Should D&D Morality be Less PC?

[Glade Riven]

It's a campaign setting issue more so than core.

Still, though, fantasy racism is not only tolerated in D&D, but encouraged. Orcs, drow, kobolds, goblinoids, etc are almost always evil. A good writer creates a scenario where the bad guys do evil things, but don't believe that they themselves are evil, or what they are doing is evil. A bad writer make these things evil for the sake of being evil and no other reason. Occassionally a good writer can cheese up evil for the sake of evil for entertainment value, but that's about it.

I really need to get around to making that demotivator of dwarves dress similar to the KKK while burning an orc at the stake...

 

[Aldarc]

In a world of fantastic magic as presented in D&D, what is the actual likelihood of women dying of birth complications? I imagine there would be 'adept' midwives who would assist in that regard. As such, magic seems like a great 'equalizer' in terms of naturally demolishing the sort of roadblocks that could exist to produce gender inequality. I could still see how it would exist (e.g. the wizard college trains only males, cultural and religious prejudices, etc.), but I do not see the benefit of that.

 

[mmadsen]

In a world of fantastic magic as presented in D&D, what is the actual likelihood of women dying of birth complications? I imagine there would be 'adept' midwives who would assist in that regard. As such, magic seems like a great 'equalizer' in terms of naturally demolishing the sort of roadblocks that could exist to produce gender inequality. I could still see how it would exist (e.g. the wizard college trains only males, cultural and religious prejudices, etc.), but I do not see the benefit of that.

Magically reducing infant mortality is a recipe for short-term good feelings followed by long-term misery.

Unless economic productivity improves, and continues to improve, as quickly as the population explodes, the quasi-medieval society will become even more miserable than before.

(If economic productivity does improve continuously, you have a dynamic, "modern" economy.)

 

[Alzrius]

In a world of fantastic magic as presented in D&D, what is the actual likelihood of women dying of birth complications? I imagine there would be 'adept' midwives who would assist in that regard. As such, magic seems like a great 'equalizer' in terms of naturally demolishing the sort of roadblocks that could exist to produce gender inequality.

It depends on the specifics of things, which tend to be defined by the game rules.

For example, if we apply the damage from childbirth as hit point damage, then virtually anyone able to cast healing spells (e.g. a 1st-level adept in Pathfinder) can likely save the life of the mother, unless they have very few healing spells, roll very low for the number of hit points restored, and the mother takes a large amount of damage.

On the other hand, if we say that the damage from childbirth is treated as Constitution damage, then things become much more difficult, as the aforementioned adept would need to be at least 12th level (with a Wisdom of 18) to cast restoration and remove the damage.

Now, a 3rd-level cleric could cast lesser restoration and remove 1d4 points of Constitution damage (presuming that was enough, and that they had prepared that spell), so it's not as though this way of adjudicating the problems of childbirth provides for no help for women in labor, but still...it showcases that simply the presence of magic alone, even healing magic, isn't necessarily enough to undercut the conditions that give rise to prejudice in a fantasy game.

 

[Aldarc]

Magically reducing infant mortality is a recipe for short-term good feelings followed by long-term misery.

Unless economic productivity improves, and continues to improve, as quickly as the population explodes, the quasi-medieval society will become even more miserable than before.

(If economic productivity does improve continuously, you have a dynamic, "modern" economy.)

That's honestly one of the things I have found utterly confusing about most of D&D's world-building. You have all these incredibly elaborate and pragmatic spells that could more than easily be used for practical development of economic and social development - of the sort that would allow kingdoms to edge out their neighbors - but the settings mostly just maintain a quasi-medieval society that's perpetually in a progressive limbo.

It depends on the specifics of things, which tend to be defined by the game rules.

For example, if we apply the damage from childbirth as hit point damage, then virtually anyone able to cast healing spells (e.g. a 1st-level adept in Pathfinder) can likely save the life of the mother, unless they have very few healing spells, roll very low for the number of hit points restored, and the mother takes a large amount of damage.

On the other hand, if we say that the damage from childbirth is treated as Constitution damage, then things become much more difficult, as the aforementioned adept would need to be at least 12th level (with a Wisdom of 18) to cast restoration and remove the damage.

Now, a 3rd-level cleric could cast lesser restoration and remove 1d4 points of Constitution damage (presuming that was enough, and that they had prepared that spell), so it's not as though this way of adjudicating the problems of childbirth provides for no help for women in labor, but still...it showcases that simply the presence of magic alone, even healing magic, isn't necessarily enough to undercut the conditions that give rise to prejudice in a fantasy game.

But it's the little things like this - something that practically denizens of all socio-economic status - care about that you would think magic would be used towards. And simply writing in a line that "magically trained midwives helped to reduce birth complications and infant mortality" thereby gives settings tremendous leeway in alleviating the need for presuming a gender-oppressive society.

 

[mmadsen]

That's honestly one of the things I have found utterly confusing about most of D&D's world-building. You have all these incredibly elaborate and pragmatic spells that could more than easily be used for practical development of economic and social development - of the sort that would allow kingdoms to edge out their neighbors - but the settings mostly just maintain a quasi-medieval society that's perpetually in a progressive limbo.

It might explain the Lost Golden Age in most fantasy settings' distant past. No one would quite understand that using all that magic to keep everyone alive and fed wouldn't keep the next, even bigger generation alive and fed, etc., until they'd created a huge but fragile society that needed magical food production, transportation, etc. just to maintain itself.

