D&D General Modules with a political message?

[BrokenTwin]

The extremely popular Uncaged series is, among other things, a re-examination of classic female monsters through a feminist lens, and fairly political: Uncaged | Volume I - Dungeon Masters Guild | Dungeon Masters Guild

Eat the Rich is a series of explicitly anti-capitalist D&D adventures:
Eat the Rich | Volume 1 - Dungeon Masters Guild | Dungeon Masters Guild

Eat the Rich ran afoul of a OneBookShelf policy that states that overtly political works are not allowed on DMsGuild. Only one of the planned 4 volumes was published, and after publication the description had to be changed to remove the term "anti-capitalist." I don't think the 3 other volumes were ever published anywhere. You can read an explanation here of what happened with the first book (which did go Platinum on DMsGuild): A Statement Regarding Volume 1 | Eat the Rich Anthology

EDIT: Correction, the rest of the Eat the Rich series was stripped of WotC IP and published on DriveThruRPG, which doesn't have the same restrictions on political content: DriveThruRPG.com - Eat the Rich Anthology - The Largest RPG Download Store!

I wrote this short tier one adventure; it includes some ideas about health care as a human right (vis-a-vis D&D's diamonds-for-resurrection spell mechanics) that are a fairly obvious political allegory, although I didn't write, like, the whole adventure as a screed about the U.S. health care system: The Girl Who Woke the Dead - Dungeon Masters Guild | Dungeon Masters Guild

Any opinions on Eat The Rich from an actual GMing perspective? I mean, politics aside, how are those anthologies from a formatting, cohesiveness, and playability standpoint?

 

[humble minion]

The original Dark Sun was as political as hell in its worldbuilding and selection of villains, though this didn't really extend to the structure of its adventures as far as I remember. Pretty sure you just travelled around punching monsters in the face mostly, and the adventures even had you vaguely cooperating with the sorcerer-kings at times, which undercut the message more than a bit.

The main Dark Sun bad guys were people who ruined the environment for personal gain, slavers, oppressive law enforcement, and established power structures who were responsible for historical genocide. Not exactly subtle. There was even a bit in one of the novels where a noble who was a slaveowner but prided himself with being one of the 'good' and non-abusive ones, comes to the realisation that slavery is always bad (mostly cos he's been adventuring with a hot slave he's trying to impress, admittedly), and frees his slaves, and then has to deal with his ego being bruised when they don't immediately fall at his feet praising his mercy and generosity.

 

[Hussar]

I've never gone out of my way to be political with D&D but I suppose being inclusive and having bad guys that profit from the harm of others, that are oppressors, or terrorists is intrinsically political.

Now, Cyberpunk, on the other hand.... let slip the dogs of war, so to speak, and bring on that social and political commentary.

This was the point I was trying to make. DnD is far too romantic to make a very good platform for social commentary. Far too many baked in assumptions that are completely ignored in the world building.

SF settings like Cyberpunk are written AS social commentary. That’s what Punk means. Steampunk isn’t steampunk because of weird science and cogwheels. It’s steampunk because it uses the themes of Victorian era stories and then turns them on their heads to reflect modern day social commentary.

DnD is far, far too conservative in its presentation to effectively make any sort of real commentary. Heck Radiant Citadel is probably the first time they’ve actually made a real effort. We pat ourselves on the back for getting rid of chain mail bikinis in the art and actually having POC represented when it’s only really happened in the last ten years.

That’s how resistant to change DnD is. That it was actually an issue to not have pinup art in the game books in 2010.

 

[LordEntrails]

All of that is political…

I categorize that as social, moral and ethical, not political. But then I don't prescribe to labels like our society likes to do.

 

[LordEntrails]

I mean, just going through and labeling everything as “political” or “not political” would be easy because everything is political. Unpacking what political messaging is contained in those materials, especially the ones that didn’t set out with the explicit intention of communicating a specific political message would be much more involved, and fascinating.

Labelling everything as political means the label is useless... Perhaps a different view would be beneficial to a discussion like this one?

 

[Staffan]

I had a game, 5-8 years ago with a good but low wits king telling the players something and (like anyone could expect) they mouthed off... but what they said made all of us (even the speaker do a double take) "Who died and left you incharge"
I cant' even remeber who but someone real low almost under there breath said "um his dad and mom... thats how kings and queens work"

 

[Staffan]

There was even a bit in one of the novels where a noble who was a slaveowner but prided himself with being one of the 'good' and non-abusive ones, comes to the realisation that slavery is always bad (mostly cos he's been adventuring with a hot slave he's trying to impress, admittedly), and frees his slaves, and then has to deal with his ego being bruised when they don't immediately fall at his feet praising his mercy and generosity.

