Dragonlance Pitch Dragonlance to new players

[QuietBrowser]

Just over 350 years ago, a great civilization sprawled across the eastern portion of Ansalon. This nation was known as Istar, and it was ruled over by the Kingpriest of Istar, a man devoted to the God of Light known as Paladine (also known as the Platinum Dragon). He began eradicating the evil races of Krynn, killing off Ogres and Goblins, forcing many of the “impure” races (like Dwarves, Gnomes and Kender) into hiding, and forcing a war against the orders of Sorcery. As the Kingpriest’s laws became more and more forceful and sterile, priests began to lose their powers. Those who were still able to heal began disappearing. The Kingpriest, thinking that it was some evil plot, demanded that the Gods eradicate all evil from the world.

The Gods answered in a most spectacular fashion.

Because the balance had swayed too far toward good, and because the Kingpriest was so arrogant that he felt he was equal to the Gods and that he could demand anything of them, the Gods retaliated. What was described as a fiery mountain fell from the sky, striking the nation of Istar, sinking it beneath the sea. What was left was a swirling vortex known as the Maelstrom in the center of a great sea known as the Blood Sea of Istar (the water here is as red as blood).

This was known as the Cataclysm. All time from this point forward is recorded using A.C. (After Cataclysm).

The face of Ansalon was changed forever. War, sickness, and death ravaged the land. The Gods of Krynn left the people of Ansalon to their own devices…not that the people of the world would pray to them, anyway…not after the death and destruction of the Cataclysm.

This here is exactly why I have never been able to truly like Dragonlance. The abysmal fluff for the "comedic relief" races plays its part, of course, but the fact it touts this claptrap as part of its background lore, it just incenses me.

I can't honestly be the only person who sees how morally messed up this is, right? I can't be the one guy in the D&D world who sees "The Balance had swayed too far towards Good" and goes "What the flipping (Censored)!?" - in what freaking world are you living in where racial pogroms, mind-reading inquisitions, and general persecution are somehow "Good" just because the people responsible believe they're serving the greater good?

I mean, hashbrowns on a stick, I hate to invoke Godwin's Law, but that's literally like saying the committers of anti-Semitic pogroms throughout history were well-intentioned extremists! They thought they were doing God's Work by exterminating the heretics who murdered Our Lord And Saviour Jesus Christ, after all!

Oh, and, somehow, it's the mortals' fault that the gods went away after the Cataclysm and we should feel bad that they left and we should want them back! From where I'm sitting, it looks pretty much like the opposite! Why the hosannah should we want the victim-blaming, self-righteous, moronic deities back if the Cataclysm was honestly their idea of the best way to handle the Kingpriest and his cronies?

I know that D&D alignment has always been a messed up tangle of worms and that getting rid of it was the best thing that 4e and 5e did, but seriously, if Dragonlance really is a look into the moral beliefs of its authors, that's actually kind of scary...

If you give the players the first trilogy to read, they should get excited.
Then you have to let them down: YOU are not going to follow that path. You have to go deal with the dangling threads that Tanis &c. leave behind, or take care of other stuff entirely.


I can see a successful campaign set near Solamnia, defending the nation against draconic attacks both covert and overt.


One of the trilogies has Raistlin travel back in time a bit, before the War of the Lance. That period sounded like it had potential for adventures, much like the IRL Fall of the Roman Empire.


DragonLance does have potential, but you have to figure out how to get away from the iconic plot line to do it.

Or, you know, you could just presume the canon characters don't exist and your party is taking their place? I mean, who wants to be small potatoes next to some NPC? That's precisely one of the major complaints about Forgotten Realms throughout its history; the feeling of being second fiddle to characters like Elminster and Drizzt.

 

[Raunalyn]

This here is exactly why I have never been able to truly like Dragonlance. The abysmal fluff for the "comedic relief" races plays its part, of course, but the fact it touts this claptrap as part of its background lore, it just incenses me.

I can't honestly be the only person who sees how morally messed up this is, right? I can't be the one guy in the D&D world who sees "The Balance had swayed too far towards Good" and goes "What the flipping (Censored)!?" - in what freaking world are you living in where racial pogroms, mind-reading inquisitions, and general persecution are somehow "Good" just because the people responsible believe they're serving the greater good?

