D&D General Dark Sun as a Hopepunk Setting

[Steampunkette]

Slavery on Athas

When the Sorcerer Kings conquered Athas with their terrible magics they eagerly took slaves of every people they could. Now, centuries later, the legacy of this vile system continues, as Sorcerer Kings, their currently favored merchants, and the Templars trade in flesh for coin. For who else could afford such? Many of the more dangerous or filthy tasks across the city-states of Athas are performed by slaves. Those who own and operate mines to supply materials to the city-states are often granted shipments of slaves procured by the Templars from those who fail to pay homage or taxes to the Sorcerer Kings as an example.

The common folk of Athas hate and fear the practice, as any of them might be bound, branded, and dragged to the mines at a moment's notice. But fear of the Templars and the mystical might of the Sorcerer Kings cows all but the most defiant. Now and again some would-be hero tries to rally a revolt among the slaves, and in the weeks that follow those cullings the Templars patrol the streets in greater numbers, looking for any infraction that might give pretense to brand a new worker for their Sorcerer Kings' glory.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tadaaaaah! Presented as evil. Presented as cruel. Presented as hated by the people of Athas. Delivered likely from the perspective of someone living on Athas itself. (A Wanderer, perhaps?)

And it highlights it all without apologizing for it. Without begging forgiveness of the person reading it for it's presence. No. It tells you "This is what it is. This is why it's hated. Here is who does it. Here are the consequences for opposing it." Simple. Easy. Direct.

And in two paragraphs I've given an antihero whose course touches on slavery some good quality angst and revulsion among the common folk for their deeds in easy to understand terms.

 

[mamba]

It's more that I feel that a setting book should present setting information rather than spending page count on explaining why the way people may have been using the setting before does not fit the views of the person hired to present a 5e version of the setting.

It is my view that, if the person writing the book feels the need to apologize for writing the book, then maybe they shouldn't write the book.

that doesn’t sound at all like what you wrote in your previous post. I agree that they should not spend many pages on that, but objectively describing the evils of slavery and whatever else is going on in the DS history will / should result in a description in which that evil is reflected as evil and not as “the slaves benefited from slavery too, not just their masters, they learned valuable skills after all’. I am fine with that kind of rhetoric staying confined to Florida

 

[Micah Sweet]

Slavery on Athas

When the Sorcerer Kings conquered Athas with their terrible magics they eagerly took slaves of every people they could. Now, centuries later, the legacy of this vile system continues, as Sorcerer Kings, their currently favored merchants, and the Templars trade in flesh for coin. For who else could afford such? Many of the more dangerous or filthy tasks across the city-states of Athas are performed by slaves. Those who own and operate mines to supply materials to the city-states are often granted shipments of slaves procured by the Templars from those who fail to pay homage or taxes to the Sorcerer Kings as an example.

The common folk of Athas hate and fear the practice, as any of them might be bound, branded, and dragged to the mines at a moment's notice. But fear of the Templars and the mystical might of the Sorcerer Kings cows all but the most defiant. Now and again some would-be hero tries to rally a revolt among the slaves, and in the weeks that follow those cullings the Templars patrol the streets in greater numbers, looking for any infraction that might give pretense to brand a new worker for their Sorcerer Kings' glory.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tadaaaaah! Presented as evil. Presented as cruel. Presented as hated by the people of Athas. Delivered likely from the perspective of someone living on Athas itself. (A Wanderer, perhaps?)

And it highlights it all without apologizing for it. Without begging forgiveness of the person reading it for it's presence. No. It tells you "This is what it is. This is why it's hated. Here is who does it. Here are the consequences for opposing it." Simple. Easy. Direct.

And in two paragraphs I've given an antihero whose course touches on slavery some good quality angst and revulsion among the common folk for their deeds in easy to understand terms.

Good write up!

 

[Rainbow Scissors]

Ahhh, I see. You can't comprehend a book in which slavery is described as an evil that isn't an apology for having slavery in the setting.

Interesting. But also a skill issue.

