Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cergorach" data-source="post: 8953721" data-attributes="member: 725">Slavery is not the only problematic content in DS, there is more, way more.I'm not saying that it can't technically be made without it, I'm saying that it kinda stops being DS.It's like portraying historical Roman Empire without the blood sport Colosseum (and all that entails). Slavery in DS might be a horrible component, but from my perspective it acts as a keystone for the settings other components, sure you can remove it, but I wouldn't want to stand any where near it (when it eventually collapses). You could replace that keystone with something else, but it would still need to function as that keystone, making it just slavery by another name. Just because you don't like how a certain wall looks like, doesn't mean you can just remove it without making the rest of the building collapse.Trying to make it about me and asking why "is the inclusion of slavery so important to you" is like trying to throw sand in someone's eyes. But do you actually have a workable solution for DS when you remove all the problematic elements? Or is it all theoretical like: setting - bad = win? Sure, we can all pretend it isn't there and that might work for some, but it still smells and we still see the white chalk outline of where the corpse was lying before...It seems there are a couple of different arguments being 'fought out' in a single thread:a.) 'I' find slavery in my fantasy world offensive enough to completely remove it vs 'I' do not find slavery in my fantasy world offensive enough to completely removeb.) slavery in a fantasy world IS offensive vs. slavery in a fantasy world IS NOT offensive c.) A Dark Sun (like) setting IS viable for WotC (or a third party publisher) vs A Dark Sun (like) setting IS NOT viable for WotC (or a third party publisher)d.) There is no place for niche products vs. the is a place for niche productsMy opinion of 'a.' is that I do not find it offensive enough to completely remove, but I totally understand why some do.My opinion of 'b.' is that it's an unproductive discussion as most of the people in either group are thoroughly dug into their pov and are not willing to be convinced one way or another. The problem with this is that it seems that neither group is willing to accept that people are allowed their own personal views under 'a'.My opinion of 'c.' is that it's pretty clear that currently DS is not a viable proposition for WotC. 12.5 years ago WotC saw this differently, the world has changed (again), better accept that reality. Third parties have created DS like settings and those have been commercially unsuccessful.My opinion of 'd.' is that there is a place for niche products, as publishers in the past and present are showing. And that's proven in other industries as well. Car manufacturers do not just produce for the largest groups of consumers. You could buy a Fiat as a personal car, but Fiat also owned other brands like Ferrari, which produced sports cars that most of the world could never buy.That combines to: I respect people's personal views on whether slavery as portrayed in DS is offensive or not. I think that the largest parts of WotC current customer base would not buy DS. WotC has a very spotty track record with 'fixing' their settings, and I'm of the opinion that WotC wouldn't be able to make a commercially successful DS (whether by 'fixing' DS or not). On the other hand I do think that companies can be commercially successful by serving smaller niches. Traditionally companies used imprints/brands for these niches. But what a publicly traded company like WotC/Hasbro sees as commercially successful isn't the same as what a small sees as commercially successful.I would also like to add that even IF WotC was able to 'fix' DS, even then many folks that have problems with that setting won't touch it because of it's history and/or the people who worked on it.</blockquote>

Verification