Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 8254364" data-attributes="member: 59082">And? How does including such things in D&D affect those people? Should the creators of D&D products try to avoid any topics that might trigger something negative in anyone who might read it?This is not to say that an individual DM shouldn't adapt their game to the individual players involved, or that WotC shouldn't have some degree of sensitivity to what they put into print. But context is important, and further, I always come back to the question: how far do you want to go in an attempt to protect people? (More on that in a moment).Lots of people have been "bled dry" by "vampires." Lots of people face "dragons" and "axe-wielding goblins." It is clothed in fiction, in mythic forms, but they can relate to anyone's experience. Or is it the literal nature of slavery, of breeding that you find problematic? And therefore, must D&D fantasy be completely mythic, with no connection to history whatsoever? What about war veterans, most with some degree of combat-related PTSD? These things exist in real life, so why not fantasy? Again, it is one thing to glorify them, quite another to just present them as part of a world within which they make sense - and again, within a fantasy context. I do not think presenting them in a fantasy story is necessarily harmful to someone who can connect their experience to it. I mean, I understand that this approach is based on good intentions: trying to protect people from experiencing uncomfortable things. But I think it is misguided, in a similar way that over-protecting children from any possible harm, say, keeping them inside from the germs in dirt or the possibility of being kidnapped, actually ends up causing more harm than good. Obviously some protection is necessary, but it can go too far and, I think, has gone too far for many, whether with regards to child-raising or "safe-spacing" around something as relatively innocuous as a fantasy role-playing game.Muls are a rare instance of something being "carved in stone" in such a way. But if a person doesn't want that back-story they don't have to play a mul. Or if they want to, the DM can accommodate that. And of course, not everyone has to play Dark Sun! Should it, then, not exist, except in a format that removes any possible triggers?It doesn't really matter to me re: something so specific as muls, at least not in a practical way (that is, I can find a way to play the game however I want, no matter how it is published). What I am concerned with is what seems like unreasonable and unnecessary restrictions around what can or cannot be published, based on how it might affect people, based upon their background. First of all, the line seems to continually be changing, and the circle narrowing. Secondly, I honestly think that, despite the intentions behind it (mostly good), it often causes more harm than good.Again, I understand and practice the underlying ethic: to be aware of the feelings of others, to "do no harm."  But again, I see it as misguided; at the least, going too far (in some cases, way too far) with every tightening restrictions; at most, it actually causes harm.Have you ever heard of exposure therapy? It has been used to generally good results with war veterans and other trauma survivors. The basic idea is exposing them to a small dose of what traumatized them, be it through memory or virtual reality. This is not to say that D&D should be a therapeutic environment, but I bring this up to point out that encountering such things in the safe context of a fantasy game with friends may actually be beneficial.</blockquote>

Verification