Dragonlance Dragonlance "Reimagined".

[Neonchameleon]

So, in your argument, no good god can ever handle the Trolley Problem?

The (ed: long term) solution to the Trolley Problem is always "Go find who's tying these people to railroad tracks and make them stop"; it's an artificial framing that's designed to encourage doing bad things. And the issue here is genocide. Which in the case in question isn't "pick one of the lines" but "tie extra people to the tracks and kill them all." In specific the issue here is genocide of people supposedly on the side of the people committing the genocide. Things went very wrong.

Basically, you're arguing that all good deities in D&D are 1e style Paladins with an antagonistic DM who delights in making them lose their paladin status.

Nah. That's the people making the trolley problems.

But, again, I have to ask, who considers the Cataclysm to be a good act? It might have been the right one (and we can argue that for a long, long time) but, AFAIK, no one ever calls it a good act. No one claims that the Towers of High Sorcery are good. Necessary, but, good? I don't think that's ever even suggested.

The Cataclysm was by the Good gods. And the Towers of High Sorcery are upheld by the White Robes who are explicitly claimed to be good as much as the black robes. Dragonlance isn't a Law vs Chaos setting. It's a Good vs Evil one.

 

[Fifth Element]

So, in your argument, no good god can ever handle the Trolley Problem?

I suspect the idea is that any being worthy of being called a god is too powerful for the Trolley Problem to actually be a problem for them. They don't have to choose which way the trolley will go - they can just stop the trolley entirely using their own power.

 

[Hussar]

I suspect the idea is that any being worthy of being called a god is too powerful for the Trolley Problem to actually be a problem for them. They don't have to choose which way the trolley will go - they can just stop the trolley entirely using their own power.

And thus the issue of free will.

If the gods step in and wave the problem away and no problem can ever exist that the gods cannot just wave away, then why have free will at all?

See to me, this whole discussion is valuable. Note, I don’t necessarily disagree with anyone here. But having the issue framed in this way forces people to examine things and ask the hard questions.

Which to me is fantastic. That’s what good stories should always do. That’s why DL to me isn’t a black and white setting. It’s a very nuanced one that presents some great questions. And it doesn’t give you answers either.

It’s what really separates DL from other settings. Stahd is straight up evil. Forgotten Realms is far more straightforward in its morality. Similar to Greyhawk you have good lands and bad lands.

The message behind DL is that if you maintain balance then nothing really bad will happen.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Eh, back to hard men making hard choices, which I find exceedingly little value in.

 

[Hussar]

Eh, back to hard men making hard choices, which I find exceedingly little value in.

That's an exceptionally reductionist take. And, again, it's not supported by the text. Again, I really have to ask if you've ever actually read the books or the modules.

And, since you've been championing it rather strongly, can you show me in the texts where it declares that either the Cataclysm or the Towers of High Sorcery are considered "good".

 

[Zardnaar]

Except the limb is actually thousands or millions of thinking, feeling, sentient beings, most of whom had nothing to do the "infection"... and the surgeon is most likely capable of using a precision attack instead of genocide but chose not to.

Cosmic scale alignments and actual morality don't mix.

Vs billions or trillions or more.

Cosmic evil isn't fluffy bunnies and mildly despotic human regime for a few centuries.

So yeah a LG deity could easily destroy something's Ng if the alternative is defeat. Their duty us also cismic in scale the fate of a comparatively few doesn't matter.

Test of Twins trilogy. Evil in the form of Raistlin won. Everyone was dead in Krynn evil can only destroy not create.

 

[Zardnaar]

Really?

You don’t see parallels to the end of the Pacific War here?

Literal fascists dig into a city and refuse to surrender.

Only one way to this day to take a defended city. Surround it and level it. Holding the city can turn the war around buying time.

Holds true today see Mosul or Mariupol. Stalingrad, Manilla, Berlin in WW2.

Dragonlance is a war setting and was cosmic evil vs good.blowing up a city, continent or even a whole planet makes sense if you're gonna lose and consequences of that loss is even worse.

 

[Fifth Element]

And thus the issue of free will.

If the gods step in and wave the problem away and no problem can ever exist that the gods cannot just wave away, then why have free will at all?

That's an exceptionally reductionist take. Moreover, it's entirely irrelevant. The fact that the gods intervened at all is what would negate free will. How they did it is not the issue. That they did it is. If they did it in a way that did not result in massive loss of life, they would still be negating free will, if you accept that argument. Which I do not, because intervening when someone does something exceptionally bad does not, in any way, mean that free will is meaningless.

So free will is just another thing that does not justify the "good" gods' evil actions.

 

[humble minion]

Which to me is fantastic. That’s what good stories should always do. That’s why DL to me isn’t a black and white setting. It’s a very nuanced one that presents some great questions. And it doesn’t give you answers either.

