log in or register to remove this ad

 

General Dragonlance's Margaret Weis & Tracy Hickman Are Suing WotC for Breach of Contract

Status
Not open for further replies.
For fans of the Dragonlance D&D setting, there's some mixed news which has just hit a court in Washington State: it seems that there's a new Dragonlance trilogy of books which was (until recently) being written; but we may never see them. On 16th October 2020, a lawsuit was filed in the US District Court by Dragonlance authors Weis and Hickman asserting an unlawful breach of contract by WotC regarding the licensing of a new series of Dragonlance novels. Indeed, it appears that the first of three novels, Dragons of Deceit, has already been written, as has Book 2, Dragons of Fate.

dl.jpg



The Lawsuit
From the documents it appears that in March 2019 a new Dragonlance trilogy was licensed by WotC; Weis and Hickman wrote a book called Dragons of Deceit, and the draft of a second called Dragons of Fate, and then WotC terminated the contract in August 2020.

The suit asserts that the termination was unlawful, and "violated multiple aspects of the License Agreement". It goes on to assert that the reasons for the termination were due to WotC being "embroiled in a series of embarrassing public disputes whereby its non-Dragonlance publications were excoriated for racism and sexism. Moreover, the company itself was vilified by well-publicized allegations of misogyny and racist hiring and employment practices by and with respect to artists and employees unrelated to Dragonlance."

Screen Shot 2020-10-19 at 4.51.11 PM.png


NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. Margaret Weis (“Weis”) and Tracy Hickman (“Hickman”) (collectively with Margaret Weis, LLC, “Plaintiff-Creators”) are among the most widely-read and successful living authors and world-creators in the fantasy fiction arena. Over thirty-five years ago, Plaintiff- Creators conceived of and created the Dragonlance universe—a campaign setting for the “Dungeons & Dragons” roleplaying game, the rights to which are owned by Defendant. (In Dungeons & Dragons, gamers assume roles within a storyline and embark on a series of adventures—a “campaign”—in the context of a particular campaign setting.)

2. Plaintiff-Creators’ conception and development of the Dragonlance universe has given rise to, among other things, gaming modules, video games, merchandise, comic books, films, and a series of books set in the Dungeons & Dragons fantasy world. While other authors have been invited to participate in creating over 190 separate fictional works within the Dragonlance universe, often with Plaintiff-Creators as editors, Weis’s and Hickman’s own works remain by far the most familiar and salable. Their work has inspired generations of gamers, readers and enthusiasts, beginning in 1984 when they published their groundbreaking novel Dragons of Autumn Twilight, which launched the Dragonlance Chronicles trilogy. Their books have sold more than thirty million copies, and their Dragonlance World of Krynn is arguably the most successful and popular world in shared fiction, rivaled in the fantasy realm only by the renowned works created by J.R.R. Tolkien (which do not involve a shared fictional world). Within the Dragonlance universe, Plaintiff-Creators have authored or edited 31 separate books, short story anthologies, game materials, and art and reference books in a related series of works all dedicated to furthering the Dungeons & Dragons/Dragonlance brand.

3. In or around 2017, Plaintiff-Creators learned that Defendant was receptive to licensing its properties with established authors to revitalize the Dungeons & Dragons brand. After a ten-year hiatus, Plaintiff-Creators approached Defendant and began negotiating for a license to author a new Dragonlance trilogy. Plaintiff-Creators viewed the new trilogy as the capstone to their life’s work and as an offering to their multitude of fans who had clamored for a continuation of the series. Given that the Dragonlance series intellectual property is owned by Defendant, there could be no publication without a license. In March, 2019, the negotiations between the parties hereto culminated in new written licensing agreement whereby Weis and Hickman were to personally author and publish a new Dragonlance trilogy in conjunction with Penguin Random House, a highly prestigious book publisher (the “License Agreement”).

4. By the time the License Agreement was signed, Defendant had a full overview of the story and story arc, with considerable detail, of the planned trilogy. Defendant knew exactly the nature of the work it was going to receive and had pre-approved Penguin Random House as the publisher. Indeed, Defendant was at all times aware of the contract between Penguin Random House and Plaintiff-Creators (the “Publishing Agreement”) and its terms. In fact, the License Agreement expressly refers to the Publishing Agreement.

