Dragonlance Dragonlance "Reimagined".

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm 90% sure this is sarcasm and HBO has made a lot of money from Game of Thrones. The point of this post is to hedge my 10%!
Definitely sarcasm but to be fair you never know. lol

After the first couple episodes of House of the Dragon, numerous articles popped up about GoT again having a problem with how it portrays homosexuals and whatever criticism came up hasn't affected the shows ability to draw tons of viewers. I think people overestimate online objections to content impacting the financial viability of products.

Personally, I think the upcoming book with be so barebones with lore that it will sidestep a good deal of what people object to. I pre-ordered the D&D Beyond book mostly to get the stat blocks there since I run my games from there. I'm undecided on a physical book but leaning towards no (though the special cover looks great). Until I see how they proceed with One D&D, I don't think I'm giving WotC any more money since I have what I need to run anything I'd want to.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Vaalingrade

Legend
I don't know if they MEANT for the gully dwarf to mock neurodivergent, just like I don't know if they MENT for kender to match up with bad mouthing romoni irl... I just don't think it matters what they meant, it is and now needs to be fixed.
Fair, but at the same time in the 80's it certainly was a thing to have... as they would say 'slow'* characters whose lack of traditional intelligence was in and of itself 'the joke', and that's what the Gully Dwarves look like to me.

*With 'slow' ranging from Homer Simpson, to 'clearly neurodivergent in a time where there wasn't a polite word for it'.
 

A film like 2001 gets all of its weight from inviting the audience to apply their actual moral sensibility.

A film like Excalibur gets all of its weight from inviting the audience to suspend their actual moral sensibility and buy into its romantic sensibility.

Some people think this makes Excalibur a bad film. Others don't. But I've never heard of anyone who thinks that you make sense of Excalibur as a film by viewing it with the same sort of sensibility as one would bring to 2001.
I don't think it makes Excalibur a bad film, it would be in my top 50 movies and maybe even break top 10 fantasy movies for me... but I don't want to play a game where the good/bad scale is based on it.
 

Faolyn

(she/her)
Gods are super-powered, sentient, immortal beings. I don't see a difference significant enough for this discussion. Both could go a long towards solving society's ills but usually don't.
Gods have worshipers. Most of them demand worship, in fact. They promise things to their worshipers in exchange for that worship--love, guidance, protection, blessings, a good afterlife, etc. They also governm represent, or outright control aspects of reality.

Supers rarely have worshipers (it happens, but the good supers usually discourage them), generally do not promise people things in exchange for "worship" (and those that do are called out as being evil or, at the least, jerks), and don't control reality.

Huge differences.
 

Faolyn

(she/her)
A film like 2001 gets all of its weight from inviting the audience to apply their actual moral sensibility.

A film like Excalibur gets all of its weight from inviting the audience to suspend their actual moral sensibility and buy into its romantic sensibility.

Some people think this makes Excalibur a bad film. Others don't. But I've never heard of anyone who thinks that you make sense of Excalibur as a film by viewing it with the same sort of sensibility as one would bring to 2001.
Excalibur is based on an ancient story.

Dragonlance was first published 1984.
 

Zubatcarteira

Now you're infected by the Musical Doodle
I think it was Eru that destroyed Numenor, not the Valar themselves. It's the guy who considers death a great gift to humanity, and the Numenorians were trying to get to the Undying Lands so they would not be fated to die, he probably took it as a personal attack.

I've definitely seen people critizing it, but at least we don't know what happens to humans when they die in the LoTR universe, maybe it's so cool that killing them is more of a favor.
 


pemerton

Legend
I think it was Eru that destroyed Numenor, not the Valar themselves. It's the guy who considers death a great gift to humanity, and the Numenorians were trying to get to the Undying Lands so they would not be fated to die, he probably took it as a personal attack.

I've definitely seen people critizing it, but at least we don't know what happens to humans when they die in the LoTR universe, maybe it's so cool that killing them is more of a favor.
If you're going to criticise this aspect of JRRT's work, in my view it's just silly to comment on the downfall of Numenor. If you accept the political and theological worldview that informs the works - either in reality, or as a framing for a fiction - then there is no criticism to be made of the downfall. Conversely, if you don't accept that worldview, for instance because you reject it in real life and are not nevertheless prepared to accept it as a framing for a fiction, then the whole thing falls over and the downfall isn't any sort of special or distinct target of criticism.
 

