WotC Dragonlance: Everything You Need For Shadow of the Dragon Queen

WotC has shared a video explaining the Dragonlance setting, and what to expect when it is released in December.

World at War: Introduces war as a genre of play to fifth edition Dungeons & Dragons.

Dragonlance: Introduces the Dragonlance setting with a focus on the War of the Lance and an overview of what players and DMs need to run adventures during this world spanning conflict.

Heroes of War: Provides character creation rules highlighting core elements of the Dragonlance setting, including the kender race and new backgrounds for the Knight of Solamnia and Mage of High Sorcery magic-users. Also introduces the Lunar Sorcery sorcerer subclass with new spells that bind your character to Krynn's three mystical moons and imbues you with lunar magic.

Villains: Pits heroes against the infamous death knight Lord Soth and his army of draconians.

Notes --

• 224 page hardcover adventure
• D&D's setting for war
• Set in eastern Solamnia
• War is represented by context -- it's not goblins attacking the village, but evil forces; refugees, rumours
• You can play anything from D&D - clerics included, although many classic D&D elements have been forgotten
• Introductory scenarios bring you up to speed on the world so no prior research needed

 

[MonsterEnvy]

No, it doesn't make sense in canon. There is a canonical explanation, but that explanation just reveals the "good" gods are pretty monstrous. Peoples' lives don't become worthless even if they are under the sway of an "evil" cult leader.

The evil and neutral gods were also involved in the mountain dropping.

 

[Faolyn]

Considering how many, many DnD adventures let you mow down cultists and actively promote doing so - cultists attack on sight, won’t surrender, etc - I’m not sure that this is actually true in DnD.

How many cultist do the pcs slaughter in Horde of the Dragon Queen? Or in Princes?

Whacking cultists is generally seen as a good thing.

Usually, the cultists are the bad guys. If the PCs were mowing down the villagers who happened to live in the same town with the cultists but had nothing to do with the cult, most DMs would reasonably say those PCs were evil.

 

[mamba]

No, it doesn't make sense in canon. There is a canonical explanation, but that explanation just reveals the "good" gods are pretty monstrous. Peoples' lives don't become worthless even if they are under the sway of an "evil" cult leader.

Maybe I phrased it badly, it only 'makes sense' if you are willing to suspend disbelief enough to accept the story just like it is told to you as canon. I can think of some real world examples that work the same way, chances are you can too

 

[pemerton]

Maybe I phrased it badly, it only 'makes sense' if you are willing to suspend disbelief enough to accept the story just like it is told to you as canon. I can think of some real world examples that work the same way, chances are you can too

Just to add to this: it's been known since at least the French Revolution that pre-modern, pre-humanist thought (which is where the Cataclysm comes from, as a trope used to represent divine retribution for the sin of pride) can't be reconciled with liberal, individualist, human rights ideals (which underlie criticisms of collective punishment and diagnoses of the gods of Krynn as monstrous).

So buying into a fantasy world like DL/Krynn, or JRRT's Middle Earth (which has the near-identical downfall of Numenor as part of its canonical history) means suspending whatever modernist sensibilities one has, and accepting (in imagination) pre-modern tropes and understandings.

 

[Veltharis ap Rylix]

Considering how many, many DnD adventures let you mow down cultists and actively promote doing so - cultists attack on sight, won’t surrender, etc - I’m not sure that this is actually true in DnD.

How many cultist do the pcs slaughter in Horde of the Dragon Queen? Or in Princes?

Whacking cultists is generally seen as a good thing.

I mean, for the most part sure, but if your method of wiping out a cult is to, for example, drop a nuke on Waterdeep and level most of the Sword Coast, I think people might rightfully think you went a bit overboard...

 

[Hussar]

Usually, the cultists are the bad guys. If the PCs were mowing down the villagers who happened to live in the same town with the cultists but had nothing to do with the cult, most DMs would reasonably say those PCs were evil.

But, the Kingpriest wasn't acting alone. The entire population of Istar believed in him so much that he was on the verge of achieving godhood. It's not like it was just the Kingpriest sitting alone in his castle. The entire land was behind him. There was no opposition. There was no one who was stepping up and saying, "Hey, this isn't really a good idea". The entire land, not just the Kingpriest, had abandoned the gods.

