Redemption is NOT a theme of the setting. It is only the theme of the War of the Lance. Prior to the war, no redemption was happening, yet the setting existed. After the war, no redemption is happening because the gods are back, yet the setting still exists.
Yet it is still part of the setting. This is the same issue you have above. These things are not what YOU think of when you play in those settings, but that doesn't mean that they are not a part of the settings. They just don't strike your fancy is all.
Both DL atheists and rebels against Gondor are a part of those settings. The settings transcend the books that spawned them.
As I mention above, setting transcend the books that spawn them. Maybe hold back on the expectations a bit
See, I think the problem is, we're talking past each other. To me, Dragonlance isn't about the geography or the history of the setting. That's part of it, of course, but, that's not what the setting is
about. The setting is about redemption. How the setting is presented is all about redemption. First with the War of the Lance and the return of the Gods, then with the Twins trilogy and the redemption of Raistlin. Over and over again, the primary theme of the setting has been about redemption.
AFAIC, no, the setting does not "exist" until the players start playing it. Settings, for me, serve the campaign, not the other way around. Dragonlance isn't really defined by Ansalon which, at the end of the day, is a fairly stock standard D&D setting (other than no orcs). What defines Dragonlance is the themes - epic fantasy, clash of cultures, massive conflict between good and evil and the final redemption of the setting.
Which, at the end of the day, is why I don't really care when people add in things like warlock/rogues or Wild mage gnomes. So long as it serves the campaign, it's not really a problem. Nor does it actually bother me when someone plays a character which challenges the conceits of the setting. To me, that's just excellent play. It makes the game far more interesting when you have one or two (or all) characters who aren't marching in step. Fantastic.
But I don't care about setting canon
You do. You are telling me (and I'm using you to mean every single person in this thread who has argued with me) that canon matters. That canon is important. That canon should be adhered to. But, apparently, no it doesn't. Canon is easily left by the wayside whenever it's convenient. Play Gondor Rebels? No problem. Make any change you like. Retcon anything. Slot anything in that tickles your fancy.
This thread has nicely proven just how little canon actually matters. How unimportant canon really is. Anything is subject to change. I mean, [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] says it himself:
IOW, canon doesn't matter. If settings can go beyond the canon of the setting itself, then canon can't really be all that important.