Dragonlance Dragonlance "Reimagined".

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hussar

Legend
it was earlier in this thread I was told that it was collective punishment and the innocent are 'just collateral damage'
No, you added the "just" part.

And, again, what innocents? Remember, the people actually fully believed in the Kingpriest - the point where potentially their belief and faith was elevating the Kingpriest into godhood. That's not just a "we like this guy" kind of belief.

This whole discussion is nothing but a series of misrepresentations of the setting. NO the good gods did not send the Cataclysm, the entire pantheon, of which the good gods belong but do not control, did. NO the good gods did not sit back and do nothing while the Kingpriest rose. They stripped him and his followers of their spells, sent numerous portents and whatnot, which, as clerics, they really, REALLY should be able to understand. NO, it was not "just the Kingpriest" who was the problem.

On and on and on. Claim after unfounded claim with little or no support. When presented with actual textual evidence, it's entirely brushed off and ignored in favor of baseless opinions. It's so frustrating.
 

log in or register to remove this ad






Micah Sweet

Legend
Sure, if you miss the tiny little detail that we're talking about literal gods here. If you ignore the actual context of the discussion, you will often reach an incorrect conclusion about what is being said.
I'm of the opinion that gods are beings who differ from mortal beings primarily in scale rather than kind.
 

Huh. So, the gods actually DID directly intervene, removed spells from clerics, and did pretty much everything short of directly coming down to kill the Kingpriest personally, but, that's still apparently not enough. The only way, for some people, for the gods to not be evil is if they literally come down from the heavens and personally kill the Kingpriest.
"Not good" is NOT equivalent to "evil", so you're misrepresenting arguments here. Again.

And yes, clearly killing the Kingpriest would be a FAR lesser evil than blowing up a continent. So if those are actually your only two choices (and that's a big if), then one is preferable to the other, by miles and miles.
 

Micah Sweet

Legend
Yes, precisely. A type of justice that in no reasonable way can be called "good."
If you follow the pre-modern philosophy it represents, it absolutely can. By engaging in this kind of fantasy, you are tacitly accepting that point of view for the duration of your engagement. There is nothing wrong with this. People can enjoy a fantasy world where good means something different than the modern view.
 

Haplo781

Legend
"Not good" is NOT equivalent to "evil", so you're misrepresenting arguments here. Again.

And yes, clearly killing the Kingpriest would be a FAR lesser evil than blowing up a continent. So if those are actually your only two choices (and that's a big if), then one is preferable to the other, by miles and miles.
Because killing the leader of a movement always stops the movement
 


If you follow the pre-modern philosophy it represents, it absolutely can.
Sure, if you only care about labels rather than meaning. Which renders any discussion of the meaning of anything moot, so it's not terribly useful.

By engaging in this kind of fantasy, you are tacitly accepting that point of view for the duration of your engagement. There is nothing wrong with this.
And there's nothing wrong with doing the opposite as well, examining "pre-modern" beliefs from a perspective of having a better understanding of such things now,

People can enjoy a fantasy world where good means something different than the modern view.
That's nice. Who said anything about people not being able to enjoy anything?
 

Because killing the leader of a movement always stops the movement
I didn't suggest killing the Kingpriest was the best idea. I discussed that dichotomy because it was presented. It's a false dichotomy of course, there are far more options that just killing the Kingpriest or genocide.
 

And, again, what innocents? Remember, the people actually fully believed in the Kingpriest - the point where potentially their belief and faith was elevating the Kingpriest into godhood. That's not just a "we like this guy" kind of belief.
If the gods of Krynn are so capricious that they will genocide people in order to prevent one of them from also becoming a god, then the Kingpriest sounds like he would fit in perfectly.

Again, this just supports the idea that the "gods of good" were not good, but selfish and capricious.

