D&D General Dark Sun as a Hopepunk Setting

[Dire Bare]

I'd suggest not leading by popping a squat on something you dont like to promote something you do. Ill be bowing out of the thread now.

Huh?

You're salty @Steampunkette expressed dislike over alignment?!?!

Okay. That ship sailed in the 70s not long after the White Box was published. Folks have been arguing over alignment-as-straight-jacket ever since.

 

[ColinChapman]

Nice

I did debate just posting ":cough:" or "yo! :waves:" but reckoned "not even" was funnier.

To clarify, I wasn't disagreeing with your argument at all; I was simply making a good-natured jab at your comment about being the only person in the thread to have spoken to people whose cultures engaged in cannibalism.

 

[Dire Bare]

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.

Forced?

Dark Sun was designed as a D&D setting. A D&D setting that took the game away from the standard Tolkeinesque tropes (or tried to). Could the TSR crew have designed it to be its own game? Well, sure, but "forced" is an odd term. Most of TSR's not-D&D games were entirely different genres.

The over-the-top bad-ass nature of Dark Sun characters was certainly an element of the setting pushed hard in the marketing, and it turned me off too back in the day. But it was a very interesting and different setting from what the rest of D&D offered.

 

[Zardnaar]

I did debate just posting ":cough:" or "yo! :waves:" but reckoned "not even" was funnier.

To clarify, I wasn't disagreeing with your argument at all; I was simply making a good-natured jab at your comment about being the only person in the thread to have spoken to people whose cultures engaged in cannibalism.

Well last tine I had that conversation I said something like "after the events of 1914-18 and 39-45 I can't judge".

It's not like they're practicing it now.

 

[ColinChapman]

Well last tine I had that conversation I said something like "after the events of 1914-18 and 39-45 I can't judge".

It's not like they're practicing it now.

Yeah, not what I was aiming towards, so all good.

 

[Zardnaar]

Yeah, not what I was aiming towards, so all good.

Mock Aucklanders more?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I mean, sorta? But also we had long histories of "you can portray X, but only if you show explicitly that it's evil" or whatever, and... I just don't think that has historically worked out well as a rule to have in media.

I don't object to people saying "yeah we are in fact depicting this as evil and to be opposed", but I'm not sold on the idea that they are obligated to do that.

This is the part I'd missed. I thought you were asserting this as an inherent moral imperative that was simply the only way these topics could ever be addressed in any setting without it being inherently wrong, not as a thing about what WotC would or wouldn't do. (I have no idea what they would or wouldn't publish. Their track record doesn't exactly make me think they think about these issues much.)

I mean, I do feel pretty confident in saying that if you don't depict slavery as morally wrong, you've screwed up.

Just because you depict it as morally wrong doesn't mean it stops happening. There's lots of morally wrong things, that the vast majority of humans agree are morally wrong, that people still do. (I was reading earlier today about one example, a woman asking for relationship advice because one of her boyfriend's coworkers told her he had cheated on her with a male employee while visiting Colorado....and when she approached him about it, he claimed the altitude made him temporarily gay, and thus he hadn't cheated on her, he wasn't in control of his actions.)

As a similar example: I would not tolerate a piece of media that portrayed child abuse as morally neutral, or worse, somehow morally positive. Especially in the latter case, I would actively campaign against its creators as literally promoting harm to children. I don't think that's an unreasonable position to take. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences of speech--it means you should be allowed to express ideas without the powers-that-be silencing you solely because of content (unless they have a very very good reason, which does, occasionally, actually happen.)

Hell, you want an actual historically-relevant example here? One of the things chivalric tales of knighthood were written for was as propaganda....but not propaganda for the serfs, simply for the rather important reason that most of them couldn't even read to begin with, and wouldn't have had time (nor interest, most likely) even if they could. No, this was propaganda targeting the knights themselves, to tell them to knock it the hell off with their abuses of the peasantry. Their lieges knew it was wrong, their serfs knew it was wrong, and even the knights themselves often knew it was wrong (certainly forbidden by Christianity.) But they still did these abusive things anyway because they believed they'd get away with it and wanted the benefits they'd derive from it. In other words...they were engaging in pretty blatantly evil behaviors, even by the standards of their own people, but they continued to do it nonetheless.

So it is quite possible, and historically precedented, to have actions that are considered immoral overall by the culture engaging in them, but which still occur even when there isn't a power from above enforcing it.

 

[Zardnaar]

I mean, I do feel pretty confident in saying that if you don't depict slavery as morally wrong, you've screwed up.

Just because you depict it as morally wrong doesn't mean it stops happening. There's lots of morally wrong things, that the vast majority of humans agree are morally wrong, that people still do. (I was reading earlier today about one example, a woman asking for relationship advice because one of her boyfriend's coworkers told her he had cheated on her with a male employee while visiting Colorado....and when she approached him about it, he claimed the altitude made him temporarily gay, and thus he hadn't cheated on her, he wasn't in control of his actions.)

As a similar example: I would not tolerate a piece of media that portrayed child abuse as morally neutral, or worse, somehow morally positive. Especially in the latter case, I would actively campaign against its creators as literally promoting harm to children. I don't think that's an unreasonable position to take. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences of speech--it means you should be allowed to express ideas without the powers-that-be silencing you solely because of content (unless they have a very very good reason, which does, occasionally, actually happen.)

Hell, you want an actual historically-relevant example here? One of the things chivalric tales of knighthood were written for was as propaganda....but not propaganda for the serfs, simply for the rather important reason that most of them couldn't even read to begin with, and wouldn't have had time (nor interest, most likely) even if they could. No, this was propaganda targeting the knights themselves, to tell them to knock it the hell off with their abuses of the peasantry. Their lieges knew it was wrong, their serfs knew it was wrong, and even the knights themselves often knew it was wrong (certainly forbidden by Christianity.) But they still did these abusive things anyway because they believed they'd get away with it and wanted the benefits they'd derive from it. In other words...they were engaging in pretty blatantly evil behaviors, even by the standards of their own people, but they continued to do it nonetheless.

So it is quite possible, and historically precedented, to have actions that are considered immoral overall by the culture engaging in them, but which still occur even when there isn't a power from above enforcing it.

That story may be creative writing on reddit btw.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That story may be creative writing on reddit btw.

I mean, sure. But the fact that it is even plausible in the first place is, y'know, a thing.

Or, if you don't like that: consider the number of men known to history who would not tolerate their wives philandering, but engaged in it themselves, sometimes flagrantly. Especially men in medieval and renaissance Europe, since Christianity has rather harsh things to say about anyone, male or female, who commits adultery.

Something can be generally accepted as morally unacceptable in a society, and still widely practiced by that society. This is not a logical contradiction, it's just a combination of (1) hypocrisy, usually by the rich/powerful, and (2) feelings of hopelessness/powerlessness/incapability on the part of people who lack influence and/or resources.

 

[GrimCo]

Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi is proverb that nicely encapsulates hypocrisy of those with power.