Dragonlance Dragonlance "Reimagined".

Status
Not open for further replies.

Micah Sweet

Legend
No. You have seriously misunderstood what people have said.

But you didn't answer the question: why would you want to publish a book that contains all of the unpleasantness of a book from the early 80s?
I wouldn't, as far as the anti-diversity stuff goes. But I don't see that the alignment-related stuff needs to be tossed, and that's where the discussion has focused lately.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Kingpriest blows up for example by trying to claim the power of matter and going up in a nuclear fireball and you've probably got a Cataclysm. Especially if their own priests do.
If it were me retconning it, I’d have the Cataclysm the result of some sort of bet between the good gods and the evil.

All the gods recognise that the kingpriests actions, but the Good gods think he’s an inherently good man who god carried away, the evil thought he was theirs fully.

The bet, suggested by the evil gods, is to throw the mountain at Istar. The gods agree that if he sees divine punishment incoming and repents, the Cataclysm won’t happen. Paladine etc have complete confidence in the deep-down goodness of their guy in extremis.

But then Soth happens, and the Kingpriest doubles down on his fanaticism. The gods of good lose the bet, the Cataclysm happens.
 

Micah Sweet

Legend
If it were me retconning it, I’d have the Cataclysm the result of some sort of bet between the good gods and the evil.

All the gods recognise that the kingpriests actions, but the Good gods think he’s an inherently good man who god carried away, the evil thought he was theirs fully.

The bet, suggested by the evil gods, is to throw the mountain at Istar. The gods agree that if he sees divine punishment incoming and repents, the Cataclysm won’t happen. Paladine etc have complete confidence in the deep-down goodness of their guy in extremis.

But then Soth happens, and the Kingpriest doubles down on his fanaticism. The gods of good lose the bet, the Cataclysm happens.
I doubt this would satisfy the opponents, as any chance of god-directed genocide makes the gods irredeemably evil.
 

Hussar

Legend
WotC can do what they want, but I can't imagine them releasing a version of Dragonlance without the Cataclysm. Seems a bridge too far if you're capitalizing on nostalgia dollars just to gain the dubious benefit of getting rid of the good-evil dynamic a few people on a forum object to.
Actually, the solutions suggested do work.

The Kingpriest himself causes the Cataclysm - the ritual he tries to make himself a god fails and BOOOM. Istar is a crater. Moral of the story - don't try this at home kids.

You still get a Cataclysm, the whole Old Testament links are erased and the setting largely continues as is. There is nothing inherent in the gods smiting the Kingpriest that makes it necessary for the setting. Frankly, that's probably the least interesting (if the most contentious) element of the setup. You need the Cataclysm or the whole setting falls apart, but, the exact reason for it isn't all that important.

In fact, this way, very little needs to change. The Gods still warn the Kingpriest not to do it - but, are not allowed to directly intervene because the Balance must be maintained - if Paladine directly steps in, then Takhisis and everyone else can do the same and it's a much larger conflict with the gods taking a direct hand in things. Soth still fails and that whole story line is maintained. And the setting functions largely as it was.

Something to remember is that this is very much NOT Forgotten Realms. The gods in this setting do NOT directly appear. Even during the War of the Lance, Takhisis never actually arrives in Krynn (at least, not until possibly the very, very end). The gods never take the field and they do not have avatars, AFAIR. Fizban pops up, sure, but, again, takes no actual direct role. Only advises. ((Well, the line on that one might be a bit blurry, but, you get my meaning I hope))

I actually pretty much approve of this approach. It's a fairly minor change to the canon of the setting that smooths things over nicely and, honestly, probably makes more sense.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
Actually, the solutions suggested do work.

The Kingpriest himself causes the Cataclysm - the ritual he tries to make himself a god fails and BOOOM. Istar is a crater. Moral of the story - don't try this at home kids.