I mean, hashbrowns on a stick, I hate to invoke Godwin's Law, but that's literally like saying the committers of anti-Semitic pogroms throughout history were well-intentioned extremists! They thought they were doing God's Work by exterminating the heretics who murdered Our Lord And Saviour Jesus Christ, after all!

Oh, and, somehow, it's the mortals' fault that the gods went away after the Cataclysm and we should feel bad that they left and we should want them back! From where I'm sitting, it looks pretty much like the opposite! Why the hosannah should we want the victim-blaming, self-righteous, moronic deities back if the Cataclysm was honestly their idea of the best way to handle the Kingpriest and his cronies?

I know that D&D alignment has always been a messed up tangle of worms and that getting rid of it was the best thing that 4e and 5e did, but seriously, if Dragonlance really is a look into the moral beliefs of its authors, that's actually kind of scary...

I don't necessarily see it that way, but I do understand where you're coming from.

There is a bit of subtext that you can take away from some of the follow-up novels. It didn't strike me until I had read "The Legend of Huma." One of the conditions for Huma releasing Takhisis (she had his lance through her chest) was that she was to leave the world. She promised to, saying, "I shall leave this world for as long as it is whole."

Now, here's where there's some speculation. At least in my world/campaigns, I believe that the Kingpriest and his followers were actually manipulated by Takhisis. She, in turn, was also manipulating the other gods towards their decision to punish the world. This, in turn, would free her from her oath that she wouldn't return to the world for as long as it was whole (since a giant meteor sinking a large portion of a major continent would essentially meet that condition).

Anyway...YMMV. This moral quandary did come up in my game. One of the players kept asking why they should follow or worship a deity who would willingly allow so much death and destruction. Made for some really good role-playing (that, incidentally, resulted in something worse coming along...).

 

[Mallus]

It's D&D's answer to the Lord of the Rings! For better or worse. Make that "better and worse". Okay, so mostly worse. But D&D can't do justice to Tolkien, so the "worse" is kinda appropriate.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I think that’s the rub with any RPG based on a licensed property with a strong central conflict. Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Dragonlance, all spring to mind. Where do the PCs fit in against the established backdrop? The answer should always be “front and center,” but that’s not always an easy path. But the world is big enough that there are many threats to be dealt with. Maybe there was a Dragonlord necromancer that would’ve tipped the tide of the War of the Lance if the PCs hadn’t defeated them. Maybe the PCs were just a bunch of unhappy subjects on a water world that got sick of being under the Empire’s thumb. The DM/GM has to walk a fine line to get the feel of that world while telling their own story.

DragonLance does have potential, but you have to figure out how to get away from the iconic plot line to do it.

 

[Ath-kethin]

There is no better Dragonlance pitch than reading the Dragonlance Chronicles. Full stop.

Just make sure you warn the players to stick with a strict Weis & Hickman diet.

 

[Morrus]

There is no better Dragonlance pitch than reading the Dragonlance Chronicles. Full stop.

That's the opposite of a pitch.

 

[Gadget]

This here is exactly why I have never been able to truly like Dragonlance. The abysmal fluff for the "comedic relief" races plays its part, of course, but the fact it touts this claptrap as part of its background lore, it just incenses me.

I can't honestly be the only person who sees how morally messed up this is, right? I can't be the one guy in the D&D world who sees "The Balance had swayed too far towards Good" and goes "What the flipping (Censored)!?" - in what freaking world are you living in where racial pogroms, mind-reading inquisitions, and general persecution are somehow "Good" just because the people responsible believe they're serving the greater good?

I see this as being more of a problem with D&D's alignment system than anything. Alignment has always been more about what color of jersey you're wearing than anything. Those committing the atrocities always seem to cloak themselves in a role of 'good' by some definition. But you are right, these things are not morally good by any sane definition.

I mean, hashbrowns on a stick, I hate to invoke Godwin's Law, but that's literally like saying the committers of anti-Semitic pogroms throughout history were well-intentioned extremists! They thought they were doing God's Work by exterminating the heretics who murdered Our Lord And Saviour Jesus Christ, after all!

