WotC WotC needs an Elon Musk

[Remathilis]

@jdrakeh and @RealAlHazred have pointed out that Musk doesn't make anything, he buys into them and takes the credit for it. Twitter is no different except there is no-one who can stop his worst impulses from pouring out.

 

[Gradine]

Now I'm imagining teleportation spells sponsored by Apple Maps. If your spell fails you wind up in the middle of the Australian outback to die

 

[Chaosmancer]

I seem to be a few pages behind suddenly, hopefully I don't step on any mines

And how would you articulate the difference in those levels with regard to why one thing that makes some people extremely upset warrants being excluded from the published material, and another doesn't?

Can we start with evil? Not like cosmic evil, but like.. evil. Spiders may be creepy and make some people upset, but some people keep them as pets. Violence isn't something many people particularly like, but there are professional sports where fighting and athleticism are the goals.

Sexual Assault, as an action, has no value beyond causing pain and suffering to others. Torture of a helpless individual for the sole purpose of causing suffering to others has no value beyond causing that pain and suffering. There is no argument here. There is no debate here. There is no "what-aboutism" here. That is the difference. And I'm honestly getting disturbed that it is such a difficult thing to get people to accept.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Because it ties the whole edition together.

A setting not even published yet, at the end of the life cycle for this DMG, ties the entire edition together?

 

[Alzrius]

Can we start with evil? Not like cosmic evil, but like.. evil. Spiders may be creepy and make some people upset, but some people keep them as pets. Violence isn't something many people particularly like, but there are professional sports where fighting and athleticism are the goals.

Sexual Assault, as an action, has no value beyond causing pain and suffering to others. Torture of a helpless individual for the sole purpose of causing suffering to others has no value beyond causing that pain and suffering. There is no argument here. There is no debate here. There is no "what-aboutism" here. That is the difference. And I'm honestly getting disturbed that it is such a difficult thing to get people to accept.

So you're suggesting that if someone is very upset by something, it's only okay to exclude it if it's "evil" in terms of causing pain for no other purpose than to cause pain? And that's sufficient reason to tell them "sorry, I know this other thing upsets you, but since it's not 'evil' in the aforementioned definition, it causing you distress isn't a good enough reason not to include it?"

EDIT: On further reflection, the "it's only to cause pain and suffering" idea doesn't always hold true, as there's also a presentation in terms of a reproductive strategy, which comes up in various fantasy/sci-fi franchises, ranging from Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves ("She will give us a son! You must take her now!") to the xenomorphs (i.e. oral rape) in the Aliens series.

 

[Xamnam]

So you're suggesting that if someone is very upset by something, it's only okay to exclude it if it's "evil" in terms of causing pain for no other purpose than to cause pain? And that's sufficient to tell them "sorry, I know this other thing upsets you, but since it's not 'evil' in the aforementioned definition, that's not a good enough reason not to include it?"

I think including the word only is putting words in their mouth. They're not invalidating that people have issues with spiders, or saying that it might not be worth removing. They're just saying that these two examples are nowhere near the same level.

 

[Alzrius]

I think including the word only is putting words in their mouth. They're not invalidating that people have issues with spiders, or saying that it might not be worth removing. They're just saying that these two examples are nowhere near the same level.

And I'm trying to get down to what that "level" is, since there's clearly some basis for which people feel comfortable saying that a certain topic should be excluded in order to shield people from distress, while other topics which cause distress don't warrant such exclusion.

So far we have "how many people are upset by it" and "it's evil, in terms of serving no other purpose besides causing pain" (though it should be noted that this rules out theories of reproductive strategy, which could apply in some situations). What else?

 

[cbwjm]

A setting not even published yet, at the end of the life cycle for this DMG, ties the entire edition together?

I thought you were talking about the DMG? That's what I was talking about. Have a default assumption is great as a basis for settings within an edition, there isn't any need, or even real reason to, spend much page count on alternate cosmologies. Just throw in one of those text boxes.

 

[Gradine]

If you want a hard and fast rule over what is acceptable and what isn't, you're going to be disappointed. The line is different for different people and it's hard to say what should or should not be included in a top-level RPG product (or at least top-level D&D project). I feel pretty comfortable with sexualized violence and torture, at a minimum, being on the other side of that line. I think most reasonable people (at least of those who agree there should be a line at all) would be on board with that. Slavery is a trickier subject due to its presence in the source material (pulp S&S) though it should be noted that a good chunk of said source material tends to read as incredibly racist in modern contexts. I'd, personally, leave it to more niche products. I'd argue that it's further across the line than racial bioessentialism, or at the least to two are close in nature.

But here's the thing; nobody is going to come alone with The Answer(tm) to solve the issue to everyone's satisfaction and ensure everyone is free from re-experiencing trauma through D&D. It is not a reasonable ask. It will, always, be in flux. It will, always, be a conversation more than it is a rule.

Which is also understandably frustrating to those who'd rather there just be a rule, or who think that everything should always be on the table in perpetuity. But this is one of those situations where the best answer is not going to be the easiest answer

 

[jdrakeh]

@jdrakeh and @RealAlHazred have pointed out that Musk doesn't make anything, he buys into them and takes the credit for it. Twitter is no different except there is no-one who can stop his worst impulses from pouring out.

He did at least found Spacex, but even there he's not a creator. His legions of engineers do all of the real work and he just takes the credit.