D&D 5E Dark Sun, problematic content, and 5E…

[EzekielRaiden]

Thanks for that @ExekielRaiden. I honestly have only kinda skimmed the MtG lore on this. I got the whole Borg, body horror thing. But, honestly, had not really thought much about the deeper implications of it. Thank you for giving me something to think about and possibly bring up with my players before I decide to use it.

Like I said, I was very surface skimming stuff. I found a neat GM's Binder version of Phyrexia for D&D and it had lots of interesting goodies. I thought it would fit nicely in my Spelljammer game actually. HRm... will have to cogitate on this a bit more.

To be clear, I only meant the "don't do that" in the context of making Phyrexians official D&D content--that would be opening a Pandora's box that I don't think WotC wants to open. If your players are on board, absolutely you should use them, they're extremely effective horror enemies on multiple levels, like you say, very Borg, but with a certain sharper edge because there's no coming back from being "compleated." I guess you could say, they're a somewhat more realistic take on the "Always Evil" concept. The very nature of Phyrexians is corruptive, consumptive, purging. The only way you could ever "make peace" with them is to fundamentally change what they are and then make peace with whatever new thing they become.* So, assuming your players are on board, they make GREAT "simple" villains, while still having just that thin tracery of "if only..."

* I don't read the novels, I just hear things, but this is what I expect to happen. Under Elesh Norn, the Phyrexians will get wiped out again, except for the Red faction. Their praetor, whose name escapes me, will find something (perhaps modified Halo--angelic essence) that will allow his faction to live alongside non-Phyrexians without issues, but it will change them as a result. But they'd be fine with that, because change is very Red. Thus, "New Phyrexia" will become savage and ruthless but capable of cooperation with outsiders.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Not true. Many of us did (and do) care. We dedicated our lives and careers to fighting this kind of injustice. Respectfully, you are not qualified to make generalisations like this. Please stop.

Forgive my skepticism when people are ignoring the people bothered by it because they either really want a fantasy campaign setting rebooted without any consideration for them or spiting people for daring raise the concern.

 

[Mind of tempest]

The Hadozee from Spelljammer were monkey people who were ex-slaves (up-lifted from animals !!!?) depicted in the minstrel pose in the new Spelljammer on top of being depicted as 'happy in labor' in a previous incarnation. Basically, racism Voltron.

I think they are referring to the whole Hadozee thing in the late summer of last year. It was kind of a boneheaded error by Wizards to let through some problematic new backstory, which happened (according to Kyle Brink on the 3 Black Halflings Podcast) because a senior employee wrote it and it didn't get a sensitivity check.

Which, at least to the positive, he says that they are now doing sensitivity checks on everything they write, which is actually really good if true and hopefully stop some of the more preventable mistakes in the future.

ah those guy must have blanked on them as I never got the book myself.

You can do what you want. The big company making general audience products should probably check themselves.

Especially since it took them 48 years to even have a book written exclusively by PoCs and they use slavery as extra spicy flavor for whenever they need a trite backstory for a new species instead of as an exploration of what happened and what it means.

past even the moral component then endless set of evil guys enslaving people seems overused are there no other evils available for them to perform what happened to conquest, robbery or other lesser stuff?

Forgive my skepticism when people are ignoring the people bothered by it because they either really want a fantasy campaign setting rebooted without any consideration for them or spiting people for daring raise the concern.

we do seem to oddly talk about it here you are right?

 

[Vaalingrade]

past even the moral component then endless set of evil guys enslaving people seems overused are there no other evils available for them to perform what happened to conquest, robbery or other lesser stuff?

About fifty years ago, someone taught a producer in Hollywood and a publisher in New York the word 'stakes', but never 'pacing' or 'proportion', and now here we are with death being the absolute least severe stake people understand with things escalating beyond the pale almost immediately.

Batman used to fight bank robbers. Now Gotham has to burn the ground every three months, killing thousands and even the Ventriloquist has child bodies on their rap sheet. And the game about robbing dragons and gnomes piloting giant robots (no I will never let that go--why isn't this a thing more often instead of this grimdark garbage?) needs to import human misery from a decades old setting aping a nearly a century old book series about wild theories about the Bronze Age Collapse to get its edge on.

