Dragonlance Dragonlance Philosophy thread

Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
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.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
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?
 




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.
 


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!”
 
Last edited:

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".
 
Last edited:

Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
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.
 



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.
 
Last edited:



HammerMan

Legend
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
 



overgeeked

B/X Known World
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

B/X Known World
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.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top