Dragonlance Dragonlance Adventure & Prelude Details Revealed

Over on DND Beyond Amy Dallen and Eugenio Vargas discuss the beginning of Shadow of ther Dragon Queen and provide some advice on running it.

Running a Session Zero for Dragonlance: Shadow of the Dragon Queen

When starting a new adventure, it's a good idea to get on the same page as your party. Here's how to run a session zero for the upcoming Dragonlance adv...

www.dndbeyond.com

This epic war story begins with an invitation to a friend's funeral and three optional prelude encounters that guide you into the world of Krynn. Amy Dallen is joined by Eugenio Vargas to share some details about how these opening preludes work and some advice on using them in your own D&D games.

There is also information on the three short 'prelude' adventures which introduce players to the world of Krynn:

• Eye in the Sky -- ideal for sorcerers, warlocks, wizards, or others seeking to become members of the Mages of High Sorcery.
• Broken Silence -- ideal for clerics, druids, paladins, and other characters with god-given powers.
• Scales of War -- ideal for any character and reveals the mysterious draconians.

The article discusses Session Zero for the campaign and outlines what to expect in a Dragonlance game -- war, death, refugees, and so on.

​

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Well, with the Lady of Pain, it's sort of a "greater good" thing. But on the other hand, I don't think many people think the LoP is good-aligned.

an evil person can do things and justify it as 'for the greater good' heck a neutral person can (and I honestly think most people would be unaligned cause we all doo good and evil) but good people should rarely and only with reservation do evil things (knowingly) but the farther up you go God, Over God, Cosmic embodiment of good, ext you should do less and less evil cause you have all the options and all the knowladge...

 

[Vaalingrade]

'Haphazard Plothole Cover' is neither an alignment, nor a viable character concept.

 

[Azzy]

Extreme good is also unhealthy, since it results in people who are willing to murder 10,000 innocents in order to save 10 million. The ends justify the means to achieve the greater good. All of the extremes are bad.

I think your argument is poorly thought out with a conclusion that derives from a gross misunderstanding of morality. Murdering 10,000 innocents regardless of reason is never good.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I think your argument is poorly thought out with a conclusion that derives from a gross misunderstanding of morality. Murdering 10,000 innocents regardless of reason is never good.

every argument for 'too much good' turns into this...

good aligned person does good things... slowly gets corrupted and starts doing evil things...

some how those evil things the person who started as good does get labled as too much good,

 

[Vaalingrade]

I think your argument is poorly thought out with a conclusion that derives from a gross misunderstanding of morality. Murdering 10,000 innocents regardless of reason is never good.

Even 'fun' and 'profit'?

Or 'because I was hangry'?

That hardly seems fair.

 

[Faolyn]

an evil person can do things and justify it as 'for the greater good' heck a neutral person can (and I honestly think most people would be unaligned cause we all doo good and evil) but good people should rarely and only with reservation do evil things (knowingly) but the farther up you go God, Over God, Cosmic embodiment of good, ext you should do less and less evil cause you have all the options and all the knowladge...

True.

On the other hand, we don't know what the LoP's abilities are. Sure, she can keep gods out and create permanent demiplanes, presumably at will. But other than that? And she doesn't actually really murder people so much as banish them to the Mazes, which may or may not be worse, depending on your personal view of what the Mazes are like. At the least, they're a prison, and--it's been a while, I could be very wrong--I don't think that you can starve to death in them. At the least, I assume that you can get hungry but not actually die of starvation, and that's how I'd use them.

 

[Maxperson]

I think your argument is poorly thought out with a conclusion that derives from a gross misunderstanding of morality. Murdering 10,000 innocents regardless of reason is never good.

It's not my argument. It's one I've seen made many times, though.

 

[Micah Sweet]

every argument for 'too much good' turns into this...

good aligned person does good things... slowly gets corrupted and starts doing evil things...

some how those evil things the person who started as good does get labled as too much good,

Again, Team Good and Team Evil (and Team Neutral).

 

[Faolyn]

Not if you think of it as Team Cosmic Good and Team Cosmic Evil, which Dragonlance does. The problem is, you don’t like that and want Dragonlance to be something it's not. The same way you feel about the Order of High Sorcery. You don't like the narrative underpinnings of the setting. DL is not reliant on 21st century definitions of good and evil.

Then it shouldn't be using those terms.

If you saw a game that said that a particular good-aligned NPC (in a non-modern game) was into torture and rape, and said that people in the setting knew about it but still thought them good despite or or because of these acts--and this wasn't a grimdark setting and nobody in-game was being mind-controlled into thinking or acting this way--would you think, sure, this person is a good person, it's not their fault that in the 21st century torture and rape are considered evil things?

Or would you think that the authors have a very skewed idea about what counts as good and evil?

This is a game that was written by people from the 20th and 21st centuries, to be played by people of the 20th and 21st centuries. "Not being reliant on 21st century definitions of good and evil" is a cop-out.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Then it shouldn't be using those terms.

If you saw a game that said that a particular good-aligned NPC (in a non-modern game) was into torture and rape, and said that people in the setting knew about it but still thought them good despite or or because of these acts--and this wasn't a grimdark setting and nobody in-game was being mind-controlled into thinking or acting this way--would you think, sure, this person is a good person, it's not their fault that in the 21st century torture and rape are considered evil things?

Or would you think that the authors have a very skewed idea about what counts as good and evil?

This is a game that was written by people from the 20th and 21st centuries, to be played by people of the 20th and 21st centuries. "Not being reliant on 21st century definitions of good and evil" is a cop-out.

And yet even the new book doesn't really change anything on that score. The gods are still arranged as Good, Neutral, and Evil, and the gods of Good still participated in the Catclysm. How do you explain that?