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

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Was is past tense. Fizban/Paladine doesn't say he was still good when he died, only that the kingpriest WAS a good man.

wasn't he dead like 300-400 years when he said it... that would be weird to use present tense.

Then he goes on to explain how too much good is bad which tells us that the kingpriest was bad(evil) when he died. And we know from his actions that he wasn't a good man well before he died.

 

[mamba]

becuse it's being used as part of a 'balance between good and evil' when it's just evil

ah, I guess this is a fundamental difference between how you and I see it. I see it as all gods striking against a man (and his followers) that is out of control and in his zeal for good is hurting the good, neutral and the evil gods. Not as a restoration of balance because good is so dominant.

 

[Maxperson]

All those Always Evil babies and children, all those Always Evil travelers and merchants and visitors. There were absolutely no dissidents, no people who disagreed, no people who tried to fight back, not a single person who wasn't so horrible as to deserve to die. Everybody who got killed was dyed-in-the-wool evilevilevil.

Strawmen are strawmen. This is not an argument that has been made here or by the setting.

This is absolutely ridiculous and literally the most unrealistic part of the entire setting. Even grimdark settings aren't this ridiculous.

It's only ridiculous if you buy into your Strawman of what actually happened.

Since, according to the stats presented in DLA, most of them were 20th-40th level spellcasters in multiple different spellcasting classes, they literally could cast wish many times each day. They may not be able to "Thanos Snap" the problem away, but they definitely had methods they could use other than just mass murder.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with D&Ds overarching concept that gods are not allowed to directly interfere with the world. Takhisis had to do it in secret and got spanked for it when she was found out. Fizban could only do it to balance her interference and even then he didn't interfere to directly alter the world. He just nudged and helped out Tanis and the others a few times.

And if the gods are "fairly hands off, most of the time," then they don't suddenly get to be hands-on in order to commit genocide and still claim to be good.

They didn't.

Genocide is not a good act. Even if it's of evil beings.

Tell that to the evil gods that did it and the neutral gods that went along in order to restore world balance. The good gods tried to stop it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

yeah notice 'fun to read' isn't good... especially not 'exemplar of good'

becuse it's being used as part of a 'balance between good and evil' when it's just evil

Again, what I'm hearing from you is, "I want modern morals applied retroactively to this 30 year-old setting that wasn't designed for them, with the hope that my personal opinions on these matters become the official standard for everyone". Am I missing your point? Is that not what you want?

 

[FrozenNorth]

we are being told a whole lot more, which is why I called that narrative cherry picking.

The context was that the ascendency of Good over Evil led to the Cataclysm.

Saying that the Kingpriest WAS a Good man, but became Evil at some point, is ignoring the context in which the example was brought up.

 

[Maxperson]

wasn't he dead like 300-400 years when he said it... that would be weird to use present tense.

Sure. But he was talking about the time when the kingpriest was alive. "He was good, then he did bad, evil things in the name of good" ~ Paladine paraphrased. That = evil when killed.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Again, what I'm hearing from you is, "I want modern morals applied retroactively to this 30 year-old setting that wasn't designed for them, with the hope that my personal opinions on these matters become the official standard for everyone". Am I missing your point? Is that not what you want?

you not only missed it but I would argue have tried to twist it...

30 years ago someone made the setting...

TODAY it is being reimagined (we will have teh books in hand in a few weeks)
I am saying TODAY right NOW I WILL JUDGE anything written in the book that comes with an authorial 'good' as having to line up with (more or less like horse shoes you get points for close with me) real world sociality as a whole good.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The context was that the ascendency of Good over Evil led to the Cataclysm.

Saying that the Kingpriest WAS a Good man, but became Evil at some point, is ignoring the context in which the example was brought up.

thank you...

again it's not "Oh something bad happened"

its' tat the ascendency of Good over Evil led to the Cataclysm.

Saying that the Kingpriest WAS a Good man, but became Evil at some point, is ignoring the context in which the example was brought up.

 

[mamba]

The context was that the ascendency of Good over Evil led to the Cataclysm.

no, that is not the context at all

 

[Veltharis ap Rylix]

Again, what I'm hearing from you is, "I want modern morals applied retroactively to this 30 year-old setting that wasn't designed for them, with the hope that my personal opinions on these matters become the official standard for everyone". Am I missing your point? Is that not what you want?

If the setting is so fragile that not looking at it through a moral framework that was antiquated even at the time the setting was initially created causes its internal logic to break down, then frankly I think it needs to be redesigned in order to simply be more resilient to scrutiny.