What We Lose When We Eliminate Controversial Content

[AnotherGuy]

I know people have been pointing out the examples of mythic Africa in DnD, but that was always my point. Unrestrained creativity hasn’t actually led to writers being more creative.

That's true and probably a good thing for some here, right? Otherwise, people would be complaining about an African Adventures books along with the Oriental Adventures book. And I'm only saying this because it would have been created at that time (with little to no culture consultants), not because I wouldn't want something along those lines.

TSR's Mystara never really managed to fully pull across an African-themed nation sadly.
TSR ended the run just as they were looking to create Sind (Fantasy India). Although the content-producing fandom (predominantly Italian) has been extensively busy (10+ Gazetteers + 30 Threshold Magazines, the latter of which are 200+ pages each) so they may have something African-based as most of the Mystaran land-mass had not yet been developed at the time of its TSR-end.

 

[Bedrockgames]

And being technically correct is of course the best kind of correct.

The point being not too many people were institutionally murdered over the course of several centuries. The same is not true of slavery.

debating what was worse in history is probably not helpful. I think we can all agree slavery is awful, the US system of slavery was especially evil. But when you say murder wasn’t institutional what about the Holocaust, the Killing Fields, the systematic killing of people in wars extending back to ancient history ? Murder has been institutionalized even practiced by states as part of their legal criminal code in the form of capital punishment

 

[Irlo]

Being specific, if NOW concern must be given to in game victims of x, it begs the question why victims of y and z are not an issue. I'm not saying x = y = z. That's what you're interpreting from that line of questioning.
That's all I have to say on this.

No one is concerned for the in-game victims. When there are decisions and discussions about inclusivity and representation, the concern is for the players and potential players (or perhaps I should say purchasers) of the game.

 

[billd91]

Well, and Latin America and the Caribbean in general. Really, most semi-modern instances of slavery are largely African or indigenous peoples.

Which is exactly why it's not equal opportunity.

 

[Umbran]

Mod Note:
The snarkiness may seem funny to you, but it raises the acrimony in the thread. So please cut it out.

 

[Alzrius]

No one is concerned for the in-game victims.

No? Because comments about Lord Soth's dead wife and child suggest otherwise.

 

[Imaro]

Well, and Latin America and the Caribbean in general. Really, most semi-modern instances of slavery are largely African or indigenous peoples.

Ding...ding...ding. Here's the context alot of posters are disregarding, ignoring or whatever in this discussion. The man believed to be the last child of an antebellum slave died last year... 2022. I wouldn't even call that semi-modern... I'd call it modern. If you're claiming your ancestors in the ancient world were slaves so it's the same as antebellum slavery (which, for the most part, targeted a particular race)... All I can say to that is you're trying to compare apples and oranges.

 

[Umbran]

. But when you say murder wasn’t institutional what about the Holocaust...

And when a game publisher says, "You know, I was going to have a setting in which one culture went about systematically committing genocide, but I decided that that wasn't going to be acceptable in today's climate"...

...we'd probably say that was a reasonable choice and in good taste.

 

[Charlaquin]

Was there something I said that made you think I wasn't talking about exactly that?

It sounded like you were saying people don’t like safe. Sorry if I misunderstood.

 

[Bedrockgames]

And when a game publisher says, "You know, I was going to have a setting in which one culture went about systematically committing genocide, but I decided that that wasn't going to be acceptable in today's climate"...

...we'd probably say that was a reasonable choice and in good taste.

Again, I don't think this should be in every setting or anything, but I would be reluctant to say it should never appear in a game or that its automatically in bad taste to include it (anymore than I would accuse Schindler's List or the Killing Fields of being made in bad taste). Including the atrocities of war, the evil that humans are capable of doing to one another, is something I can definitely see working in certain settings. I found the way it was handled in Ravenloft in Falkovnia for example quite effective (and most of my gaming group in high school at the time was made up of people with relatives who were killed in pogroms and the holocaust). That is probably why that aspect of the setting resonated with us. Different people will have a different reaction to that kind of thing for sure, so I am not suggesting it ought to be rubbed in peoples face if they find it distasteful or that there aren't less respectful and more respectful ways to handle it. But once again I think people will often be surprised by how people they think they are shielding from certain kinds of content will react to it (groups aren't monolithic, some people engage in stuff you would think would trouble them, specifically because its troubling nature makes them fascinated by it). Should this kind of content be in a standard D&D setting; probably not. Should it be a crayon in the aforementioned box for designers to use? I would say yes.