Dragonlance Dragonlance Philosophy thread

[GMforPowergamers]

This might be a place to shift the argument. In a regime where Michael Carpenter is the absolute ruler, is there a place for Dresdenverse svartelves? The Winter Queens? Wizards? Or are they all just too dangerous? And need to be done away with?

Based on his history with them, he would most assured there would be room, and he would do his best to allow them to have there ways as long as they don't hurt others...He is pretty good with working with all of them.

Because, from memory, a Final Solution to Neutrality was where the kingpriest was heading.

and look at those words... Final Solution has a context, and its not one anyone I would care to talk to could call good.

Something that also happened with the other great LG society, the Harmonium of Planescape. Which i'm hoping we all agree is about the worst thing mortals can do.

once again, that is evil... full stop.

Secondly, Michael Carpenter swinging his sword, making judgements about individuals, is one thing. Michael Carpenter using a state, killing whole kinds of people, is far more terrifying.

Not if he is still good... the power of the state is NOTHING compared to being given the jumbo jet he was trusted with (the full reality warping of an angel... it's a thing)

I think part of this is that what audiences want from a leading character is very different from what they want from states (for those of you who want states). When we take the morality of a main character or PC, and put them in charge of a fictional regime, it starts to get a lot closer to real life. Rather than the healthy power fantasy that such stories usually are. Examined in the real world, story Law and Good look a lot less like what we would consider moral or ethical.

(Also, Michael Carpenter is my favourite paladin written. From someone who almost always plays paladins when i escape from behind the DM screen).

mine too... but I never get to play one.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I dont think its the concept of good, which he is blaming.

"So this is the end," Tanis said. "Good has triumphed.

"Good? Triumph?" Fizban repeated, turning to stare at the half-elf shrewdly. "Not so, half elven. The balance is restored. The evil dragons will not be banished. They remain here, as do the good dragons. Once again the pendulum swings freely." "all the suffering, just for that?"
Laurana asked, coming to stand beside Tanis. "Why shouldn't good win, drive the darkness away forever?

"Young lady?" Fizban scolded, shaking a bony finger at her. "There was a time when good held sway. Do you know when that was? Right before the cataclysm!"

"Yes" he continued seeing their astonishment "the king priest of Istar was a good man. Does that surprise you? It shouldn't, because both of you have seen what goodness like that can do. You've seen it in the elves, the ancient embodiment of good! It breeds intolerance, rigidity, a belief that because I am right, those who don't believe as I do are wrong."

Fizban is very clearly blaming the concept of good. He's saying "Good breeds intolerance, and the Elves and Kingpriest are 'good', but also bad for the world. 'Too much good' is just as harmful as too much evil is".

Dragonlance's take on alignment, like Mordenkainen's, is a trope called "Stupid Neutral" and a bit of the Golden Mean Fallacy. The belief that good is ultimately just as bad/harmful as evil. That mass murderers are just as important to the world as selfless heroes that save lives.

Relevant TV Tropes pages:

Stupid Neutral - TV Tropes

Some True Neutral people are devoted to the Balance Between Good and Evil - they fight only because the forces of evil grow too strong. Some just don't care very much about Good vs Evil (or Lawful vs Chaotic), only getting involved if their …

tvtropes.org

Balance Between Good and Evil - TV Tropes

Good and Evil have rules they must follow. These rules are usually towards overall self-preservation; no one side is allowed to "win" too much. The Big Good and Big Bad restrict their fighting to a Cosmic Chess Game rather than going at it in …

tvtropes.org

Golden Mean Fallacy - TV Tropes

Most people feel certain that there are two sides to every issue: their side, and the wrong side. Authors (and people in general) who subscribe to the Golden Mean Fallacy have another outlook. They believe that there are in fact three sides: the …

tvtropes.org

(Oh, and unsurprisingly, all of the attempts of trying to balance good and evil in Eberron always end with Evil murdering/banishing Good, taking power for themselves, and Good not having the resources and power to fight back against an overwhelming threat. Evil cannot be tolerated, because it's intolerant of good. Trying to tolerate evil just gives them the opportunity to take advantage of your acceptance. It's the Paradox of Tolerance.)

 

[Scribe]

It shouldn't, because both of you have seen what goodness like that can do.

Not "Good" but "...goodness like that..."

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Not "Good" but "...goodness like that..."

"Goodness" is still good. He's saying "like that" as a specific variant, but it's still "good" in his opinion. He just thinks that good can be bad, because he's Stupid Neutral.

 

[Velderan]

I did not follow those other threads, so I apologize for assuming ti was in response to the one I did follow where you actively said you were going to start a new thread.

That said, the thread I am talking about was actively about the Cataclysm. Why in the world would you think that was an inappropriate thread to talk about the philosophical issues brought up by DL? That would be like starting a thread about the Disks and then demanding no one talk about religion. It is trying to control a conversation you don't have any right to control.

You're confusing me for someone else, the only thread I've actively tried to steer anyone towards here in is the Preludes thread where I asked 2 people if they could shift their conversation to here. By no means do I want to stop people from having these conversations, I just don't want these conversations to keep dominating other threads because it tends to drown out other conversations or in the worst cases get a thread locked. It seems like we're off to a good start with some good discussion so win-win imo.

 

[DarkCrisis]

“The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.”

Kingpriest didn’t do things out of malice. He honestly thought he was doing good.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

“The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.”

That's not "Good". That's definitely Lawful Evil. Doing the wrong thing for the right intentions is evil. Doing the right thing for the right intentions is good.

Kingpriest didn’t do things out of malice. He honestly thought he was doing good.

The setting says he's good. The Top Good God says he's good. And actions speak louder than words. His actions were evil, therefore he was evil.

 

[Scribe]

"Goodness" is still good. He's saying "like that" as a specific variant, but it's still "good" in his opinion.

I think its more along the lines of 'with friends like that...who needs enemies'.

However, I dont think the conversation can really be handled on this forum, and its generated enough ill will over the last few days.

 

[DarkCrisis]

That's not "Good". That's definitely Lawful Evil. Doing the wrong thing for the right intentions is evil. Doing the right thing for the right intentions is good.

The setting says he's good. The Top Good God says he's good. And actions speak louder than words. His actions were evil, therefore he was evil.

And the Authors and several characters in the books and some of your peers on this site…

“I’m right and Everyone else is wrong.”

 

[Vaalingrade]

“The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.”

Kingpriest didn’t do things out of malice. He honestly thought he was doing good.

Can we at least pick on monstrous being at a time here?

If the Kingpriest was such a golly gawrsh good guy who was just misled, why murder everyone around him to stop him?

Why not put on the goofy wizard cosplay, go in, and just Gibbs slap him?