Dragonlance Dragonlance "Reimagined".

[pemerton]

@Permeton - I do truly appreciate what you're trying to do here, but, I'd point something out. Nothing you've brought up hasn't already been brought up in this thread at least once. Genre convention, obvious parallels to religious and mythological stories, doesn't matter. You will not convince anyone here because they absolutely will not allow even the notion that it's possible to play in a game where the morality does not 100% fall in line with their own beliefs.

So, instead of trying to convince them of anything, we need to allow them to put forward a version of the Cataclysm that they find acceptable and work forward from there. Because, what you're doing here? This is just banging your head agsinst the wall. It absolutely will not go anywhere. Pointing to the text means that you're gatekeeping. Genre conventions don't matter. Actual real work parallels are unimportant. You absolutely cannot make any forward progress here. We really need to just agree to disagree and move on.

What WotC does with their property is obviously their prerogative. I think DL has some cool tropes - including the eponymous dragon lances! - but for my RPGing purposes it doesn't offer me anything I don't get from JRRT/LotR.

I just think it's bizarre to insist that romantic fantasy, based on incredibly well-known motifs from literary, folk and religious stories, abandon those motifs. There are plenty of modernist fantasy worlds - I've mentioned REH and Moorcock, and there must be plenty of others (I don't know the genre that well - perhaps Vance, though, from the classics?).

And I also think the inconsistencies are bizarre. The idea of paladin monarchs is rife in D&D worlds, just as its found in Arthurian stories, in LotR, in Earthsea, even in one of REH's Conan stories (the Hour of the Dragon). This requires just as much suspension of modernist moral belief as the Cataclysm does.

Did all these people boycott the Return of the King film (which asserts, without equivocation, the moral equivalence of rightful inheritance and good government)? Are they refusing to watch Rings of Power (set during the Second Age, which is the story of the downfall of Numenor for its sin of bride, frankly indistinguishable from the Cataclysm)? Do they all refuse to play the One Ring RPG or its 5e versions?

This is why, to me, this whole discussion really makes no sense.

1. The reason for the Cataclysm is unknown. There might be stories, but, ultimately, no one knows and it is up to individual tables to decide. Personally, I favor this one the most. Simple, easy to do and no one gets to get all shouty that someone is doing it wrong.
2. The Kingpriest did it. Also not a bad one. The gods tried to stop it, but failed, and ultimately it's the Kingpriest's fault.

There's a sense in which (1) is true: what mortal can fully understand the workings of the Law of Consequence?

As far as (2) is concerned, we change the whole thing from a story about the sin of pride, to a story about what? What's the Kingpriest's motive? Why does he want to kill himself and destroy his land and people?

As I said, it's just bizarre.

 

[AnotherGuy]

We have had some pretty decent interpretations put forward in this thread though.

1. The reason for the Cataclysm is unknown. There might be stories, but, ultimately, no one knows and it is up to individual tables to decide. Personally, I favor this one the most. Simple, easy to do and no one gets to get all shouty that someone is doing it wrong.
2. The Kingpriest did it. Also not a bad one. The gods tried to stop it, but failed, and ultimately it's the Kingpriest's fault.
3. There was a third one, but, I cannot seem to find it and my brain is not recalling it. Anyway, there are other interpretations that are acceptable.

I'm not sure if you're thinking about the option I put forward where the gods of Good were coerced by the gods of Evil. The ability to interfere and stop the Kingpriest came at a price as set by the evil gods.
All of those options you listed could be placed within the book leaving it open for the table to discover the truth or not.

 

[Hussar]

There's a sense in which (1) is true: what mortal can fully understand the workings of the Law of Consequence?

As far as (2) is concerned, we change the whole thing from a story about the sin of pride, to a story about what? What's the Kingpriest's motive? Why does he want to kill himself and destroy his land and people?

My point is, it doesn't matter. You absolutely will not be able to make any headway here. Again, nothing you've said, despite saying it very well and clearly, will make the slightest difference. Note, I 100% agree with you here. I totally get what you're saying. But, inevitably, it's pointless. It's alignment wank at its absolute worst. It's inconsistent and largely incoherent, depending on very narrow readings (or not bothering to read at all) the works in question. You will not win this.

So, instead of bashing your head against the endless naysaying and gainsaying that will not go anywhere, I'm trying to insist that those who are claiming that the Cataclysm is problematic, that they should pony up and show us how it's done. Give me a Cataclysm that people can live with. Hey, apparently the Kingpriest tries to achieve godhood, the ritual fails and he blows up the continent is perfectly acceptable. So, fair enough.

I'm to the point where I simply don't really care anymore. Give me something to work with. After 50 pages of endless naysaying and nit-picking, it's just not worth it anymore.

 

[AnotherGuy]

As far as (2) is concerned, we change the whole thing from a story about the sin of pride, to a story about what? What's the Kingpriest's motive? Why does he want to kill himself and destroy his land and people?

As I said, it's just bizarre.

I think perhaps Hussar meant it was an accident or the Kingpriest believed such an act would elevate him to godhood.

EDIT: Ninja'd.

 

[Hussar]

I'm not sure if you're thinking about the option I put forward where the gods of Good were coerced by the gods of Evil. The ability to interfere and stop the Kingpriest came at a price as set by the evil gods.
All of those options you listed could be placed within the book leaving it open for the table to discover the truth or not.

