What We Lose When We Eliminate Controversial Content

[Doctor Futurity]

Do you mean there are game systems with written rules against evil PCs? (If so, can you provide examples?) Or do you mean gaming groups which limit player options?

AD&D 2nd Edition, for one. Did it provide rules on evil alignment? Yes. But in reading the PHB and DMG of that edition it was strongly indicated and advised against making evil characters. The idea of "heroic/good as focus" in games goes back to at least 1989, and likely no doubt further back than that. AD&D 2E did this back then, of course, because of the existing moral panic of the day, and that is much the same reason we see this happening today.

 

[Doctor Futurity]

Are you 100% sure on that? I don't have my 1989 PHB on hand so I can't check, and it is definitely a detail I could see missing even after all these years, but I don't recall this (and I remember it being quite common in settings like Ravenloft for the mechanics to anticipate players doing evil things with the powers check system).

100% sure. It was a big deal at the time that AD&D 2E explicitly called the idea out and eschewed elements from 1st edition that leaned into the notion of evil PCs. As the game developed some things crept in, such as Ravenloft, with the intent of providing a punishment framework the DM could use to impact players who had their PCs commit evil acts. The end result in Ravenloft, if you may recall, was to watch your PC go monstrous and become an NPC, after all.

 

[Voadam]

And slavery doesn't add anything to Dark Sun. Everything else in Dark Sun makes the setting interesting and unique. So go on, name two things that slavery actually adds to Dark Sun that (a) would actually make Dark Sun totally different if removed and (b) can't be replicated with serfs or paid workers.

Slave tribes.

Adventure plots where the PCs are caught by slavers and have to escape.

Freeing slaves as a PC activity.

Dark Sun seems the best supported TSR/WotC setting for freeing slaves as a PC activity. There are evil slavers and slave holders in a lot of the setting. There are free areas with lots of motivated ex-slaves (Tyr and slave tribes), there are lots of ex-slave concepts and NPCs. There are mapped out trade routes of the slave trade you can raid.

Spelljammer has the Neogi as bad guy slavers you can target for freeing slaves. There are big illithid and beholder factions too who likely have slaves. But it is mostly a thing of the monsters and not really developed as a setting thing beyond that.

Forgotten Realms has the drow as stand out slavers, there is some Zhentarim slave trading activity, and I am sure if I looked deeply enough others. Mulhorand and Unther have the history of being historical Ancient Egyptian and Mesopotamian humans drawn to Faerun through gates to be slaves to an ancient magical power, so the nations and the associated pantheons being in Faerun are tied to slavery. It is not nearly as central a setting thing as Dark Sun though.

Greyhawk has drow too, but also the Scarlet Brotherhood and the whole against the slave lords set of modules.

Dragonlance has some slavery, including stuff like one subrace of non-drow elves enslaving another.

Eberron I can't think of much slavery off the top of my head, I'd have to do some research.

Mostly though I would suggest Dark Sun if you want your fantasy adventure to be hunting down slavers and freeing slaves.

 

[Maxperson]

I wasn't aware that a necessary nutrient was the same as pretending to own other intelligent beings like they were animals. Good to know.

More blatant misrepresentations. It never fails to get here when someone disagrees with you about something that you feel strongly about. Nowhere did I say or imply that I was making an equivalence. You need to take a step back, breathe, and then read what I say. You don't win the internet or even win points by misrepresenting what is being said.

No you didn't. You said you added it back. That's not the same as saying if the Realms are no longer the Realms. It just means that you prefer a specific thing from the setting.

And I said why, which was the answer.

There's no good reason to keep it, either. How about, people who don't have an issue can add it back in.

Because it's far more difficult to add in. If they remove it, they will have to completely alter how Dark Sun society works. That means that I would have to rework the entire setting to add it back in, unlike the Wall of the Faithless.

It doesn't matter if it's real life or not. The game went out of its way to say that people who didn't believe in or chose not to worship any gods get turned into a brick until they dissolved or got turned into a demon. This is insulting, cruel, and, in a fantasy world, completely unnecessary.

Okay. And? Since you acknowledge that it has nothing to do with real life, what's the problem? Bad things happen in D&D. That's why the PCs can be heroes. That's a lot of work. A lot more than removal would be for you.

It does matter. If it was added because slavery actually meant something for the world, because the world was built around it, then it would be integral. If it was added because everyone else was doing it, then it doesn't matter.

And slavery doesn't add anything to Dark Sun. Everything else in Dark Sun makes the setting interesting and unique. So go on, name two things that slavery actually adds to Dark Sun that (a) would actually make Dark Sun totally different if removed and (b) can't be replicated with serfs or paid workers.