You still get a Cataclysm, the whole Old Testament links are erased and the setting largely continues as is. There is nothing inherent in the gods smiting the Kingpriest that makes it necessary for the setting. Frankly, that's probably the least interesting (if the most contentious) element of the setup. You need the Cataclysm or the whole setting falls apart, but, the exact reason for it isn't all that important.

In fact, this way, very little needs to change. The Gods still warn the Kingpriest not to do it - but, are not allowed to directly intervene because the Balance must be maintained - if Paladine directly steps in, then Takhisis and everyone else can do the same and it's a much larger conflict with the gods taking a direct hand in things. Soth still fails and that whole story line is maintained. And the setting functions largely as it was.

Something to remember is that this is very much NOT Forgotten Realms. The gods in this setting do NOT directly appear. Even during the War of the Lance, Takhisis never actually arrives in Krynn (at least, not until possibly the very, very end). The gods never take the field and they do not have avatars, AFAIR. Fizban pops up, sure, but, again, takes no actual direct role. Only advises. ((Well, the line on that one might be a bit blurry, but, you get my meaning I hope))

I actually pretty much approve of this approach. It's a fairly minor change to the canon of the setting that smooths things over nicely and, honestly, probably makes more sense.

They statted the avatars in AD&D btw.

They don't directly interfer.
 
Last edited:


Faolyn

(she/her)
I doubt this would satisfy the opponents, as any chance of god-directed genocide makes the gods irredeemably evil.
In this particular case, though, I feel that you can have a legitimate "trolley problem." The kingpriest was legitimately evil by trying to commit mass murder, not just guilty of "hubris" and "pride." The gods were reacting to he actions. They didn't initiate the attack.
 


Zardnaar

Legend
And Dragonlance was published after AD&D first was. What's your point?

Fizban does. A bit. I don't fully remember how much he intervenes, but he does get involved.

Autocorrect I fixed it. Krynn deities had avatars in AD&D.

They use then to interfere. They don't fully manifest or go duke it out on the prime.
 


Disagreeing that The War is the thematic core of the setting is gatekeeping? I think you've lost sight of that phrases intended use. Not everyone who disagrees is gatekeeping.
No, the idea that if someone disagrees with you about the thematic core of DL it means that they haven't read enough DL is gatekeeping. It's ironically the sort of "just because they disagree" approach that you're decrying here. Just because someone disagrees with you about DL doesn't mean they haven't read enough DL to discuss it.
 

Hussar

Legend
No, the idea that if someone disagrees with you about the thematic core of DL it means that they haven't read enough DL is gatekeeping. It's ironically the sort of "just because they disagree" approach that you're decrying here. Just because someone disagrees with you about DL doesn't mean they haven't read enough DL to discuss it.
True. But, repeatedly misrepresenting, misinterpreting and flat out being wrong, DOES suggest that brushing up on the material might be an idea before discussing it.

I'll be perfectly honest that I've made mistakes. Got my head canon mixed up with real canon. Like the dates for writing the books. I honestly thought these were written and developed in the 70's. My bad.

But, in any case, there are ways forward.

The setting does need a Cataclysm. I think we can agree on that no?

The cause of the Cataclysm does not need to be the same as what it originally was in the original works. Can we agree on that?

So, let's find a Cataclysm (I do like the idea of the failed apotheosis of the Kingpriest causing it - does rather fit with the theme of evil always destroys itself that is pretty central to DL) that everyone can work with and then go from there. There's no real point continuing to bash heads over whether or not the old material works or not because, obviously, it doesn't work for some people.

I'm certainly not so wedded to the concept that changing the root cause of the Cataclysm would make me lose any sleep.
 

DarkCrisis

Legend
No, the idea that if someone disagrees with you about the thematic core of DL it means that they haven't read enough DL is gatekeeping. It's ironically the sort of "just because they disagree" approach that you're decrying here. Just because someone disagrees with you about DL doesn't mean they haven't read enough DL to discuss it.
How much any subject do you feel someone need to read to be “well informed”? 1 book? 3 books? Took a class? Worked in that position for 5 years? What’s the minimum to be “Knowledgable” in a subject?

