D&D 5E (2024) Unconfirmed Dark Sun World Book

[LuisCarlos17f]

I don't mind this little retcon. In the city-states the "mulzhen" could breed thanks special (psionic/magic) "help" because they are very valious for the sorcerer-kings, and and parents with children could be more obedient.

Acording my memory in the real life the female mules aren't sterile but they can only with one of the two species.

 

[briggart]

They're a mixed race people called mules. Them being bred for hybrid vigor for increased work productivity and entertainment while not allowed to breed of their own volition is a further degradation.

I think the natural parallel here is that they are a sterile offspring of two different species, typically bred in captivity. "Mulatto" may also draw on the mule analogy, but I feel the animal rather than the ethnicity is the more direct reference here.

 

[Gradine]

That's not better

 

[Silam]

What does "equal opportunity slavery" mean?

It means that it was not racially-determined (as the American South did it). Rather, all races could be slaves (as the Romans did it).

 

[Phantom_Miria]

I think the natural parallel here is that they are a sterile offspring of two different species, typically bred in captivity. "Mulatto" may also draw on the mule analogy, but I feel the animal rather than the ethnicity is the more direct reference here.

Yeah, I think the origin of the name owes a lot more to the animal, to signal "hybrid of two different animals that's sexually sterile", and that's how the Sorcerer-Kings thought them as. The insensitivity built from the name is part of the point.

4e also changed this slightly, opening to the idea that Muls can make children (and so can Mules apparently, it's just really rare, rare enough that in Ancient Greece the event was considered an ill omen), which would kind of drastically change how and what Muls are in Dark Sun: if they are sterile, and giving birth to them is so difficult that the pregnancy usually results in the death of the mother as stated in 2e sources, then Muls are basically only the result of evil Sorcerer-King experimentation, of which the Muls themselves share no blame but producing more Muls is an inherently cruel process, and they can only exist as people born captive who hopefully will be able to obtain their freedom later in life; if they can just make babies however, even if with difficulty, then that changes stuff, and you can have things such as a Mul who was born free instead of being made to work for the Sorcerer-Kings.

 

[Remathilis]

But are hard limits actually meaningful in this context? Or even desirable?

Not to me they aren't. It takes no effort to ban something. It takes vision to see where it fits. Sometimes it's unavoidable (like swapping kender for halflings requires removing halflings) but I'd rather WotC take the time to explain where tabaxi fit in Krynn rather than simply say "no tabaxi in Krynn." Any DM can do that.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

When their appearance is directly drawn from those racist depictions, they're led by "Witch Doctors," and they've got every other signifier of that racist depiction then the answer's yes it is in fact racist.

I guess I should go back and look at the 2E depictions of them and see what I think.

The left pictures are obviously not racist or stereotyped in any way, they're almost Giger-esque and pretty cool. But the right ones definitely make me uncomfortable!

 

[Remathilis]

Yeah, I think the origin of the name owes a lot more to the animal, to signal "hybrid of two different animals that's sexually sterile", and that's how the Sorcerer-Kings thought them as. The insensitivity built from the name is part of the point.

4e also changed this slightly, opening to the idea that Muls can make children (and so can Mules apparently, it's just really rare, rare enough that in Ancient Greece the event was considered an ill omen), which would kind of drastically change how and what Muls are in Dark Sun: if they are sterile, and giving birth to them is so difficult that the pregnancy usually results in the death of the mother as stated in 2e sources, then Muls are basically only the result of evil Sorcerer-King experimentation, of which the Muls themselves share no blame but producing more Muls is an inherently cruel process, and they can only exist as people born captive who hopefully will be able to obtain their freedom later in life; if they can just make babies however, even if with difficulty, then that changes stuff, and you can have things such as a Mul who was born free instead of being made to work for the Sorcerer-Kings.

I almost think that the story of the muls is far better done with the warforged (a species unnaturally created for a specific purpose who cannot reproduce without magical assistance) because as a non-organic being they remove a lot of the ickier elements (death of the mother, forced breeding, half-breed status) but keeps the interesting parts (finding new purpose, freedom vs servitude, bigotry for being different). With that in mind, I have no problem allowing the mul to move into a more traditional species setup rather than being sentient livestock.

 

[Silam]

Not to me they aren't. It takes no effort to ban something. It takes vision to see where it fits. Sometimes it's unavoidable (like swapping kender for halflings requires removing halflings) but I'd rather WotC take the time to explain where tabaxi fit in Krynn rather than simply say "no tabaxi in Krynn." Any DM can do that.

I think the restrictions were important… the world had no orcs, gnomes and many other race/species for a very specific reason. Look it up if you’d like, I won’t share a spoiler. But regardless of the reason why, the outcome is that it was a change of scenery. It allowed us to play a fantasy game without the usual tropes we were accustomed to from FR/GH/DL…

 

[briggart]

That's not better

Assuming you are reply to me: in what context? In setting, definitely not. The real world inspiration for "Mul" has little impact on Muls in-setting status. DS is an horrible place full of horrible people.

But I don't feel that is used as a cheap trick to stand out for EDIT: from the crowd. Parallels with real world issues and situation are not meant to reinforce stereotypes, rather to highlight how awful those things are. Some people will anyway be uncomfortable with this, and that's perfectly fine, but I don't think that makes it any more problematic than the basic D&D assumption of violence as the default conflict resolution approach.