TL;DR: Because it's bullshit. Let's see why...
Religion
It can't be stressed enough that the D&D's afterlife concept is heavily, like HEAVILY, based on christian mythology. You do good things, you go to Paradise. You do evil things, you go to Hell. That's simple. Also, angels and demons.
If you're lucky, non-christian mythology can be found, too. For example, in Pathfinder's River of Souls, you can be agnostic, or even (somewhat) atheist... but the first would still lead you to one of the outer planes (mirroring their alignment ― see below), and the last being... reincarnated, if they are lucky (or being condemned to some kind of Greek-style afterlife).But, believe it or not, other religions offer other outcomes after death.
Some assess you'll remain as family god. Others will have you slowly fade into nothingness. Others, again, would have you reincarnate again, and again, until you find enlightenment and ascend beyond the needs of mortal existence.
Yet, none of that (or little of that) in the D&D mythology, and that's not only sad, it's also very mediocre.
Alignment
You can't have a RPG fantasy game with gods and demons, with alignment as a morality system, and not have that alignment concept being reflected on how the cosmology works.
So, yeah. Lots of planes. But as alignment is essentially a bad approximation of morality, what you have is some kind of extreme representation of afterlife places.
(I am not saying the outer planes have no interesting tidbits. The Blood War between devils and demons is entertaining, for 5 minutes. The difference in philosophy between the two factions is also... well, interesting, but as they are essentially filling the roles of gods, there's some kind of overlap. Anyways...)
But, do we really need such places?
Beyond the interplanar tourism and hobo-murdering theme parks, I'm not sure.
Alignment is an interesting morality system, but it's far from complete. I actually love better Vampire: The Masquerade's natures and demeanors, in addition to Humanity rating, to represent the psychology of a character. Even the paths of enlightenment are actually more interesting, showing both the moral and ethics your character (your path) and how deeply committed you are to these moral and ethics (how high you are in that path's rating). Again, an approximation (what isn't, in a game?), but something less primitive that just "law vs. chaos vs. good vs. evil vs. neutrality".
Anyways, in D&D, your alignment will send your soul to a specific plane. And again, if you're evil, you will get punished. If you're not, then you'll be rewarded. That's so christian I believe I can rewrite this sentence using only crosses, and it would still be legible.
Also, that's blatantly stupid, in the context of a universe where multiple gods exist, and have a tangible effect (i.e. priests with actual powers, within talking distance to the common character). If you **know** you will suffer for eternity after your death if you are evil, then, just out of preservation, you will be "good". And people are really good when preservation and survival are concerned. So, you get "good people" who are not good for any moral choice, or reasoning, but are good because they know they don't have a choice. Evil people are just crazies, in a world where the supernatural is common, and where gods can't stop showing up, and sending up supernaturally-charged representatives casting divine magic during dungeons crawls.
And I find all this lacks moral maturity.
And in Dragonlance?
Fun fact: There's no Hell in the Dragonlance mythology. Nor Elysium, or Heavens. Only the Dome of Creation, the Hidden Vale, and the Abyss (which is not D&D's Abyss).
 |
| Dragonlance Campaign Setting, p117 D&D 3rd Edition |
Of course, you'll find, in some Dragonlance D&D's rulebooks (the 2nd Edition's Tales of the Lance, if memory serves), mentions of D&D's planes, but these are just glued there to support the "multiverse" concept of D&D. There are no mentions of these in the books. Because these weren't the point of Dragonlance.
Which is, arguably, a battle of good versus evil, which can be as epic as a war between the dragonarmies and the solamnic knights, but also as personal as the dilemma of Tanis, or even as complicated as the rule of the Kingpriest, and its genocide of all "non-good" races.
Dragonlance is more than Good vs. Evil, though. It's, in a way, an exploration of what good and evil are. And the fact that good people are not people just caring about their afterlife accommodations, but people looking into their own darkness, and growing as they realize their own prejudices, and fight a moral fight to shed them away.
Wasn't Dragonlance about Balance?
The balance between Good, Evil and Neutrality is not what Dragonlance is about for those who read or live Dragonlance stories. But this balance is at the heart of Dragonlance's cosmology. The Dragonlance universe can only exist because of that balance, and no matter how good or evil a character are, this is just the "physics" of the Dragonlance universe, similar on how it doesn't matter how good or evil someone is in the real life, gravity will still affect them no matter what.
So, in parallel with the idea of heroes facing overwhelming odds against evil that is Dragonlance for readers, players and game masters, the pendulum moving around Good, Evil and Neutrality is as real for Dragonlance than gravity is real for our universe.
So the game master must still take that pendulum into account in the background, for the players to thrive while playing epic heroes.
Personhood
I like the idea of personal enlightenment, of cultivating and growing one's morality and ethics, to be more than simple instincts and barely existing social rules.
And I like the freedom of choice, because only through this freedom one can really be good (instead of being smart and simply "invest" in their afterlife stock options).
Both lead to personhood as the central concept of morality. You won't be rewarded/punished by external forces after your actions and beliefs. Instead, there will be consequences, for you and others, that you'll need to take responsibility for.
The case for Silent Hill
If you ever played Silent Hill 2, then you'll have a good idea of what a hellish afterlife might be: A "place" where your mind tortures itself because of guilt, no matter how in denial they are (James), stubborn they are (Eddie), or traumatized they are (Angela).
In this, Silent Hill is not fair. It simply uses its victims' own tormented psyche to give life (unlife?) to their guilt, and torture them with it.
Back to Dragonlance
My take on the Cycle of Souls reflects that: A character is a ephemeral conscience whose choices and experiences will enrich their soul. And if you respect and care for others, this is what you are. And if you exploit or tyrannize others, then this is what you are.
In this, being evil makes sense: You can be just some kind of egotistic moron, who believes might makes right, and live through that, enjoying your strength until it fails you. And an afterlife (temporary afterlife, in my Cycle of Souls) might be you continuing to be part of similar situations (a good example might be a pop-culture Valhalla, where wrarriors spent half the time fighting, maiming and killing, and the other eating and dring). And someone who thrives on exploiting others will certainly enjoying continuing to do that after their death. In the same way, someone who thrives caring for others will spend an afterlife continuing to do that.
And in the context of Dragonlance's physics, neither are wrong, for Good, Evil and Balance must exist, with the pendulum freely swinging between them.
It's just that, as Dragonlance persons, and players, we enjoy exploring the path of heroes, who made the choice of being good.
Conclusion
I wanted something more focused on persons for their afterlife.
And I wanted move away from the rather overly simplistic Christian's ideas of paradise and hell.
I also wanted something that explained evil beyond "muahahah! evil", so choosing good was a real choice, with consequences, and sacrifices, instead of being the "smart" choice.
And more importantly, and wanted the gods to have little power over the souls themselves, justifying their motivation to shepherd/convince the souls into their side.
Last but not least, I wanted the souls to be free.
This is why the default, vanilla D&D outer planes didn't make the cut, in my campaign.
It doesn't mean my characters won't be visiting something that looks like Gehenna, or Limbo. It's just that these planes would simply be planes, and not define a whole morality system forced down the throats of said characters.
