Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MostlyHarmless42" data-source="post: 8815167" data-attributes="member: 6845520">See here's the thing, as a game setting at least, I actually prefer Age of Mortals. Strongly in fact. At least for the lore (agreed on the SAGA rules, the 3.5 campaign setting set post War of Souls is great though). I actually frequently defend it on these boards fairly regularly, and while I am not exactly trying to change anyone's opinion, I do feel AoM gets quite an unfair reputation.Frankly as novels go none of the Dragonlance books are objectively great, even the original trilogy. I enjoy them, have fond memories of them, and the world of Krynn is by far my favorite setting, but in terms of actual quality? I think they are all average at best. Honestly, I don't even think they are even Weis and Hickman's best books either (I prefer Death Gate cycle), but again, I still enjoy them all fondly and love the setting. Well, except the latest book, Dragons of Deceit is utter garbage and frankly is precisely what I'm concerned the 5e game books are going to end up being, especially given the spelljammer release.That all said I realize my preferences aren't perhaps the typical dragonlance fan. The point I am trying to make is to caution not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak, by dismissing AoM off wholesale as "bad". There are a number of elements that I would argue make the setting far more dynamic and nuanced, which is something the War of the Lance era never really managed to capture. The books about the draconians of Teyr, pretty much every kender character except Tasslehoff, and Khelendros/Skie are all VERY good highlights and I'd not be so quick to dismiss them outright.Relevant to the present conversation, I actually think the tension between the primal sorcerers and the wizards is one of these nuances that AoM provides because neither side is objectively wrong. The sorcerers are legitimately a threat to the very world itself with upsetting the vague "balance" of the world, just as the wizards are an organization of religious zealots that essentially kidnap children and seeks to monopolize Arcane magic. People even make the same criticism of Jedi in Star Wars and they are correct for doing so. I mean heck, Star Wars and Dragonlance are basically the same genre, with the former just being set in space with technology instead of magic and dragons.Sure you can accomplish this same sort thing by tacking on bards, sorcerers, and warlocks in the the Towers and retcon their organization's name and then use the renegades to sort of serve a similar narrative purpose, but I personally prefer having the second sort of "official" faction/organization and if I was handed the keys to the setting the very first thing I'd do is make it canon they rebuilt the sorcerer academy as a "counterbalance" to the wizards just as the mystics are to the clerics.I also like the additions of the Legion of Steel and the creation of the draconian nation of Teyr for the same reason: I feel it adds more options for conflict generation for a DM than just reverting the world back to the black and white of "rawr draconians, Takhisis, and her knights are bad!"Related but likely a hot take for the fandom: killing off Takhisis and making Paladine mortal was the single greatest thing W&H or any of the other authors did for the setting. It fits the overarching themes of the AoM well and forces those who'd want to play in it to actually have to think about what and who they want their overarching stories and villains to be. I like our angry five-headed dragon queen as much as the next guy, but frankly I can't help but feel like this setting is too focused on her.</blockquote>

Verification