5. By June 2019, Defendant received and approved a full outline of the first contracted book in the trilogy (“Book 1”) and by November 2019 the publisher accepted a manuscript for Book 1. Plaintiff-Creators in turn sent the Book 1 manuscript to Defendant, who approved it in January 2020. In the meantime, Defendant was already approving foreign translation rights and encouraging Plaintiff-Creators to work on the subsequent novels.

6. During the development and writing process, Plaintiff-Creators met all contractual milestones and received all requisite approvals from Defendant. Defendant at all times knew that Hickman and Weis had devoted their full attention and time commitment to completing Book 1 and the trilogy as a whole in conformity with their contractual obligations. During the writing process, Defendant proposed certain changes in keeping with the modern-day zeitgeist of a more inclusive and diverse story-world. At each step, Plaintiff-Creators timely accommodated such requests, and all others, within the framework of their novels. This collaborative process tracks with Section 2(a)(iii) of the License Agreement, which requires Defendant to approve Plaintiff- Creators’ drafts or, alternatively, provide written direction as to the changes that will result in Defendant’s approval of a draft.

7. On or about August 13, 2020, Defendant participated in a telephone conference with Plaintiff-Creators’ agents, which was attended by Defendant’s highest-level executives and attorneys as well as PRH executives and counsel. At that meeting, Defendant declared that it would not approve any further Drafts of Book 1 or any subsequent works in the trilogy, effectively repudiating and terminating the License Agreement. No reason was provided for the termination. (In any event, no material breaches or defaults were indicated or existed upon which to predicate a termination.) The termination was wholly arbitrary and without contractual basis. The termination was unlawful and in violation of multiple aspects of the License Agreement (arguably almost every part of it, in fact). The termination also had the knowing and premeditated effect of precluding publication and destroying the value of Plaintiff-Creators’ work—not to mention their publishing deal with Penguin Random House.

8. Defendant’s acts and failures to act breached the License Agreement and were made in stunning and brazen bad faith. Defendant acted with full knowledge that its unilateral decision would not only interfere with, but also would lay waste to, the years of work that Plaintiff-Creators had, to that point, put into the project. Given that the obligation to obtain a publisher was part and parcel of the License Agreement, Defendant was fully cognizant that its backdoor termination of the License Agreement would nullify the millions of dollars in remuneration to which Plaintiff-Creators were entitled from their publishing contract.

9. As Plaintiff-Creators subsequently learned, Defendant’s arbitrary decision to terminate the License Agreement—and thereby the book publishing contract—was based on events that had nothing to do with either the Work or Plaintiff-Creators. In fact, at nearly the exact point in time of the termination, Defendant was embroiled in a series of embarrassing public disputes whereby its non-Dragonlance publications were excoriated for racism and sexism. Moreover, the company itself was vilified by well-publicized allegations of misogyny and racist hiring and employment practices by and with respect to artists and employees unrelated to Dragonlance. Plaintiff-Creators are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that a decision was made jointly by Defendant and its parent company, Hasbro, Inc., to deflect any possible criticism or further public outcry regarding Defendant’s other properties by effectively killing the Dragonlance deal with Plaintiff-Creators. The upshot of that was to inflict knowing, malicious and oppressive harm to Plaintiff-Creators and to interfere with their third- party contractual obligations, all to Plaintiff-Creator’s severe detriment and distress.


Delving into the attached document, all seemed to be going to plan until June 2020, at which the team overseeing the novels was replaced by WotC. The document cites public controversies involving one of the new team, issues with Magic: The Gathering, Orion Black's public complaints about the company's hiring practices, and more. Eventually, in August 2020, the suit alleges that during a telephone call, WotC terminated the agreement with the statement "We are not moving toward breach, but we will not approve any further drafts.”

Ending the Agreement
The suit notes that "None of the termination provisions were triggered, nor was there a claim of material breach much less written notice thereof, nor was a 30-day cure period initiated." The situation appears to be that while the agreement could not in itself be unilaterally 'terminated' in this way, WotC was able to simply not approve any further drafts (including the existing draft). The text of that allegation reads:

Not only was Defendant’s statement that “we will not approve any future drafts” a clumsy effort to circumvent the termination provisions (because, of course, there was no ground for termination), it undermined the fundamental structure of the contractual relationship whereby the Defendant-Licensor would provide Plaintiff-Creators the opportunity and roadmap to “fix”/rewrite/cure any valid concerns related to the protection of the Dungeons & Dragons brand with respect to approvals. In any event, Defendant had already approved the essential storylines, plots, characters, creatures, and lore for the new Dragonlance trilogy when it approved Plaintiff-Creators’ previous drafts and story arc, which were complete unto themselves, were delivered prior to execution of the License Agreement, and are acknowledged in the text of the License Agreement. In other words, Defendant’s breach had nothing to do with Plaintiff-Creators’ work; it was driven by Defendant’s response to its own, unrelated corporate public relations problems—possibly encouraged or enacted by its corporate parent, Hasbro, Inc.

