Dragonlance Dragonlance "Reimagined".

Status
Not open for further replies.

Stormonu

Legend
This changes the very nature of clerical spellcasting in 1e in a way that is not supported by, well, anything, really. I know that's four editions back, but that was the environment that Dragonlance was created in and for, and it's also applying a major screw to clerics in a way that I find verrrrry suspect.
The Dark Powers of Ravenloft replacing certain fallen cleric's abilities to gain spells was done back in 2E, but I can't think of it being done for the likes of FR, DL or any of the other campaign worlds.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Faolyn

(she/her)
The Dark Powers of Ravenloft replacing certain fallen cleric's abilities to gain spells was done back in 2E, but I can't think of it being done for the likes of FR, DL or any of the other campaign worlds.
Even then, it was up in the air as to whether or not the Dark Powers actually replaced the spells. It was definitely a strong possibility, but not an actual rule. Another option was that they merely perverted the spells.
 

Vaalingrade

Legend
This is why I actually liked the later idea that it's the belief that grants the power rather than the diety.

Also explains weird stuff like how alignment determines your effect on undead even if the Chaotic Good god of fire doesn't care or the CE god of destruction sees undeath as an annoying intermediate step.
 

Now that the dust has settled here, let me try a couple of thoughts.

@Velderan - I think it's fair to say that the gods are not allowed to directly intervene. Yes, you have avatars like Fizban or Astinus (sorry, dunno about Dougan, after my time) that appear in the story, sometimes parceling out a bit of exposition or comedic relief, but, at no point are they directly doing anything. They advise, they talk, but, they'd don't act. Which seems to be a fairly consistent thing in the series and yes, the Green Gemstone Man is what's preventing Takhisis from actually physically coming into Krynn. IIRC, though, it wasn't as an avatar - Takhisis wanted to actually directly manifest on Krynn. But, I'm very willing to be proven wrong there, it's been a while. :D
I only mentioned the examples of avatars because your post I quoted specifically said they did not have avatars. There definitely seemed to be a reason the good and neutral gods didn't do much beyond appearing in disguise. I'm not sure Takhisis was even allowed to come into the world in avatar form, she sorta appeared at the end of Dragons of Spring Dawning but iirc the description gave her a shadowy aspect like she wasn't fully able to project her avatar or something. It's been awhile since I've read the books though, so I might be a bit off there.
 


Micah Sweet

Legend
Even then, it was up in the air as to whether or not the Dark Powers actually replaced the spells. It was definitely a strong possibility, but not an actual rule. Another option was that they merely perverted the spells.
Well, the changes to spellcasting, regardless of the reason, in 2e and 3e Ravenloft were most definitely a rule.
 

nope, I want them to either be a foot note in history or an alternate reality... the game is about the PCs not the book characters.
I think it's more of a campaign to campaign decision. If your group played through scenarios that were close to the books/original modules, then absolutely the book characters shouldn't even exist in your version of Krynn. If your campaign took place somewhere else while the main events of the books still happened, then it's fine for the book characters to still exist and be important figures. I've played a few campaigns set in Ansalon under both scenarios and didn't see an issue with our group doing "less important" stuff on the side while the book characters existed. Not every adventure has to be world changing to be enjoyable.

To the original point of this thread (I think.. lol), that's the main reason I'm not completely against them doing a different take on the War of the Lance and showing some events that focus on Solamnia while the Heroes of the Lance were having their adventures. If the campaign setting is any good, there's plenty of room for more events than just what Weis and Hickman wrote about.
 

I think it's more of a campaign to campaign decision.
To be clear what I mean is In WotC published single books/boxset/bookset the campagin world should either just ignore the characters making them alternate reality, or set the setting post those books. At no point should a campagin book or adventure BOTH be set in the time of those books AND include the characters from the book in the main story.
 

Micah Sweet

Legend
To be clear what I mean is In WotC published single books/boxset/bookset the campagin world should either just ignore the characters making them alternate reality, or set the setting post those books. At no point should a campagin book or adventure BOTH be set in the time of those books AND include the characters from the book in the main story.
Well, that is quite different from, "the books shouldn't count as part of the setting".
 

Well, that is quite different from, "the books shouldn't count as part of the setting".
again, they either need to be history, or alternate reality. Just like if I run a FR game(I wont) I don't want to deal with the Justice League of Midnight and the Mary Sue leader... I want my PCs to be the main focus. The Novels can be great reads, but in DL if the war of the lance is the main time of the setting let US be the heroes of the lance.
 

Faolyn

(she/her)
Well, the changes to spellcasting, regardless of the reason, in 2e and 3e Ravenloft were most definitely a rule.
Yeah. That was the perversion I meant. The Dark Powers may have cut the gods off and handed out spells to clerics, or they may have perverted the gods' spells so they'd have horrible side effects.

Either way, it gives the Dark Powers an inordinate about of power--more so than even other gods may have. I don't think the gods in any other setting are capable of twisting the spells of another deity's clerics.
 

