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]

They are terrible. I could give you a list of democratically elected leaders who were/are just as terrible, but that would probably go against the no-politics rule of the forum.

"Democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried." - Winston Churchill.

Democracy is heavily flawed. But it's better to have the option of voting bad people out of office than it is to have to wait until they die.

 

[mamba]

They are terrible. I could give you a list of democratically elected leaders who were/are just as terrible, but that would probably go against the no-politics rule of the forum.

yet all are pretty close to how hereditary monarchies would be or actually are.

Can terrible leaders be elected in democracies ? Yes, that happens all over the world, but they can also get unelected.

I’d also argue that you have a better chance with someone decent / good at the helm than in a monarchy, contrary to what you wrote, because in the monarchy the future ruler will get a lot of weird ideas indoctrinated before the time he becomes king that make the chance of him being good / decent less likely.
Nothing says ‘I have to work hard to improve the life of my subjects’ like ‘you are God’s chosen ruler of your people and special’

 

[mamba]

In a way. He helped the good guys beat the bad guys.

beat is not killed, there are still plenty around

 

[Remathilis]

Democracy is heavily flawed. But it's better to have the option of voting bad people out of office than it is to have to wait until they die.

We have the courts for that!

Although this whole line of debate has reminded me that the desire for nuanced morality in D&D gets quickly quagmired into relativism, both-sidesism, and realpolitik. The old white hat/black hat model was flawed and simplistic, but at least I didn't need to take Philosophy 101 before I ran an adventure...

 

[pemerton]

The old white hat/black hat model was flawed and simplistic, but at least I didn't need to take Philosophy 101 before I ran an adventure...

For what it's worth, my view is that DL will work best if we take it as given that fidelity to the gods, and humility, are valuable things. We don't need to philosophise those questions - for the purposes of the setting, we take them as given.

Play can then focus on other, more human, concerns: loyalty (to friends, to family, to one's order), love (of family, of a lover), courage, and all the things that might be obstacles to remaining faithful to, and humble before, the gods.

In these ways, I see DL as being pretty close Arthurian fantasy and LotR. And quite different from, say, Eberron, or Planescape, or Conan-esque S&S.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I thought it was much more self deprecating than that. They were making a bit of very gentle fun of something that on the screen would look incredibly silly.

maybe, but we HAVE seen (as early as Superman the Movie in 70's, and as resent as Ms Marvel on Disney plus) with ajust a little effort those costumes CAN transfer to screen.

 

[Velderan]

For what it's worth, my view is that DL will work best if we take it as given that fidelity to the gods, and humility, are valuable things. We don't need to philosophise those questions - for the purposes of the setting, we take them as given.

Play can then focus on other, more human, concerns: loyalty (to friends, to family, to one's order), love (of family, of a lover), courage, and all the things that might be obstacles to remaining faithful to, and humble before, the gods.

In these ways, I see DL as being pretty close Arthurian fantasy and LotR. And quite different from, say, Eberron, or Planescape, or Conan-esque S&S.

On that level, that's how DL has always worked for me. I never felt like other settings played up those themes together.

 

[FrozenNorth]

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.

I agree, but would add that it is therefore inconsistent with objective notions of good and evil.

Or to put it another way, don’t label certain characters “good” if they are going to engage in genocide.

 

[FrozenNorth]

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.

Why, to have that level of support, the Kingpriest would have had to imprison, banish or murder everyone who disagreed with him.

To misquote Shakespeare:
“Yet Paladine says the Kingpriest was good,
And Paladine is an honourable man”

 

[Velderan]

We have the courts for that!

Although this whole line of debate has reminded me that the desire for nuanced morality in D&D gets quickly quagmired into relativism, both-sidesism, and realpolitik. The old white hat/black hat model was flawed and simplistic, but at least I didn't need to take Philosophy 101 before I ran an adventure...

And the last part is how a lot of people choose to play. If philosophy is more your (general you, not you personally) thing, you can run a campaign focused more on that element.

Why, to have that level of support, the Kingpriest would have had to imprison, banish or murder everyone who disagreed with him.

To misquote Shakespeare:
“Yet Paladine says the Kingpriest was good,
And Paladine is an honourable man”

I mean he certainly didn't imprison, banish, or murder EVERYONE, but he was on his way with his thought-police enforcement squad and gladiator death sentences for people accused of crimes. Is it such a stretch in a fantasy world to suggest divine beings derive much of their power from their worshipper's faith in them and that the Kingpriest had achieved enough belief from his followers that he threatened to overtake the gods own power? That seems reasonable enough for me in a fantasy make-believe world.