Basically, while the contract itself could not be terminated, refusing to approve work amounts to an 'effective' termination. Weis and Hickman note that the license itself does not allow for arbitrary termination. The following section of the document is relevant:

Nothing in the above provision allows Defendant to terminate the License Agreement based on Defendant’s failure to provide approval. To the contrary, should Defendant find any aspect of the Draft to be unacceptable, Defendant has an affirmative duty under contract to provide “reasonable detail” of any changes Plaintiff-Creators must make, which changes will result in Defendant’s approval of the manuscript. Accordingly, for Defendant to make the blanket statement that it will never approve any Drafts going forward is, by itself, a breach of the license agreement.

So, the agreement apparently requires WotC to allow W&H to fix any approval-based concerns. Notwithstanding that WotC might be unsatisfied with W&H's previous rewrites, the decision in advance to simply not approve drafts without giving them this chance to rewrite appears to be the crux of the issue, and this is what the writers are alleging is the breach of contract.

Weis & Hickman are demanding a jury trial and are suing for breach of contract, damages, and a court order to require WotC to fulfill its end of the agreement. They cite years of work, and millions of dollars.

Licensing Agreements

Defendant acted with full knowledge that its unilateral decision would not only interfere with, but also would lay waste to, the years of work that Plaintiff-Creators had, to that point, put into the project. Given that the obligation to obtain a publisher was part and parcel of the License Agreement, Defendant was fully cognizant that its backdoor termination of the License Agreement would nullify the millions of dollars in remuneration to which Plaintiff-Creators were entitled from their publishing contract.

So how does all this work? Obviously we don't have access to the original contract, so we don't know the exact terms of the licensing agreement; similarly, we are hearing one side of the story here.

The arrangement appears to have been a licensing arrangement -- that is, Weis & Hickman will have licensed the Dragonlance IP from WotC, and have arranged with Penguin Random House to publish the trilogy. It's not work-for-hire, or work commissioned by and paid for by WotC; on the contrary, in most licensing deals, the licensee pays the licensor. Indeed in this case, the document indicates that Penguin Random House paid Weis & Hickman an advance in April 2019, and W&H subsequently paid WotC (presumably a percentage of this).

Licensing agreements vary, but they often share similar features. These usually involve the licensee paying the IP owner a licensing fee or an advance on royalties at the start of the license, and sometimes annually or at certain milestones. Thereafter, the licensee also often pays the IP holder royalties on the actual book profits. We don't know the exact details of this licensing agreement, but it seems to share some of those features.

On March 29, 2019, Plaintiff-Creators and PRH entered into the Publishing Agreement. PRH remitted the signing payment due under the Publishing Agreement to Plaintiff- Creators in April 2019. Per the terms of the License Agreement, Plaintiff-Creators in turn remitted a portion of the signing payment to Defendant—an amount Defendant continues to retain despite having effectively terminated the License Agreement.


Tortious Interference

On information and belief, Defendant also engaged in back-channel activities to disrupt the Publishing Agreement by convincing PRH that Defendant would prevent Plaintiff- Creators from performing under the Publishing Agreement

There's another wrinkle, a little later. The document says that a second payment was due on November 2019 -- similarly it would be paid to W&H by Penguin Random House, who would then pay WotC. It appears that PRH did not make that second payment to W&H. W&H later say they discovered that WotC was talking directly to Penguin Random House about editorial topics, which is what the term 'tortious interference with contract' is referring to.

By June 2019, Defendant/Hasbro expressly approved a detailed outline of Book 1. In November 2019, PRH indicated that the complete manuscript of Book 1 was accepted and it would push through the second payment due on the Publishing Agreement. At that time, Plaintiff-Creators submitted the complete manuscript of Book 1 to Defendant/Hasbro who expressly approved the Book 1 manuscript in January 2020. Inexplicably, and despite Plaintiff- Creators’ repeated request, PRH never actually delivered the second payment due on approval of the Book 1 manuscript.


