What We Lose When We Eliminate Controversial Content

[Faolyn]

So it's specifically WotC then? You're fine with other companies producing red-crayon products? The tone I've been getting seemed to imply you'd rather no company use it.

I've said repeatedly that WotC sells to a 12 and higher crowd and they're owned by a toy manufacturer. It makes complete sense that they don't want to sell "controversial content." They've also shown that they're not great and handling this sort of content, plus D&D and D&D-derivatives treat (ending) slavery as a way to get XP--i.e., just part of the game. Other companies may be better at how they deal with slavery. I pointed out Spire before and there's probably several others as well I haven't read.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Just talk about putting slavery in a product, for Lathander's sake. All this beating around the bush is so frustrating because those who are defending the idea have problems seemingly even talking about it directly. The metaphors aren't real, they aren't even good comparisons.

Let's just talk directly about the topic. Like, let me ask a direct question: which slavery is indispensable to the Forgotten Realms as a setting? Like, which instances are integral to the setting so that it functions.

I don't really care about the Forgotten Realms. I do care about setting fidelity, so if slavery was part of various cultures in the old lore, I'd prefer it to stay there. If that means we can't talk about that stuff to make a salable product, then so be it, but I'd rather they make new settings that conform to modern values than change old ones to suit. Does that answer your question?

 

[Irlo]

Just talk about putting slavery in a product, for Lathander's sake. All this beating around the bush is so frustrating because those who are defending the idea have problems seemingly even talking about it directly. The metaphors aren't real, they aren't even good comparisons.

Thank you. The analogies are obfuscating communications, and the topic isn't so complicated that it can't be discussed directly.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I don't really care about the Forgotten Realms. I do care about setting fidelity, so if slavery was part of various cultures in the old lore, I'd prefer it to stay there. If that means we can't talk about that stuff to make a salable product, then so be it, but I'd rather they make new settings that conform to modern values than change old ones to suit. Does that answer your question?

Not really. You're saying you don't want to change anything because you want it how it was. That's basically ignoring the question, not answering it. I'm asking how integral these concepts are to the setting and to the cultures.

 

[Irlo]

I don't really care about the Forgotten Realms. I do care about setting fidelity, so if slavery was part of various cultures in the old lore, I'd prefer it to stay there. If that means we can't talk about that stuff to make a salable product, then so be it, but I'd rather they make new settings that conform to modern values than change old ones to suit. Does that answer your question?

I understand this position (although I disagree), and I appreciate the clarity with which it's expressed.

My preference runs the other way. I don't care about setting fidelity, and if a new version of a setting doesn't integrate interesting, substantial changes, I don't see the point. (I also don't enjoy movie remakes faithful to originals and musical covers that don't do anything new with the songs.)

New settings, though. I'd love to see that!

 

[Minion X]

You do realize that focusing on the single work is kinda missing the point right?

The point was, we should not include racist bigots in a list of INSPIRATIONAL reading in the 5e PHB.

Can we at least try to speak to the issue without endlessly diving down non sequitur rabbit holes that completely miss the point?

I could have sworn I made a post agreeing that Wizards of the Coast are free to include whoever they want or don't want on their recommended reading lists, and that they can do whatever they want with the rights to D&D. And since they have made the previous editions available digitally, everyone can pick whichever Appendix N they prefer and be content. They do note that the list in the current Player's Handbook includes the titles from the original Appendix N, so it would be disingenious to omit any of them unless they remove that sentence.
As for The Shadow over Innsmouth, it was just a topic that interested me since I hadn't encountered the interpretation you posited before.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I understand this position (although I disagree), and I appreciate the clarity with which it's expressed.

My preference runs the other way. I don't care about setting fidelity, and if a new version of a setting doesn't integrate interesting, substantial changes, I don't see the point. (I also don't enjoy movie remakes faithful to originals and musical covers that don't do anything new with the songs.)

New settings, though. I'd love to see that!

New settings are vastly better than "modernized" old ones.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Not really. You're saying you don't want to change anything because you want it how it was. That's basically ignoring the question, not answering it. I'm asking how integral these concepts are to the setting and to the cultures.

That is how I feel about the question vis a vis the Forgotten Realms, which is what you asked about.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Just talk about putting slavery in a product, for Lathander's sake. All this beating around the bush is so frustrating because those who are defending the idea have problems seemingly even talking about it directly. The metaphors aren't real, they aren't even good comparisons.

Let's just talk directly about the topic. Like, let me ask a direct question: which slavery is indispensable to the Forgotten Realms as a setting? Like, which instances are integral to the setting so that it functions.

I am not a big Forgotten Realms fan (I liked Curse of the Azure Bonds, the Dark Elf Trilogy and Icewindale and played in a few campaigns, but wasn't too deep into its lore). But to answer this more generally, I don't think something needs to be indispensable to be on the table and included in a setting (plenty of things simply add an interesting flavor to a campaign world, without being something that the campaign world can't function without). For me where slavery works in games is often ones based on the ancient world, where it just fits the history I am often drawing on (I can imagine a Rome without slavery, but it doesn't really feel like Rome to me). Also it adds an important element of the world being a cruel and warlike place (empires go to war, city states go to war and one of the consequences of war is people become enslaved). Plus it does afford adventure potential (like I said before, Spartacus as a campaign concept is hard to do if Slavery isn't part of the setting). I don't think it needs to be or ought to be in all settings, but I think it is perfectly fine to include just like any other evil in history (and I don't think it need be a requirement that it be handled in any particular way or that players need to contend against it, it can sometimes just be an important aspect of the setting background).

 

[Minion X]

Forgotten Realms is a good example of what we lose due to censorship. Apparently, Ed Greenwood's original was heavy on the Free Love, and all those "festhalls" on the city maps were originally brothels/sex clubs, and people were overall very open about experimenting and trying new things, like Belts of Gender Change. We can only dream of the D&D that could have been if not for those uptight evangelicals, or concede that these changes probably were a good idea to create a marketable product.