Cap'n Kobold
Hero
If I had to stick a label on Xen'Drik, it would probably be closer to Fallout than Africa.
This is entirely what that "politically correct bs" is.
D&D General D&D Settings with No Problematic Areas?
Snarf Zagyg
Notorious Liquefactionist
All art would not be prevented. That is hyperbole. I think that some people are underestimating two interrelated issues.
A. Chilling Effects.
This is a commonly known issue, and why (in most Western countries) we try to have expansive protections for free discourse. It's not just about the art that gets banned, or removed, or suffer commercially, it's about all the art that doesn't get made because the artists do not want to worry about those issues.
Since we are all alluding to Hamilton right now, most people in life are Aaron Burr ("Smile more, Don't let them know what you're against or what you're for"). If you want more and better speech, you need to worry about chilling effects.
B. Barriers to Entry.
Cultural consultants are a great idea! But when you think about it, you realize ... wait, they have to get paid. Right? And who is going to pay them? For a big Hollywood production, it's not that big of a deal. For a huge company like Hasbro, it's a minor thing. But what if you're a small company in the TTRPG space? What if you're a solo designer that works on small (or negative!) margins? That's a massive added cost- or, put another way, that's a cost (a "barrier to entry") to publish that kind of material.
If you publish something that doesn't need a cultural consultant, then you're fine. Which means that suddenly materials that tackle certain subjects will most likely only be undertaken by those that can afford to do so.
I don't want oversell these issues; great artists have worked under much more stringent regimes (in fact, art should provoke, shock, and offend). But assuming that there is no cost or effect of this isn't correct either; there is no such thing as a free lunch.
Yeah. Every time you want to say "politically correct" stop and replace it with, "thoughtful/respectful of others" and see how it goes.
ChaosOS
Legend
While Xen'drik has its curses that stop civilization, it's (intentionally!) coded as "The Darkest Continent". Xen'drik is the South America that Indiana Jones is exploring in the opening scene of Raiders of the Lost Ark. Xen'drik is the Africa of pulp comics from the 50's. The main inhabitants have consistently been the drow, who have in many unfortunate pieces of art been cast as "jungle savages". That's what Keith is talking about - breaking that coding by adding depth to Drow culture, even within the constraints of the curses on Xen'drik.
Shardstone
Hero
9/10 times, a problematic issue in a piece of fiction can be fixed by simply fleshing out the issue.
Flesh out the drow to be something other than 1-dimensional cheesy villains.
Flesh out the orcs to be more than 1-dimensional savages.
So on and so forth.
People talk about how its great to have good & evil, but having good & evil is a totally separate conversation that has nothing to do with this.
Don't forget that Tolkien's orcs were redeemable in Tolkien's mind and were not just 1-dimensional monsters but instead an engineered race who, again according to Tolkien, could potentially find redemption in life. They had cultures, and though they were twisted, they were twisted by a higher power and had the potential to find a way out of that darker power.
So yes, you can have good & evil. No need to walk on eggshells. Instead, stop half-assing your fantasy, put some thought into what you're doing, and stop getting insulted because you aren't being censored, you're just being told to put more effort in.
Back in the 70s/80s when most of you guys were getting into D&D, all of this stuff was new; the baseline WAS the effort. Now its 2020. We've seen the baseline and decided its for the best for both the culture & the game if people put in more effort into their Fantasy worlds.
This doesn't mean the villain has to be redeemed. Spoiler: the orcs almost entirely were wiped out. Its ok to have bad guys lose. Its ok to have bad guys that won't be redeemed at all. And yes, its even ok to have something be evil for the sake of being evil, but you have to show people why your villain is like that. Is it because the pleasures of evil outweigh the pains of being good? Is it because a traumatic past? Is it because of a higher power twisting you into darkness? So on and so forth.
Just try a little harder. That's what society is asking for. Nothing more, nothing less.
And, also, if you do not want to try harder, that's ok too! You don't have too. KNow why? You can make your OWN art and run your OWN games and do WHATEVER It is that you want. DON'T try harder if you don't want too. But for Buddha's sake, don't go online and start complaining about how people are asking for more of you. That's what teenagers do in High School when they're given homework. We're better than that.
Flesh out the drow to be something other than 1-dimensional cheesy villains.
Flesh out the orcs to be more than 1-dimensional savages.
So on and so forth.
People talk about how its great to have good & evil, but having good & evil is a totally separate conversation that has nothing to do with this.
Don't forget that Tolkien's orcs were redeemable in Tolkien's mind and were not just 1-dimensional monsters but instead an engineered race who, again according to Tolkien, could potentially find redemption in life. They had cultures, and though they were twisted, they were twisted by a higher power and had the potential to find a way out of that darker power.
So yes, you can have good & evil. No need to walk on eggshells. Instead, stop half-assing your fantasy, put some thought into what you're doing, and stop getting insulted because you aren't being censored, you're just being told to put more effort in.
Back in the 70s/80s when most of you guys were getting into D&D, all of this stuff was new; the baseline WAS the effort. Now its 2020. We've seen the baseline and decided its for the best for both the culture & the game if people put in more effort into their Fantasy worlds.