What Happened?
Throughout the process, WotC asked for 'sensitivity rewrites'. These appear to include four points, including the use of a love potion, and other "concerns of sexism, inclusivity and potential negative connotations of certain character names." W&H content that they provided the requested rewrites.

One section which might provide some insight into the process is this:

During the writing process, Defendant proposed certain changes in keeping with the modern-day zeitgeist of a more inclusive and diverse story-world. At each step, Plaintiff-Creators timely accommodated such requests, and all others, within the framework of their novels.

It's hard to interpret that without the context of the full conversations that took place, but it sounds like WotC, in response to the previously-mentioned publicity storm it has been enduring regarding inclusivity, wanted to ensure that this new trilogy of books would not exacerbate the problems. We know they asked for some rewrites, and W&H say they complied, but the phrase "within the framework of their novels" sounds like a conditional description. It could be that WotC was not satisfied with the rewrites, and that W&H were either unable or unwilling to alter the story or other details to the extent that they were asked to. There's a lot to unpack in that little "within the framework of their novels" phrase, and we can only speculate.

It sounds like this then resulted in WotC essentially backing out of the whole deal by simply declaring that they would refuse to approve any further drafts, in the absence of an actual contractual clause that would accommodate this situation.

What we do know is that there are two completed drafts of new Dragonlance novels out there. Whether we'll ever get to read them is another question! Dragons of Deceit is complete, Dragons of Fate has a draft, and the third book has been outlined.
 
Russ Morrissey

Russ Morrissey

Sure. Which god is it exactly that is the true religion? Mishakel? Paladine? Chemosh? One of the other gods? Each of the gods has a different religion, so I'd like to know which one is the true one that she brought to the masses.
For better or for worse, she brought all of them. She did not bring only one god. She brought them all! That is why I said it had nothing to do with real life religion of the authors. Evil gods were also brought to the fore with the revelations of the disks.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


And in the Bible, Jesus wasn't a speaking lion murdered by an ice-queen. Obviously C. S. Lewis and other authors who based parts or plots of their books off of parts of their religious beliefs make some changes to the story that they "borrow" from.
And at which point do you considered that a borrowed idea is so far from the original as to be completely different and no longer related? That is a line that can be moved left or right by the viewer. For me it has nothing to do with real religion. If for you it is, well, I did not know that Mormonism was so close to the Dark Queens ideal as to put them to the fore... *

* I do hope you see the absurdity of the last statement...
 

And at which point do you considered that a borrowed idea is so far from the original as to be completely different and no longer related? That is a line that can be moved left or right by the viewer. For me it has nothing to do with real religion. If for you it is, well, I did not know that Mormonism was so close to the Dark Queens ideal as to put them to the fore... *

* I do hope you see the absurdity of the last statement...
I am a member of the same church as the Hickmans. The parallel is clear. Changing a few aspect of the original story (the plates being platinum, not gold, the sex of the person who restored the religion, and the plates including the evil religion) is not enough to make it not a clear allegory.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
And in the Bible, Jesus wasn't a speaking lion murdered by an ice-queen. Obviously C. S. Lewis and other authors who based parts or plots of their books off of parts of their religious beliefs make some changes to the story that they "borrow" from.
This isn't anything like what Goldmoon did. C.S. Lewis didn't have Aslan and 15 other gods, including evil ones. Had Goldmoon only brought back the one true god, you'd have a point.

I am a member of the same church as the Hickmans. The parallel is clear. Changing a few aspect of the original story (the plates being platinum, not gold, the sex of the person who restored the religion, and the plates including the evil religion) is not enough to make it not a clear allegory.

Cool, but there is no "the religion." She brought back more than a dozen different religions, some of which were evil.
 

Strange, I would have associated it with Moses and the tablets of the law. The words of god. This is the problem when you want to relate fantasy to real life. It can't be done. Fantasy is fantasy. Period. Yes, it might be inspired by real world event, stories, cultures or whatever. But it is not the real world.

There will always be another story you might relate it to from a different culture or background. At some point, we have to admit that every correlation is in the mind of the reader and his/her own perspective. What you see in one story could be entirely different when seen by somebody else. That 20000 people see something bad in one aspect of the story does not mean that 40000 others will not see something else that will be positive. And who are we to say that one view is better than the other?

