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

[Staffan]

In all my years of playing D&D, I've never experienced PCs who wanted to buy slaves because they were rolling in wealth. I'm sure they exist, but I don't think it's common and I don't see why WotC would include such prices in their game. Come to think of it, because the economy is so wonky, would it even make sense to to own slaves from a strictly economic point of view? The Soviets kept a bunch of German POWs after World War II to use them as forced labor but finally gave up when they figured out the program cost them far more than they would ever get back.

I think that if you do make a setting where slavery is a big thing (like in Dark Sun or Al-Qadim), you should probably include prices for slaves – not necessarily for PCs to buy, but to establish what they cost. I remember that back when running Dark Sun it irked me that the only reference I had to slave prices was that one gold piece (which in other settings would be 100 gp) was considered an absolutely massive amount for one in one of the novels.

Now, Wizards probably isn't going to release a setting like that which would make it a moot point, but that's a different issue.

 

[Hussar]

The only thing I see WotC facilitating is butt kicking for goodness by defeating slavers and freeing people. Or is there something I'm missing? As for the prices, no. Why would they include that?

Now you get my point. They don't include something that is historically valid. After all, if we have slavery, then we have a price for buying and selling slaves. It's a pretty necessary part of including slave trade to know the value of a slave.

But, it's a line that you're not willing to cross. So, what's the difference? You're not willing to cross some lines and others are telling you that there are lines that they find very, very icky. Why should your lines be the ones that we follow? Shouldn't we try as hard as we can to make the game un-icky for as many people as possible?

After all, in a Lovecraft inspired world, half-elves would be drowned at birth and this would be considered a lawful and good act. Racial purity is the epitome of goodness in Lovecraft's world. So, why shouldn't we create D&D worlds inspired by Lovecraft?

 

[MGibster]

Now you get my point. They don't include something that is historically valid. After all, if we have slavery, then we have a price for buying and selling slaves. It's a pretty necessary part of including slave trade to know the value of a slave.

I kind of figured you were leading me somewhere. I didn't think it was necessary to include the price of slaves because I don't expect PCs to be buying and selling slaves. You know, because PCs are good guys.

But, it's a line that you're not willing to cross. So, what's the difference? You're not willing to cross some lines and others are telling you that there are lines that they find very, very icky. Why should your lines be the ones that we follow? Shouldn't we try as hard as we can to make the game un-icky for as many people as possible?

Why is it okay for WotC to have a genocide in one of their products but an evil society with slaves is wrong? That doesn't make sense to me. Trying as hard as possible to make the game as un-icky as possible for as many people as possible strikes me as a fools errand. You can't please everyone. You want to get rid of demons, devils, gods, and the various spells because it make some people feel icky?

After all, in a Lovecraft inspired world, half-elves would be drowned at birth and this would be considered a lawful and good act. Racial purity is the epitome of goodness in Lovecraft's world. So, why shouldn't we create D&D worlds inspired by Lovecraft?

I would be perfectly fine with an elven or human supremacist society that got rid of half-elves, half-humans, or even half-orcs this way. Lot's of great potential there for some fun adventuring and kicking but for goodness. We're talking about bad guys being bad guys, right? We're not talking about behavior we expect to see from the good guys, are we?

 

[Clint_L]

In what way is it different?


It's just as easy to choose or not choose to play D&D. I realize slavery is so distasteful to some people that they don't want to even see fictionalized accounts in a game, but I don't see why WotC should cater to that particular point of view.


They're publishing a game that revolves around violence as your basic conflict resolution device. At its basic core, D&D is still about kicking down doors, killing monsters, and getting loot. I think D&D will be perfectly fine if slavery is limited to the bad guys like Lloth worshippers in Menzoberrranzan.


Context does matter. I don't think it's a problem for teens to see fictionalized slavery in a fantasy game. If you don't want to deal with it at school, fine, there's nothing wrong with that. But it doesn't mean it needs to be excised from the game entirely. I don't believe that's any more reasonable than demanding demons and devils be removed from the game.

I very specifically did not say it should be excised from the game entirely. I very specifically stated that subjects like slavery or sexualized violence should be left to individual tables. I very specifically stated that WotC should not be using it in their adventures because dealing with it, given the actual historical context in which we live, needs nuance that does not lend itself to an all-ages product. Nor to a game that typically approaches topics with the nuance of a sledgehammer to the head.

There are plenty of IRL topics that are best avoided by WotC. If someone wants to make a niche adventure that is all about them, that’s great. But, for example, Lanefan suggested that “slaver” could be an acceptable background for a player character. I think it goes without saying why that should be a choice made at individual tables and not promoted by WotC.

 

[Necropolitan]

I very specifically did not say it should be excised from the game entirely. I very specifically stated that subjects like slavery or sexualized violence should be left to individual tables. I very specifically stated that WotC should not be using it in their adventures because dealing with it, given the actual historical context in which we live, needs nuance that does not lend itself to an all-ages product. Nor to a game that typically approaches topics with the nuance of a sledgehammer to the head.