As I recall, the "hot slave" might have given Agis some doubts about his position, but the thing that made him realize the error of his ways was being betrayed by one of his most trusted slaves, and asking "But why? Did I not always treat you well?" and being told in return "Yeah, but I was still a slave, and they offered me my freedom."

 

[Staffan]

This was the point I was trying to make. DnD is far too romantic to make a very good platform for social commentary. Far too many baked in assumptions that are completely ignored in the world building.

Eberron actually makes a few nods in that direction with its murkier ethics, or at least provides a pretty good background for dealing with social issues. You have goblins and other humanoids who form an underclass in many parts of the world. You have warforged who were essentially just released from slavery, and who are now trying to find their way in the world and dealing with issues regarding whether they're people or not. It's not a thing the setting shoves down your throat, but it's very much there if you want it. And it's clearly something the designers intended – there is even a picture in one of the books with a bunch of people demonstrating against tireless warforged workers taking their jobs.

Heck Radiant Citadel is probably the first time they’ve actually made a real effort. We pat ourselves on the back for getting rid of chain mail bikinis in the art and actually having POC represented when it’s only really happened in the last ten years.

Going back to Dark Sun as mentioned above, it's a rather small setting with a strong desert theme, clearly near the planet's equator due to the lack of seasons, and with cultures clearly inspired by various ancient cultures (Greek, Aztec, Babylonian, African, etc.). And yet, I don't think there were any POC in the art – at least not in color (it can be hard to tell ethnicity from B/W line art).

 

[Charlaquin]

I categorize that as social, moral and ethical, not political. But then I don't prescribe to labels like our society likes to do.

The social is political, and morality and ethics inform policy.

 

[Charlaquin]

Labelling everything as political means the label is useless... Perhaps a different view would be beneficial to a discussion like this one?

Political isn’t a label, it’s an adjective meaning “relating to policy.”

 

[Hussar]

Labelling everything as political means the label is useless... Perhaps a different view would be beneficial to a discussion like this one?

Or, perhaps, instead of fighting the label, simply understanding what is meant might make conversation more productive?

Since political, as @Charlaquin so rightly points out, is simply an adjective that describes anything related to policy, then, yes, virtually anything to do with ethics is indelibly tied to the political.

Considering that @Charlaquin is using the term as it's defined in the dictionary, clearly and perfectly in keeping contextually, arguing that it is a "label" and "meaningless is counter productive. After all, if it were truly meaningless, you wouldn't object to it, you'd be confused and likely ask for clarification. Same as if I said that it was blarfgnarb. That's truly meaningless to you and you wouldn't then call it a "label".

Of course anything to do with how we treat our fellow human beings is political. It cannot not be political. That's what political means.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

Going back to Dark Sun as mentioned above, it's a rather small setting with a strong desert theme, clearly near the planet's equator due to the lack of seasons, and with cultures clearly inspired by various ancient cultures (Greek, Aztec, Babylonian, African, etc.). And yet, I don't think there were any POC in the art – at least not in color (it can be hard to tell ethnicity from B/W line art).

You mean like this

 

[Cadence]

Since political, as @Charlaquin so rightly points out, is simply an adjective that describes anything related to policy, then, yes, virtually anything to do with ethics is indelibly tied to the political.

I was going to say the problem might be that the word also has a more particular meaning/connotation that some might be using.

So if someone says "please don't bring up politics at the dinner party tonight", it feels like most people would know that it is probably ok to talk about the weather (if they didn't fly off into a debate on green energy) or the local high school football team (if they didn't fly off into something about vouchers).

But then I thought of all of the things that feel lately like they'd touch a nerve with someone in a big enough diverse group (libraries? a public figure who just happens to be LGBTQ+? something about Disney? etc...)... and then I realize I can't define what the boundry is between political or not.

So I guess a thread changed my mind about something again.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Personally I find fantasy to not really be a great genre for exploring politics. Far too romantically grounded in the notion of a magical past where good kings rule good kingdoms sort of thing.

If I want to go political, I’d stick with SF.