Is it, I read some posts on a forum and made up an opinion? I read 3 out of 200 books? I skimmed the official campaign setting from 30 years ago? I watched the direct to video movie once?

I’ve read the LotRs and The Hobbit twice and watched all the films several times. I wouldn’t say I’m knowledgable on the intricacies of Middle Earth.

I am ignorant in a lot of subjects just as a lot of people here are ignorant of DL. Ignorant isn’t a bad word. Just means a lack of knowledge in something.

What a lot of people here have is an opinion. Which is fine. Everyone had one. You read a book or read some forum posts and came to an opinion. Perfectly valid. I’ve watched and read a ton of stuff I only watched/read a minimum of and didn’t like it went on my way. Classic DL isnt for you. That’s fine. Well until WotC changes it for you,
I guess.

Just seems really weird to me people fighting over a property they don’t care for or never touched or barely touched the fiction. Do you just need a win? Told your opinion based on minimal lore is just as weighted as those who know more about it?

Sorry I’ve read so many DL novels and campaign guides?

Take your win. WotC is changing something you dislike after 4 novels into something more generic and palpable for those who only want to read 10 pages of lore before getting to the new subclasses and feats and 50 pages of adventure before moving on to the new adventure book 3 months later.
 

I have only read the first trilogy of novels.
I actually read the first novel of the second trilogy in my school liabrary before I knew what role play or D&D was(although not by much it was right after that I got into rifts and LARP)... THEN I went back read teh orginal trilogy, and then finished second one. I liked it at the time but now see lots of issues.
I should not have to read the novels to play in the game, though. The rule books should be enough.
This is my main complaint about the realms. I wish ALL the novels were alternate realities from the games... like a what if. Nothing in the novels should by default be assumed to happen in your game.
 


True. But, repeatedly misrepresenting, misinterpreting and flat out being wrong, DOES suggest that brushing up on the material might be an idea before discussing it.
The context here is a difference of opinion about the "thematic core" of DL, which is a subjective assessment. You cannot be "flat-out wrong" about a subjective assessment. So this is a red herring.
 

How much any subject do you feel someone need to read to be “well informed”? 1 book? 3 books? Took a class? Worked in that position for 5 years? What’s the minimum to be “Knowledgable” in a subject?
You've dodging the main issue, which is the assumption that if someone disagrees with you about a subjective assessment of DL, it means they must not be as well-read as you are. It doesn't really matter how many books are required to be "well informed" because you have no idea how many books other people have read. Leaping to the assumption that they haven't read enough, because you don't think their assessment is correct, is the part that's gatekeeping.

You're not the only one who's done it in this thread, BTW.

Take your win. WotC is changing something you dislike after 4 novels into something more generic and palpable for those who only want to read 10 pages of lore before getting to the new subclasses and feats and 50 pages of adventure before moving on to the new adventure book 3 months later.
Again with the assumptions. When did I ever say I dislike DragonLance? I love DragonLance, plus I have no intention of playing 5E DragonLance or even reading it since I don't play 5E.

And you're gatekeeping again here, by describing the target audience in terms that make it clear you consider them "casual fans" rather than "true fans."
 

if Paladine directly steps in, then Takhisis and everyone else can do the same and it's a much larger conflict with the gods taking a direct hand in things.
This is my preferred D&D balance. Good gods and Bad gods both being limited because if one does something the other gets to do something too... BUT good gods don't cheat as much* as the bad ones do.
 


It's 2022, and we continually hear how the D&D market skews young these days. I suspect WotC will be aware that the potential market for 5e Dragonlance is structured something like:

People who've never read any of the novels > people who read the first and maybe second trilogies over twenty years ago > people who've read more and/or more recently than that.

And in that case, they won't give a tiny little damn about who the True Fans of Dragonlance are. 5e Dragonlance will be made primarily for the first bracket, with occasional easter eggs to keep the second and third brackets feeling seen, if not actually happy.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top