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.