In their own eyes, they may have been (though that is debatable). Even the 'heretics' you mention as a real world example were the traditional Religious Authorities of the day, and were persecuting the aforementioned Religious Figure for what they thought of as Heresy and Blasphemy. I think the point of the tale is that those who claim to work for 'good' can, over time become corrupted and loose their way, in which case they are no longer capital G 'Good', but still have the mantle or cloak about them representing 'good'. But that cloak is torn for all to see who bother to look. The slow loss of divine power from the clerics over time is evidence of that, all while their political power increases to (at least partially) replace it. Though why the Kingpriest and some of his Inquisitors would still be granted power is a bit of plot hole. This may be more explainable in later editions where the system has backed away from the cleric getting power directly from the deity and more by a grant at the time of call or ordination, etc.

Oh, and, somehow, it's the mortals' fault that the gods went away after the Cataclysm and we should feel bad that they left and we should want them back! From where I'm sitting, it looks pretty much like the opposite! Why the hosannah should we want the victim-blaming, self-righteous, moronic deities back if the Cataclysm was honestly their idea of the best way to handle the Kingpriest and his cronies?

The whole concept of Free Will and choice would come into it, one would think. What did the mortals do with the power granted them? Abuse it. Become corrupted. It was not limited to the Kingpriest and his cronies, though they were of course, the center of it. This is classic Old Testament 'Rain down fire on the wicked' stuff. They were unrepentant and ignored the warning signs. It could be argued that those warning signs should have been more clear, especially in a setting where the 'gods' sometimes wander around in the guise of befuddled old men and interact with people, but perhaps this falls under the whole 'Free Will' thing again.

I know that D&D alignment has always been a messed up tangle of worms and that getting rid of it was the best thing that 4e and 5e did, but seriously, if Dragonlance really is a look into the moral beliefs of its authors, that's actually kind of scary...

I think this reflects less on the authors' moral compass than rather the limitations of the D&D alignment system when any type of philosophical depth is attempted with it. Especially with the presence of inherently 'evil' races or groups such as goblins and ogres and such. The need for some sort of 'Neutral', or cosmic balance makes less sense unless you view 'good' and 'evil' as two teams in different colored jerseys in need of a referee to hold them in check. I agree that 4e & 5e did well in reducing mechanical ties to the alignment system, though I'm somewhat disappointed by 5e's return to the cartesian coordinate alignment system. I miss 5e's 'unaligned' designation.

 

[jgsugden]

If you're going to do Dragonlance, I suggest running the original modules (updated to 5E). The world works best under that adventure path.

As for selling the setting: I'd sell it around the adventure path as well. It is an entire game world built around the first real adventure path. It is classic.

 

[hastur_nz]

If you are pitching the original AP, then it really is best and easiest to use Lord of the Rings as an analogy. Everyone's read Lord of the Rings and/or seen the movies. The War of the Lance AP, and War of the Rings, have:

Epic Quest.
Good vs Evil.
Disparate group of slightly raw recruits become Adventurers and Heroes.
Ancient Ruins to explore, with ancient foes.
Ancient Cultures to cross paths with, which may (or may not) help you out.
Conflict that varies from a very personal scale (PC's vs Monsters), to huge (i.e. armies clash).
BBEG pulling the stings in the background.

The list goes on and on. Like I said initially, the original AP is about as close to being able to play a story along the lines of Lord of the Rings, without actually playing out the story in Lord of the Rings.

If you got a group of players who had not read the books, and got them on board with the whole "heroic fantasy" thing, I imagine it could be a pretty cool campaign.

Personally I did in fact drag my players through the whole thing, some 30-odd years ago, but they were not really into "heroic fantasy", they were more "murder hobo", and I can't say my DM sytle did much to help either... so it wasn't as epic as one might have hoped. But we still had some epic times, like the original black dragon encounter in Xak Tsaroth (which I stole and re-skinned in two future campaigns), and the battle at the High Clerist Tower.

 

[pkt77242]

If you want more of a grey Dragonlance run it right after the Cataclysm. It is a dark time and there is hard decisions to be made. Maybe you are a knight at a keep that is being besieged by desperate peasants. How do you handle it?