 

[Mark Hope]

Forgive my skepticism when people are ignoring the people bothered by it because they either really want a fantasy campaign setting rebooted without any consideration for them or spiting people for daring raise the concern.

You are taking an extremely hostile view of people who have argued that there is room for problematic content when that content is approached in an appropriate manner. Rather than accepting that people can see things differently to you, you've chosen to characterise those approaches as uniformly negative. I think this is unwarranted. Posters in these discussions are showing consideration for differing viewpoints while presenting their own. None are spiting people for sharing their views. I think the tone of these discussions has been extremely nuanced on the whole. You could do worse than aspiring to that approach yourself. Either way, none of this excuses you making false generalisations about people you have never met. Again, please stop.

 

[Mind of tempest]

About fifty years ago, someone taught a producer in Hollywood and a publisher in New York the word 'stakes', but never 'pacing' or 'proportion', and now here we are with death being the absolute least severe stake people understand with things escalating beyond the pale almost immediately.

Batman used to fight bank robbers. Now Gotham has to burn the ground every three months, killing thousands and even the Ventriloquist has child bodies on their rap sheet. And the game about robbing dragons and gnomes piloting giant robots (no I will never let that go--why isn't this a thing more often instead of this grimdark garbage?) needs to import human misery from a decades old setting aping a nearly a century old book series about wild theories about the Bronze Age Collapse to get its edge on.

I think the problem with death is the clear solution is to not go adventuring in the first place which is antithetical to the game but you are right there does seem to be an endless need to raise stakes without consideration as to why?

honestly, the last story batman really needs exploring is what happens if he wins no last-minute killer what does he do when victorious?

 

[Teemu]

I voted no even though the topic is more nuanced. The question as presented is very simple though, assuming it's just a blanket statement on problematic content. Is it okay to include sexual abuse and the sexual abuse of children if it's presented as evil and something to be fought? Is it okay to include graphic depictions of mutilation and torture of infants if it's presented as evil and abhorrent? Who would actually say "yes" to that?

Of course there's content that we don't want to include in RPGs and other media even if we present it as Evil and horrible. Thus, if you simply ask, "Is problematic content acceptable in a work if it's presented as obviously and explicitly evil and meant to be fought?" the answer has to be "No."

 

[Hussar]

You are taking an extremely hostile view of people who have argued that there is room for problematic content when that content is approached in an appropriate manner. Rather than accepting that people can see things differently to you, you've chosen to characterise those approaches as uniformly negative. I think this is unwarranted. Posters in these discussions are showing consideration for differing viewpoints while presenting their own. None are spiting people for sharing their views. I think the tone of these discussions has been extremely nuanced on the whole. You could do worse than aspiring to that approach yourself. Either way, none of this excuses you making false generalisations about people you have never met. Again, please stop.

I think the hostile response is due to a number of factors.

1. It ignores recent history. WotC got absolutely dogpiled in the last couple of years for the mistakes it's made regarding sensitivity. Candlekeep Mysteries saw all sorts of backlash from one of the authors for editorial changes made to an adventure. And a couple of years before that, you have the whole issue with one of the names in the PHB being removed because of issues. ((sorry, I'm blanking on the name)) Then you have the Hadozee issue which is still in circulation.

2. WotC is very often held to different standards. Paizo flat out announces that it will no longer use slavery in any of its products. And they get a hearty pat on the back for being sensitive. WotC basically says the same thing - they cannot or will not produce Dark Sun because of the problematic themes in the setting, and we've got multiple threads screaming from the hilltops that WotC are a bunch of jerks who don't understand gamers.

3. Add to that, the common refrain that "Well, I'm okay with it in my game, so, why is everyone telling me I can't have what I want?" without even the slightest attempt to accept that the other side REALLY isn't okay with it. "Oh, but, my friend's cousin's sister's half uncle is (insert POC here) and he/she/they are perfectly fine with it. Why is it a problem?"