When the author is/are alive, it is easy. Just ask them what was the intention in the story. When the author is/are dead... It is only open to conjecture and speculations. That is why I much prefer to read a story for what it is. A story.

And I do have a minor degree in literature. Does that make me a specialist? Nope. Does that give me more credit to judge? Nope. I once proven that you could read The apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz in 10 different ways (reaching 10 different conclusions) in 10 different essays. Yes, some conclusions were far fetch, but they worked out well, as my teacher, a hell of man, had a doctorate and the minimum grade I got in the essays would have been a B+ (But I had kept the A+ for myself). I did that just by quoting the right passages at the right time in the essays (and the right explanations/analysis, of course). If I could do it, so can others with other books. You can see what you want in a story or a book if you search hard enough or if your view point is biased in a certain way. And, if you are vocal enough, you can even convince others that your point of view is the "right" one. Even if it is not.
 

This isn't anything like what Goldmoon did. C.S. Lewis didn't have Aslan and 15 other gods, including evil ones. Had Goldmoon only brought back the one true god, you'd have a point.
I don't know if you're arguing in good faith, or very much not getting my point. Authors take some liberties in their stories, which is why the fact that Goldmoon restoring not only one religion isn't enough to invalidate it being a parallel of the story of the golden plates.
Cool, but there is no "the religion." She brought back more than a dozen different religions, some of which were evil.
That isn't significant enough, IMO. That's one small change from an otherwise very clear inspiration for the story. What are you even trying to argue here? What's your position? Is it that you believe that the story was not inspired or based off of the story of Joseph Smith and the Golden Plates.
 

ModernApathy

Explorer
Last I checked said freedom is still either a written or unwritten right in all of the nations brought up thus far in the discussion (i.e. the US, Canada, the UK, and Australia). Denying that right has been tried in various regimes at various times through history, and it's never worked out very well.
Not sure about the other countries mentioned, but Australia does not have explicit freedom of speech in any constitutional or statutory declaration of rights. (I think there's an exception for political speech)
 

Zardnaar

Legend
Not sure about the other countries mentioned, but Australia does not have explicit freedom of speech in any constitutional or statutory declaration of rights. (I think there's an exception for political speech)

No act of parliment?

We have it but it's only an act. Any government could revoke it easy enough.

I'm fine restricting extreme alt right/Nazi garbage but a lot of people are basically claiming we're right you're wrong that's not so cool imho.

Doesn't really solve it fix anything just creates bubbles.
 

There isn't an explicit "freedom of speech" law in the UK either, unless you are an MP speaking in the Chamber of the House. For example, during WW2 what people where allowed to say was very tightly restricted - entirely legally.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
There isn't an explicit "freedom of speech" law in the UK either, unless you are an MP speaking in the Chamber of the House. For example, during WW2 what people where allowed to say was very tightly restricted - entirely legally.

They may have changed the law since then.

NZ had the strictist censorship in the war years but since passed bill of rights and human rights act. UK hasn't done something similar?

Just means you don't get prosecuted. Don't have to give someone a megaphone.
 

They may have changed the law since then.

NZ had the strictist censorship in the war years but since passed bill of rights and human rights act. UK hasn't done something similar?
Currently, the UK is still signed up to the European human rights act, but that is likely to change. I don't think that act has an explicit "right of free speech" though. "Right to freedom of expression" is in, but that's not quite the same thing. There are still very much legal restrictions on what can and can't be legally said - the Official Secrets Act for example.
 

There isn't an explicit "freedom of speech" law in the UK either, unless you are an MP speaking in the Chamber of the House. For example, during WW2 what people where allowed to say was very tightly restricted - entirely legally.

I did a couple exchanges in the UK through the IACP. I was amazed at how much power the British police have as compared to the USA.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
Currently, the UK is still signed up to the European human rights act, but that is likely to change. I don't think that act has an explicit "right of free speech" though. "Right to freedom of expression" is in, but that's not quite the same thing. There are still very much legal restrictions on what can and can't be legally said - the Official Secrets Act for example.
I did a couple exchanges in the UK through the IACP. I was amazed at how much power the British police have as compared to the USA.

Our cops are unarmed. Illegal to carry gun under normal circumstances.

