I can honestly say that I've never encountered this.
Count yourself lucky. Of course, it also means you've never read any D&D related message boards from about 2000 to present as well.
This is kind of what I mean when I say you aren't actually listening to what I'm saying. If I say something is a problem, then guess what bucko, it's a problem for me. You don't get to tell me it's not. You don't control what's a problem for other people. You just have to accept that not everyone plays the game for the same reason you do.
So, it's a problem because your interpretation of canon isn't the same as my interpretation of canon and your solution is that I must accept your interpretation? Because the only way I can see your character as "uniquely Dragonlance" is if I ignore broad swaths of the canon and accept your specific interpretation. Otherwise, you've basically just taken a character that in no way actually fits with Dragonlance canon, ported it into the setting and then told me that I have to accept it.
Never minding that the character isn't uniquely Dragonlance. It's not. It flat out contradicts the themes of Dragonlance. It challenges the conceits of the setting. Opposing the gods is NOT what Dragonlance is about. And never really has been. Not ONE single character in any of the fiction wants the gods to be gone. Not one. Even Raistlin, who does challenge Takhisis doesn't do so to drive the gods away or thinks that the gods shouldn't be there at all.
Hey, I'm not insisting anything. You can play whatever the heck you want to play and it's no skin off my nose. That's fine. But, playing a character that directly acts in opposition to the core foundation of the setting - the return of the gods and the return of balance is the CORE of a War of the Lance campaign, and then trying to claim that this is somehow a canon character is beyond my understanding. How in the hell is this a "uniquely Dragonlance" character?
If you described the character - mentally unbalanced wild mage gnome that hates the gods and thinks gods should go away - would you honestly expect anyone to immediately think, "Hey, that's a Dragonlance character"? Seriously? Hrm, not Solamnic Knight, not Silvanesti Elf, not Wizard of High Sorcery. No. Apparently those aren't Dragonlance enough. No. We have to have a character that appears no where in any of the setting canon, taking a position held by no one in the setting, and then expect everyone around you to identify this as a "uniquely Dragonlance" character? Come on. You can't be serious.
When you tell me that my character idea is "wrong," it's not groovy, even if you're willing to be oh so magnanimous and deign to play with it.
Hey, no one has ever brought it up at the table. No one particularly cares that much. When a Kender Cleric and a Minotaur Bard passed the sniff test at the table, gnome wild mage wasn't going to raise any eyebrows. Why would it? It's your character and it's a great character. But it was pretty obvious at the outset of this campaign that campaign canon wasn't going to be a particularly strong thing wasn't it?
You deriding my character as inauthentic to the setting exactly blows holes through my goals for play. It's just like when your tanky knight turned out to not be as effective as you'd hoped in combat. Only for me, it's about the story.
Fair enough. Thing is, I CHANGED my character. Tanky knight was failing because the mechanics the DM came up with didn't actually do what he thought they would do and I PROVED it. Heck, I had to actually track the information before anyone would actually listen to my complaints. Everyone just pooh poohed me and told me I had no idea what I was talking about. Until such time as I actually did the leg work and demonstrated that the mechanics didn't actually work.
OTOH, what have you done to bring your character closer in line to the themes and conceits of a Dragonlance campaign?
Which all could've been avoided if the lore was consistent instead of going through dramatic changes, since I'd be playing a different character more in line with my goals for play. I can't hope to do that when the possibilities for heroes and conflicts aren't clear and aren't shared. I'm always at risk of someone else telling me, "No, that's not how it really is, you failed to make a character in line with the setting. Might be fun and all, but you failed at your goal."
When people complain about FR lore being too convoluted, that is part of the problem.
When people say that 4e isn't "real D&D' because of it's lore changes, that is part of the problem.
But, it's a problem of your own making. Instead of complaining about the lore changes, why not just either ignore the issue, or, delve a bit deeper into the lore and create something that is more in line? Or, as a thought, create a character that isn't directly opposed to the stated themes and goals of the campaign?
When Hussar complains about people in his low-magic Thule game wanting to play spellcasters, that is a part what you're seeing (because you're changing the character assumptions of the setting).
Funny thing is though, I was explicitly clear at the outset - no casters. Or, rather, I thought I was explicitly clear. And the first character concept your ran by me was a caster. IOW, you chose to ignore the lore that your didn't like in favor of what you did like. I mean, the elevator pitch of the campaign was this (yay for online games where we have records):
I want the Primeval Thule campaign (PT) to be a low magic campaign. What I mean by this is not only is the setting supposed to be low magic - you're far more likely to be eaten by something you can find in a natural history museum than a wyvern, for example - but the campaign itself, meaning the characters, should be low magic as well.
...
So, I've got a couple of options. The first one is the simplest. No one plays a full caster. Half casters are fine - spell thief, eldritch knight, - that's fine. While PT does ban monks (which I think I might relax on with the non-caster monk) and paladins, I could be convinced that a paladin is possible in the setting.
...
The second option is to allow full casters but, to put some pretty serious limitations on them. The option I'm leaning towards is visually impressive spells cause madness checks for anyone seeing them. Anything that you'd need CG to do in a movie is a DC:8+spell level Wisdom save or contract madness
That was the elevator pitch, and the first character pitched was full bore wizard followed by a warlock. So, yeah, I was a little annoyed that people pretty much ignored what I said and then brought whatever the hell they felt like playing.
These are all problems that might be reduced in the future by not treating the past as a thing to be torn down and replaced every few years.
Because part of the game design function of lore in a tabletop RPG is so that people can make characters and tell stories and play games in line with that lore (at least as in line with it as they want).
Or, people could actually try to learn the lore, follow the lore of the story, actually TALK to the rest of the group before making characters. Y'know, instead of making characters in a vacuum and then being all wide eyed surprised when their interpretations aren't shared by everyone at the table. I mean, if you're going to make characters that are in opposition to the conceits of the setting, why be surprised when people don't think your characters are a particularly good fit for a setting?
/edit to add
And let's be clear here. This has NOTHING to do with the changes to canon. The sorcerer thing can easily be worked around - we did do it for the other sorcerer. Not a big deal. Even the gnome caster thing isn't really a huge issue to be honest. It's a pretty big retcon for the setting since the game simply didn't allow for that sort of thing back when Dragonlance first came out, but, meh, it's not like it breaks the setting to do so. But the "Hates the gods and wants them gone" thing? That's, for me, the big sticking point. Because to me, that's not what Dragonlance is about. Hey, I get the argument. And, to be honest, I largely agree with the argument. The actions of the gods in DL is pretty deplorable when you get right down to it.
But, IN THAT SETTING, that's not how it's interpreted. The Cataclysm is justified in the setting. Setting up a character that flat out opposes the gods is very out of place in the setting. People in the setting never express that position. It's just not part of the setting. Same way as Droid Rights and Droid Slavery isn't dealt with in Star Wars. It's a giant elephant in the room, but, it stays out of the actual setting.
So, in my view, no, this is not a "uniquely Dragonlance" character. A uniquely Dragonlance character wouldn't oppose the gods. Any more than a uniquely Dark Sun characters would worship Correlon. Or an Oriental Adventures character that doesn't believe in Honor. You could play a character that
has no honor. But, an OA character that thinks Honor should not exist at all? To me, that's a bridge too far.