It's true that every setting is "political" in a way or another but this is plainly obvious and not worth of further discussion IMHO. To be more in topic I believe we must look at those settings that are politic in a way that reflects a contemporary, not widely shared in people and not distilled by the action of time political view.
In this optic I find Radiant Citadel a real political manifesto setting that try to show how an ideal (at least ideal for some people, me included) society has to be. But aside ones agreement with a specific political view, I really regret to find contemporary political issue in a RPG products. First because it is not inclusive (by paradox) and second because I truly find difficult to believe that this could be sincere. More, if the political answers a setting gives to explain how an ideal society could work are naive to the point of broke my suspension of desbelief (as in Radiant citadel), this turn to be a real boomerang that turns against the political view itself casting a shadow of naivety on all supporters of that political side. Maybe it would be definitely better to avoid pushing debated politics, sociology, economic views in RPG games, even if the large majority of customers shares the same politic view. In this times all cultural products, unfortunately, are scrupulously examined in search of -isms of any kind, the denunciation of which is sometimes made for the political self-promotion of the complainants. The social media are huge megaphones that amplify every complaint, both the sincere one and the most interested one. Producer reply with apologies and removals without going into the merits of the validity of the complaints. This is a very insidious form of self-censorship and the limitation of artistic freedom. It should never go away that something you don't like can be erased by mass tweeting. Freedom of expression should be protected over all, and bad taste, racism, sexism, homophobia, should be sanctioned by few sales, at most.
The idea that it is right to cancel ideas, as they are hateful, retrograde, stupid, unsupported by science, is a symptom that it is not only the right that has become radicalized, but also the left. And that our tolerance as human beings in the face of the limitation of freedom has dangerously increased on both sides.
The preventive attitude to this phenomenon is the filling of the brand or product with inclusive content is an even worse mistake. I firmly believe that every time an element of diversity is inserted into the narrative without this having a reason in the economy of the story to be told, a blind mechanism of respect for quotas is triggered that does not serve the cause of inclusion. It is a forced inclusion, descended from above, which alienates rather than convinces. I don't think it serves to change society for the better at all, it only serves to violently polarize society and is toxic to debate.
Last note: many internet forums sanction discussions that end in politics to avoid unpleasant wars between users and a toxic climate. But how can this tolerably censorious attitude be sustained when the products under discussion are manifesto of a partial vision of the world?
