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

[Justice and Rule]

elaborate? as nothing comes to mind and I want to clear up my blind spots?

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.

 

[Raiztt]

The Hadozee from Spelljammer was monkey people who were ex-slaves 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.

Actually, pretty impressive that it got all the way to print without some realizing what a bad look that is. And I should say that, I don't think it was at all intentional today, (I wasn't around for when this IP was created originally so I can't speak to whether or not this was a nudge-nudge-wink-wink situation in the past).

I never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Actually, pretty impressive that it got all the way to print without some realizing what a bad look that is. And I should say that, I don't think it was at all intentional today, (I wasn't around for when this IP was created originally so I can't speak to whether or not this was a nudge-nudge-wink-wink situation).

I never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.

Yeah, I don't think anyone thinks someone at Wizards is actively racist, but it's still not a good look that they weren't doing sensitivity checks on all their writing. But Kyle Brink did at least say they weren't doing that any more, so we should at least give a small bit of credit to that change. A bit late, but nonetheless it's a step forward.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Actually, pretty impressive that it got all the way to print without some realizing what a bad look that is. And I should say that, I don't think it was at all intentional today, (I wasn't around for when this IP was created originally so I can't speak to whether or not this was a nudge-nudge-wink-wink situation).

I never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.

It could be solved with this simple writing advice: If you think it'd be great to 'spice up' your story with slavery or SA that's not about those things... stop typing, stand up, turn away from the keyboard, and start walking. Do not stop walking until that idea has been replaced by how much your legs hurt.

 

[Raiztt]

Yeah, I don't think anyone thinks someone at Wizards is actively racist, but it's still not a good look that they weren't doing sensitivity checks on all their writing. But Kyle Brink did at least say they weren't doing that any more, so we should at least give a small bit of credit to that change. A bit late, but nonetheless it's a step forward.

As long as you, Justice and Rule, understand that they are doing so strictly because of the profit motive and not for any genuine moral concerns.

 

[Justice and Rule]

As long as you, Justice and Rule, understand that they are doing so strictly because of the profit motive and not for any genuine moral concerns.

I think I gave enough of a laugh that my next door neighbor may have heard. Was not expecting that one.

 

[overgeeked]

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.

It wasn’t just the text, unfortunately. There was also the minstrel show art. It was an incredibly specific stance, pose, framing, etc that must have used the original as a template. It’s not possible to have matched the original so closely on accident. That got through whatever checks they have in place for art as well.

 

[humble minion]

PC: "Oh Slaves exist? I want to buy one.
DM: side eye "Sigh. You are unable to find anyone who wants to sale you one."

In my decades of play and DMing I have never had another player want to own a slave and 100% of the time fight to free them. Heck most PCs would rathe throw gold at a hireling and put that paid employee into serious danger.

Any player in a game of mine who decided their PC wanted to buy slaves for their personal convenience, or set themselves as a slave trader, or who treated the slaves of a defeated enemy as loot, would be quickly informed as to where the door was and instructed to make use of it.

However, D&D is a game which allows PCs to come up with their own solutions to problems, their own character background etc. It'd be enormously common, for instance, for a Dark Sun PC to want to free a particular slave. Maybe the slave in question is a loved one or friend, maybe they have useful info, maybe it's a quid pro quo for someone they want a favour from. Rather than trying to brawl with the entire templarate and the slave-owner's personal guards if a rescue attempt goes badly, it'd be a perfectly understandable solution to the problem for them to pool some of their loot (or run a double-cross and steal the slave-owner's loot and use it instead...) and simply attempt to buy the slave and then free them, whether from the existing owner or at the slave market.

At this point, are the PCs guilty of taking part in the slave trade? And more to the sticking point, how much does the slave cost? Because I GUARANTEE that in no universe, ever, is WotC going to put a price list of slaves in a D&D product. And understandably so, too.

That's the real problem. I'm sympathetic to the 'slavery exists to be fought' argument, but with player freedom of action in an open world, dilemmas like this come up all the time.

 

[Hussar]

Right to the extreme? Bad form.

What people are saying is stuff like "The slave pens in the Drow stronghold." The "Halfling slave serving the Orc King his mead." Or even "The slave trade is brisk in Bigtown City." Stuff bad people and bad societies deal with and something for the Heroes to possibly deal with.

And yes, sometimes its TOO BIG. You're heroes even at level 20 might not be able to convince the people of Bigtown City that having a slave market is bad.

The best third party adventure I ran for 5E had a major town who had slavery as big business. And the heroes wanted to stop it. So the Rogue snuck in and poisoned the wine of the biggest slave trader in town. What happened? Someone else took over his business.

This added flavor to the town. The PCs didn't like this town. They hated even more when they had to actively fight to save the innocent civilians who lived in the town. BUT after the BIG FIGHT and town leadership changed hands cracks started to appear in the long standing slave trade. The problem wasn't fixed at that moment but the heroes had made a change that was being exploited and epilogue stuff indicated things did change after many many years.

It was a a great game and story and it involved a horrible societal issue.

People aren't asking to have fun watching children fight each other they just don't want one less injustice to fight against.

Why not get rid of sacrificial victims? Drug trade/Use? Marauding bands of murderers? Thievery and the black market. Suicide. I've known people (including myself) in real life that have been drug abusers, had things stolen, had their lives taken etc. Yet I don't ask WotC to cater to me (not that any of that bothers me in a game context). If they do make a product I don't like I simply wont buy it.

Its all moot though. WotC's going to do what causes the least issue while maximizing profit. And making heist adventures is more palpable than freeing the oppressed from the ravaging hordes atm.

What extreme? I’m pointing to a fairly mild example of the horrors of slavery. We had centuries of slaves being forced to fight to the death for entertainment.

But that’s the problem. You want the “problematic elements “ but keep it all nicely sanitized. After all it’s just “slave pens”. And the cheerful slave serving the king.

How is this not whitewashing and downplaying the very real horrors of slavery?

 

[Hussar]

Visually, and in terms of their development as villains, they are fantastic. I dont want them in any way involved with D&D though.

I’m not a MTG player but I have been reading a lot about Phyrexians lately as inspiration for my Spelljammer campaign. What’s the problem with Phyrexians in DnD?