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

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

But, the Kingpriest wasn't a fascist. The people actually literally worshipped him. For generations. He wasn't ruling by fear. He wasn't a dictator oppressing the masses in order to keep power. He was their beloved leader. Truthfully beloved by the people. And not just in Istar. People all over Ansalon. The humans loved the Kingpriest. Worshipped him.

Fascism and worshipping a leader are not contradictory concepts.

And, yes, I'm sure that there were. In all wars, innocents die. It happens. It's horrible. But, more horrible would have been the Kingpriest becoming a god, and a war between the gods killing all life. Because that was the alternative.

The Cataclysm wasn't a war. It was the gods dropping a mountain on a city.

If the good gods can drop a mountain on the Kingpriest, they can snap their fingers and kill all of the bad people.

What other option was there? Since you cannot directly intervene on the world as a god - you are bound by acting through avatars and clerics - what is your option here? The people will not listen to you, they have their new god king to listen to and they love him with all their hearts.

They're still gods. They still intervene. Paladine directly interferes in the plot of the War of the Lance in the form of Fizban. A god could have come down, proved that they were a god, and publicly admonish the Kingpriest.

So, with that in mind, what is your solution?

We already discussed this. Retcon the Cataclysm to either not have a canonical cause (like Eberron) or change it so the Kingpriest caused it, not the gods (like Exandria's Calamity).

 

[AnotherGuy]

If the good gods can drop a mountain on the Kingpriest, they can snap their fingers and kill all of the bad people.

Not without the consent of the other gods.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Not without the consent of the other gods.

Did Fizban need the permission of the other gods to cast the spells he did during the War of the Lance?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The fall of Numenor isn't exactly the same, though. It was the Morgoth worshippers that died when Numenor sank, not the innocents. The faithful made it off the island on ships and survived.

More to the point, the Valar do not claim to be objectively "good". They are based on the Aesir, and like them they are complex, nuanced, flawed and capable of making mistakes.

If you allow the Dragonlance gods may disagree with each other, may make mistakes, and may react emotionally, rather than say everything they do is "good" by definition, then the Cataclysm isn't a problem. The gods overreacted and screwed up, and now they have gone off to re-evaluate themselves.

 

[pemerton]

It doesn't matter whether or not objective morality actually exists, the problem is that the setting pretends that it does and then says that the good gods had a part in a genocidal event.

That's a problem whether or not objective morality or the scenario is fictional. The setting doesn't have to list the "good" gods as being objectively good and it doesn't have to have the objectively good gods involved in the Cataclysm.

The issue of objectivity isn't doing any work in your argument. You're just reiterating your view that (i) the Cataclysm is genocide and hence (ii) is not a good thing to bring about.

No one in this thread disagrees with you about the wrongness of genocide. But in the fiction, the Cataclysm is not genocide. It's legitimate punishment, in the form of divine retribution against a people for the sin of pride by its leaders and many of its members.

The real point of debate is this: is it possible to entertain the fictional idea that an act is legitimate collective punishment, by way of divine retribution, against a whole people for the wrongdoing of its leaders, and many but not all of its members while bracketing the actual truth of that proposition of moral theology?

I assert that it is. Likewise, when we read or watch LotR we entertain the fictional idea that peace and justice can be restored only by restoring the true king to the throne, and by upholding and restoring proper social order more generally - and thus cheer on Frodo and Aragorn - while not committing to the truth of this as a political proposition.

You appear to deny that it is possible to entertain a fictional idea about moral and political demands, while bracketing its actual truth. Obviously that's your prerogative. But the position you defend has implications that I'm curious if you embrace. For instance, LG paladin rulers of feudal kingdoms only make sense if we entertain a fictional idea similar to that found in LotR. So presumably you regard FR, GH and the other mainstream D&D fictions that include LG paladin rulers of feudal kingdoms as just as objectionable as DL?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I assert that it is.

But for me, it is not.

“It is better to let 100 criminals go free than to imprison 1 innocent man.”

- Benjamin Franklin
​

fictional idea that peace and justice can be restored only by restoring the true king to the throne

But this I can accept, because I believe that it's more important that a ruler be a decent, honest, wise person than they be elected in a popularity contest.

You see, it's all down to personal belief systems.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Did Fizban need the permission of the other gods to cast the spells he did during the War of the Lance?

It never seemed like he did, however I was specifically replying to the mountain-dropping feat.

 

[AnotherGuy]

But this I can accept, because I believe that it's more important that a ruler be a decent, honest, wise person than they be elected in a popularity contest.

You see, it's all down to personal belief systems.

Your belief being that the true king is (always) decent, honest and wise?

 

[AnotherGuy]

The way I view the gods of D&D is the way I view the gods of Mythology and it really does not matter what domain they represent. So where some take issue with the good gods of Krynn being involved in the Cataclysm - I liken it to Zeus and the gods of Olympus (which would include good deities) destroying or allowing for the destruction of Atlantis.

This need to use modern value judgements on fantasy gods and the setting's fans is silly IMO.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Your belief being that the true king is (always) decent, honest and wise?

No, I believe that selecting someone by random chance at least has a chance of coming up with someone decent, honest and wise.

Whereas a popularity contest stacks the deck against someone with those characteristics becoming ruler.