There are plenty of IRL topics that are best avoided by WotC. If someone wants to make a niche adventure that is all about them, that’s great. But, for example, Lanefan suggested that “slaver” could be an acceptable background for a player character. I think it goes without saying why that should be a choice made at individual tables and not promoted by WotC.

None of the 5E adventure paths would have been made then since all of them have slaver villains at some point in them.

 

[MGibster]

I very specifically stated that WotC should not be using it in their adventures because dealing with it, given the actual historical context in which we live, needs nuance that does not lend itself to an all-ages product.

I very specifically disagree with you. I think bad guys who are slavers is perfectly fine fodder for a game whose central premise is butt kicking in the name of goodness. i.e. It was perfectly fine for TSR to have bad guys who were slavers just as its perfectly fine for WotC to do the same.

 

[Clint_L]

I very specifically disagree with you. I think bad guys who are slavers is perfectly fine fodder for a game whose central premise is butt kicking in the name of goodness. i.e. It was perfectly fine for TSR to have bad guys who were slavers just as its perfectly fine for WotC to do the same.

I’m going to be blunt: slavery as previously depicted in TSR era products does not remotely resemble the horror of IRL slavery. It is a disneyfied interpretation that is massively unrealistic and turns slavery into just another easy “evil” signifier. There is zero attempt to ask players or DMs to consider the context or implications. There is zero consideration given to the fact that a many people are still dealing with the repercussions of slavery or sexual violence and maybe find it insulting to see subjects like these turned into cartoonish entertainment.

In my job, we do in fact explore such subjects. We do so with great care and rigour. We don’t ignore the many implications and real world traumas that are associated. We certainly don’t treat them as cheap entertainment.

 

[MGibster]

I’m going to be blunt: slavery as previously depicted in TSR era products does not remotely resemble the horror of IRL slavery. It is a disneyfied interpretation that is massively unrealistic and turns slavery into just another easy “evil” signifier.

We're in agreement D&D doesn't do a great job of depicting the horrors of slavery as it existed in real life. But I don't expect D&D to depict slavery accurately anymore than I expect them to depict the real life horrors of violence, so it isn't a problem for me.

There is zero consideration given to the fact that a many people are still dealing with the repercussions of slavery or sexual violence and maybe find it insulting to see subjects like these turned into cartoonish entertainment.

There's zero consideration given to the many people who have had violence impact their lives. Maybe someone's had to sleep in the bathtub at night because their parents were afraid of stray bullet at night, maybe someone's dad is missing a leg he left behind in Iraq, maybe someone has witnessed their father beating his mother, or maybe some kid has been under threat of violence this entire semester from some bullies. Violence continues to impact quite a few Americna lives these days.

In my job, we do in fact explore such subjects. We do so with great care and rigour. We don’t ignore the many implications and real world traumas that are associated. We certainly don’t treat them as cheap entertainment.

D&D is a game predicated on committing violence. Every time you play, you're treating violence as a form of cheap entertainment. I keep pointing to Curse of Strahd with it's child abuse, genocide, drug abuse, domestic violence, etc., etc. but that apprently is perfectly fine whereas slavery shouldn't be included because it's turned into cartoonish entertainment. I made my peace with this a long time ago, but D&D turns all sorts of subjects into cartoonish entertainment. It's a feature not a bug.

I think we've ridden this horse about as far as we can get. While I disagree with your conclusion, you've taken the time to converse about a subject you care deeply about in a respectful, thoughtful manner which is greatly appreciated. I just don't think we're ever going to see eye-to-eye on this.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think that if you do make a setting where slavery is a big thing (like in Dark Sun or Al-Qadim), you should probably include prices for slaves – not necessarily for PCs to buy, but to establish what they cost. I remember that back when running Dark Sun it irked me that the only reference I had to slave prices was that one gold piece (which in other settings would be 100 gp) was considered an absolutely massive amount for one in one of the novels.

Now, Wizards probably isn't going to release a setting like that which would make it a moot point, but that's a different issue.

A moot point if you only care about what WotC does.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Why is it okay for WotC to have a genocide in one of their products but an evil society with slaves is wrong?

You know, people keep saying that Curse of Strahd has genocide, and it has been bugging me, because I've had multiple DMs attempt to run me through that campaign and while the game always falls apart, no one has ever mentioned a genocide.

So, I pulled out my copy and... I can't find a genocide in the book. The closest I get is this "After the death of his Father, King Barov, Strahd waged long, bloody wars against his family's enemies. He and his army cornered the last of these enemies in a remote mountain valley before slaying them all." And, I could see this being a genocide, but it is so vague it could also be the elimination of an army. So, is this the genocide you keep referring to? Because, I think it is very telling that it is incredibly vague.

Also, since I know Strahd is older than 5e, can we make sure to keep this to 5e materials, specifically the Curse of Strahd adventure? I'm not sure it really counts as "using it in the adventure" if it was a 2e adventure from TSR that did it.