Dragonlance Dragonlance "Reimagined".

Status
Not open for further replies.

log in or register to remove this ad

Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
It is what it is. Why does every setting have to conform to 21st century views of morality?
Because we're humans with human morality and the morality of the world reflects back on the authors. Saying that the people that condone murder and the gods that condone genocide are objectively good in the context of the setting and that evil people are necessary is objectively bad morals. The 21st century didn't invent the idea that murder and genocide are bad. Those ideas were bad when they were written, always have been bad, and will continue to be bad forever.
 

DarkCrisis

Legend
Because we're humans with human morality and the morality of the world reflects back on the authors. Saying that the people that condone murder and the gods that condone genocide are objectively good in the context of the setting and that evil people are necessary is objectively bad morals. The 21st century didn't invent the idea that murder and genocide are bad. Those ideas were bad when they were written, always have been bad, and will continue to be bad forever.
Then everything just ends up being the same setting but with a gimmick. That’s boring. I’d like to play in different worlds where things are different. Not just Faerun again but with a dragon war. Sounds like a lack of imagination IMO.

Man, that line of thinking Planescape and Dark Sun would be unrecognizable aside from “in planar city” and “in a desert”. Hey it’s Faerun but in a desert. Neato.
 
Last edited:

Because we're humans with human morality and the morality of the world reflects back on the authors. Saying that the people that condone murder and the gods that condone genocide are objectively good in the context of the setting and that evil people are necessary is objectively bad morals. The 21st century didn't invent the idea that murder and genocide are bad. Those ideas were bad when they were written, always have been bad, and will continue to be bad forever.
Dragonlance doesn't endorse either of those ideas so I'm not sure what you're on about.
 

Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
Then everything just ends up being the same setting but with a gimmick. That’s boring. I’d like to play in different worlds where things are different. Not just Faerun again but with a dragon war.

Man, that line of thinking Planescape and Dark Sun would be unrecognizable aside from “in planar city” and “in a desert”. Hey it’s Faerun but in a desert. Neato.
Uh, no. WTF are you talking about? That is absolutely not how setting design works. It's very, very easy for two people with similar/identical moral beliefs to design completely different settings.
Dragonlance doesn't endorse either of those ideas so I'm not sure what you're on about.
The setting endorses the idea that there needs to be a balance between evil and good. That's like the core point to the Cataclysm (that "too much good" is somehow a thing) and different alignments have to tolerate each other through the 3 colors of Mage Robes.
 

Micah Sweet

Legend
Uh, no. WTF are you talking about? That is absolutely not how setting design works. It's very, very easy for two people with similar/identical moral beliefs to design completely different settings.

The setting endorses the idea that there needs to be a balance between evil and good. That's like the core point to the Cataclysm (that "too much good" is somehow a thing) and different alignments have to tolerate each other through the 3 colors of Mage Robes.
Again, if you don't like Dragonlance, why do you want WotC to make it different? What's so special about the setting that you do like that makes it worth it, to you, for it to return? Seriously, you can have lots of dragons in any setting.
 

cbwjm

Legend
Different alignments having to tolerate each other is actually a core argument for so many players who want to play an evil character in an otherwise good group without consequences. So if players want it, why can't a setting have that as an assumption? Besides, it's only on the tower grounds that the different orders have to be civil with each other, outside the tower, if a black robed mage is causing trouble, a white robed mage is likely to step in and stop them.
 

Vaalingrade

Legend
Then everything just ends up being the same setting but with a gimmick. That’s boring. I’d like to play in different worlds where things are different. Not just Faerun again but with a dragon war. Sounds like a lack of imagination IMO.

Man, that line of thinking Planescape and Dark Sun would be unrecognizable aside from “in planar city” and “in a desert”. Hey it’s Faerun but in a desert. Neato.
There's other ways to vary a setting besides 'but we justify monstrous things as good'.

I'm sure Dark Sun can be its own thing without -- and I'm assuming here based on complaints and worries I've heard elsewhere -- without succumbing to D&D's weird slavery fetish. It's got defiling magic and muls and bug dudes, and gladiators and not just a desert, but a super killy desert that's going to bring with it all manner of unpleasant survival rules. Also cannibal halflings.

Planescape... we all know the Planescape book is just going to be the 5e Manual of the Planes with an adventure in and rules for playing the goat centaurs I always want to spell briaur, but that is not right, modrons, and probably the custodian goat men for some reason.
 

It is what it is. Why does every setting have to conform to 21st century views of morality?
Because that's the audience its written for, and if you want it to resound with the audience and get good reviews, you'll write based on that audience.

