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.

​

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I'm surprised that people do not see the opportunity for story-telling that exists with something like the Wall of Faithless, whether you for or against it.

I'm not against the story-telling that could come from it. I just wish that the setting would make it more explicit that it's a bad thing and that all of the gods are evil for allowing it to exist/supporting its existence.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

No, they can't, because some entity has to define and police them.

And gods have no more authority on that matter than humans do. And I trust science to figure out the definitions of "good" and "bad".

According to the D&D definitions of good and evil, murder is just fine. Which makes sense for a game which is all about killing stuff.

Killing =/= Murder

I don't know how you play, but when my players are playing Good characters, they only kill in self defense or the defense of others. When they murder, it's because it's an evil campaign.

And, no, D&D's definition of good and evil doesn't condone murder. Where in the world did you get that strange idea?

Sure. That's your personal, subjective definition.

That rape, genocide, murder, abuse, and similar actions are evil? Good luck finding a reasonable person that finds that statement controversial.

I know that most people don't think of "good" and "evil" as things that we can scientifically prove by studying the effects of different actions on people, but most people would agree that rape, genocide, murder, and similar things are evil. And I don't give any weight to the opinions of those that disagree.

 

[Eubani]

I would like to see more done with gods + followers other than Paladine, Takhisis and the 3 gods of magic. Many could not name more than a couple of others and describe them.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

And gods have no more authority on that matter than humans do.

If gods existed, then they would, by definition, have more power than humans, and authority goes to whoever has the power to enforce it.

And I trust science to figure out the definitions of "good" and "bad".

I'm a scientist. And I can tell you that's not something science does.

Killing =/= Murder

I don't know how you play, but when my players are playing Good characters, they only kill in self defense or the defense of others.

The difference between killing and murder is simply one of legality, not morality. It's quite possible to kill in self defense and still be convicted of murder. It's possible to kill in an act of aggression (as in a war) and it to be legal, and therefore not murder.

When they murder, it's because it's an evil campaign.

And, no, D&D's definition of good and evil doesn't condone murder. Where in the world did you get that strange idea?

That rape, genocide, murder, abuse, and similar actions are evil? Good luck finding a reasonable person that finds that statement controversial.

Their are people in this world which in my opinion would be better off where they not in it. I am perfectly happy to view their murder as morally justified act.

As for the rest, labelling them as "evil" is reductionist and foolish. Without understanding the real cause, you will never succeed in dealing with them.

I know that most people don't think of "good" and "evil" as things that we can scientifically prove by studying the effects of different actions on people, but most people would agree that rape, genocide, murder, and similar things are evil. And

I don't give any weight to the opinions of those that disagree.

This, a total disregard of other people's opinions, I would consider evil. Why do people commit genocide? Because they give no weight to the opinions of those who disagree with them.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I'm not against the story-telling that could come from it. I just wish that the setting would make it more explicit that it's a bad thing and that all of the gods are evil for allowing it to exist/supporting its existence.

Well, at least we half agree.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I've always thought that the ''good'' or ''evil'' type for the gods of DL (and other setting) and even their ''domain'' was a creation and classification coming from the mortals rather than the gods themselves.

The gods are what they are, and act like they act. Mortals, in their usual fashion, compartmentalize and rationalized their general actions into neat little boxes to fit their own vision of morality.

In an armed conflict, Mishakal is prayed to by both side for healing. Does her healing your opponent make her evil?

Chislev, Zeboim and Habbakuk share at lot of their domain, but one is neutral, the other evil and the other good? If a natural disaster destroys you boat, who do you blame? Convenient to have an evil figure to blame to avoid being angry at a deity you thanked with prayers 2 hours ago.

In war, of course, your troops are favored by Kiri-Jolith while your opponents are beasts possessed by the evil of Sargonas! And the group you are facing probably pretends the contrary.

Some gods love to align themselves with good ideals, others not. Some ''neutral'' ones probably think they are good.

In short: grouping of gods and their worship are a mortal construct.

 

[Velderan]

Were the Elves just as quick to accept the return of the "Good" Gods as the other races in the novels? Because, IMO, I feel like they would be an ideal candidate for Dragonlance's "antitheistic" faction. They're old enough to remember the Cataclysm. It's just logical that they would be more inclined to reject the gods that had a part in it.

I don't know that it's that simple for the elves. The elves had already pretty much withdrawn from the world around the time the Kingpriest started ramping up his demands for moral behavior being the only allowed behavior about 50 or so years prior. In the aftermath of the Cataclysm, they blamed the humans for causing it so there really isn't cause for them to blame the gods imo. Considering the elven kingdoms were largely unaffected by the Cataclysm, what is their issue with the gods that would cause them to reject their return?

 

[Umbran]

Sure. That's your personal, subjective definition. My definition of "evil" includes "trying to impose your own definition of evil on other people".

Mod Note:
If you want to remain in this discussion, we will need you to tone down the rhetoric.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Except, you know, the elves who lived through it and are still around to tell all the people rediscovering the gods of their forefathers exactly what went down and why they might ought to be skeptical of the gods' intentions.

Elves are fairly xenophobic in DL. I doubt they would have told other people anything.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes, it was. The fact that Good Gods tolerated/supported it was definitely problematic. Any god that is fine with it existing is evil.

Does "problematic" in this context mean, "someone has a problem with it"? If so, i agree, but that's a wide net.