What We Lose When We Eliminate Controversial Content

[Hussar]

Actually, Paizo's Lost Omens Firebrands (coming out to the public in a few days) contains narrative exposition on how Cheliax has freed its slaves, but is targeting them with 'help' that creates horrendously exploitive binding contracts in ways that very much feel like someone was writing a fantasy metaphor for sharecropping or something similar. Now granted, it's still written from a very progressive viewpoint that this is a very bad thing the freedom fighters the book is about need to help fight, and I wouldn't be shocked if those passages were PoC written, but that is something that is going to be very personal to some people in the way that this thread is discussing.

See, now, to me, that's a bit different. The writing isn't superficial - at least from what you're saying here. It's not, "Well, these guys are really evil, so, of course they keep slaves" sort of thing. Kinda like how the Red Wizards of Thay are written. Yeah, they're really bad guys right, so, they keep slaves to drive home that these are really bad guys. The problem is, all the writing is about the bad guys, making the bad guys really bad guys. Little space is devoted to the slaves, which are left more or less as a faceless mob.

By talking about the slaves first, or in this case the victims of exploitation, it's a lot less about how bad the bad guys are, and more about putting faces and names to the victims.

Not sure if I'm making the point that's in my head very clearly, but, I hope what I'm trying to say is coming across.

 

[Autumnal]

As the risk of getting grammatical, it sounds like Firebrands treats the “freed” slaves as subjects, not just objects.

 

[AnotherGuy]

You really believe it's easier to tell a DM that you don't enjoy their playstyle as opposed to you think they should remove something because it draws on racist stereotypes, racist caricatures, or is partaking in trauma tourism? Because let's be real, the DM is going to ask why....

No, the exact opposite. I obviously wasn't clear in my thinking.
And let us park the most egregious examples you decided to cite.

What I meant was, that we often give the advice that if you're in a game in which you're not enjoying the style of play, one should excuse themselves or sometimes the player and DM talk it out constructively.
I would imagine, those moments are far more uncomfortable than the ones in which the player informs the DM that element x (i.e. slavery...etc) is problematic for them.

The poster I was replying to mentioned shyness as the factor for a player being unable to confront the DM about the latter, and yet the former situation, is far more common and the advice we give (addressing it with the DM) is done irrespective of shyness. That is what I'm getting it.

 

[Imaro]

No, the exact opposite. I obviously wasn't clear in my thinking.
And let us park the most egregious examples you decided to cite.

What I meant was, that we often give the advice that if you're in a game in which you're not enjoying the style of play, one should excuse themselves or sometimes the player and DM talk it out constructively.
I would imagine, those moments are far more uncomfortable than the ones in which the player informs the DM that element x (i.e. slavery...etc) is problematic for them.

The poster I was replying to mentioned shyness as the factor for a player being unable to confront the DM about the latter, and yet the former situation, is far more common and the advice we give (addressing it with the DM) is done irrespective of shyness. That is what I'm getting it.

See I disagree because of what is implied in stating that an element like slavery is problematic for them (but apparently not for the DM since they were going to include it). There can often be value judgement, whether intended or not, about real world things when discussing something like this... where as playstyle is literally saying our make believe procedures don't mesh doesn't (at least in the most common scenarios) really speak to the "values" of a person.

 

[AnotherGuy]

See I disagree because of what is implied in stating that an element like slavery is problematic for them (but apparently not for the DM since they were going to include it). There can often be value judgement, whether intended or not, about real world things when discussing something like this... where as playstyle is literally saying our make believe procedures don't mesh doesn't (at least in the most common scenarios) really speak to the "values" of a person.

We're making value judgements all the time with friends when we are discussing movies - be it genres, political messaging, propaganda, actors, directors, production companies...etc
I'm thinking if a player approached me and asked if I could limit/remove x from the game, it would be far easier to deal with, than have someone critique my playstyle. Not that they shouldn't, it is always good to learn and improve, but the former tells me more about them, whereas the latter is a critique about me. That is how I view it.

 

[Imaro]

We're making value judgements all the time with friends when we are discussing movies - be it genres, political messaging, propaganda, actors, directors, production companies...etc
I'm thinking if a player approached me and asked if I could limit/remove x from the game, it would be far easier to deal with, than have someone critique my playstyle. Not that they shouldn't, it is always good to learn and improve, but the former tells me more about them, whereas the latter is a critique about me. That is how I view it.

I get what you are saying and it could definitely be an... individual comfortability levels may vary... but I would feel less comfortable coming into a group where everyone is ok with slavery and asking that it be removed than telling the group hey our playstyles aren't meshing and finding another group. Maybe because if our playstyles don't mesh there isn't much to discuss... whereas asking for something to be removed is definitely going to open the door to more questions, comparisons, etc. Now with an established group of friends it would be a different beast.

 

[Bagpuss]

Depends on how the setting has its deities set up.

In mine, a mortal's Wish would bounce off a full deity much like a thrown pebble would bounce off a battleship...unless and only unless the deity in fact wanted that wish to succeed.

We are talking the Forgotten Realms in this instance, where The Dead Three not like a lot of "gods" started as mortals, but were all killed, by other mortal turned gods like Cyric, but one of them Myrkul was killed by mortal mage Midnight.

So yeah I can totally see why a person might not think gods are that special, they aren't gods at all they are just overpowered adventurers.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

See, now, to me, that's a bit different. The writing isn't superficial - at least from what you're saying here. It's not, "Well, these guys are really evil, so, of course they keep slaves" sort of thing. Kinda like how the Red Wizards of Thay are written. Yeah, they're really bad guys right, so, they keep slaves to drive home that these are really bad guys. The problem is, all the writing is about the bad guys, making the bad guys really bad guys. Little space is devoted to the slaves, which are left more or less as a faceless mob.

By talking about the slaves first, or in this case the victims of exploitation, it's a lot less about how bad the bad guys are, and more about putting faces and names to the victims.

Not sure if I'm making the point that's in my head very clearly, but, I hope what I'm trying to say is coming across.

I agree with your assesment of the material, I'm not sure that would render it uncontroversial. A major theme in this thread and in other spaces has been whether its squicky for people to deal with it at the gaming table at all, or if that intrinsically drives away variously marginalized groups.

 

[Umbran]

I agree with your assesment of the material, I'm not sure that would render it uncontroversial. A major theme in this thread and in other spaces has been whether its squicky for people to deal with it at the gaming table at all, or if that intrinsically drives away variously marginalized groups.

It seems to me that on this point, Paizo has made a smart choice.

Paizo is not making this material central and integral to their game and setting. In a separate supplement, a GM can easily ask if these topics and themes are appropriate for the group, and then not use it if it presents a problem. It also gives them the page count to address it in more considerate detail than is practical if presented in a book on a larger-scale setting.

 

[Kaodi]

Paizo is also in a bit of a bind though (ironically) since one of the core halfling ancestry feats is "Unfettered" and it literally mentions indenture and slavery as possible elements of your background. It is a reasonably good feat too for a melee character I think. I do not know how you errata that sort of thing without calling more attention to it.