Dragonlance Dragonlance "Reimagined".

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Ummm... no. Last time I checked Ravelnloft wasn't in the Realms. Nor was Spelljammer. Nor was Theros. Nor as far as I'm aware is Strixhaven. Is the Wyld Beyond the Witchlight in the Realms? I don't think so - it's mostly in the Feywild anyway. The Radiant Citadel is on the Etherial Plane rather than in the Realms. Given how scarce the 5e books have been that's not "nearly every single WotC book".
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?
If you were paying attention you'd have noticed that Critical Role was popular enough that there is literally a WotC published D&D branded Critical Role setting book plus an official WotC published D&D branded adventure book. Not bad for a third party setting - and a far cry from "not referenced, at all, in any WotC publications". (And no, these aren't third party publications - Critical Role has those too).

The Forgotten Realms is the default setting for 5e in the same way that the Nentir Vale was for 4e. It's where the default splatbooks are set, has a few adventures set there - and as far as I know only a single official setting book (SCAG).
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.
Have I said that the Cataclysm should be entirely removed? I don't think so. What I've suggested is that the setting would have been improved if the Kingpriest had directly caused the Cataclysm rather than the Gods had thrown it at the Kingpriest.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Hussar

Legend
Have I said that the Cataclysm should be entirely removed? I don't think so. What I've suggested is that the setting would have been improved if the Kingpriest had directly caused the Cataclysm rather than the Gods had thrown it at the Kingpriest.
Ah, so, exactly the same thing I said a page or so back.

So, why are you arguing with me again?
 


Faolyn

(she/her)
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.
Actually, those numbers are of important, because even if you have a world where the Good gods tried their hardest to stop the Cataclysm, it's still a world where two-thirds of the gods are one form of evil or another. And if you have the Neutral gods help to stop the Cataclysm and still fail, what does it say about the Good and Neutral gods that they're that weak?

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.
Well, why do the gods need to leave? Just so they can show up in the nick of time like Big Darn Heroes? Personally, I think that takes away a lot of the story's agency. Things suck until the literal deus ex arrives. (Also, it literally doesn't matter if the gods planned to come back in the nick of time or not--it's still a deus ex because the writers planned it.)

And if the Good gods try to stop the Cataclysm but fail, why would they turn their backs? "Hey, it's a genocide we couldn't stop! Our people are calling for us. I know we can't just snap our fingers and fix everything, but we can stick around offering hope, love, and healing? ...Nahhh."

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.
So like Ravenloft and Eberron and probably a lot of homebrew settings as well.

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.
And that's both a really stupid idea and one that's not going to fly in 5e.

See, if Dragonlance were only a setting for a series of books, that'd be fine. But you're asking players to accept that they can't go to 19th level because the gods say so--when the gods are actually you, the DM, who are choosing to not disregard a sentence in the book.

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.
Except that Eberron does that specifically so the players will shine, not because, as the Dragonlance book put it, "the gods of Krynn feel that it is time to reassign him to some other world." Weiss and Hickman made a decision, I'd guess so their original players wouldn't try to kill the gods and take their stuff or do other high-level shenanigans. Eberron made a decision to make the setting more interesting for everyone.

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.
And this is also wrong because nobody knows who caused the Mourning, the gods were distant even before that, and Keith Baker didn't try to pass the Mourning off as an act of good.
 

Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
You'll notice how it's not referenced, at all, in any WotC publications right? Since when has Critical Role mattered?
There are two official books centered on Exandria, the world of Critical Role, and there have been cameos from the world/campaigns in other books (most notably, Arkhan the Cruel in Descent into Avernus, but there's also some NPC in the Witchlight Carnival that's stated to be from Exandria).

Critical Role is becoming less and less of a "side thing" as time goes on. I'm not exactly sure what the point is here, but Critical Role definitely is referenced in and has become important in recent(ish) D&D 5e books.
 

Hussar

Legend
Well, why do the gods need to leave? Just so they can show up in the nick of time like Big Darn Heroes? Personally, I think that takes away a lot of the story's agency. Things suck until the literal deus ex arrives. (Also, it literally doesn't matter if the gods planned to come back in the nick of time or not--it's still a deus ex because the writers planned it.)

And if the Good gods try to stop the Cataclysm but fail, why would they turn their backs? "Hey, it's a genocide we couldn't stop! Our people are calling for us. I know we can't just snap our fingers and fix everything, but we can stick around offering hope, love, and healing? ...Nahhh."
Huh? They don't do deus ex at all. The gods in no way actually save the day in Krynn. The only reason the gods come back at all is because Takhisis breaks the agreement. And, even when they do come back, they do not directly do anything.

And, they turn their back because it's an pantheon. They have to be in balance. The evil gods leave, so the good gods have to too.

