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?