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

[tetrasodium]

WoTC seems mostly concerned about problematic societal norms, but not about individuals being evil.

I don't remember how Dark Sun worked, but the most future-proof reboot I can think of is to reboot slavery as a pact/bond with the dragon kings.

So basically, everyone has a warlock-like pact with the dragon kings, except the lowest class get nothing good in return and only bad things from being bonded to their dragon king overlord.

The tvtropes page for it does an oddly thorough job if giving a short summary the highpoints in "contains examples of" section because the setting squarely hits so many tropes involving morality & dark fiction.

 

[Lanefan]

That doesn't seem to resolve the issue.
If players and DMs should make the determination for themselves, isn't the smart thing to let them add it in if they want it, and not put it explicitly into any products?

Well, that's the root question, isn't it: should things like this be done on the basis of opt-in (add it if you want it) or opt-out (take it out if you don't want it)?

Given the overall experience of how 5e seems to have gone, opt-in elements (e.g. gritty rest variant) get little if any uptake even when presented right there in the DMG while opt-out elements (e.g. feats) become more or less baked in as standard.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That doesn't seem to resolve the issue.
If players and DMs should make the determination for themselves, isn't the smart thing to let them add it in if they want it, and not put it explicitly into any products?

Have something to choose from is better than having to invent it because people are too afraid of social media to provide options.

 

[Retreater]

Storytelling is an art form. As an extension, so is role-playing. To limit it to stories acceptable to only a PG-13 audience limits the medium.
Be responsible with it. Know your audience.
Perhaps WotC isn't the company to do it. For example, I don't go to a Marvel movie expecting deep, personal storytelling. Even the R-Rated superhero movies are just PG-13 stories with extra violence and language.

 

[DND_Reborn]

There is no such thing as problematic content IMO. You might like it or not, sure, but that doesn't make it a problem. I might not like something, but that doesn't make it problematic or wrong, it just makes it something I don't like. To each, their own. Please stop trying to force your morality and judgement on me.

Whether it is meant to be fought, is "evil" etc. is really immaterial to me--it is just content.

 

[DarkCrisis]

Extreme violence is acceptable.

Slavery etc etc is not.


What a weird society we are.

 

[humble minion]

It's been a long time since I've played DS, but couldn't a character actually be a slave?

I think PCs starting as slaves in the arena and escaping early in the campaign was the default campaign structure assumption for early DS. I'm pretty sure it was the starting point for Freedom, the first Dark Sun module, at least.

But really, is that so different to the setup for 'Out of the Abyss', where PCs start as prisoner/slaves of the drow?

I don't remember how Dark Sun worked, but the most future-proof reboot I can think of is to reboot slavery as a pact/bond with the dragon kings.

So basically, everyone has a warlock-like pact with the dragon kings, except the lowest class get nothing good in return and only bad things from being bonded to their dragon king overlord.

That's similar to how I'd do it. I'd basically say that the dragon kings controlled the water supply in the cities, and to access water, the citizens had to pay. You could either pay (steeply) in money, resources or magic, and if you couldn't afford any of those then you had to work off your 'obligation' to city and sorcerer-king via indentured service - to be assigned and supervised by the worst bastards in the Templarate. And of course there's all sorts of scope for shenanigans and corruption - people trying to steal water rather than pay, people stealing their enemies' water tokens to get them in trouble or their cash so they can't pay the tithe, oppression of water priests in order to keep the monopoly intact, templars in charge of the system being petty and vengeful and personal and corrupt when they choose who to assign to which indentured duty (the gladiatorial pits, the mines, menial domestic service in the villas of the templars' noble friends, etc etc)

 

[Catolias]

I’ve said no but I think it’s best to explain why. I should also say I haven’t played DS—and am unlikely to given the content.

Fundamentally, a setting book containing inappropriate content cannot ensure that players will always take the role of good guys fighting evil. The very nature of ttrpg—which involves the concept of “where you are the hero”—leaves it entirely open to the individual players and GM to decide to subvert the designers intent such that the “hero” can be an anti-hero or an evil hero enforcing evil.

I think referring to other types of gaming are irrelevant straw man. Computer games like Wolfenstein, for instance, are designed on one method of you completing the game. That is you only succeed when you kill the nazis; it doesn’t work otherwise. Computer games like this are invariably railroad games, not role playing games.

Also, another straw man is referencing ancient philosophers as supportive of slavery. This is redundant and offensive. They are not the only philosophers in existence and there have been many since that have correctly shown the wrongness of slavery.

Let’s also not kid ourselves: slavery has not disappeared. It may not have a clear racial component (at least to the western societies) but it continues to exist and is the subject of international conventions seeking to eradicate it. Anti-slavery.org defines modern slavery as:

when an individual is exploited by others, for personal or commercial gain. Whether tricked, coerced, or forced, they lose their freedom

That definition includes human trafficking, sexual slavery, or work in exchange for payments that are not recognised legal tender.

So, let’s just acknowledge that DS was a product of its time and that, for a modern audience, there is nothing about it that is worth redeeming.

 

[overgeeked]

Extreme violence is acceptable.

Slavery etc etc is not.

What a weird society we are.

Right?

Murder your way from zero to hero. Perfect.

How about XP for loot instead of murder? Nah. That’s boring.

Slaughter thousands in a war. Perfect.

How about we befriend some of these intelligent beings and try to work out our differences? Snooze.

Invade other people’s homes, kill them, and take their land. Perfect.

Here’s a setting where you fight slavers. How dare you.

Murder happens in the real world. Violence happens in the real world. War happens in the real world. And those are all perfectly acceptable as regular parts of play.

It’s almost like you have to play at a specific frequency of evil for it to be socially acceptable. Any less evil and it’s wrong. Any more evil and it’s wrong. So weird.

 

[Staffan]

I think PCs starting as slaves in the arena and escaping early in the campaign was the default campaign structure assumption for early DS. I'm pretty sure it was the starting point for Freedom, the first Dark Sun module, at least.

The intro adventure in the boxed set started the PCs out as slaves in a mekillot-drawn caravan going from Urik to Tyr. At the start of the adventure, the caravan gets attacked by a tribe of elves who are out for revenge for something, and once victorious they go "Well you're on your own now" and the PCs have to try to survive until they can get somewhere more hospitable.

In Freedom!, the PCs are new arrivals to Tyr, and the first portion of the adventure is about them getting into positions where they are enslaved and sent to work on Kalak's ziggurat. The various events where this happen will then have repercussions through the adventure by providing various NPC contacts/allies. It's really a very smooth way of doing things.