So, yeah, after banging on this drum for about fifteen years, it does get a bit frustrating to keep having the SAME conversation, over and over and over and over and over again. All with the identical talking points. And no one will even consider potential other avenues to explore. No. We MUST have slavery in the game. But, a kinder, gentler slavery. Not too offensive. Just sort of generally evil slavery. Because, well, we don't want to actually include the real horrors of slavery in our game. Just a sampler set, thanks.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

past even the moral component then endless set of evil guys enslaving people seems overused are there no other evils available for them to perform what happened to conquest, robbery or other lesser stuff?

Well, if I may butt in...

There is power in writing evil unforgivable: wrong so great, it shadows all else the wrongdoer might do. There are few such evils in life. Even conquest rarely rises such heights (or should I say rarely falls to such depths?) Only three things seem to truly cross that line. Enslaving others is one of them, the others being torture and rape.

Torture already goes hand in hand with being an evil overlord, and is somewhat debatable as to whether it is truly unforgivable (that is, it seems possible to make up for this moral lapse.) Only the other two things come across as utter evil, and I don't think I'm going overboard by saying the last is seen as Not Okay as a story beat. (See: the former Half-Orc origin...and why it is the former origin.)

So enslavement occupies a special place. Very few people in the US (and most "developed" countries) have any experience with enslavement, so while it is a hot button thing and partly intentionally so, it can't have quite the same personally-painful impact as the third great evil I listed. Yet you can fully trust it will be an unforgivable evil, unlike torture, and moreover it has both historical backing (see: almond all of human history, sadly) and the opportunity to enable unconditional heroism (freeing the enslaved, rising up against one's own enslavers, "I Am Spartacus" moments, etc.)

Of course, as I said in my first post, the problem is that it is so easy to get lazy with such darkness. Instead of using it as a tool, too many use it as a paint bucket thrown over the entire work. Adding darkness is good, so making EVERYTHING equally dark must be perfect! But it's not. Adding darkness to too-bright work has value because it births contrast and depth. But there comes a point where more darkness means less depth, not more. This is easy to see with your eyes, in paint and photo, or hear with your ears, in music and speech. It is far harder to spy in the written web of words.

We had, for a long time, enforced rules about what was acceptable to write about in film, TV, books, comics, etc. Those rules stifled, bound, weakened. Their fall meant telling great stories about great darkness. But they also left scars. Now, to show light at all may chafe, but that reaction is just as bad. In a few ways, it is worse, because this new stifling cloud is of our own making, not enforced from on high: "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,/But in ourselves...”

we do seem to oddly talk about it here you are right?

It's complicated. Some folks just want to enjoy a thing they enjoyed when they were young (perhaps too young to fully think through all the implications), and bristle at being told "you like a horrible thing that could only be valued by horrible people." Some, of course, are $#!††£®$ who revel in enjoying things that anger or upset others, the whole gleeful "oh just grow up/lighten up/don't be so serious" etc. response to any such concerns. Some, and I hope I have acquitted myself well on this front, believe that this is a valuable but dangerous tool. That we should be allowed to use that tool, while also recognizing that using it at all carries a major responsibility. Hence, if creators aren't willing to bear that responsibility, they shouldn't use it.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

In Ravenloft there were "vampyrs", a type of "hemophages" humanoids, blood-drinkers but not true undeads. These had got secret "blood farms", dungeons with prisons to gather their blood. Should be this censored in 5th?

* Other point maybe we have forgotten is if the sorcerer-kings are the tyrants to be deposed.... somebody could use the setting as an allegory against rulers from the real life, and this could become too dangerous.

* I suppose even if there is slavery in DS or other D&D setting, this shouldn't be available for PCs.

The slavery in DS could be even worse, because with psionic powers and mind-controll the thralls would lose most of free will. Do you know the anime "Redo of Healer"? Not try to imagine a pervert roleplayer creating the Dark Sun version of "Redo of Healer", or fandom writting fanfiction for adults.

* Here we agree slavery is wrong, but I add more, we have to promote the respect of the human dignity. Reporting bigotry is not enough.

* Sorry, maybe it is because I live in a different country, with other troubles, but here I see talking about slavery is like "mentioning the rope at the hanged man's house", as wounds that have not yet hesitated.

