Dragonlance Dragonlance Philosophy thread

[Vaalingrade]

No it doesn't. Just because we disagree on whether pineapple or anchovy goes on pizza doesn't mean we can't agree that urine is a bad sauce for pizza.

There are some real world Facebook communities that enjoy urine. How dare you!

 

[Neonchameleon]

As much as we all love, or hate, a pineapple analogy, that one really doesnt work. Unless a whole lot of people, dont actually mind urine as a pizza sauce...

The point is that we don't have to agree what good is to agree that things are bad.

And its relevance is that I don't think that anyone is trying to claim that the Kingpriest was other than bad. The two camps appear to be:

• The Kingpriest was evil and corrupt and, given that good and evil are metaphysical forces in older D&D clearly was Evil.
• The head god of Good says that the Kingpriest was good. The statblock says the Kingpriest was Lawful Good. By Dragonlance standards the Kingpriest was, therefore Good. Which means that there is something deeply wrong with Good on Krynn.

The second option is the one I find to be (a) correct and (b) far more interesting for worldbuilding.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I am constantly confused as to how murdering a city and plunging the world into a post-apocalyptic hellhole is such a minor thing to some people.

You don't need to understand it to know that it is a fact that other people do not share your values. And therefore your values are not universal.

What do you do in game when the players burn down an orphanage because one of the kids made a face at them?

Nothing. It's up to the players to decide what their characters do. It's not the DM's job to stand in judgment over their morality.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The point is that we don't have to agree what good is to agree that things are bad.

And its relevance is that I don't think that anyone is trying to claim that the Kingpriest was other than bad. The two camps appear to be:

• The Kingpriest was evil and corrupt and, given that good and evil are metaphysical forces in older D&D clearly was Evil.
• The head god of Good says that the Kingpriest was good. The statblock says the Kingpriest was Lawful Good. By Dragonlance standards the Kingpriest was, therefore Good. Which means that there is something deeply wrong with Good on Krynn.

The second option is the one I find to be (a) correct and (b) far more interesting for worldbuilding.

and again, if something is wrong/different about the meaning of GOOD on krynn it needs to be spelled out

 

[GMforPowergamers]

You don't need to understand it to know that it is a fact that other people do not share your values. And therefore your values are not universal.

by that logic we can't use the word good to mean anything. so we are back to team green and team yellow.

Nothing. It's up to the players to decide what their characters do. It's not the DM's job to stand in judgment over their morality.

 

[Vaalingrade]

You don't need to understand it to know that it is a fact that other people do not share your values. And therefore your values are not universal.

My values.

That mass murder is bad.

 

[Scribe]

The point is that we don't have to agree what good is to agree that things are bad.

And its relevance is that I don't think that anyone is trying to claim that the Kingpriest was other than bad. The two camps appear to be:

• The Kingpriest was evil and corrupt and, given that good and evil are metaphysical forces in older D&D clearly was Evil.
• The head god of Good says that the Kingpriest was good. The statblock says the Kingpriest was Lawful Good. By Dragonlance standards the Kingpriest was, therefore Good. Which means that there is something deeply wrong with Good on Krynn.

The second option is the one I find to be (a) correct and (b) far more interesting for worldbuilding.

I think your analogy is making an assumption though that because people like different things, and some people dislike other things, that what we personally dislike (pineapple), are objectively bad (urine sauce). And thats...not a sentence I expected to type first thing in the morning.

Further, I dont think the stat block of the Kingpriest is the kicker on this conversation. I dont think anyone is saying the Kingpriest, in the final measure, at the final moment, was Good.

I do find that stat block to be...weird.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Further, I dont think the stat block of the Kingpriest is the kicker on this conversation. I dont think anyone is saying the Kingpriest, in the final measure, at the final moment, was Good.

I think that you got it right when you said that stat block is weird... but yes, reread teh thread, people think he was good and paladine was good and that the cataclysm was good.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

My values.

That mass murder is bad.

My values.

Intolerance of other people's beliefs is bad.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I think your analogy is making an assumption though that because people like different things, and some people dislike other things, that what we personally dislike (pineapple), are objectively bad (urine sauce). And thats...not a sentence I expected to type first thing in the morning.

My point is that it's possible to both dislike things because we don't like the taste or texture (pineapple, anchovy), and for things to be objectively bad (urine sauce). And that we don't have to agree about pineapple to agree about urine sauce.

Further, I dont think the stat block of the Kingpriest is the kicker on this conversation. I dont think anyone is saying the Kingpriest, in the final measure, at the final moment, was Good.

I do find that stat block to be...weird.

Have you just not understood the conversation? No one that I am aware of in the conversation is saying that the Kingpriest is good - and that is the whole point. On the other hand it is clear and unambiguous that Paladine claimed that the Kingpriest was good. The question is why Paladine, chief god of Good claimed that the Kingpriest was good. And what implications it has for the setting that the chief God of Good claimed that the Kingpriest was Good - especially when it is confirmed by the statblock and Good has (or had) serious supernatural impacts and was measurable.