Look, I get that you hate the setting. Fair enough. But, endlessly nitpicking isn't useful at all.

So, instead of constantly gainsaying everything I put forward, how about actually being constructive and present a Krynn that does not have a Cataclysm. What's your solution?

And that's both a really stupid idea and one that's not going to fly in 5e.
Isn't this like the prime conceit of Eberron? And, again, instead of simply flinging poop, do you have any constructive things to add?

And this is also wrong because nobody knows who caused the Mourning, the gods were distant even before that, and Keith Baker didn't try to pass the Mourning off as an act of good.
And, for the fifth or sixth time, NO ONE CLAIMS THE CATACLYSM IS A GOOD ACT. That's entirely your interpretation which is in no way actually supported by anything written. And, you're the one insisting that a good god must never, ever commit an evil act. For you, good gods must be 100% good and infallible. That's certainly one interpretation of deities, but, again, is not one supported by Dragonlance or D&D in general.

But, again, do you have anything actually constructive to add or are you just here to constantly tell everyone how you think the Cataclysm is bad. NO one here has any problems changing the Cataclysm or changing the lore so that it works better. You seem stuck on how things were presented in the past and refuse to recognize that everyone agrees with you that it needs to change. So, change it, instead of repeatedly telling me something I already agree with.
 
Last edited:

Hussar

Legend
There are two official books centered on Exandria, the world of Critical Role, and there have been cameos from the world/campaigns in other books (most notably, Arkhan the Cruel in Descent into Avernus, but there's also some NPC in the Witchlight Carnival that's stated to be from Exandria).

Critical Role is becoming less and less of a "side thing" as time goes on. I'm not exactly sure what the point is here, but Critical Role definitely is referenced in and has become important in recent(ish) D&D 5e books.
Oh FFS, can people stop picking apart a point that no one is arguing? Take the win. Ok, Critical Role is a thing. Ok. How does that change the point that I was making?

I am so freaking tired of having to police every single little thing I say when no one will actually directly address the issue at hand - how to change Krynn and Dragonlance so people don't lose their poop. Good grief. Talk about getting tied up in minutia.
 

Faolyn

(she/her)
Huh? They don't do deus ex at all. The gods in no way actually save the day in Krynn. The only reason the gods come back at all is because Takhisis breaks the agreement. And, even when they do come back, they do not directly do anything.
So they're even more useless.

So, instead of constantly gainsaying everything I put forward, how about actually being constructive and present a Krynn that does not have a Cataclysm. What's your solution?
Actually, I have, pages ago. You tend to ignore large chunks of my post and only answer the parts you feel you can criticize.

But hey: you want no Cataclysm? The gods of good send messages which are clearly from good gods, rather than the storms and plagues and trees weeping blood and stuff that they sent which are very much things evil gods send. You know, things like sending talking unicorns or divine visions or even asking the most famed and beloved gold dragon to deliver a message. Have them send people to go after the kingpriest and his minions himself rather than nuking the country. Heck, have them direct their holy knights to wage war on the country. Have them yank the kingpriest's spells.

Isn't this like the prime conceit of Eberron? And, again, instead of simply flinging poop, do you have any constructive things to add?
Er, no. Not at all.

There aren't any high-level canon NPCs solely because the PCs are supposed to be awesome. Not because there are level limits and not because there are any arbitrary rules saying you can't have any--a DM could make a 20th-level NPC if they wanted to. A DM could make every NPC 20th level if they wanted to, because Keith Baker very much says your Eberron and his Eberron and my Eberron and the book's Eberron are all different things and that's OK.

You seem stuck on the idea that the game must be exactly like the books for some reason. You say "this is a setting that has level limits." Not, "back in 1e, there were level limits." You say it as if it's a thing that must still be done, lest the setting become "standard D&D world #102" rather than something that can be easily ignored in light of modern gamer sensibilities.

And, for the fifth or sixth time, NO ONE CLAIMS THE CATACLYSM IS A GOOD ACT. That's entirely your interpretation which is in no way actually supported by anything written. And, you're the one insisting that a good god must never, ever commit an evil act. For you, good gods must be 100% good and infallible. That's certainly one interpretation of deities, but, again, is not one supported by Dragonlance or D&D in general.
Because these gods aren't just good gods, they are literally Gods of Good, who are opposed to the Gods of Evil. If your Good gods perform an act as or more evil than the Gods of Evil, then they aren't good anymore. If they then turn their back on everyone instead of staying to be good for the innocent people, then they are even more evil. And there goes one of the major tenets of Dragonlance: that the balance of Good and Evil is key. Because as it is written, there's no balance. There's just the idea that one side is called Good, no matter what they do.