Fantasy worlds tend to be inherently conservative due to magic. Gods objectively exist in many fantasy worlds. Gods can choose "true kings" in fantasy worlds. Bloodlines and different "races" can be magically superior/inferior exist in fantasy worlds. Witch hunts would be justified. The socioeconomic structures of capitalism would be reinforced by the ruling class having access to magic (and people with access to magic would become a part of the ruling class). War can be glorious battles between objectively good and objectively evil forces (which isn't how war works in the real world, even when there is a side that is morally worse than the other). I could go on.

Because magic is a core part of the fantasy genre, the structures of the majority of fantasy worlds would be conservative (Dark Sun, Eberron). That isn't to say that you can't explore liberal stories in the fantasy genre, but the structure of a fantasy world would be more inclined towards core aspects of conservatism than it would be to liberalism.

All of that is political…

Exactly. The iconic fantasy story of "kill the dragon that's been terrorizing the land and take their treasure" is an extremely political message that has been relevant for millennia.

 

[pemerton]

Personally I find fantasy to not really be a great genre for exploring politics. Far too romantically grounded in the notion of a magical past where good kings rule good kingdoms sort of thing.

If I want to go political, I’d stick with SF.

Or S&S.

 

[LordEntrails]

Or, perhaps, instead of fighting the label, simply understanding what is meant might make conversation more productive?

Since political, as @Charlaquin so rightly points out, is simply an adjective that describes anything related to policy, then, yes, virtually anything to do with ethics is indelibly tied to the political.

Considering that @Charlaquin is using the term as it's defined in the dictionary, clearly and perfectly in keeping contextually, arguing that it is a "label" and "meaningless is counter productive. After all, if it were truly meaningless, you wouldn't object to it, you'd be confused and likely ask for clarification. Same as if I said that it was blarfgnarb. That's truly meaningless to you and you wouldn't then call it a "label".

Of course anything to do with how we treat our fellow human beings is political. It cannot not be political. That's what political means.

Still a useless label or definition if everything is political. If everything is "big" then "big" is a useless label.

Perhaps not just myself but the OP (and perhaps @Cadence) see the definition as you and @Charlaquin have defined it as (and not saying you are wrong) not be useful to the discussion. But, let's try to keep the thread on topic and not have it devolve into another discussion far from gaming.

 

[Steampunkette]

Pretty much every D&D campaign has plenty of political and social commentary written into it, aside from hypersimple stuff like "Orc and Pie".

Take Curse of Strahd, for example. There's obsessive and abusive relationships, blind obedience to authority, a tyrant that must be assassinated, religious abuse, trampling of the rights of citizens, xenophobia, abuse of authority/power, and -so much more- that you're fighting against in the adventure.

And much of it's the same as the old Castle Ravenloft box set in that regard. The same abusive authorities, relationships, assassination of the ruler, etc, etc, etc.

Dragonlance? Authoritarian Regime against which a ragtag group of rebels battles, relying on ancient weapons from a time before the tyranny started conquering the lands. Add in a hero bringing "True Religion" back to the world, Flint representing an older, harder, generation, Tasselhoff as exuberant and often foolish younger generation... Heck, Tanis Half-Elven is -literally- a person of different heritages who doesn't fully fit in with either side and fights himself over it as a mixed-race character.

Dark Sun. JUST DARK SUN.

Eberron is built from the ground up around intrigue, war, politics, lost kingdoms, foreign cultures that aren't inherently evil, false gods, true gods, economic and political power falling into the hands of a literally gifted elite who keep tight control over their noble houses and economic interests (the mystical 1% you might say), and so much more...

But even Greyhawk had political messages about the role of women in society, xenophobia, racism, cultural identities, tribalism, the inherent structure of a class based system and how it is supported in the narrative through the acquisition and exchange of land for service in a feudal society, and just so much more.

Take even the idea of "gods" in the FR setting. They're all based on Quasi-Roman deities (With a pantheon for every group and a new Elf god (Or Elf-God-Sub-Pantheon!) for every type of elf there is... except there's also an all powerful AO (Alpha Omega, unsubtle hint). But almost every setting follows the same general pattern of gods that control this or that aspect of life across the globe/universe/planes. Why not a monotheistic or duo-theistic world? Why go explicitly -away- from that design (though it was offered as a structure in Deities and Demigods for 3e) even though it's one of the most popular structures in the real world?

Because of a conscious or subconscious decision to reject what is "Real", or at least widely accepted, in favor of what is "Fantastic" in relation to day to day life.

