In simple Manichean settings, you have the forces of good trying to save the world, and forces of evil trying to destroy it, or make it some kind of hell, or whatever.
The world of Exandria, with its Prime Deities being mostly good, and its Betrayer Gods being uniformly evil, has a clear binary divide between good an evil (see The Founding).
Compared to that, and despite it's emphasis on a binary Good vs. Evil conflict, I'm not sure that kind of manichean principles apply to Dragonlance's universe, because the lore of the setting actually contradicts this binary conflict.
So... what's the point of evil, in Krynn?
First, a disclaimer
I am not arguing that Dragonlance, as seen by the players, game masters and even readers, is not about Good vs. Evil.
It is.
What I'm arguing is that, from a worldbuilding viewpoint, the design of Dragonlance, unlike Exandria, is not Good vs. Evil, and that Evil is not just about ruining the lives and experience of the good people on Krynn.
Instead, it is from the worldbuilding design, and then the story, that this Good vs. Evil conflict emerge naturally.
This paradox can summed up by Tanis' comment, and Fizban's answer, at the end of the first trilogy:
“So this is the end,” Tanis said. “Good has triumphed.”
“Good? Triumph?” Fizban repeated, turning to stare at the half-elf shrewdly. “Not so, Half-Elven. The balance is restored. The evil dragons will not be banished. They remain here, as do the good dragons. Once again the pendulum swings freely.”
-- Dragons of Spring Dawning, chapter 14
Role in Creation
This clearly implies each alignment is important for the universe to exist. And yet, we have the following:
“Evil cannot create,” Astinus remarked, “it can only destroy. It turns in upon itself, gnawing itself.”
This quote from Astinus, taken in isolation, doesn't seem right when contrasted with the core principle of Dragonlance.
But if we don't ignore the context, we need to remember Raistlin was about to become the only god of Krynn. Which means we could interpret Astinus quote as: "Evil alone cannot create".
Let's put Astinus' words aside, and focus on the next quote:
The Gods of Good, Evil, and Neutrality would each be allowed to bestow one gift upon the spirits.
The Gods of Good gave the spirits life and physical form. Thus, the spirits gained control over the material world and became more like the Gods themselves. The Gods of Good hoped the spirits would bring peace and order to the worlds and lead them along the path to righteousness.
The Gods of Evil decreed that these physical beings would hunger and thirst and have to work to satisfy their needs. The Gods of Evil hoped that through hunger and suffering they could subjugate the races.
The Gods of Neutrality gave the spirits the gift of free will, to choose freely between Good and Evil. Thus did they preserve the Balance.
Now, this is more interesting: Each alignment contributed something. It could be interpreted as:
- Good gave control/power
- Evil gave weakness/motivation
- Neutrality gave free will
Last but not least, we have the philosophies:
- Good Redeems its Own: [...] Good seeks to forward its goals and aims by redeeming and recalling the lost members of its flock [...].
- Evil Feeds Upon Itself: [...] this reflects evil's belief in natural selection through the elimination of weaker beings. [...].
- Both Good and Evil Must Exist in Contrast: [...]. Neutral gods who see the diversity of both view points as balancing one another on a universal scale. [...].
- The Law of Consequence: [...] For every law and rule that is obeyed there is a reward and blessing; for every law transgressed there is a punishment. [...].
The fourth law is a more fundamental law, saying that each obeyed law will be rewarded. My understanding is that this Fourth Law is what makes a oath given by a god binding (e.g. Takhisis' exile from Krynn after her oath to Huma).
The three first laws govern the behavior of the three alignments of gods. And this is something that contradict the naive narrative: "the evil gods are out there to destroy the universe".
Instead, it actually makes a more mature, and in the end, more rewarding, point of what is good, and what is evil:
The good guys are the good guys because they think compassion and justice is more important than selection of the fittest.
In the same way, the evil guys are the evil guys not because of some crazy desire to destroy the world, but because they adhere to the position that the fittest (strongest, smartest, etc.) should be favored, while the weakest are to be used, then discarded. And, while this might be a philosophy you despise (I actually despite it, for example), this makes sense, in a cold, psychopathic way.
The position of neutral guys as trying to keep balance is based upon the idea that too much of a thing might be a bad thing, and that without contrast, that thing might, at the very best, lose meaning.