Hussar

Legend
I don't see how that justifies anything, because the Cataclysm is absolutely a direct intervention, so any concern about no direct influence is clearly misplaced. Once a decision like that was being discussed, the only good act would be to directly intervene in a way that did not cost so many lives.
But, it's a direct intervention by the Pantheon, not any single god. So, it keeps the notion that the gods don't take a direct hand. And, since half the gods are evil, the pantheon as a group, can certainly do evil things. The good gods tried to stop it but failed.

Note, gods granting spells was always a bit wonky in AD&D. 1st and 2nd level spells were automatic. It wasn't until 3rd level spells that you needed a god to grant the spell.

But, in any case, since we're changing canon, there's no reason to hang onto how things worked back in the day. This isn't trying to justify how it was done then, it's trying to find a way forward that works now.

BTW, though, other gods granting spells is absolutely a thing by 2e. Forgotten Realm's Faiths and Avatars talks about various heresies where clerics are still being granted spells (in a setting where the gods are a LOT more directly active) but, there being some question as to exactly who was granting those spells. This isn't something new.

So, no, granting spells isn't really directly intervening, again, because everyone can do it equally. A priest of an evil god gets the same spells as a priest of a good god.

In any case, can we at least agree that there needs to be a Cataclysm at all? Because, I'm getting the sense here that people are arguing for the removal of the Cataclysm entirely and that's a bridge too far for me. That changes the setting too much. No Cataclysm and the ensuing fall out and Krynn stops working as a setting.
 

Faolyn

(she/her)
But, it's a direct intervention by the Pantheon, not any single god. So, it keeps the notion that the gods don't take a direct hand. And, since half the gods are evil, the pantheon as a group, can certainly do evil things. The good gods tried to stop it but failed.
A third of the pantheon is evil. Another third is neutral--but this honestly seems like the type of neutral that's actually kinda evil in itself. They stayed out of it, and therefore allowed evil to continue.

In any case, can we at least agree that there needs to be a Cataclysm at all? Because, I'm getting the sense here that people are arguing for the removal of the Cataclysm entirely and that's a bridge too far for me. That changes the setting too much. No Cataclysm and the ensuing fall out and Krynn stops working as a setting.
Well, what exactly is so important about the Cataclysm that removing it destroys the setting?
 

Hussar

Legend
A third of the pantheon is evil. Another third is neutral--but this honestly seems like the type of neutral that's actually kinda evil in itself. They stayed out of it, and therefore allowed evil to continue.


Well, what exactly is so important about the Cataclysm that removing it destroys the setting?
Yes, ok, one third. You are technically correct and that's the best kind of correct. Can we leave the pedantic nit picking at the door, just this once? FFS, it's not like the numbers were the point of the statement.

Well, your second question is a good one though. If you remove the Cataclysm, then there is no reason for the gods to leave. If the gods don't leave, then Takhisis' entire plan doesn't work, since it's predicated on the agreement of the gods and the dragons to stay out of Ansalon. Plus, without the Cataclysm, you have basically just generic D&D setting number 102. The whole point of the setting is the post-apocalyptic set up plus the return of the gods and dragons.

Additionally, the Cataclysm distinguishes Dragonlance from other settings in that the gods actually will not step in and save you. It is about the people of the setting saving themselves - a central conceit of the setting. Everyone comes together (eventually) and works together to drive back evil. There's no calling down the gods to fight. There's no Gate spells dropping in hordes of Angels to do battle. Remember, as well, this is a setting where the characters are restricted in level. There is exactly ONE archmage in the setting. No clerics (at the start) at all.

All of this is tied to the Cataclysm. This isn't Forgotten Realms where you have group after group after group with double digit level leaders all over the place. This is far closer to Eberron - a character over 13th level is practically a demi-god.

I guess that would be my answer. Removing the Cataclysm from Krynn is the same as removing the Mourning from Eberron. Sure, you could do it, but, it would radically change the setting.
 

Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
A third of the pantheon is evil. Another third is neutral--but this honestly seems like the type of neutral that's actually kinda evil in itself. They stayed out of it, and therefore allowed evil to continue.
A third is explicitly evil. The other type is the Star Wars "balance in the force is good" type of evil where they'll absolutely condone terrible, objectively evil acts because they think narcissistic psychopaths are just as important to the world as people that heal and protect the weak and innocent. And the last third of the pantheon committed genocide and sent the world back technologically for hundreds of years because of the actions of the few. You know the teachers in school that would punish the whole class because a few were misbehaving? The "Good" pantheon is basically that, but they'll kill the entire class because of the troublemakers.

None of the gods in the Dragonlance pantheon should be labeled "good". They're all bad, just like the Forgotten Realms gods that allow the Wall of the Faithless to exist.
 

Additionally, the Cataclysm distinguishes Dragonlance from other settings in that the gods actually will not step in and save you.
From which other settings? The Gods won't step in in Ravenloft, aren't allowed in Sigil by the decree of the Lady of Pain, may not even exist in Eberron, are unlikely to step in in the Nentir Vale, and I doubt would rescue some group of dumbasses directly in Greyhawk. And then there's Athas.