Yeah, a lot of it can also be boiled down to "It's a setting with a lost golden age" but you realize that's just us, right? There's entire political movements that want to go back to a mythical golden age of (insert country/culture/society/etc here)

But, like... Practically everything we consume in media that has any structure or narrative is going to be based on the experiences and perspectives of the writer... Which includes their political identity, religious beliefs (or non-belief), and moral and ethical ideologies. It would be impossible to not do that, because those things shape us. All of us. To degrees we do not think about.

 

[RangerWickett]

This was the point I was trying to make. DnD is far too romantic to make a very good platform for social commentary. Far too many baked in assumptions that are completely ignored in the world building.

SF settings like Cyberpunk are written AS social commentary. That’s what Punk means. Steampunk isn’t steampunk because of weird science and cogwheels. It’s steampunk because it uses the themes of Victorian era stories and then turns them on their heads to reflect modern day social commentary.

When I was planning the ZEITGEIST adventure path, I intentionally built the core conflict of the campaign around questions of 'what would be the best world, and whose idea of best?'

I skew very lefty politically, but I wanted to interrogate my own assumptions a bit, so the primary antagonist was based on paternalistic left-wing political movements that 'know better than you.' The villain wanted to make it so everyone had to be his idea of 'good,' and I've heard a lot of players get to the midway point of the campaign and briefly consider switching sides, because they've by that point spent six adventures seeing people fight and suffer because the world is run by selfish a-holes who enrich themselves instead of using their influence to make life better for others.

And the bad guy conspiracy is working to literally alter the fundamental nature of reality across the whole world, which could - for instance - make people more humble, or more obedient, or healthier, or make even wilder changes, like give folks the ability to teleport (so what does a 'national border' even mean in that instance), or make it so nature readily obeys people's will (so it becomes possible for people to easily feed and shelter themselves without having to work as part of a society), or give an elite few semidivine powers (because perhaps it's better to trust wise elites to solve all the world's woes instead of letting the little people run amok).

Like, the whole idea was that the villain would appeal to that so-common urge we have when talking to strangers on the internet, to wish that we could just get everyone to agree with us, and then everything would be better.

Except that then you see the consequences of how that perspective leads to tyranny and the oppression of those who have the audacity not to recognize that you're right.

And then, since I'm an a-hole too, I put the players in a position where they do have the power to decide how the world should work. And let me tell you: only one group actually tried to put it to a wider public debate. Most everyone else hemmed and hawed, and then decided to do what they thought was best, maybe not even considering that they could make the decision democratically.

 

[Charlaquin]

Still a useless label or definition if everything is political. If everything is "big" then "big" is a useless label.

Perhaps not just myself but the OP (and perhaps @Cadence) see the definition as you and @Charlaquin have defined it as (and not saying you are wrong) not be useful to the discussion. But, let's try to keep the thread on topic and not have it devolve into another discussion far from gaming.

It would certainly be useless as a label because it would be a label that applies to everything. That’s why the word’s utility doesn’t lie in labeling things. We don’t go around saying “this is political” or “that isn’t political.” We ask, “what is this saying politically?” or “what are the political implications of that?”

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

"V", the 80's sci-fi about an alien invasion by reptilians who ate mice was a fabule about the rise of nazism.

"Game of Thrones" has been one of the fiction works what has talked more than ever about politicals, but with the difference it didn't seem a propaganda work.

How many times have you seen a title what showed the difference between a true leader and a toxic boss?

If you want to know if somebody really defends the freedom or he is other tyrant with sheep's clothing, then you have to watch his reaction when other dares to take opposite. A true treethinke loves to share her knownledge, and in the debate she searchs the possible weak points in the arguments by the other side, but I have seen almost always the strategy is to tell the classic speech, and after trying to punish by means of psychological abuse against who dares to disagree.

Lots of stories tell about how the heroes defeat a tyrant, but almost neve stories teach about how to be a true leader, or how to rule a family, a kingdom or a company. Fiction can tell stories about heroes kicking-ass stormtroopers or space nazis, but I don't remember a story whose morale was if you want to avoid a new generation of fascistas then you have to promote the respect for the human dignity and stop the idea of state as a fairy oddmother who is going to fix all your problems with her superpowers. Who has enough power to give you all you ask also can steal everything you own.

Lots of stories are about rebellion against the system but they never explain the menace of state with too much power of control becuase then the economy becomes a state oligarchy whose members haven't to worry about to be competent and competitive because no rival is going to take away your clientele, nor they are going to suffer the consequences of their actions because we are going to be the loser who pay for the broken plates.