It’s what really separates DL from other settings. Stahd is straight up evil. Forgotten Realms is far more straightforward in its morality. Similar to Greyhawk you have good lands and bad lands.

Funny, I get almost the opposite take. DL is as black and white (and red) as D&D settings come.

DL literally has three mini-pantheons of Good, Evil, and Neutrality, with capital letters. It specifically has orders of Good, Evil, and Neutral wizards, whose magic is drawn from the god-moons that influence Good, Evil, and Neutral magic respectively. Alignment/morality is extraordinarily real, rigid, and sharply delineated in Krynn's cosmology.

But the problems start because a whole lot of DL material treats one's professed allegiance to one of the three moral factions as something that's very often divorced from one's personal actions - and this is true for gods almost as much as mortals. Again, I always come back to the Kingpriest because he's such a standout example. The Kingpriest wasn't acting alone - we're told that the clerics of the Good gods were right alongside him. How does a cleric of Mishakal, the goddess of mercy, reconcile their beliefs with the commandment from the Kingpriest to commit genocide on goblins or punish people en masse for evil thoughts? And this was all in early AD&D where clerics could lose their powers if they displeased their deity, so we can safely assume Mishakal was on-side as well. It's like once someone has signed up to Team Good, they're there for life no matter what they do unless they consciously choose to leave (like Raistlin did when leaving the red robes for the black). There's no obligation to act in a Good manner to stay on Team Good, which makes 'Good' a meaningless concept. You might as well just have Team White, Team Black, and Team Red and abandon the moral dimension completely (and judging from the UA, this is quite possibly pretty similar to what WotC is going to do). And there was a quote earlier in this thread where Fizban was talking about how the Kingpriest was a good man and that the weakness of Good is that it can lead to intolerance. Surely if you succumb to the sort of wildly over-the-top genocidal intolerance we're talking about, you're no longer acting in a good manner? But this doesn't seem to stop Fizban thinking you're good, and the Good gods having their clerics back you up to the hilt. It's as if they're saying that there are certain evils that are inherent to goodness - which I find really hard to take seriously.

The message behind DL is that if you maintain balance then nothing really bad will happen.

Which makes very little sense given the cosmology. If Balance leads to the greatest benefit for the greatest number, why isn't it the goal of the good gods rather than the neutral gods?

 

[toucanbuzz]

Jumping into this conversation late in the game as a DL afficionado.

But, again, I have to ask, who considers the Cataclysm to be a good act? It might have been the right one (and we can argue that for a long, long time) but, AFAIK, no one ever calls it a good act. No one claims that the Towers of High Sorcery are good. Necessary, but, good? I don't think that's ever even suggested.

So free will is just another thing that does not justify the "good" gods' evil actions.

Their duty us also cosmic in scale the fate of a comparatively few doesn't matter.

DL "good" and "evil" has very little to do with the morality of mortals. It has to do with the existence of the cosmos, which despite the will of the Highgod, is a very fragile thing. Evil consumes but also provides conflict which can strengthen. Good furthers life but can stagnate without challenge. Neutrality is all about free will (e.g. commerce and creation provide weapons that can kill, but life can adapt to withstand). Chaos is the antithesis of existence but also, in moderated doses, an essential feature to provide variety (pure chaos might create gnomes that can't breathe air and instantly die whereas moderated chaos introduced into the world makes for an entirely new, fantastic form of life).

So, the Cataclysm shouldn't be viewed on the scales of mortal justice. "Good" (life) had gone too far because it was only supporting one form of life to the eventual extinction of others (humans were, without killing and in the name of good, delegating other races to small corners of the world). Stagnation was imminent. On a cosmic scale, the gods stepped in to reset the scales. Conflict would strengthen and diversify. If not for the Cataclysm, the races of elves, kender, and ogres were on their way out.

In doing so, the gawds of DL in some ways violated the neutrality tenet of "free will," but neutrality was never about the idea free will would lead to pure balance on its own. And, as odd as it might sound, the DL gods of good didn't gift "free will" to mortals. They're not about free will at all. If the gods of good were the only beings writing the laws of existence, everything would live forever unchanging. Hence, the elves were their creation. Even so, with the Cataclysm, the gods of good saw life diminishing if allowed to continue on the course it was. The DL gods aren't human and they don't have free will. They exist according to their nature, and that nature was to keep the cosmos going. For once in the existence of Krynn, all were in agreement what needed to be done.

That said, it's a wonderfully diverse world because of this type of complexity (e.g. understanding why the gods left is THE impetus behind the novels and motivation to play the original modules), and I'm pretty sure WOTC is going to completely pass on messing with anything metaphysical or philosophical. That's fine. We can figure that out at our individual game tables using our forums and AD&D material to make it unique.