D&D General D&D Assumptions Ain't What They Used To Be

[Cadence]

So do neither "slave" nor "slaver" exist as possible character background options in your game?

I suppose it's possible in a setting that doesn't have anything remotely resembling a faux-Roman or faux-ancient-Greek or faux-ancient-Egyptian culture, or faux-several-other-cultures where, historically, slaves and slavery were a culturally accepted thing.

Personally I feel that if a fantasy society draws heavily from a particularly culture or cultures for its inspiration, the parts that are unpleasant to modern sensibilities shouldn't be ignored. But then I tend to look at most fantasy as a sort of "history +", where you're still trying to be coherent from a real world point of view where practical.

There were some other pretty bad things socially acceptable in ancient Rome and Greece too, do you have all of them in your games and allow them all as backgrounds just because they happened? (I'm assuming most games don't have pederasty as an important thing?).

 

[Cadence]

Notice your dates. The Witch-Hunting craze went into full swing by the 16th century, or the 1500's. The Malleus Maleficarum, or The Hammer of Witches, which I referred to was published in 1486. Now, was he solely responsible for the entire thing? No. But while I have not written a paper on the subject, I have listened to many lectures by experts in the field who point to this guy as a major ignition point of the movement. And before he had written the book, he had brought charges against the woman who had rejected him of witchcraft, which was prosecuted... and found to hold no basis.

Made me think of what I had read about the Plantagenets when doing genealogy for the other half. Serious accusations of witchcraft were certainly a thing in England by the Royal Family before 1486. Which led, by google, to Pope Innocent and the Summis desiderantes affectibus in late 1484 which I had not read about before...

https://richardiii.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/05-68-Witchcraft-and-the-Sons-of-York.pdf

(Thanks to several above about this for making me go look things up!)

 

[Micah Sweet]

There were some other pretty bad things socially acceptable in ancient Rome and Greece too, do you have all of them in your games and allow them all as backgrounds just because they happened? (I'm assuming most games don't have pederasty as an important thing?).

I wouldn't put such things on camera for my players, the same way I wouldn't make use of slavery or racism in a game if a player didn't want those things depicted. I always have a session 0, and player comfort still comes first.

That being said, unless there was a request not to have it exist at all, even if the players never see it and it doesn't affect them, I would probably still assume such things still happen.

 

[Reynard]

When I say "banal evil" I just mean the same kind of evil humanity has had to contend with for all of our history: slavery and racism, of course, but also destructive greed and non-consensual prostitution, organized crime and official corruption. Those things usually exist in the world, but I don't dwell on them or they serve as an in-road to more operatic evil. For example, if raiders are taking slaves and the PCs go to stop them, the trail never just ends with slavers: the victims are to be turned into monsters under the control of some would be demon lord, or whatever.

I am ambivalent about including stuff like brothels or dog fighting or abused labor or other "minor evils." They can be background flavor, I guess, but if they get more than a passing mention when I am trying to paint a picture of how nasty the big vile city is it would be a surprise to even me. Unless I just finished a Black Company book or something and am in the mood to get vile. that happens sometimes.

Even with all that, though, I do not want to wallow in it and I absolutely do not want to run a game where the PCs are part of the problem. "Evil" campaigns are of no interest to me, nor are criminal ones. I would probably nope out of a Game of Thrones feeling campaign pretty quickly.

 

[MGibster]

Kinda seems that folks are cherry picking their histories.

I think we're all cherry picking. I tend to want setting elements that make things interesting for adventures and since it's D&D I like to keep things at a PG-13 level. And evidently at PG-13 levels you can have some elements of child abuse, domestic abuse, and even drug abuse as we they were included in Curse of Strahd. Child abuse is horrible, but facing down a coven of hags who are cannibalizing children makes for an interesting adventure.

I guess the only thing is we don't all agree on where the line in the sand should be drawn. I don't think WotC needs to be rid of slavery when it comes to the worshippers of Lloth. It's nice having a bad guy faction for heros in a fantasy setting to go fight.

 

[MGibster]

Made me think of what I had read about the Plantagenets when doing genealogy for the other half. Serious accusations of witchcraft were certainly a thing in England by the Royal Family before 1486. Which led, by google, to Pope Innocent and the Summis desiderantes affectibus in late 1484 which I had not read about before...

I tried turning my wife into the authorities for her flagrant violations of the Scottish Witchcraft Act of 1563. She turned me into a newt for my efforts.

 

[Lanefan]

I do find it interesting that on one hand you have folks insisting on historicalism - pointing to "faux-Rome, faux-Egypt, etc" while at the same time ignoring the fact that most D&D settings are about a thousand years AFTER those settings. As in Middle Earth is far, far closer to us in history than it is to the Roman Empire and certainly close than Egypt or Athens.

Kinda seems that folks are cherry picking their histories.

Or, in my case following the Xena-Hercules model and intentionally taking disparate faux-cultures from different historical periods and plopping them all down on the same world just for kicks.

I mean, on my world you can get on a ship in faux-Tudor England and sail south. If you turn left at the correct place you'll reach faux-ancient Greece. Turn right instead at about the same place and you'll hit faux-ancient Rome. Don't turn at all and you'll run aground in faux-ancient Sumeria. Meanwhile you've sailed past an isolated faux-Aztec realm a ways inland from the sea. Oh, and there's some Elvish lands along the way as well, Dwarves in some of the mountains, some other Human realms that don't map to any specific historical culture, and lots and lots of wild land where monsters grow.

Get on a ship on the coast well north of faux-England (after passng through the Hobbit lands to get there) and sail east and on your right will be faux-rennaissance France; follow the coast as it turns north and you'll hit faux-Vikings. And Dwarves. And Elves. And wild land, etc.

 

[Reynard]

An interesting fact to remember when talking about eras is that ancient Egypt last 3000 years as a continuous culture. It evolved, of course, but the Egyptians of 500 BCE would have totally recognized those of 3000 BCE as Egyptians. Then Alex had to screw it all up.

 

[Desdichado]

Nevermind. This'll never work.

 

[Hussar]

Or, in my case following the Xena-Hercules model and intentionally taking disparate faux-cultures from different historical periods and plopping them all down on the same world just for kicks.

Which is fine. But, in the same model, we gloss over LOTS of historical ickiness. After all neither show was considered mature content in the slightest. It's been a long time since I watched either, but, I don't recall slavery or various other historical evil playing much of a part in the shows. Granted, it's probably there, but, it certainly wasn't a major thing.