TheSword

Legend
A lot of that was inevitable. WotC have taken the view (rightly, IMO) that a large part of their customer base deal with far too much racism, sexism, and homophobia in their everyday lives and just don't want that stuff appearing in their entertainment (even racism between entirely fictional groups). Also, quite a lot of the original Dragonlance is strongly influenced by Hickman's Mormon faith, which gives another chunk of material to be quietly de-emphasized.

So, yeah, there's going to be a pretty heavy revision being done, and it is going to strongly move towards supporting war stories and away from the strongly dualistic good vs evil morality of the originals.
I wonder what would have happened if the show runners of Game of Thrones felt the same way.
 

DarkCrisis

Legend
That's the biggest issue with kender for me. They're essentially that CN player who is disruptive and acts like a jerk to everyone because "it's what my character would do". I've yet to have a kender player and I hope to change that.
It’s not thr Kenders fault if the player sucks and/or the DM didn’t work out how best the Kender RP should be represented in game.

My current DL game has a wonderful Kender player and her “borrowing” is done solely as RP stuff and never really hurts any other player. Everyone had a great time.
 

Zubatcarteira

Now you're infected by the Musical Doodle
If you're going to criticise this aspect of JRRT's work, in my view it's just silly to comment on the downfall of Numenor. If you accept the political and theological worldview that informs the works - either in reality, or as a framing for a fiction - then there is no criticism to be made of the downfall. Conversely, if you don't accept that worldview, for instance because you reject it in real life and are not nevertheless prepared to accept it as a framing for a fiction, then the whole thing falls over and the downfall isn't any sort of special or distinct target of criticism.
I don't particularly care about that part, just saw people mentioning here it was the Valar, while I'm pretty sure it was Eru. It's a bit different from the Dragonlance example since there it seems like the good gods had to still take into account what the evil and neutral gods wanted, while in Tolkien Eru is just the omnipotent god of everything and could solve all the problems at any time.

The Valar did try killing Sauron as well, I think, threw lightning at him, but he wasn't harmed. Maybe Ulmo could have jumped out of the ocean and skewered him for a more direct try, but at least they tried something.
 

Micah Sweet

Legend
I don't think it makes Excalibur a bad film, it would be in my top 50 movies and maybe even break top 10 fantasy movies for me... but I don't want to play a game where the good/bad scale is based on it.
Fair enough. But that doesn't mean every old setting that's based on pre-modern morality needs to be "updated" so it meets your standards.
 



Does that include all the literature, film and TV discussed above?
In my humble opinion there is a world of difference between a story told and a story telling game, so no
Does everything need to conform to modern sensibilities to avoid social outcry?
maybe, but D&D games after the last few big blunders WotC made... yes all WotC official D&D stuff must.
 


I don't know if they MEANT for the gully dwarf to mock neurodivergent, just like I don't know if they MENT for kender to match up with bad mouthing romoni irl... I just don't think it matters what they meant, it is and now needs to be fixed.
I've legit never heard the bolded part. Could you explain or point me to something that explains it?
 

Faolyn

(she/her)
It’s not thr Kenders fault if the player sucks and/or the DM didn’t work out how best the Kender RP should be represented in game.

My current DL game has a wonderful Kender player and her “borrowing” is done solely as RP stuff and never really hurts any other player. Everyone had a great time.
It's the writers fault for writing a race that is kleptomaniacal and has Taunt as a racial ability and is utterly fearless and is naturally anarchic and is willing to get into danger, no matter the consequences, because of being fearless and thinking death is just another adventure and who apparently can't understand what private property is despite being known to take things but not give them... well, that's a problem. If a race constantly causes problems except for a few good players who have to deliberately change the way the race is described in order to avoid interparty conflict--then yes, there's a problem with the race.
 

It’s not thr Kenders fault if the player sucks and/or the DM didn’t work out how best the Kender RP should be represented in game.

My current DL game has a wonderful Kender player and her “borrowing” is done solely as RP stuff and never really hurts any other player. Everyone had a great time.
That's fair. I compared it to a CN character and I've seen people play them in ways that don't create problems so it's possible I guess.
 

Faolyn

(she/her)
I've legit never heard the bolded part. Could you explain or point me to something that explains it?
They're primarily wanderers who "handle" (steal) things. That's actually the only connection to the (bigoted myths about) Romani. They don't otherwise have anything in common with them--not like the Vistani, who were deliberately made to be Romani knock-offs.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top