* There is in DMGuild a module with the title "Captured by slavers". Then slaver shouldn't be taboo in DMGuild, the reason should be other.

* The faction of the "City of Spires" from the module "the Black Spine" had got a great potential as rivals of the sorcerer-kings.

* What if Rajaats had been killed by a time-traveler from the future?

* Why had hadozees to be rewritten, but no word is said about the "conquistador" vampires from Ixalan setting?

 

[Warpiglet-7]

.

 

[Mind of tempest]

In Ravenloft there were "vampyrs", a type of "hemophages" humanoids, blood-drinkers but not true undeads. These had got secret "blood farms", dungeons with prisons to gather their blood. Should be this censored in 5th?

* Other point maybe we have forgotten is if the sorcerer-kings are the tyrants to be deposed.... somebody could use the setting as an allegory against rulers from the real life, and this could become too dangerous.

* I suppose even if there is slavery in DS or other D&D setting, this shouldn't be available for PCs.

The slavery in DS could be even worse, because with psionic powers and mind-controll the thralls would lose most of free will. Do you know the anime "Redo of Healer"? Not try to imagine a pervert roleplayer creating the Dark Sun version of "Redo of Healer", or fandom writting fanfiction for adults.

* Here we agree slavery is wrong, but I add more, we have to promote the respect of the human dignity. Reporting bigotry is not enough.

* Sorry, maybe it is because I live in a different country, with other troubles, but here I see talking about slavery is like "mentioning the rope at the hanged man's house", as wounds that have not yet hesitated.

* There is in DMGuild a module with the title "Captured by slavers". Then slaver shouldn't be taboo in DMGuild, the reason should be other.

* The faction of the "City of Spires" from the module "the Black Spine" had got a great potential as rivals of the sorcerer-kings.

* What if Rajaats had been killed by a time-traveler from the future?

* Why had hadozees to be rewritten, but no word is said about the "conquistador" vampires from Ixalan setting?

explain the conquistador point?

 

[Kinematics]

As I said before (or possibly in another one of these Dark Sun threads), a quick google ("dark sun slavery legal") had the very first result being a post on reddit about a party who bought a slave, and the DM wondering if the slave should come to love the PC owner as a brother. That post was from last year.

You can go on Reddit and find enough horrific stories of both players and GMs to spend days reading and weeks lying awake in bed with no hope left in humanity. None of them need a particular setting or setting element to inform their awfulness.

Some people will be awful, and being afraid of a topic because somebody can be awful with it does not mean that removing the element will make the people stop being awful. It just means they'll be awful about something else.

As for as my own feelings on Dark Sun, while I read a number of the novels and found them interesting, I never had any interest in playing the setting. Part of that was that I really disliked the D&D system at the time* (5E got me to like it again), and part was that playing in grimdark settings (for example, White Wolf's edgier cousin, Black Dog) doesn't really appeal to me.

* Note: I liked the D&D worlds — I read a huge number of the various Forgotten Realms/Dragonlance/Dark Sun/etc novels — I just didn't like the game system.

However just because it doesn't appeal to me doesn't mean I think the very concepts should be suppressed and censored. People like lots of things that I don't care for. I like things my friends don't care for. If something was particularly offensive to someone I knew, I'd avoid bringing it up, but the only thing I'd actively argue down are actual lies, and maybe stupidity.

Dark topics have their place, and oftimes a very important place for certain people in certain points in their lives. For example, see Neon Genesis Evangelion, which had an element which could be perceived as slavery, but which had a deep and meaningful impact on many people's lives, my own included.

As for the poll question: Just because something may seem awful to experience now does not mean it will not be a learning experience for later in life. Maybe the GM learns that being permissive and letting the players run roughshod needs to be curbed, and he needs to hold a stricter moral stance on what is allowed, which in turn influences how he acts in non-gaming life. Maybe the adventure is so awful that it ends up on one of those Reddit threads, as an object lesson to those who will listen. Maybe an edgy teenager makes an ass of himself today, and deeply regrets it 10 years from now, putting a brake on behavior that he can now recognize as awful because he had to go through that with a gaming group and it blew up in his face, rather than suffering from subtle and silent cold shoulders he never recognized.

