So not widespread.
Sorry, I don't think you're necessarily making the worst point and I'm nnot trying to be too harsh, but be careful. Arguments have used ideas and points you're mentioning in significantly worse ways and in ways to advocate for actual censorship or to demonise others; I am a bit worried or sensitive to it which is why I react poorly to it.
I can see your concern. I am not advocating censorship, but I think RPG publishers are in a transitional period, once more. At first, they targetted a niche audience of geeky boys and there were chainmail bikinis, then the audience widened and they basically disappeared because geeky girls started to play, too. Nowadays, we're going through a period I feel is like that, instead we're transitioning from an audience of genre-savvy players to the general public.
The former don't have a problem with certain themes because they assumer the game is emulating well-known (in their circle) literary genres and follow these conventions without necessary adhering to them IRL (you can have Roland as an epitome of good and paladinhood despite being a war criminal so you can have your LG paladin killing evil people as well and you can see the drow cursed to be black by Corellon as a reference to the crows cursed to be black by Apollo and nothing more). The latter is a much more diverse crowd, and when they read "phylactery" or "mana" they think "an insensitive mockery of a real-life religious thingie", not an RPG-term for soul cage and magic points, and when they read the drow story they see people cursed to be black as if being black-skinned was a divine curse and an evocation of real life racist tropes. They can also have widely different assumption (Tolkien orcs vs Warcraft orcs).
When speaking to a larger audience, the solution is not necessarily to sanitize your content to "family show level" themes and retire D&D in favour of Paw Patrol, the RPG, though it's certainly one way to do it, and an easy one to boot (as evidenced by Rowling: who would complain about a magic-user who achieved supernatural longevity by holding his soul in an horcrux instead of a phylactery? She didn't need to make an announcement over it, just decided not to use it/hadn't ever heard of it and coined a new term) The other way could be to make sure the products is marketed appropriately, especially for wider problems. It happened with the film industry (though there was some censorship at a point, we are not deprived of disturbing masterpieces, including very violent ones or ones dealing with racism, rape and every controversial themes) they are just labelled for the correct subset of the audience of film viewers. Videogames are probably no less violent than when they were accused of promoting violence, but if you buy a 3+ games, you'll probably not see a large amount of graphic violence. If a child plays a 16+ games, it's his parents' problem, not the publisher's.
Can we really have RPGs marketed at everyone ("look, in Stranger Things, 11-years old are playing it!") and published campaigns were the PCs, who just arrived from abroad, are recruited to kill someone, with the precision given to the DM that finding proofs of his wrongdoing and delivering him to the legitimate authorities will fail the quest and deprive the PCs of the reward, while killing him without caring for actual proof of misconduct will do? (without the PCs being reviled for their behaviour afterwards, of course, they are the good guys)? I don't think so, but I also don't think the answer is necessarily the removal of said content. Playing a killer for hire is great fun, as long as you aknowledge it and slapping a label on it might be warranted so customers who don't like it know to avoid it and apply some buyer's beware.
Last edited: