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

[Staffan]

Did TSR do more than just change the names of the devils and demons as a response to the panicked detractors? I mostly played 1e and started using 2e in about ‘94 but I only used the PHB, so I’m not up on all the design changes.

Demons and devils were also removed from the core Monstrous Compendium and the first appendix (which formed the core monster supply) on original release, and shifted to a specific Outer Planes Appendix (later rebranded as the Planescape Monstrous Compendium Appendix). A few years later when they abandoned the looseleaf/Monstrous Compendium format, the Monstrous Manual did get a small number of fiends though.

In addition, the 1e Monster Manual had some stuff about demon talismans and devil amulets which one could use to command their owner, which is gone from the 2e version. I guess that bit was too close to "real" (for certain values of "real") devil worship.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Is it your sense that WotC uses slavery more than its historical presence in real world premodern societies?

I don't see how that be anyone's sense. But the evils of history are apparently too problematic to include anymore, no matter how little sense just using the "good parts" makes.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Is it your sense that WotC uses slavery more than its historical presence in real world premodern societies?

1) That's not the point. I don't care what the real world does in relation to a fantasy world.

2) Yes, actually. Considering the sheer number of species that are slavers or were slaves, slavery is the vast, vast majority system in the D&D world and non-slaver societies are a tiny, minuscule minority.

 

[Irlo]

We have plenty of very common historical and present day real-world evils that are barely touched on in D&D gaming materials. Being common in the real world is not IMO a compelling argument to include them in a fantasy world.

 

[Mercurius]

1) That's not the point. I don't care what the real world does in relation to a fantasy world.

2) Yes, actually. Considering the sheer number of species that are slavers or were slaves, slavery is the vast, vast majority system in the D&D world and non-slaver societies are a tiny, minuscule minority.

I wasn't making a point, but asking a question, which you answered in the second part, so thanks.

 

[Hussar]

Ok. So let’s actually get down to brass tacks.

What does the OP really mean? What does “explicitly evil” mean?

Does that mean that every slave owner in Dark Sun is Chaotic Evil? Can you have good aligned slave owners? That starts hitting a bit close to home no?

If slavery is “explicitly evil” in the setting, then every example of it has to be shown as actually, clearly evil. Doesn’t that mean that every slave you see in descriptions and art must be suffering and being degraded?

If you have an art piece in the book that includes slaves just working in a field, for example, how is that “explicitly evil”?

If the npc shop keeper that you buy something from has a slave sweeping the floor, how is that “explicitly evil”?

It’s all very easy to say, but this thread is really short on actual specifics.

How do you make something “explicitly evil” if it’s never shown in the art or stated clearly in descriptions?

 

[Scribe]

How do you make something “explicitly evil” if it’s never shown in the art or stated clearly in descriptions?

Wouldnt there be an assumption in there that the descriptions and/or art make it clear that its a negative? That the people in charge are doing villainous things?

I mean extrapolate this.

"What is explicit evil?"

Hell, lets just round trip this and bring it home to the holy of holies of circular debate.

"What is Evil?"

 

[Cadence]

Ok. So let’s actually get down to brass tacks.

What does the OP really mean? What does “explicitly evil” mean?

Does that mean that every slave owner in Dark Sun is Chaotic Evil? Can you have good aligned slave owners? That starts hitting a bit close to home no?

If slavery is “explicitly evil” in the setting, then every example of it has to be shown as actually, clearly evil. Doesn’t that mean that every slave you see in descriptions and art must be suffering and being degraded?

If you have an art piece in the book that includes slaves just working in a field, for example, how is that “explicitly evil”?

If the npc shop keeper that you buy something from has a slave sweeping the floor, how is that “explicitly evil”?

It’s all very easy to say, but this thread is really short on actual specifics.

How do you make something “explicitly evil” if it’s never shown in the art or stated clearly in descriptions?

"Slavery isn't portrayed as explicitly evil in a book unless every picture or description in it of a slave involves them being horribly physically and mentally abused in the most graphic ways" seems kind of hyperbolic? Presumably, we can, for example, teach children slavery is an awful thing without needing to show it graphically?

(Granted of course there are adults who seemingly won't admit it is/was).

I'm guessing I missed the point of the hyperbole?

 

[Maxperson]

None of these seem comparable to an entire campaign setting where slavery is the currently accepted status quo... is there an example of that from Wotc outside of Dark Sun?

Not in 5th edition I don't think. There are all those references to races and monsters that engage in it for 5e. For WotC in general, though, there's the Drow of the Underdark book for 3e.

 

[Scribe]

For WotC in general, though, there's the Drow of the Underdark book for 3e.

Which at this stage, post 2020, is practically ancient history as far as how Wizards is going to approach content moving forward.