 

[WheresMyD20]

Eliminating racism from D&D is a noble goal, but I don't think the ogres will ever accept the kobolds as equals.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

One of the things that's been lacking in D&D, in terms of challenging the status quo, is the thinking. Everything is done up in modern terms in view of how people act, how they treat each other, etc...

Sure, the occassional dwarf elf thing, or now the tielfling dragonborn thing may pop up but the actual struggle against society itself seems to have fallen by the wayside.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing. When I think about slavery and women as second class citizens, no offense to my fellow gamers, but i've seen a lot of them abuse the hell out of such a setting because they were "going with it".

For me, it works when there are slavers, when times are tough, when the kingdom is corrupt, when the law is not enough, when there are times all you can do is plot your revenge and wait your time.

It works for me because it pits the setting itself against the players. If players have to worry about being thrown into the slave pits and fight as gladiators or being chained to rowing boats, it puts the game in something more than just, "Yup, it done time to clean out the dungeon again. We best get while the light is good."

Mind you, I love Dungeon Crawls but if we're talking about appealing to all fans, wouldn't that include those who want the game to be darker and gritier?

Or is there too much chance of asshat abuse?

Personally I enjoy abusing asshats. They're like Nazi's - you just can't torture them enough. The real thing about them is that letting them into the Garden Of Political Correctness is just ASKING for them to rape, pillage and plunder. Well, they'd rape, pillage and plunder ANYWAY - but it's less fun for them if the barbarian NPC's battlecry isn't, "Peace, Flowers, Love, and Healing!"

P.C. settings and those with anachronistic tendencies that thinly disguise modern life as a pseudo-medieval world should be kicked in the teeth and introduced to the gutter. The world is ALWAYS more interesting when there is something wrong with it. If you have an asshat for a DM that's a different story. I've known one or two who seem to wallow in degradation and offensiveness, but if I wanted to play in a modern setting then I'd play a game INTENDED for that kind of setting - NOT D&D. D&D is for hunting down Drow slavers, Paladins slaying vile demons (and yes it helps to have EXAMPLES of why they are vile and not just having attached the label), etc. Maidens sort of have to be of the helpless and hopelessly patronized bent if they're going to be captured and held in the tower of Swamp Castle for chivalrous heroes to rescue. Without SLAVERY there are no slavers to thwart. Without evil deeds there are fewer wrongs to right. How can you be a proper hero of the Light if THERE IS NO DARKNESS for your deeds to dispel?

 

[Jawsh]

It depends on the specifics of things, which tend to be defined by the game rules.

For example, if we apply the damage from childbirth as hit point damage, then virtually anyone able to cast healing spells (e.g. a 1st-level adept in Pathfinder) can likely save the life of the mother, unless they have very few healing spells, roll very low for the number of hit points restored, and the mother takes a large amount of damage.

On the other hand, if we say that the damage from childbirth is treated as Constitution damage, then things become much more difficult, as the aforementioned adept would need to be at least 12th level (with a Wisdom of 18) to cast restoration and remove the damage.

Now, a 3rd-level cleric could cast lesser restoration and remove 1d4 points of Constitution damage (presuming that was enough, and that they had prepared that spell), so it's not as though this way of adjudicating the problems of childbirth provides for no help for women in labor, but still...it showcases that simply the presence of magic alone, even healing magic, isn't necessarily enough to undercut the conditions that give rise to prejudice in a fantasy game.

I'd treat pregnancy as a disease. Diseases typically deal ability score damage, but allow several Fortitude saves. And the Heal skill can be used by someone in place of your Fort save.

I don't think the existence of healing magic and the Heal skill is enough to prevent maternal mortality throughout the setting. Wikipedia (yay! it's not blacked out anymore!) says that most maternal deaths are preventable. The reason they happen in developing countries is often because of the rural setting's lack of access to skilled care workers.

In the D&D world, most of the world is rural. It's a world where most peasants never travel more than 10 miles from home, let alone a pregnant peasant.

 

[delericho]

In a world of fantastic magic as presented in D&D, what is the actual likelihood of women dying of birth complications?

Oddly enough, I actually have an answer for that, just in case I was asked...

In "Bastion of Broken Souls", there's a discussion of an agreement amongst the gods that the souls of the unborn are not to be tampered with. That's kind of a key point in the adventure - something has gone wrong, the gods are banned from helping (or even talking about it), so it's up to the PCs to sort it out.

So, I extrapolated from that: divine magic is barred from affecting pregnant women or very young children, starting about a week before she gives birth until about a week afterwards. During that time, you're on your own. And so, there are no magical midwives or the like. Sure, the society could set up nice, clean hospitals to prevent death in childbirth... but then, we could have done that anyway, but didn't.

(This actually ties in somewhat with medieval Christianity. They believed that the soul didn't actually enter the body until after brith, and that infant mortality was due to the child not receiving a soul. It's not a great leap from something like that to "divine magic can't help you".)

Of course, there's an even easier alternate explanation: the major danger to women and children in medieval times seems to have been infection caused by unsanitary conditions. IOW, disease. Curing disease is a non-trivial spell - it's just not something that any old adept can do. Given the standard demographics as laid out in the 3e DMG, clerics and adepts are rare enough that very few women could get access to the necessary spell. Sure, some few women and children would be saved, but relatively few in terms of the population as a whole.