Dragonlance Dragonlance Philosophy thread

Since we don't seem to be capable of having a single Dragonlance thread focus on actually discussing the book releasing next week, here's a thread to focus on all your Dragonlance philosophy thoughts. Please keep it civil so this thread can keep going as long as needed and we can keep these conversations out of the other Dragonlance threads.
 

log in or register to remove this ad




Steel_Wind

Legend
One Side: Kender are terrible and annoying without exception.

Other Side: Hey, One Side, you're talking alot of sense.

There we go. Saved you 10 pages of people agreeing with each other about how terrible Kender are. ;)
In fairness, the new 5e Kender are not the one-note, endless thieves who don't understand personal property anymore. They got rid of that.

Now they are Halflings who are relatively fearless. And they have a somewhat cool weapon that alternates between ranged and melee.

The one-note nature of the Kender in prior editions made every kender PC a rehash of Tasslehoff. It was tiresome and disruptive.
 

DarkCrisis

Legend
One Side: Kender are terrible and annoying without exception.

Other Side: Hey, One Side, you're talking alot of sense.

There we go. Saved you 10 pages of people agreeing with each other about how terrible Kender are. ;)

Weird how Ive only ever played with exceptionally well played Kender. Must be that the player and DM aren't out to cause Chaos. Must be that a crappy player plays crappy characters. shrugs
 

eyeheartawk

#1 Enworld Jerk™
Must be that the player and DM aren't out to cause Chaos.
The World GIF
 

Scribe

Legend
Free Will, or Freedom of Choice, vs Tyranny and Subservience without choice.
Old Testament Good and Evil.
Colour Coded Morality.
Orders (Towers/Knights) and what it means to be part of them, or why they exist. -> Moderation and Control vs Freedom and Independence.
People's role in the relationship to their Gods.

DL asks questions on all this and more and this is probably the most interesting product of the year out of Wizards thanks to the work done and choices made originally in the settings creation.
 

Free Will, or Freedom of Choice, vs Tyranny and Subservience without choice.
Old Testament Good and Evil.
Colour Coded Morality.
Orders (Towers/Knights) and what it means to be part of them, or why they exist. -> Moderation and Control vs Freedom and Independence.
People's role in the relationship to their Gods.

DL asks questions on all this and more and this is probably the most interesting product of the year out of Wizards thanks to the work done and choices made originally in the settings creation.
Only Evil gives free will or freedom of choice, as Good apparently is Tyranny and Subservience without choice. Which doesn't sound particularly good.

Color Coded Morality, meaning everyone does the same terrible stuff but wears different team logos.

People's role in relationship to their gods= Gods don't need people and people don't need gods. Has it ever been demonstrated that there was a need for the gods to return? Why did the gods plan to return at all? People obviously didn't even understand the signs and lesson that the Cataclysm was about- and that was when there were people with a direct line to the gods. It's more like the gods came back because they just couldn't stay away.
 

Scribe

Legend
Only Evil gives free will or freedom of choice, as Good apparently is Tyranny and Subservience without choice. Which doesn't sound particularly good.
I'm afraid I dont follow.

Color Coded Morality, meaning everyone does the same terrible stuff but wears different team logos.

No? White vs Red vs Black Robes all are markedly different in their outlooks and behavior/motivations.

People's role in relationship to their gods= Gods don't need people and people don't need gods. Has it ever been demonstrated that there was a need for the gods to return? Why did the gods plan to return at all? People obviously didn't even understand the signs and lesson that the Cataclysm was about- and that was when there were people with a direct line to the gods. It's more like the gods came back because they just couldn't stay away.

I'm not sure that tracks with the novels at all.
 

I'm afraid I dont follow.



No? White vs Red vs Black Robes all are markedly different in their outlooks and behavior/motivations.



I'm not sure that tracks with the novels at all.
Paladine says that if there is too much good then it becomes intolerant, and basically stops being good. So Good=intolerance and forced conformity. So if too much good means Intolerance, then too much evil must lead to Tolerance. or all things being permissable- true freedom of choice.

CG Elves enslave their fellow elves, but are still CG. Thus, slavery isn't an evil act. Not a single god broke ranks to oppose the Cataclysm- mass genocide approved by even Mishakal.