I would even say that conditioning inclusion of "problematic" content on making it obviously evil, and having an obvious way to fight it, misses the mark. Players can find a way to fight against literally anything. It's not about being told, "That's evil!", as petty moralists love to do. It's about learning about the impact of various elements of the world, and the player learning how to deal with them.

Hiding from a thing does not make the thing go away. It just makes it so that people don't learn how to cope with it, or how to deal with it, or how to talk about it. This is especially true of stories, one of whose main values is teaching us lessons in ways that don't get us killed by forcing us to learn those lessons in actual life experiences.

It may be literally impossible to end slavery, especially in a world where it's pervasive. (It's not like it's extinct even in the real world.) But that doesn't mean you can't do anything. You can help individuals. You can hide families from slavers. You can save towns from raiders. You can help slaves escape. You can lobby (bribe) government officials to make lives easier.

Your characters may want to become as gods, but even gods can't do everything. The value of such dark worlds is learning that even in the face of utter hopelessness, you can still do something. And that's a lesson that translates to the real world far better than being able to defeat anyone who does something you don't like (which sounds like a lesson which gives rise to Karens).

Now, whether a particular company wants to be in the business of publishing such a dark world is another question entirely. Their business is about making money, not fighting against anyone who gets offended by the existence of a concept. Maybe a company like WOTC would approach it by making a second brand for its "dark" offerings (similar to White Wolf/Black Dog). Or maybe they just leave it for others to explore.

Their choice is their choice, and really has nothing to do with the abstract question asked in this thread. The only "problem" would be if they lock the IP up so that no one else can use it ever again, but that's a copyright problem, not a moral problem.

 

[Mark Hope]

I think the hostile response is due to a number of factors.

1. It ignores recent history. WotC got absolutely dogpiled in the last couple of years for the mistakes it's made regarding sensitivity. Candlekeep Mysteries saw all sorts of backlash from one of the authors for editorial changes made to an adventure. And a couple of years before that, you have the whole issue with one of the names in the PHB being removed because of issues. ((sorry, I'm blanking on the name)) Then you have the Hadozee issue which is still in circulation.

2. WotC is very often held to different standards. Paizo flat out announces that it will no longer use slavery in any of its products. And they get a hearty pat on the back for being sensitive. WotC basically says the same thing - they cannot or will not produce Dark Sun because of the problematic themes in the setting, and we've got multiple threads screaming from the hilltops that WotC are a bunch of jerks who don't understand gamers.

3. Add to that, the common refrain that "Well, I'm okay with it in my game, so, why is everyone telling me I can't have what I want?" without even the slightest attempt to accept that the other side REALLY isn't okay with it. "Oh, but, my friend's cousin's sister's half uncle is (insert POC here) and he/she/they are perfectly fine with it. Why is it a problem?"

So, yeah, after banging on this drum for about fifteen years, it does get a bit frustrating to keep having the SAME conversation, over and over and over and over and over again. All with the identical talking points. And no one will even consider potential other avenues to explore. No. We MUST have slavery in the game. But, a kinder, gentler slavery. Not too offensive. Just sort of generally evil slavery. Because, well, we don't want to actually include the real horrors of slavery in our game. Just a sampler set, thanks.

That's fair enough and thank you for setting out your thoughts on the matter. I really do appreciate it. Personally, I wouldn't make any of the points you're citing but I can see how they would lead to frustration. I am in support of addressing problematic content through RPGs (and not necessarily some kind of watered down, kinder gentler version) because doing so properly has real value. But it's not easy and needs real care and thought and consideration of how it affects potential readers and I don't blame WotC one bit for steering clear of it.

 

[MGibster]

WotC is very often held to different standards. Paizo flat out announces that it will no longer use slavery in any of its products. And they get a hearty pat on the back for being sensitive. WotC basically says the same thing - they cannot or will not produce Dark Sun because of the problematic themes in the setting, and we've got multiple threads screaming from the hilltops that WotC are a bunch of jerks who don't understand gamers.

