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

[MGibster]

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.

The original I-6 Ravenloft was a single adventure, so to adapt it into a fullblown campaign WotC added quite a bit to Curse of Strahd. Near the town of Vallaki, player characters might encounter the dusk elves who are described as having dark hair and dark skin but are otherwise just wood elves. Four centuries priod to the campaign, after the death of Strahd's boo Tatyana, Petrina Velikovna, a dusk elf herself, petitioned Strahd to make her his bride. Thinking it wasn't a great idea for someone evil like Petrina to hook up with a monster like Strahd, they stoned her to death. Strahd responded by slaughtering all the dusk elf women and forced the surviving men to remain in Barovia to watch them languish and eventually die out.

So, yeah. It's there. Check out all the other icky stuff in the campaign as well.

 

[Hussar]

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.


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?

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?

In reverse order. In a Lovecraft inspired setting, no, the good guys would be the supremicists. After all, that's what Lovecraft advocates in his works. Like, repeatedly. So, you kinda might see why I don't really think Lovecraft is a particularly good source for inspiration for D&D.

A historical genocide that occurs centuries before the adventure is a tiny bit different than ongoing slavery occuring during a campaign. You really don't see the difference?

Considering two different posters already told you why they wanted the price of slaves in the game, do you still think that "well, the PC's are the good guys" is going to make a difference as to whether there is a price for slaves in the PHB? Like I said, we've all got lines we don't want WotC to cross.

 

[MGibster]

In reverse order. In a Lovecraft inspired setting, no, the good guys would be the supremicists. After all, that's what Lovecraft advocates in his works. Like, repeatedly. So, you kinda might see why I don't really think Lovecraft is a particularly good source for inspiration for D&D.

I think your underlying premise is faulty. Call of Cthulhu is a fairly popular game inspired by the work of H.P. Lovecraft that's been in publication for more than forty years now. I don't know if you've ever read the rules or played it, but the supremacist are not the good guys.

A historical genocide that occurs centuries before the adventure is a tiny bit different than ongoing slavery occuring during a campaign. You really don't see the difference?

I really don't see a significant difference.

Considering two different posters already told you why they wanted the price of slaves in the game, do you still think that "well, the PC's are the good guys" is going to make a difference as to whether there is a price for slaves in the PHB? Like I said, we've all got lines we don't want WotC to cross.

It doesn't make any difference to me. I'll say the same thing I said to Chaosmancer. We're not going to see eye-to-eye on this. You've explained your position, I've explained my position, and we're not going to reach a concensus. I don't feel as though there's any reason to continue this conversation. I understand where you're coming from but I don't share your opinion.

 

[Maxperson]

As a member of the Jewish community, I don't think that getting rid of liches having phylacteries is progress in the slightest.

When the discussion came up here, every jewish person(including me) who chimed in said it didn't bother them and we didn't use that term in every day life.

 

[Hussar]

I think your underlying premise is faulty. Call of Cthulhu is a fairly popular game inspired by the work of H.P. Lovecraft that's been in publication for more than forty years now. I don't know if you've ever read the rules or played it, but the supremacist are not the good guys.

But, therein lies the difference. Remember, my original point was removing Lovecraft from the list of inspirational reading for D&D. Not removing everything inspired by Lovecraft. Simply removing him from that specific list.

Call of Cthulhu, while obviously borrowing the monsters and whatnot from the Mythos, is about as far from Lovecraft's writing as you can possibly get. And very deliberately so. The publishers have repeatedly distanced themselves as much as humanly possible and been very clear about the distancing between the game and Lovecraft's actual works.

Therein lies the difference. The list in the Players Handbook just says, "Hey, here's this author we think you should read to inspire your game." Whereas Call of Cthulhu has spent a LOT of pages talking about the issues with Lovecraft.

 

[Staffan]

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?

I'm not the person you're replying to, but: I do not believe it is morally wrong for Wizards (or anyone else) to make books with slavery in them. However, it is a sensitive topic (moreso in the US than in Europe), and it is perfectly fair for a player to say they have enough of that stuff in real life and don't want to deal with it in their fantasy game. That means that there are a fair portion of gaming groups that won't touch things with slavery in them, and that makes including it a bad commercial decision.

 

[MGibster]

I'm not the person you're replying to, but: I do not believe it is morally wrong for Wizards (or anyone else) to make books with slavery in them. However, it is a sensitive topic (moreso in the US than in Europe), and it is perfectly fair for a player to say they have enough of that stuff in real life and don't want to deal with it in their fantasy game. That means that there are a fair portion of gaming groups that won't touch things with slavery in them, and that makes including it a bad commercial decision.

You're right that it's perfectly fair for anyone not to want it in their game. Fair portion of gamers for whom it's a turn off? Bad commercial decision? I'll need some concrete evidence for that. If WotC came out with a campaign set in the Underdark, I don't believe they'd lose a significant number of sales because the Drow there own slaves.

 

[Reynard]

When the discussion came up here, every jewish person(including me) who chimed in said it didn't bother them and we didn't use that term in every day life.

It's pretty common for the most offended folks to be offended on behalf other other folks.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

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.

Hierarchy of needs vs harm I would guess. While most of the playerbase doesn't care less, there are demographics that are traditionally underrepresented amongst D&D players for which it could be unpleasant or even traumatic.

The numbers of people who would find graphic depictions of slavery enough of a turn-off to not play the game are probably higher than the numbers of those who would find graphic depictions of slavery enough of a turn-on that they insist on its inclusion.
The former are probably more the target audience that WotC are aiming D&D at rather than the latter as well.

 

[Maxperson]

It's pretty common for the most offended folks to be offended on behalf other other folks.

Which is somethin that I find to be offensive. If you* want to support me when I am offended at something, that's fine. If you* want to guess at what might offend me and then argue that it's offensive, you've* gone too far.

*General you