Dragonlance Dragonlance "Reimagined".

[Hussar]

I'd also point out that the primary argument here is that Paladine cannot be good because he commits an evil act - the Cataclysm. But, apparently straight up murdering the Kingpriest is considered morally justified? I don't think so. That's the point of my little story above. Had Paladine actually done what people say he should have done, we'd simply be arguing that he was still evil.

 

[pemerton]

But is not a direct retelling of any of them, and is written for a game setting which had rules about moral alignment.

It is very close to a retelling.

And the rules about moral alignment are like the rules about swords and armours: they are meant to relate to, and in some sense be proxies for, things that exist outside of and prior to the game. They are not their own self-referential moral reality.

At the time DL was published the definitive treatment of alignment was in Gygax's AD&D, and in those books he locates all major moral theories - moral virtues (like honesty and compassion), other valuable things (like truth and beauty), Benthamism (the greatest good of the greatest number) and liberalism (human rights) - within the domain of good, and conversely defines evil as the contrary of these, that is, as the refusal to recognise any values or other-regard as a restraint on permissible action, and the scorning of compassion, beauty, truth etc.

So when we read DL's discussion of good gods, evil gods, a "balance", etc, it is not arbitrary and self-referential. Like the stuff in Gygax's rulebooks, it is obviously meant to be understood in terms of moral ideas and traditions that sit outside the game, and that the game draws on for its particular purposes.

 

[pemerton]

it was earlier in this thread I was told that it was collective punishment and the innocent are 'just collateral damage'

The only person to mention "collateral damage" was me, and I mentioned it by saying that the proper analysis of the victims of the Cataclysm other than the Kingpriest is not as collateral damage.

The proper analysis of the Cataclysm is not as defensive violence - to prevent an evil - where the notion of "collateral damage" is traditionally employed, but as retributive violence, to punish for a wrong.

The whole point of the story, though, is not about punishment. That's just a device. The point of the story is about the sin of pride. The retribution is a device to drive home how grave the sin is.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

No, you added the "just" part.

if you think i am adding to something you claim you didn't see witch is it, you need a citation, or my citation is adding a word? either way your argument ends with this.

And, again, what innocents?

yes all the people who just lived under the king priests, the farmers, the children, the tax collectors just doing there jobs.

Remember, the people actually fully believed in the Kingpriest - the point where potentially their belief and faith was elevating the Kingpriest into godhood. That's not just a "we like this guy" kind of belief.

wait then what were all those clerics that got brought to there gods doing? who was going to THOSE services?

This whole discussion is nothing but a series of misrepresentations of the setting. NO the good gods did not send the Cataclysm, the entire pantheon, of which the good gods belong but do not control, did.

but who control 1/3 of

NO the good gods did not sit back and do nothing while the Kingpriest rose. They stripped him and his followers of their spells, sent numerous portents and whatnot, which, as clerics, they really, REALLY should be able to understand. NO, it was not "just the Kingpriest" who was the problem.

when that stuff was pointed out people on your side of this argument said that wasn't written by wiess and hickman

On and on and on. Claim after unfounded claim with little or no support. When presented with actual textual evidence, it's entirely brushed off and ignored in favor of baseless opinions. It's so frustrating.

like when you claim nobody innocents died cause 'its there fault for worshiping the kingpriest'

 

[GMforPowergamers]

That is exactly right. It is representative of a pre-modern way of justice.

@Hussar here is a citation for you right under your post

 

[Velderan]

when that stuff was pointed out people on your side of this argument said that wasn't written by wiess and hickman

If you're referencing the 2E stuff I posted explaining the steps the gods did take, Harold Johnson (Director of Product Development for the original DL product launch), Margaret Weis, and Tracy Hickman all appear in the design credits for that product. It's literally impossible to know who exactly wrote which sections, but they at least contributed to the product in some way.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

If you follow the pre-modern philosophy it represents, it absolutely can. By engaging in this kind of fantasy, you are tacitly accepting that point of view for the duration of your engagement. There is nothing wrong with this. People can enjoy a fantasy world where good means something different than the modern view.

this is were the discussion goes round and round and round... yes pre modern philosophy this can be seen as good.
yes pre modern standards can be applied to pre modern stories...

take Star Trek, it was liberal and ahead of it's time, but it also started in the 60's and as such now looks almost conservative... cause times change. I am not advocating that Star Trek the original series is bad, but when you write NEW things in that universe you have to apply modern sensibilities, or end up alienating your audience.

Back in the 80's and 90's DL I am sure was fine, I ONLY remember disliking kender and even then ONLY after seeing 7 out of 10 played badly, and even THEN only for the game, loving them for the story.

in 2022 I don't want WotC to just reprint 1980's material, I want it updated and reimagined with modern thoughts.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

So, Batman is clearly evil in your definition. After all, not killing the Joker results in thousands of deaths. Repeatedly.

batman doesn't choose to blow up gotham to stop joker... your argument fails to understand it isn't 'lack of killing king priest' its 'killing a huge swath of the world' we have issue with/

So, you believe that Batman is evil. Superman too. After all, Lex is guilty of thousands of deaths as well, either directly or indirectly.

and yet SUperman doesn't throw a mountain at luther's city... heck once Lex is elected presedent, and given full power of teh US if superman acted like the gods of Krynn he would HAVE to nuke the US or at least the capitol.

Letting them live and just taking them to jail results in more death and misery, so, you believe that Supes and Batman are evil, right?

no you are missing the "They are trying to stop them and following there code" instead of "Causing an apocalyptic event to stop them"

this isn't even apples and oranges, its apples and thermo nuclear war

See, here's the thing. You don't actually know that it would be a lesser evil. Maybe killing the Kingpriest would martyr him, causing even more to believe in him, thus elevating him to godlike status, and causing all the other gods to be abandoned in favor of the one true Kingpriest god.

wait... this is becuse they fear being replaced?!?!? that makes this worse.

Because, it's not just that the people were turning from one god in the setting. They were turning from all gods. And turning to the Kingpriest.

Or, maybe the Kingpriest's right hand guy takes over from the Kingpriest and he starts getting elevated. So, the gods kill him. What, we start playing whack a mole with every Kingpriest until they take the hint? That's not exactly a good act

or the platinum dragon lands and talks to people... maybe as an old man with a bunch of yellow birds flying around him... just an idea.

You're insisting on a hypothetical outcome being preferable to what happened based on very little information and counter to what you are specifically being told by the setting itself. The canon of the setting says that the Cataclysm IS the lesser of evils. That other options would have been worse. But, you're insisting that you should be able to second guess that based on what?

based on killing everyone not a good option.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I'd also point out that the primary argument here is that Paladine cannot be good because he commits an evil act - the Cataclysm. But, apparently straight up murdering the Kingpriest is considered morally justified? I don't think so. That's the point of my little story above. Had Paladine actually done what people say he should have done, we'd simply be arguing that he was still evil.

okay I said this like a billion pages ago and in one of my last post too but I have to say it again...

TALK TO THEM!

Paladine can come down, say "Hey I'm the god of good and I want to help" but he doesn't, he lets others throw a mountain at the people he wants to 'help'

 

[Umbran]

Mod Note:
I see the same argument for the last ten pages or so. It may be the same argument even longer, but 10 pages is enough. This discussion is going nowhere useful.

Thread closed.