I only need to name one. Slavery. Remove slavery itself and it would make Dark Sun totally different and that can't be replicated serfs, and absolutely pain workers wouldn't even come close. At least serfs are in the same neighborhood.

 

[Maxperson]

AD&D 2nd Edition banned the Assassin class and Half-Orcs, and said evil wasn’t for player characters.

I didn’t like 2e, and that was one of the reasons.

I just quoted the 2e PHB saying that there were no limitations. It tried to discourage evil, but there was no RAW ban on evil PC alignments and in fact they were expressly allowed. Read the 2e PHB page 47.

 

[Maxperson]

100% sure. It was a big deal at the time that AD&D 2E explicitly called the idea out and eschewed elements from 1st edition that leaned into the notion of evil PCs. As the game developed some things crept in, such as Ravenloft, with the intent of providing a punishment framework the DM could use to impact players who had their PCs commit evil acts. The end result in Ravenloft, if you may recall, was to watch your PC go monstrous and become an NPC, after all.

It did not ban evil alignments at all. Page 47 of the 2e PHB.

"Playing the Character's Alignment
Aside from a few minimal restrictions required for some character classes, a player is free to choose whatever alignment he wants for his character. However, before rushing off and selecting an alignment, there are a few things to consider."

And...

"Third, some people choose to play evil alignments. Although there is no specific prohibition against this, there are several reasons why it is not a good idea."

It tried to talk you out of it, but there was nothing that made it off limits except the restrictions to Paladins and the like.

 

[Maxperson]

Nevermind

 

[Doctor Futurity]

It did not ban evil alignments at all. Page 47 of the 2e PHB.

"Playing the Character's Alignment
Aside from a few minimal restrictions required for some character classes, a player is free to choose whatever alignment he wants for his character. However, before rushing off and selecting an alignment, there are a few things to consider."

And...

"Third, some people choose to play evil alignments. Although there is no specific prohibition against this, there are several reasons why it is not a good idea."

It tried to talk you out of it, but there was nothing that made it off limits except the restrictions to Paladins and the like.

Well, you are correct (my intent was not to suggest it was banned, but eschewed/not favored), but the feel and approach of the day felt fairly heavy handed to players who migrated to AD&D 2E from 1st edition or other RPGs. The excision of obviously evil classes and races (for the time) was primarily why I felt it was 100% obvious their intent, as well as many, many sourcebooks that followed and tended to move players away from that concept space.

But yeah, could you play an evil alignment? Yes. Did anyone tend to do so? It was incredibly rare for several years that I found anyone in that space doing so, and most players I knew who disliked the tone and feel of 2E stuck with 1E as a result.

I personally was never bothered by it, as I found players with evil aligned characters tended to do so just to cause problems for the group, and I strongly preferred designing campaigns and scenarios that presumed good intent by the party, that they were heroes.

Also, I'm another guy in the discussion, may not be who you think you were talking to (but definitely who you responded to).

 

[Bedrockgames]

100% sure. It was a big deal at the time that AD&D 2E explicitly called the idea out and eschewed elements from 1st edition that leaned into the notion of evil PCs. As the game developed some things crept in, such as Ravenloft, with the intent of providing a punishment framework the DM could use to impact players who had their PCs commit evil acts. The end result in Ravenloft, if you may recall, was to watch your PC go monstrous and become an NPC, after all.

I remember them taking out the assassin and removing elements like that. I don't remember them prohibiting evil aligned PCs though

 

[Maxperson]

Well, you are correct, but the feel and approach of the day felt fairly heavy handed to players who migrated to AD&D 2E from 1st edition or other RPGs. The excision of obviously evil classes and races (for the time) was primarily why I felt it was 100% obvious their intent, as well as many, many sourcebooks that followed and tended to move players away from that concept space.

They very strongly tried to discourage people from playing evil PCs and be the heroes. The lack of half-orc and assassin, coupled with their myriad of reasons why evil might not be a good idea clearly showed that.

But yeah, could you play an evil alignment? Yes. Did anyone tend to do so? It was incredibly rare for several years that I found anyone in that space doing so, and most players I knew who disliked the tone and feel of 2E stuck with 1E as a result.

I saw it sometimes. It was uncommon, but then it was just as uncommon in 1e in my experience. Everyone know that switched to 2e did so because it clarified some rules and in my opinion was a better edition than 1e, but we didn't alter how we played our characters.

Also, I'm another guy in the discussion, may not be who you think you were talking to (but definitely who you responded to).

I saw you entered into the discussion and responded because I wasn't sure if you saw my other post on the matter.