D&D 5E First World: Possibly One of the New D&D setting?
Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
Like I said, do new things. Make new settings. Make a new horror setting, or a dragon setting. You're right, many aspects of past gaming are problematic. They should be left behind and replaced with new things that don't have these problems. Completely replaced. Not mostly replaced, but we'll keep the same names because people remember them fondly (which seems to be a problem itself what with all the problems with old material).
Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
I said it would be better to acknowledge that some people in setting believe that. It doesn't have to be, and shouldn't be, true, but it can be a prevailing belief in the setting.
Demetrios1453
Hero
The good news there is that most regions haven't had deep dives since 2e or 3e, which is over an in-world century and two planet-wide cataclysms ago. So that allows plenty of leeway in updating problematic areas to modern sensibilities.
When did @Micah Sweet say that? When did anyone here say that?
Faolyn
(she/her)
I don't know why you would prefer a bigoted or otherwise problematic continuation to a new version that doesn't have those problems.
The domains that had the biggest changes were either (a) domains that had next to nothing interesting in them in the first place (such as I Cath, which literally had nobody in it except for the Dark Lord, her daughters, and her minions); (b) had male Darklords whose stories revolved around mental or physical rape; and (c) had female Dark Lords whose stories revolved around being desperate for a man or hating all men. And Darkon, of course, but what they did was rewind time to provide a reasonable and logical result of the Requiem without turning Il Aluk into a literally unplayable location.
All the other changes are pretty minor. Is it a big deal that Hazlik no longer was ostracized for being gay? Is it terrible that they got rid of Adam, when the action that granted him his Darklord-ship was defending himself against an attacker?
If getting rid of rapey men and man-eating women means a loss of continuity--in a setting where the vast majority of the history is actually a completely fictional creation of the Dark Powers anyway--then I'm all for it. Literally nothing of value is lost.
Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
I didn't. I said that if you're going to alter the world, you should do it such that the unkind beliefs people have are clearly in the wrong. The way the Vistani were updated in the revised Curse of Strahd was great. The bad people are wrong, not gone. Just like real life. Many people have suggested that including slavery in Dark Sun is fine as long as it's being portrayed as the evil it is. That's all I'm talking about.
Faolyn
(she/her)
Then there's absolutely zero reason why the statblock should reflect that. If people with hunchbacks are just people with hunchbacks, then they don't need to be a separate race.
The only reason to keep the caliban as a separate race is if you actually want them to be a race of people who are literally cursed for having birth defects and disabilities.
Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
A lot of people here seem to think that intolerant people simply shouldn't exist in games, and that settings that have them should be changed to fit this idea. I don't think these kind of evils should be removed, but rather shown to be evil and fought.
Similar Threads
