Dragonlance Dragonlance Philosophy thread

Velderan said:

Since we don't seem to be capable of having a single Dragonlance thread focus on actually discussing the book releasing next week, here's a thread to focus on all your Dragonlance philosophy thoughts. Please keep it civil so this thread can keep going as long as needed and we can keep these conversations out of the other Dragonlance threads.

Click to expand...

Point of order: no person gets to decide what is or isn't appropriate for public discussion, and the fact that this thread was made in response to one specifically about the Cataclysm shows that what you are really trying to do is shut down such discussions. Which is odd, since aside from Planescape, DL is the most philosophical of the D&D settings and is actually designed to ask hard questions.

So, basically: No, you don't get to define the conversation just because you don't want to talk about it. That's not how message boards work.

RuinousPowers said:

The idea that the Kingpriest turned evil is not supported by what Paladine said. He said it was the height of Goodness and the Kingpriest was Good.

Click to expand...

Maybe Fizban isn't an act and Paladine really is dumb.

Reynard said:

Point of order: no person gets to decide what is or isn't appropriate for public discussion, and the fact that this thread was made in response to one specifically about the Cataclysm shows that what you are really trying to do is shut down such discussions. Which is odd, since aside from Planescape, DL is the most philosophical of the D&D settings and is actually designed to ask hard questions.

So, basically: No, you don't get to define the conversation just because you don't want to talk about it. That's not how message boards work.

Click to expand...

No, it wasn't made in response to 1 thread. It was made in response to at least 4 threads that have grown to well over 50+ pages with the same arguments. My hope was people who wanted to have those discussions could have them here and the other DL threads could focus on the subject that started them such as the one that started about the SotDQ Prelude adventures that barely talked about them because it kept getting derailed into philosophy debates. A few people seemed receptive to the suggestion that this thread be made, such as @Demetrios1453 and @GMforPowergamers, so I took the initiative to make it. Glad you know what's in my head though.

Velderan said:

No, it wasn't made in response to 1 thread. It was made in response to at least 4 threads that have grown to well over 50+ pages with the same arguments. My hope was people who wanted to have those discussions could have them here and the other DL threads could focus on the subject that started them such as the one that started about the SotDQ Prelude adventures that barely talked about them because it kept getting derailed into philosophy debates. A few people seemed receptive to the suggestion that this thread be made, such as @Demetrios1453 and @GMforPowergamers, so I took the initiative to make it. Glad you know what's in my head though.

Click to expand...

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.

Scribe said:

1. He lost his divine patron. This is a warning.
2. He ordered mind controlling THOUGHT POLICE, to replace his priesthood, which had all lost their powers.
3. The 'real clerics' all got raptured.

I'm 999.9% sure, everyone could tell the difference.

Click to expand...

1: He was still LG according to his stat-block. Out of universe he was, by Dragonlance standards, good.
2: Fizban, a.k.a. Paladin, the Platinum Dragon, and leader of the Gods of Good explicitly called him a good man (the quote has been produced earlier in the thread).

We have the literal Word of God in the setting therefore that the Kingpriest was, by Dragonlance standards good. There's no "Road to Hell is paved with good intentions". There's only "The Kingpriest was Good according to the Dragonlance definitions despite the crap he pulled".

There are only two possible conclusions therefore:

1. Those of us in this thread are wrong and the Kingpriest was good actually
2. The definition of Good on Krynn is not the same as the definition of good in the real world.

Neonchameleon said:

1: He was still LG according to his stat-block. Out of universe he was, by Dragonlance standards, good.

Click to expand...

where was he stated

Neonchameleon said:

1. Those of us in this thread are wrong and the Kingpriest was good actually
2. The definition of Good on Krynn is not the same as the definition of good in the real world.

Click to expand...

this is intresting and would lead me to think an exception of alignment definition would be best... or just remove alignments and call them team 1 and team 2

GMforPowergamers said:

where was he stated

Click to expand...

Legends of the Twins p56

(And yes it's d20, but it also has Weiss and Hickman's names on the cover and Weiss as the lead writer.)

GMforPowergamers said:

this is intresting and would lead me to think an exception of alignment definition would be best... or just remove alignments and call them team 1 and team 2

Click to expand...

Either that or once you've dealt with the evil deities it's time to deal with the "good" ones and free Krynn.

Neonchameleon said:

Legends of the Twins p56
View attachment 268377
(And yes it's d20, but it also has Weiss and Hickman's names on the cover and Weiss as the lead writer.)

Either that or once you've dealt with the evil deities it's time to deal with the "good" ones and free Krynn.

Click to expand...

so with this we are back to "Then these things even fans call evil were done by LG king... and that is not acceptable to some of us"

Neonchameleon said:

Legends of the Twins p56
View attachment 268377
(And yes it's d20, but it also has Weiss and Hickman's names on the cover and Weiss as the lead writer.)

Either that or once you've dealt with the evil deities it's time to deal with the "good" ones and free Krynn.

Click to expand...

I think more accurately, the only thing the Kingpriest did that the gods actually disapproved of was asking for a promotion.

GMforPowergamers said:

Michael Carpenter

Michael Joseph Patrick Carpenter[1] is a human male. He is the wielder of Amoracchius. He first appears in Grave Peril. Michael Carpenter is approximately fifty years of age, with grey eyes, and greying dark brown hair. He's slightly shorter than Harry Dresden, but is of a more muscular...

dresdenfiles.fandom.com

This is a character from a novel series I have read. He is FAR from a perfect person, but he is a GOOD person (I will try not to start the LG NG argument and just go with he is good)

by this logic if he became king of a kingdom in Krynn he would cause evil.

I just don't see it. It makes no sense to me. What about this world makes good people cause evil?

Click to expand...

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

Although i don't go for the "alignment is a team jersey" but "alignment can be taken so far that it becomes inverted." Somewhat like how the chronic backstabbing of CE tends to most benefit Law and Good, so too can LG tyranny benefit Chaos and Evil. And i think that it can make for fun games.

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. 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).