WotC Dragonlance: Everything You Need For Shadow of the Dragon Queen

WotC has shared a video explaining the Dragonlance setting, and what to expect when it is released in December.

World at War: Introduces war as a genre of play to fifth edition Dungeons & Dragons.

Dragonlance: Introduces the Dragonlance setting with a focus on the War of the Lance and an overview of what players and DMs need to run adventures during this world spanning conflict.

Heroes of War: Provides character creation rules highlighting core elements of the Dragonlance setting, including the kender race and new backgrounds for the Knight of Solamnia and Mage of High Sorcery magic-users. Also introduces the Lunar Sorcery sorcerer subclass with new spells that bind your character to Krynn's three mystical moons and imbues you with lunar magic.

Villains: Pits heroes against the infamous death knight Lord Soth and his army of draconians.

Notes --

• 224 page hardcover adventure
• D&D's setting for war
• Set in eastern Solamnia
• War is represented by context -- it's not goblins attacking the village, but evil forces; refugees, rumours
• You can play anything from D&D - clerics included, although many classic D&D elements have been forgotten
• Introductory scenarios bring you up to speed on the world so no prior research needed

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Maybe I phrased it badly, it only 'makes sense' if you are willing to suspend disbelief enough to accept the story just like it is told to you as canon. I can think of some real world examples that work the same way, chances are you can too

Here is the thing, it starts off by a good god (THE good god overgod of all) telling something that A- we assume he isn't lying and B- we assume no one can be withholding information from him. What does he say "Hey the king was a really good guy, in fact it was an example of who things go wrong when there is too much good in the world" now already I have ethical and philosophical issue with this but I will buy into it for (as you said) suspend disbelief.
This good god then goes on to describe actions that (I think) would have been at least neutral if not out right evil. -NOW this doesn't get worse as the story ages I don't know what does... things that in 85 87 or even 95 that were seen as okay are now seen as out right evil-
The end result is a nuke the planet including people who were doing nothing wrong... and the gods (yes good but also evil and neutral breaking and leaving)


Now I HAVE run my own version of 'Good vs Evil' where the balance needs to be maintained, if I pulled it off is debatable (my small group didn't notice any issues but they didn't have 30+ years and thousands of eyes) but as a concept it is hard at the best of times... and it is a major theme of the world.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Not without the consent of the other gods.

Then it stands to reason that the other gods needed Paladine’s consent to drop the mountain they did.

 

[FrozenNorth]

For what it's worth, my view is that DL will work best if we take it as given that fidelity to the gods, and humility, are valuable things. We don't need to philosophise those questions - for the purposes of the setting, we take them as given.

I’m a player in a new game. My character is inspired by the Golden Age Greek heroes. He is both pious and humble.

Nothing in the foregoing require that either he nor the gods be Good.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I mean he certainly didn't imprison, banish, or murder EVERYONE, but he was on his way with his thought-police enforcement squad and gladiator death sentences for people accused of crimes. Is it such a stretch in a fantasy world to suggest divine beings derive much of their power from their worshipper's faith in them and that the Kingpriest had achieved enough belief from his followers that he threatened to overtake the gods own power? That seems reasonable enough for me in a fantasy make-believe world.

I agree. Which makes Paladine saying that the Kingpriest was good so inexplicable.

 

[Umbran]

If part of the canon says "Genocide is okay", then that part of the canon deserves to be torn down and fans of that specific canon have bad morals.

Mod Note:
It is time to separate fiction from reality. Finding a thing acceptable or desirable in fiction does not imply anything about one's morals in practice.

Please do not impugn people for having different preferences for content in pretending to be elves.

 

[Velderan]

I agree. Which makes Paladine saying that the Kingpriest was good so inexplicable.

The Kingpriest as a position probably was filled by a good man at one point. Keep in mind, this wasn't 1 singular being but rather a position that was filled by different people who probably had their own interpretations of what Paladine's teachings were.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Then it stands to reason that the other gods needed Paladine’s consent to drop the mountain they did.

Yes, true. Like I had said in one of these threads - the way I reason it is Lord Soth was their last hope to stop the Kingpriest. Once he failed, the gods of good were forced into either allowing the Kingpriest to attain godhood, which was the creation of immense evil or acquiesce to the plans as laid out by the other gods, which was the Cataclysm. They were forced into this position and we know what they eventually chose.
Being a retributive strike, the Cataclysm's effects would be felt by the just and good, the evil as well as those who were neutral. No one would be spared. And yeah it's a mark against them (the good gods), a shame they carried (and carry) and so they turned from the world.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I'm not really sure why the Cataclysm is seen to be a special case.

Scale and presentation and this isn't a group of arguments this is 1 argument changing any of them can and would change some of the pushback.

They didn't nuke a town or an island but the world
This is said to be a reaction to too much good
This action has little (I don't think no is the right word) remorse
This action is said to be 1/3 the choice of exemplars of good.


what could change this?
They didn't nuke a town or an island but the world making it smaller scale, a nukeing of the city MAY stop some form having the issue but then it doesn't really fit the name.
This is said to be a reaction to too much good This one REALLY needs a rework. for this to work there needs to be a lot of good being done (not evil that thinks or pretends to be good) and it need a real consequence 'it the world was so good the evil gods were going to do worse then the cataclysm)
This action has little (I don't think no is the right word) remorse like the first one this is hard if you have the gods admit it was wrong its hard to call them both gods and good the 'best' fix would change too much of a central theme of the setting
This action is said to be 1/3 the choice of exemplars of good. this is were i think your best bet is. the good gods need to be forced into this with clear 'we had to kill thousands to save billions' level justification or ' the others were going to wipe out krynn we fought and saved those of you that we could but neutral sided with evil and it was 2-1

 

[Velderan]

Here is the thing, it starts off by a good god (THE good god overgod of all) telling something that A- we assume he isn't lying and B- we assume no one can be withholding information from him. What does he say "Hey the king was a really good guy, in fact it was an example of who things go wrong when there is too much good in the world" now already I have ethical and philosophical issue with this but I will buy into it for (as you said) suspend disbelief.
This good god then goes on to describe actions that (I think) would have been at least neutral if not out right evil. -NOW this doesn't get worse as the story ages I don't know what does... things that in 85 87 or even 95 that were seen as okay are now seen as out right evil-
The end result is a nuke the planet including people who were doing nothing wrong... and the gods (yes good but also evil and neutral breaking and leaving)

The issue with what you wrote to me is the bolded part. It might not work for you and that's absolutely fine but it's incredibly arrogant to suggest your thoughts reflect society as a whole. Do you really think the majority of the western world is ok with incest as being acceptable if it meant your family didn't have to share their stuff with others when they die? That concept as a story element didn't stop 9.3 million people from tuning in to watch the season finale of House of the Dragon. I'd argue the vast majority of people don't apply their personal morals to the media they consume.

 

[mamba]

In these ways, I see DL as being pretty close Arthurian fantasy and LotR. And quite different from, say, Eberron, or Planescape, or Conan-esque S&S.

agreed, to me it always was a better LotR rpg (not the better trilogy mind you). Same themes, more classes / skills / magic items for the players