Dragonlance released as is, with no changes from its previous lore, will be torn apart.

Again, if you don't like Dragonlance, why do you want WotC to make it different? What's so special about the setting that you do like that makes it worth it, to you, for it to return? Seriously, you can have lots of dragons in any setting.
There's parts of it with promise, hence why its stuck around. Dragonlance's power was never "There's three wizard groups (who went onto inspire White, Black and Red mages in Final Fantasy, their true influence on the genre)". Its been about it trying that fantasy epic in the D&D framework

You need to grab the core of what Dragonlance is and expand from there. Folks who want Planescape want to visit other dimensions and have Planescape: Torment esque adventures, they don't want "Here's the plane of Everything is Awful. Nothing lives here except Death. Roll to save against Dying Instantly for trying to have an adventure in a cool backdrop" despite that being how certain planes were presented back in the day

As for why? Because I like nice books being released and not bad ones
 


Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
Again, if you don't like Dragonlance, why do you want WotC to make it different?
. . . Do you seriously have to ask that? Because I don't like it, the only way to get my money is to change it into something that I actually do like.
What's so special about the setting that you do like that makes it worth it, to you, for it to return? Seriously, you can have lots of dragons in any setting.
Does any other setting have a giant war where humanoid knights ride on the backs of dragons? Because, if so, I'm not familiar with them, even the other settings that I vastly prefer to Dragonlance (Eberron, Exandria, Ravenloft, Spelljammer, etc) don't have anything like that. That is one of the main parts of the setting that I'm forced to admit is a cool and good idea. Oh, and seafaring minotaurs are cool too, I guess. And tying types of mages to the planet's moons are cool, even if I don't like how it's originally handled.

If 5e Dragonlance is like the original Dragonlance, I'm almost definitely not going to buy it. I just don't think it's a good setting. However, if the somehow change it significantly enough to update it to modern sensibilities and make it better designed to my tastes, I might actually get the book.
 



Hussar

Legend
Oh heck, I failed my saving throw. :D

1. The reason that the 3 orders of wizards work together is because they have no choice. Let's not forget that there used to be 5 Towers of High Sorcery. What happened to the other 4, you ask? The other 4 were destroyed and all the wizards killed by the general population that tried very, very hard to exterminate every wizard in the world. The only reason that there are any wizards AT ALL in the setting is because of the Tower protecting wizards. The choice is work with the other robes or go extinct.

2. The Test of High Sorcery is rarely lethal. Nor does it typically scar the tested. Raistlin's test was corrupted by Fistandantilus. Most wizards pass and very few actually die in the Test. Yes, it can be dangerous and potentially lethal, but, killing wizards isn't the point of the Test.

3. This is a post apocalyptic setting. The heroes are heroic, true, but, the rest of the world is a very dark place. The first thing we learn about (or one of the first) is a story of how the townsfolk tried to burn Raistlin at the stake for exposing a charlatan. The elves are downright nasty. All the different races are at each other's throats long before the Dragon armies come along. The "heroic knights" are bigoted and also pretty nasty. Every group is out for themselves.

4. This is a setting where there is a considerable amount of nuance in morality. It's not something that just says, "Yup, the good guys are good and the evil guys are evil." The good guys are often pretty bad and are only really good guys in comparison to the really bad guys. Most of the races are xenophobic, isolationist and outright hostile to pretty much everyone else. Mostly because the races have all spend the last 300 years crawling out of the stone ages after the Cataclysm.

5. The Cataclysm is entirely background in the setting. We don't actually play during it. Make the Kingpriest evil if it makes you happy. There's no reason, particularly, that he has to be good aligned. He was in the books, but, really, that's probably more just a hold over from the earlier rules. Since alignment in 5e has zero mechanical impact, he doesn't actually need an alignment at all. Yeah, the Kingpriest is an evil bastard. At the end of the day though, since he spends exactly zero time on screen, who cares?

I've probably missed some stuff there, but, a lot of what you folks are arguing about is pointless setting minutia and a LOT of it is barely supported by the actual text of the modules or the books. It doesn't make for a particularly fruitful conversation when people are arguing what they think the setting says rather than what it actually says.
 

Oh heck, I failed my saving throw. :D

1. The reason that the 3 orders of wizards work together is because they have no choice. Let's not forget that there used to be 5 Towers of High Sorcery. What happened to the other 4, you ask? The other 4 were destroyed and all the wizards killed by the general population that tried very, very hard to exterminate every wizard in the world. The only reason that there are any wizards AT ALL in the setting is because of the Tower protecting wizards. The choice is work with the other robes or go extinct.