There's only one major D&D setting I can think of where the gods will step in to save you. Admittedly the Realms is a big setting, but this would be more a feature of the Realms. And Fizban wandering around makes the Gods more active in Dragonlance than e.g. Eberron, Athas, Planescape (Sigil), or Ravenloft. As for their not having angels - given how unusually closely Dragonlance ties dragons to the gods I'd argue that that is only because dragons have taken the place of angels.

Therefore I disagree with you - and find Dragonlance to be one of the D&D settings with the highest amounts of divine involvement.
 

Hussar

Legend
From which other settings? The Gods won't step in in Ravenloft, aren't allowed in Sigil by the decree of the Lady of Pain, may not even exist in Eberron, are unlikely to step in in the Nentir Vale, and I doubt would rescue some group of dumbasses directly in Greyhawk. And then there's Athas.

There's only one major D&D setting I can think of where the gods will step in to save you. Admittedly the Realms is a big setting, but this would be more a feature of the Realms. And Fizban wandering around makes the Gods more active in Dragonlance than e.g. Eberron, Athas, Planescape (Sigil), or Ravenloft. As for their not having angels - given how unusually closely Dragonlance ties dragons to the gods I'd argue that that is only because dragons have taken the place of angels.

Therefore I disagree with you - and find Dragonlance to be one of the D&D settings with the highest amounts of divine involvement.
Really? Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms both have literal gods ruling countries. Not avatars, but the actual gods embodied in the setting ruling countries. Never minding that both settings routinely feature gods directly doing stuff. Athas might not have "gods" but the various sorcerer kings of the different locations are close enough to the same thing. Netir Vale was never really a fully fleshed out setting - a handful of bits and bobs, which, frankly, is about as relavent to today's gamers as the Known World.

Oh, yeah, then there is the Known World - where becoming a god is actually a legitimate player goal.

I mean, if you're going to claim that the Sorcerer Kings aren't gods, then, well, dragons absolutely can't be either, right?

And, remember, Fizban wanders around but doesn't actually do anything. There's no "scores of mortal progeny" plotline a la Baldur's Gate. There's no Great Modron March. There's no Time of Troubles.

I'm going to very strongly disagree with you here. Dragonlance features almost no extra-planar involvement whatsoever. No Gate spells. Virtually no celestials or demons. And the gods are almost entirely absent from most of the setting. Sure, we know Fizban because he's comic relief in the novels. But, quick, name the god of the dead in Krynn and how many times does he/she/it appear in the text? Who do the elves worship? The dwarves worship Reorx, that's mentioned many times. How many times can you find Reorx or his avatar appearing during the War of the Lance?
 

Really? Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms both have literal gods ruling countries. Not avatars, but the actual gods embodied in the setting ruling countries. Never minding that both settings routinely feature gods directly doing stuff. Athas might not have "gods" but the various sorcerer kings of the different locations are close enough to the same thing. Netir Vale was never really a fully fleshed out setting - a handful of bits and bobs, which, frankly, is about as relavent to today's gamers as the Known World.
I'm rusty on my Greyhawk and may have got it wrong - but explicitly mentioned the Forgotten Realms. And no the Sorceror kings aren't Gods. As for the Nentir Vale, given that its cosmology is the one used in Critical Role I'd say it's far more relevant than Mystara or probably even Greyhawk to modern gamers.
Oh, yeah, then there is the Known World - where becoming a god is actually a legitimate player goal.
I have literally never seen anyone play in Mystara or even heard anyone mention it outside these boards.
I mean, if you're going to claim that the Sorcerer Kings aren't gods, then, well, dragons absolutely can't be either, right?
Dragons aren't gods in Dragonlance. Dragons take the role of messengers of the gods - i.e. angels.

But. If you are claiming all of Greyhawk, the Forgotten Realms, and Mystara this might be something that's changed and whereas Dragonlance (and Ravenloft) stood out in the 1980s due to a low amount of direct divine involvement it's certainly not a selling point now.
 


Hussar

Legend
/snip

But. If you are claiming all of Greyhawk, the Forgotten Realms, and Mystara this might be something that's changed and whereas Dragonlance (and Ravenloft) stood out in the 1980s due to a low amount of direct divine involvement it's certainly not a selling point now.
Umm, considering nearly every single WOtC book in the last 10 years has been set in Forgotten Realms, I'd say that a setting where the gods aren't directly active is a selling point now.

Critical Role? Who cares? Yeah, it's popular, but, it's still just a side thing. You'll notice how it's not referenced, at all, in any WotC publications right? Since when has Critical Role mattered?

The baseline in Forgotten Realms. Dragonlance, where the gods are removed, is pretty different from Forgotten Realms. Take out the Cataclysm, and it becomes just another setting.

So, fair enough, sell me on a Dragonlance narrative that doesn't have the Cataclym. I answered the question about why the Cataclysm is needed, so, let's see what you think Krynn would look like without it.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top