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

[Warpiglet-7]

Sorry you had to deal with that. If it matters, you’re not alone.

Exactly.

Thanks—-it’s been several years. I went from sleeping with a weapon in the recliner to sleeping peacefully and playing gears of war and putting orcs to the sword

 

[ReshiIRE]

This poll is damaged by not having a 'it depends' or a 'maybe' option.

Broadly I agree. But it's possible for the execution to be poor or for the evil concept to be wallowed in.

Or for the way to fight the obvious evil to be impiled to only be done in an acceptable, limited way.

There's also different degrees of problematic content. It is one thing to create an authoritarian dystopia that's an amalgam of real world and new or setting specific ideas; it is one thing to create an authoritarian dystopia based on actual real world dictatorship responsible for atrocities and use it as an allegory or metaphor, particularly if the context is changed or removed.

Now, that's not a reason not to do it, it's just something to take care of, and it needs to be handled with care.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

On that premise, almost every thread has "no purpose."

Why not just answer from your own perspective?

 

[Warpiglet-7]

This poll is damaged by not having a 'it depends' or a 'maybe' option.

Broadly I agree. But it's possible for the execution to be poor or for the evil concept to be wallowed in.

Or for the way to fight the obvious evil to be impiled to only be done in an acceptable, limited way.

There's also different degrees of problematic content. It is one thing to create an authoritarian dystopia that's an amalgam of real world and new or setting specific ideas; it is one thing to create an authoritarian dystopia based on actual real world dictatorship responsible for atrocities and use it as an allegory or metaphor, particularly if the context is changed or removed.

Now, that's not a reason not to do it, it's just something to take care of, and it needs to be handled with care.

I agree that the general premise is that the forces of evil are there to strive against and to crush. Suggesting general heroic striving in a foreword talking about options is fine. (As I have gotten older I have lost interest in playing evil characters altogether)!

Conversely, isn’t evil pretty well obvious to the well-adjusted? I mean slavery, human sacrifice, murder….don’t most of us know that is bad on its face? When I see that in a movie I am rooting against it naturally.

The forces of evil are to strive against and to crush (think that is a direct quote from an old DMG).

Making slavery and murder of innocents a joke seems creeptastic to me. Putting slavers and evil sorcerers to the sword is just the stuff of adventure!

 

[BrokenTwin]

I definitely fall into the "Yes, but..."
Tackling sensitive topics can be very difficult to do well, and I honestly don't ever expect a corporation like Hasbro to ever tackle them if they can avoid it. I do think some of the best pieces of media (including interactive media like video games) are ones that do manage to thread that needle.

I think systems like PbtA games have a much easier time of designing games around sensitive topics, because their more focused nature causes players to more willingly buy-in to the concept and its restrictions. Very few people are going to try to use Monster Hearts to play a game about amoral dungeon crawlers. And games like Cy_Borg explicitly have a "there is only one unbreakable rule: corporations are not your friends" clauses in them that very strictly describe what type of game they're supposed to be.

This is very opposed to D&D's general fantasy kitchen sink approach, where the rulebooks go out of their way to make sure you know that you can do absolutely anything you want if the table agrees to it.

I don't think Hasbro will ever release another Dark Sun book. Frankly, I don't think I want to see them try.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Very few people are going to try to use Monster Hearts to play a game about amoral dungeon crawlers.

And if they do, given MonsterHearts' sex moves, I assume they'd all be bards. (OK, OK. And rogues too.)

 

[Faolyn]

Extreme violence is acceptable.

Slavery etc etc is not.


What a weird society we are.

Extreme violence is usually done against creatures who are trying to attack you or other people.

Slavery is usually done against creatures who are incapable of fighting back.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Conversely, isn’t evil pretty well obvious to the well-adjusted?

~looks at five thousand years of moral arguments~

We figure out as a society that the Thing Everyone Has Been Doing is evil and we somehow didn't realize it every day.

It's the choice to do something about it and stop perpetuating it, or chide people for not being 'adults' for not accepting it that's the real issue.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

~looks at five thousand years of moral arguments~

We figure out as a society that the Thing Everyone Has Been Doing is evil and we somehow didn't realize it every day.

It's the choice to do something about it and stop perpetuating it, or chide people for not being 'adults' for not accepting it that's the real issue.

Put another way: is anyone in any of these threads confused that slavery is supposed to be bad?

That it was not always that way is another matter.

Right now, here. Are there many literate D&D players that would read dark sun and think it’s ok to enslave people?

 

[Justice and Rule]

Put another way: is anyone in any of these threads confused that slavery is supposed to be bad?

Are the people in these threads going to be the only ones buying it?