3f6d32d.jpg
 

This article is interesting.


---

Even without a trial Hasbro is losing a lot of money, but the revival could be a good source of incomes. Could you imagine the advertising of "product emplacement" of a Dragonlance novel in a episode of the next season of Stranger Things?

And it's curious because now Goldmoon seems politically incorrect or Gal Gat Dot can't play Cleopatra (when the historical character was from Greek origin) but no complains about "the maid's tale" or the red paladins from Netflix's "Cursed". Double standard?
 

Hussar

Legend
I am sure plenty do agree. But there is a reason people are continuing to push back on these ideas. My issue is Hussar is acting as if this is a settled discussion and it isn't. There is a legitimate contrary point of view here, that has nothing to do with being racist, and everything to do with being skeptical of erecting taboos around the dubious notion of cultural appropriation.
No, there really isn't a "legitimate contrary point of view here" and yes, it has everything to do with being stuck in racist rhetoric.

I'm sorry but, if you cannot see the issue with changing a character to white and then making that the savior character, there really isn't much else to say. Are there other possible interpretations? Maybe. Don't really care. This was pretty blatant and not hidden at all. ALL the other Que Shu characters are drawn, described and depicted as First Nations, right down to buckskins and feathers as well as living in tipis and living nomadic hunter/gatherer lifestyles. It's not like we're talking a really difficult correlation here.

But, the one savior character who comes from these people is white, blond, and hands the gol... err... sorry platinum disks to the white character to bring the true faith to the people.

After all, it's not like there's only one picture of Goldmoon:



In what way is this "dubious"? This is about as blatant as it gets. This is the poster child for cultural appropriation.

Hey, I get not all criticisms of cultural appropriation are true. Fair enough. But, good grief, how blatant does it have to be?
 

Hussar

Legend
There isn't an explicit "freedom of speech" law in the UK either, unless you are an MP speaking in the Chamber of the House. For example, during WW2 what people where allowed to say was very tightly restricted - entirely legally.
Canada does not have one either.
 

GreyLord

Hero
Little late in the discussion, but from what I see (and it could be flawed) this was NOT going to be a WotC publication, it was going to be published by PRH.

WotC was just licensing it out. The manuscript was sent to them for approval that it could be published, but it was not an official WotC product...per se.

This is over licensing and the portion of the contract which specifies that WotC can approve or disapprove of manuscripts written in regards to Dragonlance.

This is to ensure that what is being written is in line with what WotC sees Dragonlance as being a portion of...whether that is past publications, it's current state, or other items not thus mentioned.

It is not as clear cut as some may think.

NOT giving approval is NOT saying something cannot be published...and statements MAY have been misinterpreted or someone MAY have said the wrong thing to say when the reality is something else.

It does NOT mean WotC may be printing any DL game materials, and any books that were licensed out could still be published...as long as it meets certain guidelines from WotC in regards to it's licensing.

I think it may boil down to a specific line or two in the contract and how people have interpreted it in regards to how the court case turns out...IF there is a case. This may be settled out of court.

They assume the reason an individual gave for saying no more manuscripts would be approved is over some requested changes that may have had their origins in another matter (which they mention), but suggested changes to a manuscript may have originated from a different arena of thought rather than other issues alluded to in the trial, and as such, are simply an assumption of such by the Authors.

There may be some confusion over what is happening on both sides, and unfortunately, both sides did not sit and talk more explicitly about it before now.

That said, I absolutely LOVE Dragonlance, and would love to see a new trilogy published. I would hope that things can get ironed out, especially as the publisher is actually PRH and is a licensed material, rather than a direct WotC publication.
 
Last edited:

Hussar

Legend
Just to be clear here, I most certainly DON'T think that this court case has anything to do whatsoever with the original trilogy. This is a side conversation, and, sorry, off topic. Which is probably a lot my fault for derailing.

As far as the current legal issues go, I honestly have no opinion. I don't know enough to have an opinion. I think that what @GreyLord just said above is probably the right of it.
 

Cool, but there is no "the religion." She brought back more than a dozen different religions, some of which were evil.
This is a strange hair to split. It's not even necessarily correct. A pantheon is often regarded as one polytheistic religion, not a set of religions. After all, even clerics of Paladine are unlikely to deny the divinity, let alone the existence, of Takhisis.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Advertisement1

Latest threads

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top