D&D 5E Dark Sun, problematic content, and 5E…

[overgeeked]

Well the OP does say it's "obviously, explicitly evil"...

But is that "evil" for the players, or is it Evil in the setting or both, and if it's socially-acceptable in the setting, then is mostly everyone in the setting Evil?

The whole question makes my head spin, and that's not even including trying to separate the academic hypothetical from the sensitivities of folks in the community.

What's wrong with playing good characters in an evil setting and/or society?

 

[overgeeked]

Acceptable to who?

Gamers. The people I'm asking.

 

[Vaalingrade]

What's wrong with playing good characters in an evil setting and/or society?

As someone who has suffered through Wraith: The Oblivion and Fading Suns... it's just emotionally draining to have to sit there and watch the DM gleefully describing the atrocities you aren't allowed to end in any meaningful way.

 

[Reynard]

Gamers. The people I'm asking.

Well, publishers can put anything they want in a game. Problematic content doesn't even have to be "evil." It can just be. It's "acceptable" for a company to make it possible for PCs to buy slaves (say, in a bronze age game), for example.

But unless you are willing to consider the impact those choices are going to have on the game's adoption, acceptance, and sales, I'm not sure the point of the poll.

 

[tetrasodium]

It's worth noting eventual fate of the german laws on symbolism & the fact that a big part of why they were changed was a video game about an allied soldier killing nazi's (wolfenstein reboot) & a tv series about how awful they were (man in the high castle) was a big part of why those laws were updated to allow content showing historical evils as evil.

 

[Reynard]

It's worth noting eventual fate of the german laws on symbolism & the fact that a big part of why they were changed was a video game about an allied soldier killing nazi's (wolfenstein reboot) & a tv series about how awful they were (man in the high castle) was a big part of why those laws were updated to allow content showing historical evils as evil.

One of my favorite memes of all time is someone angrily tweeting about Wolfenstein turning "woke" because of a black female protagonist.

 

[overgeeked]

But unless you are willing to consider the impact those choices are going to have on the game's adoption, acceptance, and sales, I'm not sure the point of the poll.

The answer's in the question. I'm asking gamers their thoughts. You know, the people who would potentially adopt, accept, and buy the product. That's the point of the poll.

 

[Lanefan]

Well the OP does say it's "obviously, explicitly evil"...

But is that "evil" for the players, or is it Evil in the setting, or both,

Evil as in the setting itself is Evil-based, when looked at by today's standards. The players are free to decide how they feel about it at their own tables.

and if it's socially-acceptable in the setting, then is mostly everyone in the setting Evil?

Not necessarily "mostly everyone"; but those in positions of socio-economic power probably are, even if unintentionally. The downtrodden - the poor, the slaves, etc. - would more likely cover the whole gamut and average out to neutral; and there's lots more of them than there are people in power.

And of course this raises the bigger question around whether a faux-historical (or even a fully invented) setting should be presented warts and all as being a nasty place replete with nasty and maybe discomforting elements, or have a coat of modern-sensibilities paint applied over it.

Put me mostly in the warts-and-all camp.

 

[overgeeked]

One of my favorite memes of all time is someone angrily tweeting about Wolfenstein turning "woke" because of a black female protagonist.

Yeah. It was surreal when that particular "firestorm" hit. Like, lol. Clearly some people haven't been paying attention.

 

[Reynard]

The answer's in the question. I'm asking gamers their thoughts. You know, the people who would potentially adopt, accept, and buy the product. That's the point of the poll.

So why did you qualify it with "so long as you are allowed to smash it"? Why not ask more broadly? Like, what if slavery is just a thing in the setting, part of the society? (It doesn't have to be "historical" -- we could be talking about an AI situation.)

The desire to confine the question to only allowing such elements as clearly labeled badness answers the real question you are not asking: problematic is, in fact, problematic for the people it is problematic for.