Yes, that was the one. I knew that there was another really good idea buried in there somewhere. Thank you for that. Yeah, the whole, "The good gods burned up their karma trying to stop the Kingpriest, so, when it finally came time to pay that back, the evil gods said, "Ok, lets kills some folks!"

 

[pemerton]

My point is, it doesn't matter. You absolutely will not be able to make any headway here. Again, nothing you've said, despite saying it very well and clearly, will make the slightest difference. Note, I 100% agree with you here. I totally get what you're saying. But, inevitably, it's pointless. It's alignment wank at its absolute worst. It's inconsistent and largely incoherent, depending on very narrow readings (or not bothering to read at all) the works in question. You will not win this.

I get this. Like I said, I find it absolutely bizarre. I'm not going to parade my own morality on these boards - apart from anything else, I don't want to break board rules - but when I engage in RPGing I sometimes imaginatively project myself into fictional moral universes. It seems to me part and parcel of the hobby.

I'm trying to insist that those who are claiming that the Cataclysm is problematic, that they should pony up and show us how it's done. Give me a Cataclysm that people can live with. Hey, apparently the Kingpriest tries to achieve godhood, the ritual fails and he blows up the continent is perfectly acceptable. So, fair enough.

I'm to the point where I simply don't really care anymore. Give me something to work with. After 50 pages of endless naysaying and nit-picking, it's just not worth it anymore.

I don't mean to be dismissive, but why does it matter what other posters in this thread would like or accept? Have WotC even indicated whether or not they're intending to rewrite the Cataclysm?

 

[pemerton]

Yes, that was the one. I knew that there was another really good idea buried in there somewhere. Thank you for that. Yeah, the whole, "The good gods burned up their karma trying to stop the Kingpriest, so, when it finally came time to pay that back, the evil gods said, "Ok, lets kills some folks!"

The implication of this is that there is no difference between retributive punishment (including lethal punishment) and murder. Or maybe it's not an implication in the strict sense, but it's the underlying logic of the change from the earlier stories of the Cataclysm.

Obviously that's a tenable view - both in relation to the death penalty, and to punishment more generally. But if it's taken too seriously in the context of D&D, a lot of PC-perpetrated violence starts to look morally rather suspect!

 

[Alzrius]

I get this. Like I said, I find it absolutely bizarre. I'm not going to parade my own morality on these boards - apart from anything else, I don't want to break board rules - but when I engage in RPGing I sometimes imaginatively project myself into fictional moral universes. It seems to me part and parcel of the hobby.

For what it's worth, I agree with you, but there's a growing movement which doesn't want to see anything that contradicts their personal morality in their imaginative play. Look at recent pushes, which have enjoyed semi-success, to have things like bioessentialism and slavery removed from popular RPGs. Voices which have protested this have been characterized as "anti-inclusive," which strikes me as a gross mischaracterization of what's being objected to and why, but the idea that Dragonlance's "problematic" elements are things that need to be written out are entirely in line with this recent trend.

 

[Velderan]

I don't mean to be dismissive, but why does it matter what other posters in this thread would like or accept? Have WotC even indicated whether or not they're intending to rewrite the Cataclysm?

The following is on a D&D Beyond blog post, which so far is all we have to go on:

Istar's accumulation of power and growing fanaticism was eventually its downfall when the last kingpriest grew so bold he attempted to ascend to godhood so he could destroy evil once and for all. Infuriated by kingpriest's arrogance, the pantheon of Krynn cast a fiery mountain down upon Istar, which destroyed the empire and caused it to sink below the ocean's waves. This world-shaking event became known as the Cataclysm and ushered in the fourth age, which is where the story of Shadow of the Dragon Queen takes place.

The article also says:

Keep in mind that the recap in this section represents an abridged timeline of events from the Dragonlance novels, not necessarily what's included in the coming book.

If I had to guess, they'll largely leave it as is because it's nice and vague which is sorta 5E's thing. It works as a footnote to explain why the world is in the shape it is at the start of the included adventure which sounds like it centers around the Kalaman campaign in the war. As people have suggested elsewhere in this thread, I wouldn't expect a ton of material in this book and expect it to focus more on the adventure set in Kalaman and the surrounding lands so the lore available will probably just be what you need to run the adventure.

 

[pemerton]

For what it's worth, I agree with you, but there's a growing movement which doesn't want to see anything that contradicts their personal morality in their imaginative play. Look at recent pushes, which have enjoyed semi-success, to have things like bioessentialism and slavery removed from popular RPGs. Voices which have protested this have been characterized as "anti-inclusive," which strikes me as a gross mischaracterization of what's being objected to and why, but the idea that Dragonlance's "problematic" elements are things that need to be written out are entirely in line with this recent trend.

I don't think it's anti-inclusive to imagine that the gods would punish the people for their sin of pride, even though the people is a rather amorphous concept.

There's a big difference between imagining the moral permissibility of (say) race-based slavery, and imagining the moral permissibility of (say) monarchical government. That's why we don't have any RPGs where people enjoy being National Socialists, but we do have RPGs - such as all the Middle Earth-based ones - where people enjoy playing characters whose political convictions, in the real world, would mark them as more reactionary than Franco.