This whole discussion is nothing but a series of misrepresentations of the setting. NO the good gods did not send the Cataclysm, the entire pantheon, of which the good gods belong but do not control, did. NO the good gods did not sit back and do nothing while the Kingpriest rose. They stripped him and his followers of their spells, sent numerous portents and whatnot, which, as clerics, they really, REALLY should be able to understand. NO, it was not "just the Kingpriest" who was the problem.
Ironically, these are misrepresentations of the arguments others have made. So there's that.
 

Micah Sweet

Legend
Sure, if you only care about labels rather than meaning. Which renders any discussion of the meaning of anything moot, so it's not terribly useful.


And there's nothing wrong with doing the opposite as well, examining "pre-modern" beliefs from a perspective of having a better understanding of such things now,


That's nice. Who said anything about people not being able to enjoy anything?
You're asking for WotC to change an existing setting based on a pre-modern philosophy to instead subscribe to modern sensibilities. Aside from what I see as the thematic core of the setting being gutted because some people think dragon wars with 30-year old proper names are cool, you are implying that your way is superior and existing properties should be changed to suit you.
 

Hussar

Legend
I didn't suggest killing the Kingpriest was the best idea. I discussed that dichotomy because it was presented. It's a false dichotomy of course, there are far more options that just killing the Kingpriest or genocide.
Let's hear them then.

Let's hear these other options. Because, every time I ask, all I get is silence. If there are all these other, better options, then, by all means, let's see them.
 

Hussar

Legend
"Not good" is NOT equivalent to "evil", so you're misrepresenting arguments here. Again.

And yes, clearly killing the Kingpriest would be a FAR lesser evil than blowing up a continent. So if those are actually your only two choices (and that's a big if), then one is preferable to the other, by miles and miles.
So, Batman is clearly evil in your definition. After all, not killing the Joker results in thousands of deaths. Repeatedly. So, you believe that Batman is evil. Superman too. After all, Lex is guilty of thousands of deaths as well, either directly or indirectly. Letting them live and just taking them to jail results in more death and misery, so, you believe that Supes and Batman are evil, right?

See, here's the thing. You don't actually know that it would be a lesser evil. Maybe killing the Kingpriest would martyr him, causing even more to believe in him, thus elevating him to godlike status, and causing all the other gods to be abandoned in favor of the one true Kingpriest god.

Because, it's not just that the people were turning from one god in the setting. They were turning from all gods. And turning to the Kingpriest.

Or, maybe the Kingpriest's right hand guy takes over from the Kingpriest and he starts getting elevated. So, the gods kill him. What, we start playing whack a mole with every Kingpriest until they take the hint? That's not exactly a good act

You're insisting on a hypothetical outcome being preferable to what happened based on very little information and counter to what you are specifically being told by the setting itself. The canon of the setting says that the Cataclysm IS the lesser of evils. That other options would have been worse. But, you're insisting that you should be able to second guess that based on what?
 


Vaalingrade

Legend
So, Batman is clearly evil in your definition. After all, not killing the Joker results in thousands of deaths.
Deaths the Joker causes. Those aren't on his head.

Bats is evil if he deals with the Joker by letting the JLA level Gotham, then telling everyone 'believe it or not, the Joker was a good man'.

I feel like the murder of thousands, maybe millions of people kind of keeps getting swept under the rug or handwaved.

I also feel like we keep skipping over the part where even the Kingpriest recognized the Mages as evil and how magic was apparently a gift from the gods those jackholes were bogarting.

DL seems like it could be a well-received morally ambiguous setting if the narrative didn't keep insisting it was Good vs Evil despite clearly NOT.
 

Fifinjir

Explorer
It seems pretty clear that the corruption spread past just the Priestking into Ishtar as a whole and threatened to consume all Krynn.

I don’t know about you, but if I suddenly ended up in the Upper Planes (if I’m lucky) or the Outlands (more likely), and asked what the h*ck I’m doing here, I’d consider “if we didn’t do it, you and everyone else would end up in the Lower Planes when the world blew up” to be a pretty reasonable answer.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top