Dragonlance Dragonlance "Reimagined".

[Ruin Explorer]

"Repulsive genocidal monsters" is about the best description of how gods have always worked in D&D I've ever heard.

Which might be fine IMHO if D&D wasn't constantly assigning them Good alignments whilst defining Good in ways that preclude being a genocidal monster. Lesson is don't assign god's alignments imo.

 

[Ath'kethin]

Which might be fine IMHO if D&D wasn't constantly assigning them Good alignments whilst defining Good in ways that preclude being a genocidal monster. Lesson is don't assign god's alignments imo.

I never met a repulsive genocidal monster that didn't think it was doing the right thing.

I feel that a lot of Dragonlance's nuance gets lost in knee-jerk reactions. The characters within the setting are more than capable of recognizing the difference between Good ideals and Good actions - it's one of the focal points of conflict, especially as embodied in Tanis. The characters are shocked when they learn that the Kingpriest of Istar was a Good person, which makes it as much a lesson in the pitfalls of bureaucracy and fanatacism as anything else.

Hell, the Good deities are constantly shown to be at a disadvantage because their role is reactionary instead of preemptive, but recognize that trying to spread Good by the sword isn't Good at all. Their followers who do choose to take a preemptive or aggressive approach are shown to be hollow in both their faith and their morals.

All of these things are why I really love alignment in D&D, why I loved Eberron's approach two decades later, and why I still feel that the 3.X descriptions of the nine alignments are the best ever written. If we approach alignment as both aspirational and descriptive, where Good and Evil are discrete cosmic forces and a creature can try to lean toward or embody one or the other but not always succeed, much more of the game and its cosmos as written makes sense.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

If you really want to know exactly the Cataclysm went down, the Kingpriest trilogy (sadly out of print) is the best source. Basically Paladine gave the Kingpriest every opportunity to back down, gave warning after warning, and only acquiesced to Takhisis’ and Gileans plan (it was the idea of the gods of evil and neutrality, by the way, not Paladine) when there was no other option, as the Kingpriest was literally trying to claim Paladines power. At the same time, Paladine engineered for the Disks of Mishakal to be hidden in Xak Tsaroth where Goldmoon would find them.

 

[DarkCrisis]

If you really want to know exactly the Cataclysm went down, the Kingpriest trilogy (sadly out of print) is the best source. Basically Paladine gave the Kingpriest every opportunity to back down, gave warning after warning, and only acquiesced to Takhisis’ and Gileans plan (it was the idea of the gods of evil and neutrality, by the way, not Paladine) when there was no other option, as the Kingpriest was literally trying to claim Paladines power. At the same time, Paladine engineered for the Disks of Mishakal to be hidden in Xak Tsaroth where Goldmoon would find them.

The blurb for the new adventure book says Kingpriest(s) because one kingdom got to uppity over many generations and they were smote.

This is already a change from established lore as it makes it sound like one kingdom was at fault and was just as the only land punished.

By extension (and due to no mention of) the gods would have no reason to “leave” all of Krynn and that leads to no loss of divine magic earth which obliterates the novels.

So either thei blurb is poorly worded and thought out or they have made massive changes to the lore so they can have their war world setting

 

[QuentinGeorge]

The blurb for the new adventure book says Kingpriest(s) because one kingdom got to uppity over many generations and they were smote.

This is already a change from established lore as it makes it sound like one kingdom was at fault and was just as the only land punished.

By extension (and due to no mention of) the gods would have no reason to “leave” all of Krynn and that leads to no loss of divine magic earth which obliterates the novels.

So either thei blurb is poorly worded and thought out or they have made massive changes to the lore so they can have their war world setting

The amount of errors in the blurb leads me to believe it’s poorly worded to be honest. I expect any lore will be fairly brief by design and I hardly see any reason for them to bother rewriting it, particularly for events centuries before the adventure.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

If they hadn't already burned me on Ravenloft, I'd probably do the same. As it is, no Spelljammer, no Dragonlance, no Planescape, no Dark Sun (if they even try it). I don't trust WotC anymore.

I don’t know what trust has to do with it. I’m just buy what I like. No need to preorder, just check it out when it comes and decide then.

I mean I didn’t “trust” TSR back o the day so I didn’t get ravenloft, spelljamer, etc. this time around I will check them out first

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

What they are doing with DL (and all the other settings) is more akin to re-making the original trilogy.

You really have no idea at this point. I expect there be very little lore in the books really. That is the 5e standard. So i wouldn’t expect many changes. Of course there wasn’t a ton of lore I the original trilogy IIRC.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Yeah, there is that, or I just skip the book because if too much of the context changes, it's no longer the setting that was the foundation for those stories.

Is any of the context goin fro change? It didn’t sound like it to me, but I really on read the original trilogy.

 

[DarkCrisis]

Is any of the context goin fro change? It didn’t sound like it to me, but I really on read the original trilogy.

If divine magic is present at the start of the war then no need for the companions to go “seek it out” and no need for Goldmoon and her Blue Crystal Staff.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

From what I’m reading here, I’m not a fan of many of these changes. Fortunately I have always been a fan of the Dragonlance trilogy of books but was never very interested in playing D&D in a Dragonlance setting, so all these changes can be happily ignored.

I still love those first three books - in fact I think I might reread them again

What changes are people talking about. I read the story on DND Beyond and watched a video. I don’t recall any changes from the original trilogy (which is the only “canon” to me)