Like I said, where is it in the novels that there was a need for the gods to return? The world recovered and went on without them. Did all the races learn their lesson from the Cataclysm? No, in fact there seems to have been huge misunderstandings what it was all about- no one even understood the signs of the Cataclysm when the gods were around to explain it. The gods just came back for their own reasons- certainly not because the races had changed.
 

Scribe

Legend
Paladine says that if there is too much good then it becomes intolerant, and basically stops being good. So Good=intolerance and forced conformity. So if too much good means Intolerance, then too much evil must lead to Tolerance. or all things being permissable- true freedom of choice.

I mean this is the issue here made clear.

Its not Good = Intolerance. Its Good, without balance (and likely its Lawful Good, not "Good") leads to intolerance and forced compliance. Good itself, is not intolerant, but a singular interpretation of Good that many would argue is a perversion of what Good actually is.

Too much Evil would not lead to Tolerance, but to an inability to transgress. Even this doesnt fly because Taskhisis wasnt about freedom, but was about all being subservient to her.
 

I mean this is the issue here made clear.

Its not Good = Intolerance. Its Good, without balance (and likely its Lawful Good, not "Good") leads to intolerance and forced compliance. Good itself, is not intolerant, but a singular interpretation of Good that many would argue is a perversion of what Good actually is.

Too much Evil would not lead to Tolerance, but to an inability to transgress. Even this doesnt fly because Taskhisis wasnt about freedom, but was about all being subservient to her.
So following Paladine's teachings inevitably leads to intolerance and forced compliance, which results in more Cataclysms? Sounds like LG is bad for the world. And this is why Krynn's alignment interpretations are completely stupid.
 

Scribe

Legend
So following Paladine's teachings inevitably leads to intolerance and forced compliance, which results in more Cataclysms? Sounds like LG is bad for the world. And this is why Krynn's alignment interpretations are completely stupid.

A singular interpretation of LG, or LG taken to an extreme, is bad. We even see this at times in the novels, with Sturm. Its not like the "LG Paladin, unable to be in a party with a CN Rogue" tropes and behaviors right?

The issue again, is thinking there is only one possible view on Good. One possible view on LG.

The Kingpriests.

Well, he was rebuked. Repeatedly, and was abandoned by Paladine. So again your reading does not match mine.
 

One side: They are stuck in alignment system, good gods have to act good all the time!

Other side: It's a game, just use your imagination. Not to mention it's all based on real world religious stuff anyways.

There we go. Saved you 10 pages of back and forth ;)
That plus the "you can fix it for your game so why complain for the book to be changed"
and the "it was written once it can't be changed"
 



A singular interpretation of LG, or LG taken to an extreme, is bad. We even see this at times in the novels, with Sturm. Its not like the "LG Paladin, unable to be in a party with a CN Rogue" tropes and behaviors right?

The issue again, is thinking there is only one possible view on Good. One possible view on LG.

The Kingpriests.

Well, he was rebuked. Repeatedly, and was abandoned by Paladine. So again your reading does not match mine.
And how was the Kingpriest threatening the whole world when he was limited to 2nd level spells?

Paladine had to murder an entire city, caused untold devastation to BOTH sides of a planet, just to stop his own good aligned priest. It's just silliness.
 

Scribe

Legend
And how was the Kingpriest threatening the whole world when he was limited to 2nd level spells?

Paladine had to murder an entire city, caused untold devastation to BOTH sides of a planet, just to stop his own good aligned priest. It's just silliness.

I believe that Istar at the time, and lets not forget the Knights were on a path the Gods didnt approve of either, was on track for taking over. More so than just a 'can cast 2nd level cleric spells' type issue.
 

A singular interpretation of LG, or LG taken to an extreme, is bad. We even see this at times in the novels, with Sturm. Its not like the "LG Paladin, unable to be in a party with a CN Rogue" tropes and behaviors right?

The issue again, is thinking there is only one possible view on Good. One possible view on LG.

The Kingpriests.

Well, he was rebuked. Repeatedly, and was abandoned by Paladine. So again your reading does not match mine.
Paladine wasn't talking about viewpoints, he was talking about the nature of Good, and that Evil and Neurality were necessary. So the God of Paladins thinks Evil is necessary and too many good people is bad.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top