Dragonlance Dragonlance Philosophy thread

[GMforPowergamers]

Aaand now we're straight out trying to argue the guy who did genocide so hard the gods decided to genocide him back is good because 'he thought he was doing good'.

Really?

I wonder what alignment genocidal maniacs are from real life useing this 'you thought you were the good guy' process

 

[GMforPowergamers]

A lot of the trouble with Dragonlance's morality comes down to the alignment system, obviously. The alignment system is notoriously bad at actually representing anything as complicated as morality remotely well. Alignment in D&D started out as Moorcock's law vs chaos and did a weird thing where it took basically the same concepts and labeled them good and evil...but also kept the words law and chaos just to make things complicated. But law =/= good and chaos =/= evil.

If we replace "good" with the original "law," then swap out "evil" for the original "chaos" things clear up rather nicely.

again... if that is the intent they can make an explanation of that

The Kingpriest was concerned about law, people following the law, and with upholding the law. He didn't care about morality (clearly) he cared about order. People following the rules. He was an authoritarian. His motivations might have been good, maybe...initially, but his fanaticism for order at any price twisted him from good to evil.

again I think him being LG who at some point became LN then LE makes perfect sense... EXCEPT that then shows why you need good incharge not why good shouldn't be incharge, because when Good was it was great, it was only when corrupted to evil it fell

This also helps the idea of maintaining balance actually make sense. Too much order is bad, just like too much chaos is bad.

And all this because people can't see the potential for evil in order or the potential for good in chaos.

Yes, I'm aware this isn't how it's presented officially. So what? The novel version is simplistic and kinda dumb.

that is our point... kinda dumb and make the LG characters look E

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Again, maybe make a version for your own game (you know, the part of this that matters the most to a lot of posters) that isn't "dumb and bad". Problem solved. Plenty of ideas out there for that already.

what is published matters... if it didn't there would be no point in discussing it. the fact that you care what is published shows this.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

It’s so weird how people get locked in on what’s official. The entire history of the hobby is a DIY dreamscape of people just doing their own thing. It’s still a dominant piece of the hobby with all the 3PP. Can people just not DIY for some reason?

that argument goes both ways...

"We want it changed to make sense" "You can do that in your game"
"We want it to remain the same" "You can do that in your game"

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The people who wrote the book do not think it’s dumb and bad otherwise they wouldn’t have written it in the book.

and those people don't work for the company, and they have not for years. So when we ask for the company to take Company owned IP and fix it, I don't care what they think.
Bringing up there opinion is no more valid then asking you or me at this point. They did not create the setting alone, the setting evolved without them and the new books will be made by a company they not only don't work for but actively sued.

 

[Micah Sweet]

what is published matters... if it didn't there would be no point in discussing it. the fact that you care what is published shows this.

I see a difference between changing a story and not changing it, in regards to publishing, and obviously in this case I value keeping it the same (which is admittedly less work) over changing an existing story.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I tend to agree with that. I think the Great Wheel is bad, but I'm not asking for it to be removed from the game or Planescape, because I recognize that it's my own subjective opinion.

However, I do think that the Cataclysm is just objectively bad in its use of morality, and that the books would be better off changing it. "The good gods took part in genocide" seems problematic enough to me to warrant an errata.

this...

I like warlords and dislike swiss army wizards. These are opinions even if I can back them up with why. I like red and blue but I dislike yellow, that is an opinion. Showing flaws in a 30+ year old work and saying "Hey if you are rebuilding it maybe throw some support this way" isn't remotely the same.

 

[Micah Sweet]

and those people don't work for the company, and they have not for years. So when we ask for the company to take Company owned IP and fix it, I don't care what they think.
Bringing up there opinion is no more valid then asking you or me at this point. They did not create the setting alone, the setting evolved without them and the new books will be made by a company they not only don't work for but actively sued.

I don't see the legal right to do something as being enough to do it, and obviously we disagree on the secondary motivations.

 

[Micah Sweet]

this...

I like warlords and dislike swiss army wizards. These are opinions even if I can back them up with why. I like red and blue but I dislike yellow, that is an opinion. Showing flaws in a 30+ year old work and saying "Hey if you are rebuilding it maybe throw some support this way" isn't remotely the same.

But, regardless of what they said in their marketing copy, they didn't really rebuild anything. Nothing they did in the new book contradicts the original narrative. Instead, it allows for the table to contradict it in their own game, which is IMO a much better solution.

After all, weren't most of you more concerned about play than setting anyway?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Okay, cool. Now let's talk philosophy...

You're begging the question. You're assuming that killing a lot of innocent people is evil.

I am not going any further with this... killing a lot of innocent people can be shades of grey needed... it can be utilitarian, it can not be GOOD as described by D&D 5e.
I wish to discus the game not some real world hypothetical.