Dragonlance Dragonlance Philosophy thread

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Except we can't with Dragonlance.

Death of the Author. We have to leave what we know about the authors at the door in order to critique what they wrote. Knowing their religion helps us understand why things are the way they are in the book, but it's not a valid excuse for why the piece of work cannot be critiqued.

And the people accusing the critics of being bigots for not thinking a part of the world is bad ought to be ashamed of themselves. That is uncalled for and detrimental to the discussion. Which I'm starting to think is the point.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Death of the Author. We have to leave what we know about the authors at the door in order to critique what they wrote. Knowing their religion helps us understand why things are the way they are in the book, but it's not a valid excuse for why the piece of work cannot be critiqued.

And the people accusing the critics of being bigots for not thinking a part of the world is bad ought to be ashamed of themselves. That is uncalled for and detrimental to the discussion. Which I'm starting to think is the point.

I don't understand that last point. Who the heck is calling people bigots?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I don't understand that last point. Who the heck is calling people bigots?

In the last thread on this topic, I was called evil two separate times for saying that Dragonlance's approach to alignment and religion is bad. I've seen people in this thread tiptoe around doing similar things.

 

[Micah Sweet]

In the last thread on this topic, I was called evil two separate times for saying that Dragonlance's approach to alignment and religion is bad. I've seen people in this thread tiptoe around doing similar things.

Well, I certainly don't think you're evil. I just don't agree with you.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Well, I certainly don't think you're evil. I just don't agree with you.

Yeah, and I was calling out the people that had engaged in bad forum behavior like accusing others of being evil or tiptoeing around calling others bigots for not liking Dragonlance's take on religion because one of the authors is Mormon.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

wait everyone who thinks they are good automatically are evil? because they are trying to be good?!? what? please explain

Edit: so SUperman, Ted Lasso, Michael from the Dresden files are all asevil as magneto and punisher....?

Superman knows he is not good, and therefore tries to do what is right.

A villain knows they are good, and therefore whatever they do must be right.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

A villain knows they are good, and therefore whatever they do must be right.

That's extremely ironic to say, given that we're discussing the Cataclysm and the morality of the "good" gods.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

That's extremely ironic to say, given that we're discussing the Cataclysm and the morality of the "good" gods.

Not at all ironic - a perfectly valid interpretation, and a point which Paladine makes himself, when arguing why he cannot be allowed to "win". He might be a god of "good" be he knows he is flawed. I'm not arguing that Dragonlance shouldn't be changed because the gods where "in the right". Just that it's fine to let players form their own judgments in accordance with what they believe themselves. I'm arguing that it would be inappropriate for WotC to dictate that the actions of the gods were either objectively "good" or objectively "evil". Key word being "objectively". Alignment in D&D is not supposed to map onto real world morality, whatever you may believe that to be.

Also see Galadriel:

In place of the Dark Lord you will set up a Queen. And I shall not be dark, but beautiful and terrible as the Morning and the Night! Fair as the Sea and the Sun and the Snow upon the Mountain! Dreadful as the Storm and the Lightning! Stronger than the foundations of the earth. All shall love me and despair!”

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Yeah, and I was calling out the people that had engaged in bad forum behavior like accusing others of being evil or tiptoeing around calling others bigots for not liking Dragonlance's take on religion because one of the authors is Mormon.

It's not just Mormonism. There are plenty of world religions that teach that a just and good God condoned genocide (on multiple occasions). Issues of religious tolerance aside, D&D has found itself in a fight with religious groups before. I don't think WotC would be keen to repeat the experience by labelling one if their core beliefs "objectively evil".

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

It's not just Mormonism. There are plenty of world religions that teach that a just and good God condoned genocide (on multiple occasions). Issues of religious tolerance aside, D&D has found itself in a fight with religious groups before. I don't think WotC would be keen to repeat the experience by labelling their core beliefs "objectively evil".

No one asked WotC to label it evil. They just asked for it to be changed because of the problematic morality of it.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

No one asked WotC to label it evil. They just asked for it to be changed because of the problematic morality of it.

So, are you, or are you not, labeling divinely endorsed genocide - a core belief of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, "problamatic"?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

So, are you, or are you not, labeling divinely endorsed genocide - a core belief of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, "problamatic"?

I will not answer questions that are obviously written to trap me.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I will not answer questions that are obviously written to trap me.

And the reason it's a trap is the term "problematic" is a term of condemnation. It's fine to say "I have a problem with", and you will find lots of people inside those religions who also say "I have a problem with that teaching". But it's a massive step from that to calling something "problematic". It's pretty much a synonym for "objectively evil".

Irony is that the term "problematic" is itself problematic.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

So, are you, or are you not, labeling divinely endorsed genocide - a core belief of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, "problamatic"?

we are not talking about real world religions... we are talking about a game book

 

[GMforPowergamers]

. Key word being "objectively". Alignment in D&D is not supposed to map onto real world morality, whatever you may believe that to be.

the only person trying to make the GAME map to the real world is you. In the game good has meaning and so does evil...

 

[HammerMan]

There IS something worth talking about when it comes to alignment and the deities but nothing that is there to insult monotheistic belief because the change from Mono to polytheism changes too much.
I am not much of a religion scholar (although it appears at least one is in this thread and he doesn’t want to talk about Mormons)but I understand that the three real world religions don’t believe in 18 separate individual deities.

As for the philosophy of dragonlance I think the balance between good and evil is way to hard to pull off in a game maybe in a while written novel (but the DL ones aren’t that either. They are fun though) but the concept needs to be approached with more care the. “Too much good=bad” or the laughable idea that every hood person is secretly evil

I don't understand that last point. Who the heck is calling people bigots?

Maybe you have the person on block or they do but there is a poster saying that becuse you can loosely map real world religions to this fantasy one that any attack on the story any criticism is also an attack on the real world religion and as such is bigotry

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Superman knows he is not good, and therefore tries to do what is right.

what superman stories are you reading?

 

[Umbran]

So, are you, or are you not, labeling divinely endorsed genocide - a core belief of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, "problamatic"?

Mod Note:
It is unclear where you got the idea that challenging people on their positions on real world religion was going to be acceptable.

It is not.

You are done in this conversation.

 

[overgeeked]

Guys, sometimes someone's/some setting's take on morality is just objectively wrong.

You've yet to actually show that in any way. You just keep repeating it without explaining the details. You clearly have an opinion. But can you actually support it with a coherent argument?

You don't need to figure out a comprehensive, proven definition of what good and evil are in order to say that.

You literally do. Without a definition of good or evil you cannot say what is good or evil, therefore you cannot say that an act is good or evil. Which is what you're arguing. This act is evil and wrong. Okay, define evil and show that this act is evil and wrong.

You can just recognize that this one thing is evil and stop feeling the need to defend it for some strange reason.

I don't see many people defending it, only pushing back on your moral absolutism that you keep repeating but refuse to explain or defend or argue for.

 

[overgeeked]

I think Good and Evil are terms objective to the human existence.

Objective things are easily observed and defined. "I know it when I see it" is most often used as a catchall for things the speaker doesn't like. "I don't like it, therefore it's X" where X is this "obvious" thing that "everyone" agrees on when in reality, it's not X, it's not obvious, and not everyone agrees. Like morality.

The possibility of aliens or other animals that don't follow our morality doesn't contradict that. They're not human, so it would be impossible to judge them using our morality, even if it were objective to how we live.

You keep asserting that morality is objective but fail to offer anything to support that. Let me introduce you to another philosophical idea, Hitchen's razor. The short version is: what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.