And you don't want moral judgement passed on your "Less than Moral" characters... Again, Skissue. If you make a character who is motivated by power/greed/revenge/whatever it'd be really pathetic if they were treated no differently than the shiningly altruistic hero they could be. No, they should be looked on with a complicated mix of disdain for their willingness to engage in evil and admiration for their ultimate goal and ability to achieve it.

Anything less really just cheapens the concept of playing a character who isn't heroic. Like why would you even bother to be an antihero if you're not going to have people hate your methods but grudgingly accept your success?

None of that is what I have stated, so no.

I have only stated that a setting book should present the setting.

People, places, and things within the setting may very well have opinions about how a character behaves, and I expect that they would. The general outlook of those people, places, and things could even be described, much in the same way that a generalized outlook of dwarves, elves, or Red Wizards of Thay are described in other settings.

However, the setting as its own entity should be presented as its own entity. That entity can (and should) certainly detail various pieces of the setting (including details such as those described in the previous paragraph) in their respective chapters, sidebars, or information entries. Though, those entries are subcomponents of the setting as a whole rather than the other way around.

 

[Rainbow Scissors]

Slavery on Athas

When the Sorcerer Kings conquered Athas with their terrible magics they eagerly took slaves of every people they could. Now, centuries later, the legacy of this vile system continues, as Sorcerer Kings, their currently favored merchants, and the Templars trade in flesh for coin. For who else could afford such? Many of the more dangerous or filthy tasks across the city-states of Athas are performed by slaves. Those who own and operate mines to supply materials to the city-states are often granted shipments of slaves procured by the Templars from those who fail to pay homage or taxes to the Sorcerer Kings as an example.

The common folk of Athas hate and fear the practice, as any of them might be bound, branded, and dragged to the mines at a moment's notice. But fear of the Templars and the mystical might of the Sorcerer Kings cows all but the most defiant. Now and again some would-be hero tries to rally a revolt among the slaves, and in the weeks that follow those cullings the Templars patrol the streets in greater numbers, looking for any infraction that might give pretense to brand a new worker for their Sorcerer Kings' glory.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tadaaaaah! Presented as evil. Presented as cruel. Presented as hated by the people of Athas. Delivered likely from the perspective of someone living on Athas itself. (A Wanderer, perhaps?)

And it highlights it all without apologizing for it. Without begging forgiveness of the person reading it for it's presence. No. It tells you "This is what it is. This is why it's hated. Here is who does it. Here are the consequences for opposing it." Simple. Easy. Direct.

And in two paragraphs I've given an antihero whose course touches on slavery some good quality angst and revulsion among the common folk for their deeds in easy to understand terms.

That's a very well written entry. I feel that would be great for a component piece of the setting or a foreword for an adventure path.

 

[Steampunkette]

None of that is what I have stated, so no.

I have only stated that a setting book should present the setting.

People, places, and things within the setting may very well have opinions about how a character behaves, and I expect that they would. The general outlook of those people, places, and things could even be described, much in the same way that a generalized outlook of dwarves, elves, or Red Wizards of Thay are described in other settings.

However, the setting as its own entity should be presented as its own entity. That entity can (and should) certainly detail various pieces of the setting (including details such as those described in the previous paragraph) in their respective chapters, sidebars, or information entries. Though, those entries are subcomponents of the setting as a whole rather than the other way around.

Enjoy your motte and bailey. But I ain't having it.

Maybe... sorta...

The idea you propose sounds like it could be a fun game and a very reward experience.

I think, for me, even with the "problematic" warts of the setting...
In my mind, if I am going to play Dark Sun, I think I want some of the harshness that comes with it.
Less Star Wars and more Fallout as a Fabio novel cover, Django, Sword & Sandal, and the Outlaw Josey Wales.

I'm okay with some of the evil things being presented as somewhat neutral on a setting book because I am reading a setting book to understand what about a setting makes it different than other settings. I want to know the state of things as they are and how they are presented. I feel that a setting book which spends too much time apologizing for showing me the setting is a book that is telling me that I should not buy it. I feel that it would be a mental disconnect for me to spend money on a setting and to then have the setting guilt trip me for wanting to play the setting.

