality? Assuming that it does, then somehow there is a reconciliation of those events with the idea of there being powerful, somewhat active good gods.

Whatever form that reconciliation takes, why can't it also be deployed to explain the Cataclysm?

EDIT: I mean, in FR isn't the same sort of reasoning needed to reconcile feudal monarchy (eg Cormyr) with good alignment and good gods?

The difference is that most of the time, disease and the like are natural events. The gods caused the Cataclysm.

 

[Alzrius]

Out of curiosity, what was the choice like? Stay and die in the Cataclysm?

As I recall, it was presented as a simple "we'll take you to our god's side, or you can stay here." Naturally, the latter meant that you'd be subject to whatever happened to you, alongside everyone else. That didn't have to mean dying in the Cataclysm though; Crysania was subsequently taken forward in time a hundred years by Raistlin's magic.

 

[Alzrius]

The difference is that most of the time, disease and the like are natural events. The gods caused the Cataclysm.

Given that there's a god of disease (Morgion), I'm not sure that's the distinction you're presenting it as.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I'm coming to the party a bit late, but does Krynn have disease, or infant mortality? Assuming that it does, then somehow there is a reconciliation of those events with the idea of there being powerful, somewhat active good gods.

Unless the gods also caused disease and infant mortality, it's not really the same thing.

 

[Velderan]

Unless the gods also caused disease and infant mortality, it's not really the same thing.

Morgion was the god of disease. He had agents spreading disease in the camps of the knights to weaken them.

 

[Haplo781]

Unless the gods also caused disease and infant mortality, it's not really the same thing.

Morgion: god of disease
Chemosh: god of death

 

[pemerton]

The difference is that most of the time, disease and the like are natural events. The gods caused the Cataclysm.

How does that difference make sense in a world with active, powerful gods? I mean, someone upthread was pointing out that the good gods are Nth-level clerics etc. They could use those spells to cure diseases. They could use their Control Weather to stop many natural disasters. Etc.

Unless the gods also caused disease and infant mortality, it's not really the same thing.

Does the act/omission distinction carry much weight when we're talking about gods?

 

[the Jester]

Countless versions of this tale and mythological gods through out history but Krynn's gods get put under the microscope.

Because Krynn is a campaign setting, not mythology.

 

[pemerton]

Because Krynn is a campaign setting, not mythology.

I'm not sure this distinction carries the weight you're putting on it.

But allowing that it does, wouldn't feudal monarchies like Cormyr in FR and Furyondy in GH have to be subjected to the same scrutiny? I mean, how can those possibly be good in any objective senes?