D&D General Dark Sun as a Hopepunk Setting

[Remathilis]

@I'm A Banana

For my part I would have slavery in the work. And have it be a clear, unvarnished, evil. That most of the people in the setting acknowledge as evil, and hate, but are too afraid to interfere with because of the powers of the Sorcerer-Kings and the violence of the Templars.

I've never heard the "Exploiting Suffering" argument applied to fictional realms or violence and crimes in them. Like. Ever. I've heard people use the phrase to discuss current and historic events... but never a fictional setting.

And considering that D&D still -has- slaves and slavery in their settings... Hell, there's references to it in the core rulebooks.

Hobgoblins from the Monster Manual are noted to enslave people they conquer.

So the very notion of slavery itself isn't the problem. It's the societal construct around it, I think, in the setting. In the OG DS it was just "A Thing that Happens" with most people not caring that slaves exist in their societies.

All that said...

Yeah. Having cultural consultants weigh in is absolutely a thing. Even if I'm sure it would pass muster because it'd be presented as an outright evil to be opposed... I'd still listen to marginalized voices.

I think one of the key elements is that slavery must be viewed as a societal ill rather than a norm. For example, hobgoblin tribes might keep slaves from a raid (an unapologetically evil act) but they would not engage in slave trade (that is, selling slaves as an act of commerce) because the latter normalizes the act. And I think that's where D&D has to be cautious: when evil acts are excused as societal norms. That's where Paizo got into trouble with it: they treated slaves as a part of society rather than an act of evil.

 

[Remathilis]

Of course, you know the cacophonous shrieking it would cause among purists would put the wailings of a whole orchestra of the worst bards to shame.

Frankly, I'm here for it.

 

[Chaltab]

Like I said, the 2e box read to me like a pizza cutter: all edge and no point. You were a supposed badass character. You were a half-giant with double HD, weapon specialization in multiple weapons and psionic powers guaranteed but you spent much of your time stealing water so as not to die. Ultimately you ended up either joining the system or simply exploiting it because changing it was out of the question.

(This is a critique of many Grimdark settings IMHO. As soon as players realize that the world is going to screw them over regardless of how good they are, they become barely better than the villains. They need to hope for a better tomorrow to motivate them to be better than the world they live in).

Of course, you know the cacophonous shrieking it would cause among purists would put the wailings of a whole orchestra of the worst bards to shame.

Maybe it's because i was introduced with 4E but you two have a very different impression of the setting than I.

 

[Vaalingrade]

@I'm A Banana

For my part I would have slavery in the work. And have it be a clear, unvarnished, evil. That most of the people in the setting acknowledge as evil, and hate, but are too afraid to interfere with because of the powers of the Sorcerer-Kings and the violence of the Templars.

I've never heard the "Exploiting Suffering" argument applied to fictional realms or violence and crimes in them. Like. Ever. I've heard people use the phrase to discuss current and historic events... but never a fictional setting.

And considering that D&D still -has- slaves and slavery in their settings... Hell, there's references to it in the core rulebooks.

Hobgoblins from the Monster Manual are noted to enslave people they conquer.

So the very notion of slavery itself isn't the problem. It's the societal construct around it, I think, in the setting. In the OG DS it was just "A Thing that Happens" with most people not caring that slaves exist in their societies.

All that said...

Yeah. Having cultural consultants weigh in is absolutely a thing. Even if I'm sure it would pass muster because it'd be presented as an outright evil to be opposed... I'd still listen to marginalized voices.

At the very least I'd hope to not have the books encourage PC utilization of the institution via things like pricelists or slavehunter allies presented in adventures.

 

[Steampunkette]

At the very least I'd hope to not have the books encourage PC utilization of the institution via things like pricelists or slavehunter allies presented in adventures.

Oh -hell- no.

Slavery would be presented as outright evil. Not something to partake in, not something to consider. Just outright cruelty to be opposed.

And yeah, I'd make that -very- clear in the text. No price list. No slaver allies. No background trait where you were a slaver and you're trying to do better. None of that.

 

[Remathilis]

Maybe it's because i was introduced with 4E but you two have a very different impression of the setting than I.

You got introduced into Dark Sun when WotC forced it to be a D&D setting rather than a separate game that used the AD&D engine. A lot of rules choices in 2e were made to make it as Un-D&D as possible while still requiring the PHB to run it. The 4e version is actually rather clever and if I had been interested in 4e at the time, I'd have given it a go.

 

[Charlaquin]

You got introduced into Dark Sun when WotC forced it to be a D&D setting rather than a separate game that used the AD&D engine. A lot of rules choices in 2e were made to make it as Un-D&D as possible while still requiring the PHB to run it. The 4e version is actually rather clever and if I had been interested in 4e at the time, I'd have given it a go.

4e dark sun was really great, IMO. It’s what got me interested in the setting.

 

[Zardnaar]

Yeah, you'd need to revise the bands of wandering, thievin' gyp- er, elves. And cut the amount of cannibalism too. "Hey, halfling! Quit gnawing my leg! Owwww! What the hell?! Thri-Kreen dude, why are you joining in?!" And give the mul a name they call themselves, not just a variation on "mule" (which should probably be centered as a derogatory term used by the scum behind the eugenics).

It could work if well-presented in a, "This all sucks. Deeply. Here's why and how you can punch slaving, eugenics-enabling, ecological catastrophe-causing a-holes in the face! Get out there and save the world!"

Of course, you know the cacophonous shrieking it would cause among purists would put the wailings of a whole orchestra of the worst bards to shame.

Most of that isn't any worse than Baldurs Gate 3.

Stick a R18 label on it.

I would tone things down somewhat. Cannibalistic Halflings would still exist. They would do it to intruders though and they see themselves as protectors of the forest ridge. They don't hunt you unless you're uninvited. They also wouldn't hunt children if one wandered into their lands.

And the past is a mystery I woukd use the original set ignoring everything after that. Don't retcon stuff away but leave it in the past. You can use that material if you like or write your own.

Then you can just go through and tweak what's let. Halfllng thing could hint at their origin post 1991 set but leave it ambiguous. They're reclusive forest protectors who are into recycling. If you're uninvited the recycling may be you though. Reason they're xenophobic is rest of the planet. Death to defiler and slavers.

 

[Chaltab]

this thread has gotten me interested in working on that 5E conversion I started years ago... unfortunately I lost the original WIP file and only have a pdf of the 0.2 version. That was disheartening.

 

[Zardnaar]

this thread has gotten me interested in working on that 5E conversion I started years ago... unfortunately I lost the original WIP file and only have a pdf of the 0.2 version. That was disheartening.

I trued running 2E not to long ago.

Dune Trader and original set only. Back to basics.

Core 2E books. Dune trader good book. DS player and DM. Oh psionic book. 7 books later.......