Should D&D Morality be Less PC?

[JoeGKushner]

One of the things that's been lacking in D&D, in terms of challenging the status quo, is the thinking. Everything is done up in modern terms in view of how people act, how they treat each other, etc...

Sure, the occassional dwarf elf thing, or now the tielfling dragonborn thing may pop up but the actual struggle against society itself seems to have fallen by the wayside.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing. When I think about slavery and women as second class citizens, no offense to my fellow gamers, but i've seen a lot of them abuse the hell out of such a setting because they were "going with it".

For me, it works when there are slavers, when times are tough, when the kingdom is corrupt, when the law is not enough, when there are times all you can do is plot your revenge and wait your time.

It works for me because it pits the setting itself against the players. If players have to worry about being thrown into the slave pits and fight as gladiators or being chained to rowing boats, it puts the game in something more than just, "Yup, it done time to clean out the dungeon again. We best get while the light is good."

Mind you, I love Dungeon Crawls but if we're talking about appealing to all fans, wouldn't that include those who want the game to be darker and gritier?

Or is there too much chance of asshat abuse?

 

[Rex Blunder]

I'm happy for Wizards to leave D&D: The Racism and Sexism Module to a third party publisher.

Besides the other inherent issues, stuff like that should be setting stuff, not rules stuff.

 

[JoeGKushner]

I'm happy for Wizards to leave D&D: The Racism and Sexism Module to a third party publisher.

Besides the other inherent issues, stuff like that should be setting stuff, not rules stuff.

I agree about the setting side of it but the default setting is usually implied in the rules.

 

[Jawsh]

Yes and no. I think D&D should acknowledge the existence of slavery. I think D&D should acknowledge that there is prejudice in the world, based on race, tribe, gender, and class.

But I don't think the system should endorse these things. That is to say, I don't think women should have different stat bonuses than men.

I think Good-aligned characters should not be allowed to own slaves.

I don't think the game is as fun when it railroads the PCs by bossing them around, based on who the characters are, their gender, their race, their tribe, their religion, or their class. I prefer a setting that's more free, because then the players can feel like they have a say in their destiny.

There's something to be said for having to work for your freedom. But I just don't want to see a campaign setting so oppressive and ignorant that, socially, it's impossible for the PCs to advance no matter what great deeds they do.

I think there is some room to play with these kinds of ideas when you talk about evil-aligned realms. Maybe the PCs can go to bad places once in a while, but just like they can't always be dungeon-crawling, I think it would be tiring to keep them on their guard in a hostile land 24-7. They need a refuge.

 

[JoeGKushner]

My bad if I implied that women should have different stats.

In terms of holding people back based on social status, one of the things I found interesting in K J Parker's The Hammer is that one of the lead female characters becomes a doctor and it's pretty much accepted.

Jierel of Joriey is another excellent example.

In my 'mind' if you will, the players, while perhaps not exempt from things, by default aren't hindered by it.

Mind you I was also thinking about it working the other way around in that player characters who have some of that nobility who go out adventuring would quickly be disinherited by their families since no real noble family would want to be associated with what is essentially a wandering vagrant.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Interesting worlds need darker themes. Which themes are setting and location dependent, and should vary.

Also, while I don't advocate statistically separating gender, mostly for simplicity, it's not sexist if you did so accurately. Also, doing so might leave a sense of distaste among the fairer sex, which we want to avoid.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I think 'authentic' portrayals of race, gender, religion, and any number of other difficult issues are not likely to make their way into the core game. The game has to be PG-13 to sell, and has to be extra careful because of the general biases against D&D.

I am, however, quite happy to see those issues explored in some form, as I think D&D is a wonderful artistic medium and a great venue for exploring all manner of topics, including "mature" ones.

 

[trancejeremy]

I'm not grasping what you are advocating for here, exactly.

D&D tends to be mostly based on medieval cultures - chattel slavery wasn't so much in it, as serfdom.

IIRC though, wasn't Dark Sun basically like that, though? (Don't remember, been a while).

And as to social status charts, sure you could add them (I think UA had them? Dragon did anyway), but for the most part adventurers are already pretty much lower class people anyway, or are once they become them. But again, while class existed, kings basically were essentially bandit kings or warlords originally. Only in recent times are they really considered sophisticated or whatever (and I'm not sure even then...)

 

[Elf Witch]

One of the things I enjoy about the Kingdom OF Kalalmar is that it has some mature themes take slavery it is legal and often there are slaves who are made slaves as punishment for a crime. There are groups who fight slavery like the Brotherhood of the Broken chain but a paladin has to be careful about going around breaking the law and freeing slaves.

There are races who don't get along and humans from different regions who don't like each other.

I prefer a more realistic system where there are some moral ambiguities going on.

 

[Wormwood]

Darker themes? Exploring those now with no problems.