 

[pemerton]

But, the Kingpriest wasn't acting alone. The entire population of Istar believed in him so much that he was on the verge of achieving godhood. It's not like it was just the Kingpriest sitting alone in his castle. The entire land was behind him. There was no opposition. There was no one who was stepping up and saying, "Hey, this isn't really a good idea". The entire land, not just the Kingpriest, had abandoned the gods.

If you adopt an individualist perspective you can always identify problem cases - eg there will have been children, including babies born within hours or days of the Cataclysm, who have no in any sense committed wrongdoing. They suffer for the wrongdoing of their parents, neighbours, fellows, etc.

This can't be justified in a human rights framework. Part of the whole point of a human rights framework, going back at least to the French Revolution, is to transform social orders based on notions of inherited, collective entitlement and responsibility and liability, into individualist ones.

That's why the key to reactionary fantasy, like JRRT and DL and Excalibur ("The King and the land are one!") and Robin Hood (at least the noblesse oblige versions), is to suspend at least some modernist sensibilities.

D&D players do this all the time with Furyondy and Cormyr and The Seven Heavens and their hidden Elven kingdoms and so on, and also (as you point out) their casual attitude towards the use of lethal violence aimed at whole communities. I'm not really sure why the Cataclysm is seen to be a special case.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

But, the Kingpriest wasn't acting alone. The entire population of Istar believed in him so much that he was on the verge of achieving godhood. It's not like it was just the Kingpriest sitting alone in his castle. The entire land was behind him. There was no opposition. There was no one who was stepping up and saying, "Hey, this isn't really a good idea". The entire land, not just the Kingpriest, had abandoned the gods.

And what about the children? They couldn't oppose the Kingpriest, they were too young and thus are innocent. Or the few people in Istar that didn't believe in him? I highly doubt that 100% of the adult population was backing him. Even Nazi Germany had people inside working against Hitler.

Considering how many, many DnD adventures let you mow down cultists and actively promote doing so - cultists attack on sight, won’t surrender, etc - I’m not sure that this is actually true in DnD.

How many cultist do the pcs slaughter in Horde of the Dragon Queen? Or in Princes?

Whacking cultists is generally seen as a good thing.

If my players kill innocents or their actions have collateral, I make it clear that what they did was not a good thing. I don't use alignment, but if I did and they killed hundreds of innocent people in order to overthrow a cult, their alignments would very quickly shift towards evil.

 

[Veltharis ap Rylix]

If you adopt an individualist perspective you can always identify problem cases - eg there will have been children, including babies born within hours or days of the Cataclysm, who have no in any sense committed wrongdoing. They suffer for the wrongdoing of their parents, neighbours, fellows, etc.

This can't be justified in a human rights framework. Part of the whole point of a human rights framework, going back at least to the French Revolution, is to transform social orders based on notions of inherited, collective entitlement and responsibility and liability, into individualist ones.

That's why the key to reactionary fantasy, like JRRT and DL and Excalibur ("The King and the land are one!") and Robin Hood (at least the noblesse oblige versions), is to suspend at least some modernist sensibilities.

D&D players do this all the time with Furyondy and Cormyr and The Seven Heavens and their hidden Elven kingdoms and so on, and also (as you point out) their casual attitude towards the use of lethal violence aimed at whole communities. I'm not really sure why the Cataclysm is seen to be a special case.

Or perhaps the fact that the idea of collective punishment cannot be squared with modern ideals of personal responsibility could be an in-universe story element that the setting explores, with different characters having different viewpoints on the matter, rather than something you just have to accept as true as part of the baseline price of entry.

 

[pemerton]

Or perhaps the fact that the idea of collective punishment cannot be squared with modern ideals of personal responsibility could be an in-universe story element that the setting explores, with different characters having different viewpoints on the matter, rather than something you just have to accept as true as part of the baseline price of entry.

Sure, although I don't know if DL as usually presented has enough depth to really support this.

This is the sort of thing I might use Burning Wheel set in Krynn to do!