D&D 5E 5e isn't a Golden Age of D&D Lorewise, it's Silver at best.

[Parmandur]

In terms of business ethics, probably nothing. Members of the D&D team have specifically described themselves as "stewards of the game", though, which feels a bit different.

Stewarding the game properly would seem to involve practicing sound business ethics. See also, Ben Riggs recent book on the ethical mess that was TSR. They didn't treat workers well or protect shareholder value.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

What ethical considerations are in play other than treating workers well and respecting shareholder value, specifically?

I think the issue is that you're considering the shareholder model to be "ethical", and particularly the modern "value-driven" (often extremely short-term-ist or even vulture-like) approach to shareholding to be "ethical", which haha, I don't think many people would.

The idea that shareholders have to be given value is not really an ethics issue at all. In many cases providing dividends or the like to shareholders is actively unethical in that it can drive the company into the ground. I can provide numerous examples from the UK (and the US has similar issues) where companies making huge profits poured virtually none of that into creating long-term success or even serving their customers (even where duty-bound to do so - privatized utility companies for example), but instead pumped it all into dividends for their shareholders and ridiculous payments to top-level management.

As for "protecting shareholder value", that often conflicts HARD with providing shareholders with returns in the longer-term. Thames Water would provide far better returns in the longer-term if they invested their record profits in the water system. But in the short-term they'll make a lot of shareholders incredibly rich by completely refusing to do so (then demanding more money from customers/the government) and instead ploughing the money into short-term "shareholder value".

Food or nedicine, yes, but not toys.

I disagree, and this feels like one of those arguments where people say it's fine for poor kids to not have any toys, even though toys often contribute significantly to development.

I don't think that's your intention, but it's the direction of the argument you're making. The idea that non-essential == total luxury, price meaningless is a binary situation I don't think many people or ethicists would agree with. Also amusing to see medicine listed there. I'm guessing you're not an American?

Stewarding the game properly would seem to involve practicing sound business ethics.

Sure, but not as the sole or primary concern. WotC didn't have to cast themselves as "stewards of the game", but if they do so, they open themselves up to criticisms for more than "business ethics" issues.

 

[ersatzphil]

Stewarding the game properly would seem to involve practicing sound business ethics. See also, Ben Riggs recent book on the ethical mess that was TSR. They didn't treat workers well or protect shareholder value.

Oh - I meant to imply that stewardship would involve behavioral choices in addition to and beyond what would be considered ‘business ethics’, not to leave them out.

 

[Scribe]

They have to be for WotC.

Look, guys, you can't invoke "ethics" and state you are doing a moral analysis, and then fail to take ethical factors into account.

I reject the premise that shareholder profits are an ethical concern.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Stewarding the game properly would seem to involve practicing sound business ethics. See also, Ben Riggs recent book on the ethical mess that was TSR. They didn't treat workers well or protect shareholder value.

No, they didn't, and they rightfully paid the price for that. But they did treat their customers more than fairly, with a lot of great product.

 

[Parmandur]

I think the issue is that you're considering the shareholder model to be "ethical", and particularly the modern "value-driven" (often extremely short-term-ist or even vulture-like) approach to shareholding to be "ethical", which haha, I don't think many people would.

The idea that shareholders have to be given value is not really an ethics issue at all. In many cases providing dividends or the like to shareholders is actively unethical in that it can drive the company into the ground. I can provide numerous examples from the UK (and the US has similar issues) where companies making huge profits poured virtually none of that into creating long-term success or even serving their customers (even where duty-bound to do so - privatized utility companies for example), but instead pumped it all into dividends for their shareholders and ridiculous payments to top-level management.

As for "protecting shareholder value", that often conflicts HARD with providing shareholders with returns in the longer-term. Thames Water would provide far better returns in the longer-term if they invested their record profits in the water system. But in the short-term they'll make a lot of shareholders incredibly rich by completely refusing to do so (then demanding more money from customers/the government) and instead ploughing the money into short-term "shareholder value".

I disagree, and this feels like one of those arguments where people say it's fine for poor kids to not have any toys, even though toys often contribute significantly to development.

I don't think that's your intention, but it's the direction of the argument you're making. The idea that non-essential == total luxury, price meaningless is a binary situation I don't think many people or ethicists would agree with. Also amusing to see medicine listed there. I'm guessing you're not an American?

Sure, but not as the sole or primary concern. WotC didn't have to cast themselves as "stewards of the game", but if they do so, they open themselves up to criticisms for more than "business ethics" issues.

Ethically protecting shareholder value is a long-term thing: short-term thinking is unjust to the shareholders. Just as it would be unjust to shareholders to understate for products, or unjust to workers to keep costs low by shortchanging them. If a product costs a certain amount to make, and investors five their money to a company, they need to be compensated as a matter of justice, same as workers giving their labor.

I am an American, which is why I note that medicine should be an exception, as with food and other necessities. It isn't in ournsociety, which is, you know, bad. Unlike a small price hike in a game book, for example.

 

[Parmandur]

I reject the premise that shareholder profits are an ethical concern.

Then what is? You can't throw around "ethics" without defining it. What are the ethical concerns s involved with pricing this game product, precisely?

 

[Parmandur]

No, they didn't, and they rightfully paid the price for that. But they did treat their customers more than fairly, with a lot of great product.

Didn't help players any when the game dried up in bankruptcy bad business practices are unethical, and hurt all involved.

Also, companies don't owe customer sanything more than they sell them.

 

[Parmandur]

Oh - I meant to imply that stewardship would involve behavioral choices in addition to and beyond what would be considered ‘business ethics’, not to leave them out.

Sure, which is why we are getting Spelljammer.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Also, companies don't owe customer sanything more than they sell them.

That's a very American attitude, but it's not one that flies in Europe, I should note, which I guess is why Americans insist we're all "socialists" lol.