While I find the idea of a Hopepunk setting intriguing, and I can even see that being a fun way to play Dark Sun, it is not what I would want out of Dark Sun. I accept that settings change. But, I think there is a difference between changing small details and changing the core design philosophy of an established setting.

Realistically, I am one person. I imagine there are many people who would simply buy whatever is presented as "Dark Sun," as long as it has the D&D logo on it. If that's what was presented to me at a table, I would likely just be happy to play D&D. Even so, I hope there is some spiritual successor to a harsher Dark Sun in the future, even if it isn't called Dark Sun.

Perhaps you may know people who need that. That is neither what I have said nor what I need.

It's more that I feel that a setting book should present setting information rather than spending page count on explaining why the way people may have been using the setting before does not fit the views of the person hired to present a 5e version of the setting.

It is my view that, if the person writing the book feels the need to apologize for writing the book, then maybe they shouldn't write the book. By the same token, if the person is using page count to tell me what is badwrongfun but also simultaneously making money on selling me something that they feel I shouldn't be playing... I guess it kinda feels like buying drugs from a substance abuse counselor and then needing to have a meeting with them about it the next day

Here you are, twice, saying that the setting would be "Apologizing" for just flatly stating that evil things are evil. In fact, in the second one you think the writer who writes about how evil things are evil SHOULDN'T WRITE. That's really weird.

Anyway. Don't try to hide from your past arguments and positions. Just acknowledge that it can be done and move on, rather than pretending you didn't say the things you did.

"I have only stated" my left foot.

 

[Rainbow Scissors]

Enjoy your motte and bailey. But I ain't having it.


Here you are, twice, saying that the setting would be "Apologizing" for just flatly stating that evil things are evil. In fact, in the second one you think the writer who writes about how evil things are evil SHOULDN'T WRITE. That's really weird.

Anyway. Don't try to hide from your past arguments and positions. Just acknowledge that it can be done and move on, rather than pretending you didn't say the things you did.

"I have only stated" my left foot.

There's not anything to hide from. You bolded part of my statement, but that is neither the context nor the meaning of the entirety of my statement. I feel that you are taking an antagonistic stance against something that I am not even saying.

Your accusation that I said that someone writing about evil should not write is not accurate. What I said was, "It is my view that, if the person writing the book feels the need to apologize for writing the book, then maybe they shouldn't write the book. By the same token, if the person is using page count to tell me what is badwrongfun but also simultaneously making money on selling me something that they feel I shouldn't be playing... I guess it kinda feels like buying drugs from a substance abuse counselor and then needing to have a meeting with them about it the next day."

I bolded the same part that you bolded so that it could be compared to the underlined (and more complete part) of what I said. The bolded part in isolation is a very different thing than what I actually said.

So, how is it different?

There's a big different between saying,"...a writer who writes about how evil things are evil shouldn't write..." versus saying that I would questioning the concept of someone writing a Dark Sun setting and selling it to me when that same someone does not want Dark Sun to be Dark Sun. That is not saying to not write about evil. That is commenting that someone who were to choose to create, sell, write, and participate in publishing content that they espouse as being badwrongfun content is odd to me. Additionally, I -as a prospective customer of a product- would prefer a product that does what it tells me it does and is what it advertises itself to be rather that a product that goes the extra mile to no longer do what I expect it to do. I expect that a setting book presents a setting to me.

I'm not even sure what you mean by "acknowledge that it can be done..."
I have not said that your proposal cannot be done. I have said literally the opposite: that it can be done, and it is even an idea that could be very fun to play.

So, yes, it can be done.

I feel that you are trying to attribute a point of view to me that is not one that I have.

 

[Corinnguard]

I may be misremembering, but I though that it was not explicit the Blue Age halfling ancestors used themselves as raw material to create the new species, or if the new species were life-shaped out of the ocean material everything else that was life-shaped.

They did use themselves as raw material. The Blue Age Halflings used the power of the Pristine Tower and the Obsidian Lens to transform themselves into the species of Athas' Green Age. I think this was mentioned in the final book of the Prism Pentad series.