This doesn't mean the villain has to be redeemed. Spoiler: the orcs almost entirely were wiped out. Its ok to have bad guys lose. Its ok to have bad guys that won't be redeemed at all. And yes, its even ok to have something be evil for the sake of being evil, but you have to show people why your villain is like that. Is it because the pleasures of evil outweigh the pains of being good? Is it because a traumatic past? Is it because of a higher power twisting you into darkness? So on and so forth.
Just try a little harder. That's what society is asking for. Nothing more, nothing less.
And, also, if you do not want to try harder, that's ok too! You don't have too. KNow why? You can make your OWN art and run your OWN games and do WHATEVER It is that you want. DON'T try harder if you don't want too. But for Buddha's sake, don't go online and start complaining about how people are asking for more of you. That's what teenagers do in High School when they're given homework. We're better than that.
Or forget the just Drow and treat Xen'Drik like the blank space on the map it was also designed to be. Just because people have filled in some of the blanks there doesn't mean you have to use their coloring. Just ask the waitress for a new one and some fresh crayons, you'll be fine.
Shardstone
Hero
Exactly.
I'm super liberal and pretty PC myself but I don't look at settings as problematic, I look at them as collections of tropes combined with fresh ideas engineered to stimulate my imagination. The problematic part only becomes really problematic to me when its reinforcing stuff that shouldn't be reinforced.
For what its worth, Xen'Drik and the Drow there are not "savages," but instead a people disenfranchised by Giant masters who now, without those masters, are struggling to rise up from a very hostile, very cursed jungle. Its not reflecting racism in this, its showing how sentient beings (in otherwords, mankind) must learn to deal with a naughty word hand and rise above it all.
EDIT: Can it be read racist? Yes. But that is not the sole reading, nor the one that holds the most water IMO.
It seems like the best occasion I can think of to explore some different ideas about the Drow really. Divorced from the Underdark and without the Lolth thing you can write them pretty much however you want. I think I'd rather lean into the Thri-kreen angle, but that's just me. Preying Mantis Monks battling undead giants in the jungle sounds awesome.
GreenTengu
Adventurer
I wonder which type of world would work better....
One that is like Star Trek where races mostly live separate and are very much antagonistic, everyone has their "hat" which pretty much defines their culture-- but while their cultures might have some very serious negative aspects, they also aren't entirely without virtues and individuals can be quite sympathetic. Enemies are usually lone actors or the wars come about due to stubbornness on both sides, an impass that just can't be negotiated past until one or the other suffers a tragedy great enough that the old wounds are forgotten.... So make them more like Vulcans, Andorans, Klingons, Orions, Romulans, Ferangi, Bajorins, Cardassians, etc.-- So world peace wouldn't be impossible-- it would just be very difficult to get and even more difficult to maintain.
Or would it be better to be like Star Wars, where you have all sorts of alien creatures that are mingling freely everywhere and any defining traits that any but the most isolated races have are so subdued that it isn't really possible to really have much in the way of clear stereotypes about them. So the races would be more like Rodians, Twileks, Ithorians, Devorians, Duros, Wookies, etc. -- basically there would be hardly any inner-race conflict because the real battles are between the good faction and the bad faction which are both primarily human.
The former obviously gives way more opportunity to really give the race a lot of overall traits that would shape what an individual from that race would be like, the later would make race hardly anything more than just how the character looks.
For the next D&D world-- which method would be preferable? Both would allow for all races to be heroes or villains, but is it better for race to very much inform what a character is like or to make it more of a surface-level aspect?
One that is like Star Trek where races mostly live separate and are very much antagonistic, everyone has their "hat" which pretty much defines their culture-- but while their cultures might have some very serious negative aspects, they also aren't entirely without virtues and individuals can be quite sympathetic. Enemies are usually lone actors or the wars come about due to stubbornness on both sides, an impass that just can't be negotiated past until one or the other suffers a tragedy great enough that the old wounds are forgotten.... So make them more like Vulcans, Andorans, Klingons, Orions, Romulans, Ferangi, Bajorins, Cardassians, etc.-- So world peace wouldn't be impossible-- it would just be very difficult to get and even more difficult to maintain.
Or would it be better to be like Star Wars, where you have all sorts of alien creatures that are mingling freely everywhere and any defining traits that any but the most isolated races have are so subdued that it isn't really possible to really have much in the way of clear stereotypes about them. So the races would be more like Rodians, Twileks, Ithorians, Devorians, Duros, Wookies, etc. -- basically there would be hardly any inner-race conflict because the real battles are between the good faction and the bad faction which are both primarily human.
The former obviously gives way more opportunity to really give the race a lot of overall traits that would shape what an individual from that race would be like, the later would make race hardly anything more than just how the character looks.
For the next D&D world-- which method would be preferable? Both would allow for all races to be heroes or villains, but is it better for race to very much inform what a character is like or to make it more of a surface-level aspect?
ChaosOS
Legend
And as I quoted, Keith is clearly on board with these ideas and may even get around to them this year. Not sure if you follow his blog, but he does a monthly deep dive on topics decided by his patreon. Sarlona 5e and Nobles of Khorvaire tied last month, but due to family issues the Sarlona post got pushed back to this week and the Nobles piece will presumably be at the end of the month. I'm hoping I can campaign to get Drow:Revisited as the August topic.