All in all, if you play good guys in Dragonlance, it is not to "save the universe". It is to make sure that justice and compassion and redemption prevail, which is a very worthy aim. Much more than simply the "survival of creation", in my humble opinion.
Role in Existence
With this in mind, it is easy to understand that each alignment pantheon (and, most probably each god) must want to move the cursor between "Good vs. Evil vs. Balance" in the position they feel is the best, according to their own philosophy.
Also, each alignment pantheon (and, most probably each god) have a vested interest in proving the others wrong, including sabotaging successful experiments, or denying these successes. So, according to evil, good only produces weaklings that cannot exist without everyone holding their hands. And according to good, evil only destroys, leaving nothing but ruins and desolation behind.
Last but not least, it is important that, in the Krynn universe, the most important resource is souls/spirits. They were so important gods even warred against each other for them.
In my campaign, souls/spirits are to be nurtured into ascending into something greater, and the conflict is indeed about how the gods want to nurture them. Some want to coddle them, and some others want to challenge them.
Priests and Free Will
[...] if a mortal chooses, she may surrender her free will to her god and thereby gain power of her own. In the process, the god gains a measure of influence within the mortal world it would not otherwise possess and is strengthened and bolstered by it. [...] this surrender, this alignment and service of a mortal soul to a god, is the truest of covenants and a measure of a god’s might. Even so, the power of choice remains within a mortal—to deny her god and take another path. Although the consequences can be dire, there is no greater example of the power of a mortal’s free will.- Holy Orders of the Stars, p78
This is a very interesting passage: My interpretation is that, by surrendering part or all of their free will, mortals acquire divine power. In other words, priests. This might be the nature of faith in Krynn: A mortal surrendering their free will (i.e. having faith in their god) gets divine powers.
Back to Evil
All this is why, in my campaign, having evil gods being morons invested only in hurting others for maniacal purposes is not acceptable. The last thing I want is to confront my players to something similar to the ancient Greek pantheon, where the gods were vain, greedy, childish and stupid.
This is why I don't want evil followers to be painted as "stupid" or "deceived". Some of them are, but the greatest among them know exactly what philosophy they are supporting.
For example, priests of Morgion should not be "enslaved", forced to foster plagues just to avoid their own disease to get worse. Instead, they "know" that pain and suffering is the way to spiritual growth (and considering how some real-life religious people relish in inflicting pain, including upon themselves, this is not as far fetched as it can seem).
Is Good the new Cool?
Not really.
If you recall, the gods of Good gave souls control over the physical world. And they are quite interested in "redemption". But where do the gods of Good stand, on the subject of "free will"?
Remember this?This is Mishakal, talking to Goldmoon. I am not even kidding.“The gods have not turned away from man—it is man who turned away from the true gods.”- Dragons of Autumn Twilight, Book 1, Chapter 16
Because, yeah, only a god of Good would remove all the faithful clerics from Krynn, then hurl a fiery mountain on that planet, then remain silent to the mortals' pleas and suffering, and then complain three centuries later that no one is praying to them anymore...
Redemption is the gods of Good's thing, indeed. And mortals have free will but... don't you dare deny your redemption, nor disagree with the gods of good when exercising your free will!...
In my campaign, this means they would act as overbearing parents, always knowing better than their "children" (no matter how much shown the contrary), and sometimes being very angry when teaching mortals how to behave.
(Yes, by now, you might have realized my whole campaign is, truly, about this Mishakal/Goldmoon quote.)
And what about Balance?
The gods of Neutrality have remained very silent and ineffective, all those centuries.
You have the gods of good inspiring the Solamnic Knights and Kingpriests, the gods of Evil waging wars of conquest... and the god of neutrality apparently passively counting points from afar?
This is not satisfying.
Instead, what if their greatest contribution have been free will, and unlike the other gods, they kept from meddling with mortals, and they recently realized this wasn't enough?
What could the neutral gods do, while still respecting their self-attributed own non-intervention?
No spoilers...
Conclusion
While Good vs. Evil seems at first to be main theme in Dragonlance
In my campaign, the aim of evil gods is to nurture the souls in the way they feel is the best. And this is a cruel way, causing pain and suffering. But "pain and suffering" is not the objective. It's the mean.
The gods of good nurture mortals, too, but have always been very overreaching and, in some way, overly controlling on that.
Mortals have thus been in the middle of a battle for control over them, suffering wars and cataclysms.
The following question might be: What would the gods of Balance do about all that?
No comments:
Post a Comment