But, again, do you have anything actually constructive to add or are you just here to constantly tell everyone how you think the Cataclysm is bad. NO one here has any problems changing the Cataclysm or changing the lore so that it works better. You seem stuck on how things were presented in the past and refuse to recognize that everyone agrees with you that it needs to change. So, change it, instead of repeatedly telling me something I already agree with.
You agree with people that the Cataclysm needs to go?

...And ignored.
 
Last edited:

For you, good gods must be 100% good and infallible.
This seems likely to be a misrepresentation. Has anyone here actually said that the good gods must be 100% infallible in order to be considered good? Or have they (as I have) said that failing the prevent the Cataclysm when they could have done so is in itself so egregious that is prevents them from being called good for any reasonable definition of that term?

Here you're underplaying just how bad the Cataclysm was. It wasn't a little boo-boo that can be brushed off with an apology. It was a genocidal act. Being able to prevent a genocide, and failing to do so, disqualifies you from being "good."
 

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.
I agree that the Cataclysm's existence is important to the setting. It's a core concept.

But the explanations you've provided for it still mean that the "Gods of Good" are not actually good. Passing the buck by saying "Well, the other gods really wanted to do a genocide so what were we going to do? Stop it?" doesn't pass muster.
 

How does that change the point that I was making?
To be clear, while it obviously doesn't change the point your were making, it does suggest that your point may well be wrong. If you present ideas in support of your point, and it turns out that these ideas are demonstrably false, that indicates that your point may also be wrong. If what you present to support your argument is invalid, then that suggests the argument itself may be invalid. As such you should present things in support of your argument that are not demonstrably false.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
I'm not exactly sure what the point is here...

Mod Note:
If you didn't know what the point here is, maybe chiming in with technical correctness wasn't a constructive point. "Technically correct is the best kind of correct," is a parody, not a goal.


Oh FFS, can people stop picking apart a point that no one is arguing? Take the win. Ok, Critical Role is a thing. Ok. How does that change the point that I was making?

So, as above, I can see where the frustration comes from, but this was a point where, with that frustration, maybe you should have stepped away from the keyboard for a bit.

Can everyone take a deep breath, please, and think about what would be helpful before continuing? Thanks.
 


Alzrius

The EN World kitten
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.
Just out of curiosity, what's your vision of a Neutral that isn't "kinda evil in itself"? Because if "recognizes the existence of Evil and doesn't dedicate itself to its destruction" disqualifies you from being Neutral, I'm curious about how you define that particular term.
 

DragonBelow

Adventurer
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.

I never played or DMed the original DL modules. I wasn't really keen in replaying the novels, or being someone else's character. However, I DMed 2 long campaigns, and 1 short one, and I loved having my players running into characters from the novels, for those players in my campaign that had read them, it was a treat too.
 

DragonBelow

Adventurer
Novels also provided ideas for campaigns. One of my campaigns was minotaur based, and it was all inspired and related to the events in Richard Knack's excellent Minotaur's trilogy.
 

DarkCrisis

Legend
I never played or DMed the original DL modules. I wasn't really keen in replaying the novels, or being someone else's character. However, I DMed 2 long campaigns, and 1 short one, and I loved having my players running into characters from the novels, for those players in my campaign that had read them, it was a treat too.
My current DL campaign is set about 6 months after the first trilogy and my players loved running into Tika, Tasslehoff, and Caramon as they stayed at The Inn of the Last Home on their way South
 

Micah Sweet

Legend
My current DL campaign is set about 6 months after the first trilogy and my players loved running into Tika, Tasslehoff, and Caramon as they stayed at The Inn of the Last Home on their way South
My point. If you don't like the novels, and you don't like the Cataclysm, why the heck do you want to play Dragonlance?
 

DarkCrisis

Legend
My point. If you don't like the novels, and you don't like the Cataclysm, why the heck do you want to play Dragonlance?

Most new players aren’t going to play “Dragonlance”. They are going to play “The War of the Lance” as shown and plotted out in the upcoming book. Lore will be light to non-existent.

After they campaign, they (we) will make new characters and go play the new Faerun adventure or the new Planescape or Spelljammer adventure book. Or play an old one that got missed.

If anyone actually continues to play in New DL after they complete the adventure book will probably a rarity. Especially considering most adventure books rarely go to 20.

Modern D&D seems more geared toward the one and done adventure before starting fresh with the new adventure that’s released.
 

My point. If you don't like the novels, and you don't like the Cataclysm, why the heck do you want to play Dragonlance?
I like the concept of good and evil on a cosmic scale (but not how it was implemented) I like the idea of 3 houses of magic school/tower (but not how it was implemented) I love the idea of a sneaky evil goddess creating a small army of draconian warriors out of eggs of her dragon creatures. I love the idea of a death knight that was once a paladin and lost his way and now leads his own third faction in a war.

I like the idea of dragon riders on two sides of a conflict

I like the idea a world without cleric/gods
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top