2. The Test of High Sorcery is rarely lethal. Nor does it typically scar the tested. Raistlin's test was corrupted by Fistandantilus. Most wizards pass and very few actually die in the Test. Yes, it can be dangerous and potentially lethal, but, killing wizards isn't the point of the Test.

3. This is a post apocalyptic setting. The heroes are heroic, true, but, the rest of the world is a very dark place. The first thing we learn about (or one of the first) is a story of how the townsfolk tried to burn Raistlin at the stake for exposing a charlatan. The elves are downright nasty. All the different races are at each other's throats long before the Dragon armies come along. The "heroic knights" are bigoted and also pretty nasty. Every group is out for themselves.

4. This is a setting where there is a considerable amount of nuance in morality. It's not something that just says, "Yup, the good guys are good and the evil guys are evil." The good guys are often pretty bad and are only really good guys in comparison to the really bad guys. Most of the races are xenophobic, isolationist and outright hostile to pretty much everyone else. Mostly because the races have all spend the last 300 years crawling out of the stone ages after the Cataclysm.

5. The Cataclysm is entirely background in the setting. We don't actually play during it. Make the Kingpriest evil if it makes you happy. There's no reason, particularly, that he has to be good aligned. He was in the books, but, really, that's probably more just a hold over from the earlier rules. Since alignment in 5e has zero mechanical impact, he doesn't actually need an alignment at all. Yeah, the Kingpriest is an evil bastard. At the end of the day though, since he spends exactly zero time on screen, who cares?

I've probably missed some stuff there, but, a lot of what you folks are arguing about is pointless setting minutia and a LOT of it is barely supported by the actual text of the modules or the books. It doesn't make for a particularly fruitful conversation when people are arguing what they think the setting says rather than what it actually says.
dude most fantasy settings are technically post apocalyptic as it was always better in the past for some mad reason.
 

Hussar

Legend
The setting endorses the idea that there needs to be a balance between evil and good. That's like the core point to the Cataclysm (that "too much good" is somehow a thing) and different alignments have to tolerate each other through the 3 colors of Mage Robes.
This is a misreading of the setting. It's not "too much good". You will not find that anywhere in the actual text of the setting. At no point does anyone claim that the Kingpriest was "too good" and thus had to be put down. The Kingpriest was too LAWFUL. He tried to upset the balance by making everything and everyone follow a single code of behavior. Thus the whole "secret police force" and stamping down hard on any sort of free thought.

The problem is, people are equating that with "good vs evil". The setting IS NOT ABOUT GOOD VERSUS EVIL. Again, Takhisis is the Queen of CHAOS. Not evil. She is Queen of the Abyss remember. That's the whole chaotic place? Where all the demons hang out? She is not Queen of Hell. Hell didn't even EXIST in Krynn for the first quite a while. There were no devils. That got added in later when all the TSR settings had to fall in line with the Great Wheel. But originally, there literally was no Hell in Krynn. The whole Abishai thing came later as well. It wasn't part of the original setting either.

To be fair, you rarely see demons either. That's kinda the point of the setting. But, this notion of "too much good" is just wrong. The Kingpriest was engaging in genocide. He was wholesale slaughtering all of the "evil" races. THAT'S why the Cataclysm happened.

I'm actually rather curious now. Who is saying that the Kingpriest was good and/or right?
 

Hussar

Legend
dude most fantasy settings are technically post apocalyptic as it was always better in the past for some mad reason.
That's your takeaway? Seriously?

I'd agree that Greyhawk might qualify, although the Rain of Colorless Fire was thousands of years in the past, so, not really. Forgotten Realms is anything but Post Apocalyptic. It's pretty much the exact opposite.
 

That's your takeaway? Seriously?

I'd agree that Greyhawk might qualify, although the Rain of Colorless Fire was thousands of years in the past, so, not really. Forgotten Realms is anything but Post Apocalyptic. It's pretty much the exact opposite.
the elves and dwarves likely think it was better, FR had whole bunches of people before the elves ruled the world the frog, bird and snake people would feel the world really went downhill.
abolthes think everything went wrong when the gods ruined the monster party by being born
 

Hussar

Legend
From the River of TIme DL14 Dragons of Triumph

1664022302757.png

So much for the whole "they only sent one guy to stop the Kingpriest". "Oh, the Kingpriest is a good guy"? Really? Does that little snippet of history present the notion that the Kingpriest is good and/or right?
 


Status
Not open for further replies.

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top