Which is unfair to WotC I think. Were I in their shoes, I wouldn't publish a new edition of Dark Sun either. They're not really in the business of settings anyway, and a significant portion of the audience wouldn't like Dark Sun anyway. The market in 2023 isn't the same as it was in 1991.

 

[Mark Hope]

Which is unfair to WotC I think. Were I in their shoes, I wouldn't publish a new edition of Dark Sun either. They're not really in the business of settings anyway, and a significant portion of the audience wouldn't like Dark Sun anyway. The market in 2023 isn't the same as it was in 1991.

Dark Sun didn't even sell remarkably well in 1991 either. 50k units of the initial boxed set sold and sales just went down from there. Rapidly. WotC are making a solid business decision here, regardless of its artistic merit. Can't really fault them for that.

 

[Faolyn]

You can go on Reddit and find enough horrific stories of both players and GMs to spend days reading and weeks lying awake in bed with no hope left in humanity. None of them need a particular setting or setting element to inform their awfulness.

That was said specifically in reply to DarkCrisis saying that "Heck most PCs would rathe throw gold at a hireling and put that paid employee into serious danger."

And no, of course you don't need a particular setting element to let PCs be awful--but a setting element that says slavery (and don't forget, sex slavery with the creation of muls) is an accepted societal norm in many ways gives people permission to be awful, where they might have chosen otherwise before. At the risk of going too far into politics for this forum, look at how, when bigoted people get elected into office, it emboldens people to openly act more bigoted, instead of keeping it to themselves.

I don't think WotC wants to give that permission, and I can't say I blame them.

Some people will be awful, and being afraid of a topic because somebody can be awful with it does not mean that removing the element will make the people stop being awful. It just means they'll be awful about something else.

As for as my own feelings on Dark Sun, while I read a number of the novels and found them interesting, I never had any interest in playing the setting. Part of that was that I really disliked the D&D system at the time* (5E got me to like it again), and part was that playing in grimdark settings (for example, White Wolf's edgier cousin, Black Dog) doesn't really appeal to me.

* Note: I liked the D&D worlds — I read a huge number of the various Forgotten Realms/Dragonlance/Dark Sun/etc novels — I just didn't like the game system.

I wasn't much interested in Dark Sun myself; it just never grabbed me in the way that Ravenloft and Planescape did (I liked the monsters, though). My sum total of D&D novels read are maybe 2-4 Ravenloft books. I would have been fine to play in the setting, but I never had any interest in running it.

However just because it doesn't appeal to me doesn't mean I think the very concepts should be suppressed and censored. People like lots of things that I don't care for. I like things my friends don't care for. If something was particularly offensive to someone I knew, I'd avoid bringing it up, but the only thing I'd actively argue down are actual lies, and maybe stupidity.

I'm just not convinced that it's truly censorship, not in the way you're thinking. I had a copy of D'Aulaires Book of Greek Myths as a child, which is a highly sanitized, kid-friendly version of those myths, and we all know how terrible Greek myths can be. But clearly adult versions of those same myths were readily available at the same time. Likewise, unless things change radically in the immediate future, 2e and 4e versions of Dark Sun would still be available for sale even if a 5e version (or One, or 3pp version) was sold without anything resembling slavery in it. So... what's being censored? Not slavery, because that's still going to be available, just not in that particular book. It would be like saying that a Ravenloft book about Barovia is censoring information about Darkon, when Darkon wasn't the scope of that book in the first place.

Do we think that WotC/DM's Guild is going to pull every older copy of Dark Sun because of slavery? Considering that there are two threads talking about Gaz10, which is still for sale, I for one highly doubt that.

Dark topics have their place, and oftimes a very important place for certain people in certain points in their lives. For example, see Neon Genesis Evangelion, which had an element which could be perceived as slavery, but which had a deep and meaningful impact on many people's lives, my own included.

NGE is a very different type of media than an immersive RPG. I mostly recall thinking get on with it! while watching that show.

