What We Lose When We Eliminate Controversial Content

Micah Sweet said:

Dark Sun is the Sword'n'Sandal, Rome/Sparta-esque setting. Slavery is part of that genre, and removing it makes it less like the thing it's supposed to be.

Click to expand...

I don't really agree - it's deconstructed/reconstructed planetary fantasy rather than sword-n-sandal. People are getting confused by the arenas and stuff, but they're a part of planetary fantasy too - virtually every planetary fantasy story ends up with the hero in an arena sooner or later.

And you don't need chattel slavery specifically even for sword'n'sandal - any sufficiently unfair conditions will work, and indentured servitude is absolutely unfair enough.

Imaro said:

I believe you're speaking to Harlem Unbound.

Click to expand...

OH I AM!

Yeah that cover. Damn that's why I couldn't find it - I was "sure" that wasn't the title, just absolutely dead sure. Ugh I'm an idiot! But thank you!

Ruin Explorer said:

I don't really agree - it's deconstructed/reconstructed planetary fantasy rather than sword-n-sandal. People are getting confused by the arenas and stuff, but they're a part of planetary fantasy too - virtually every planetary fantasy story ends up with the hero in an arena sooner or later.

And you don't need chattel slavery specifically even for sword'n'sandal - any sufficiently unfair conditions will work, and indentured servitude is absolutely unfair enough.

Click to expand...

What are the characteristics of deconstructed/reconstructed planetary fantasy? I've never heard of that one.

Even if you're right, you can have the genre but it still wouldn't be Dark Sun if slavery and psionics are removed, because they are part of that particular setting. You would be creating a In Name Only setting (which would actually be fine because then it would be open on the DMsGuild).

Bedrockgames said:

Every GM is going to focus on different things in a setting. But it isn't a small detail of Dark Sun. I am reading the Guide to Athas from the original boxed set and the word slave is mentioned 51 times. And it is pretty woven into the setting if you read through it. You can do it without it. But I would say will be missing a crucial element that gets into things like gladiators, slave pits, escaped slave tribes and slave villages (places like Salt View), etc. It is a pretty important part of the how societies are structured in Dark Sun too. I don't think it would be odd to run a campaign where things like this never came up, but it feels like it would be a real retooling of the setting to remove slavery from the setting itself.

Click to expand...

Like I said, I was a player, not the DM, had virtually no knowledge of the setting before we started playing and this was a 4e game, about 13 years ago? So, sure, my recollection is pretty fuzzy. I enjoyed the game, I do remember that. And, as I said, slavery as a theme didn't stand out for me.

Then again, this was over a decade ago. My personal feelings about these sorts of things has changed over those years. I would like to think that I'm a bit more aware of social issues than I was back then. Hopefully. I'm trying to be better anyway.

Maxperson said:

So the argument is that people are too dumb to notice that having slavery in Dark Sun isn't support, so they will perceive it as support?

Click to expand...

Remember the Errata in Volo's with the Fire Giants? The implication that Players would engage in offering other beings in trade (aka Slave Trade) was removed.

Thats not even a settling, that was a piece of fluff around a single monster.

So yes, Wizards is unwilling to look like, or entertain the idea, that they would even suggest a Player, engages in anything like slavery.

And, just to clarify my earlier statements. I said that I was not particularly comfortable with the idea of running a Dark Sun campaign with slavery as a theme in a public venue - namely Adventurers League, which, if WotC produced a Dark Sun campaign book, there would be at least one season of Dark Sun AL games.

I got two general responses to that:

1. D&D isn't designed for public play.

Well, I'm not sure if it is or isn't. But, I do know that back in the days of 3e, the RPGA ran in the hundreds of thousands of members. I've no idea how many people play AL, but, I imagine its rather a lot. And, Adventurer's League is probably the most public face of gaming there is. This is many people's first experience with D&D and I'd much rather it was as positive an experience as possible. Like I said, I'm not particularly comfortable running an "Escape slavery" scenario with a bunch of strangers. There are just FAR too many ways that could go horribly wrong.

2. If I don't like it, don't play it.

This response I feel far more strongly about though. Basically, I'm being told that not every aspect of the hobby is "for" everyone. That is something I strongly disagree with. I might not like something, it might not be to my taste, fair enough. But, being told to essentially "Shut up or there's the door" for not wanting to play pretend slavery in a public venue is much more of a problem than WotC not publishing a book.

Because, that's what "If you don't like it don't play it" means. It means, "If you don't like it, too bad, shut up or there's the door". It's the exact opposite of being inclusive. "Oh, you don't like it, well, I guess you're not welcome at these tables" is NEVER a message I would ever want to see in a public facing venue like Adventurers League.

It's incredibly anti-inclusive. It's basically telling anyone who doesn't agree with you that their opinion is not even a consideration.

----------

Now, to be absolutely, 100% clear here. Just because I KNOW that this is necessary as a disclaimer:

I am only speaking about public play with strangers. I am not making ANY commentary on private, home games. My concern is ONLY about public gaming. Please do not respond to me about your home games, or offer counter examples that are not DIRECTLY CONCERNED with public gaming.

I suppose the operative question then, one which I at least cannot answer, is: does publishing a campaign setting obligate Wizards to include it in organized play?

Kaodi said:

I suppose the operative question then, one which I at least cannot answer, is: does publishing a campaign setting obligate Wizards to include it in organized play?

Click to expand...

Probably.

Ruin Explorer said:

And you don't need chattel slavery specifically even for sword'n'sandal - any sufficiently unfair conditions will work, and indentured servitude is absolutely unfair enough.

Click to expand...

Does that really work for all the Cancel Folks though? As long as it's not "chattel slavery" is any bad society ok?

Like if you reskin Dark Sun to just "Feudal like" where all the folks are just "workers" that "work for" a Dragon King in the most horrible way of life possible because they are not "slaves". They are only "trapped" in the cities in theory and could leave the cities and be happy and free...except, though, not REALLY as that is impossible.

So like the folks "vote" in elections....but the Drago King always wins...wink,wink, nod, nod....and like sands through the hourglass, so are the days of our lives?

bloodtide said:

Does that really work for all the Cancel Folks though? As long as it's not "chattel slavery" is any bad society ok?

Like if you reskin Dark Sun to just "Feudal like" where all the folks are just "workers" that "work for" a Dragon King in the most horrible way of life possible because they are not "slaves". They are only "trapped" in the cities in theory and could leave the cities and be happy and free...except, though, not REALLY as that is impossible.

So like the folks "vote" in elections....but the Drago King always wins...wink,wink, nod, nod....and like sands through the hourglass, so are the days of our lives?

Click to expand...

What is wrong with free and fair elections, the dictator supports them