But here's the other thing. You (generic you, not you personally) are not qualified to determine what will be important or meaningful for anyone else. What you (again, generic) are qualified to do is run a game that's fun for everyone at your table. And for a lot of people, slavery, especially the way Dark Sun does it, isn't fun.

And you--as you (specifically) noted above--don't need to have slavery be an official setting element, because you can just add it in, if you wanted.

 

[Kaodi]

Any other idea? A almost reboot of the setting where time-travelers from the future altered the past, avoiding the worst damage in the ecological system and the genocides of the cleasing wars. But it is not a complete happy end because the sorcerer-kings created a demiplane to save their own timeline. Then the apocalypse hasn't been avoided totally but only delayed. The irony is souls of the evil people are sent to the distopian demiplane, and the souls of the innocent can reincarnated in the utopian timeline.

Time travel is a genocide where no one remembers the victims.

 

[Lanefan]

Hang on, am I reading that right? Your players actually attacked other players, and then gave those PC's to slavers because some of your players wanted to sell prisoners as slaves?

OMG. Seriously?

"Seriously" had rather little to do with it; at the time we were all too busy laughing at how one crazy unexpected thing just kept leading to another.

But yes, PvP is very much allowed in my games as long as it stays in character, and this is how it manifested this time. One of the PCs had been a slaver in her pre-adventuring days. While the party was rounding up some prisoners after a battle she came out with her now-legendary quote "Stop taking prisoners and start taking inventory!", and from there things spiralled down a rabbit hole of chaos as on reaching town two PCs tried to disrupt the rest of them selling these guys.

End result: I don't think the prisoners ever did get sold (alerted by the two renegade PCs, the local authorities intervened; slaving was technically illegal in that town even if the authorities often turned a well-bribed blind eye to it) but those two PCs ended up tied up in a hotel room, and a note was slipped to the local slavers to let them know where they could get a few freebies.

The players - including those of the two now-slaves - were all cool with this; in fact, this whole episode was entirely player-driven, with me-as-DM pretty much stuck in "react mode" throughout.

That was all 14-ish years ago; we still laugh about the story today, and a few of the characters involved are still active.

 

[tetrasodium]

Let's remember even if WotC published a totally "clean" DS book, and and almost players were "nice" in their games, in the internet age with rule34 and where even there is NSFW content of ¡my little pony! DS would be too "apetizing" for certain pervert no-fandom minds.

The origin of "50 shadows of Gregory" was adult fan-fiction with the main characters of "Twighlight" saga. You should guess the potential risk if the worst "jump the shark", becoming an ersatz of Gor saga.

WotC could publish new novels, comics and even a videogame (I would bet for the genre survival, something style Walheim, the Forest, Grounded or Conan Exiles) but there are some risks by fault of toxic creators if DS is unlocked in DMGuild.

Any other option? To be licenced to a serious 3PP, for example Renegade Games or Onyx Path, but it wouldn't be necessary because the key is to allowd the unlocking in DM Guild.

Any other idea? A almost reboot of the setting where time-travelers from the future altered the past, avoiding the worst damage in the ecological system and the genocides of the cleasing wars. But it is not a complete happy end because the sorcerer-kings created a demiplane to save their own timeline. Then the apocalypse hasn't been avoided totally but only delayed. The irony is souls of the evil people are sent to the distopian demiplane, and the souls of the innocent can reincarnated in the utopian timeline.

Funny you mention time travel

Spoiler

66th Kings age

Wind's Defiance (Free Year -9569)​

Mareet, ruler of Saragar, is visited by a time-traveler from the future. He tells the king an appending doom to Athas before disappearing. Obsessed with the warning, Mareet orders his most powerful psionicists to breach the time stream and determine the nature of the warning. They are later joined by a third psionicist

Desert's Slumber (Free Year -9549)​

The psionicists breach the time barrier and learn of the impending Cleansing Wars, Rajaat, and defiling magic. Mareet wants to warn all of Athas, but the psionicists disagree and take control of their leader. The three use their formidable powers to shield Saragar from the rest of the world. The Mind Lords are born.

That's the thing about darksun, the easy solutions just swap one possibly localized part of the problem with another possibly localized problem