What We Lose When We Eliminate Controversial Content

[Irlo]

I've heard of a lot of games where there is a "no evil pcs" rule.

Do you mean there are game systems with written rules against evil PCs? (If so, can you provide examples?) Or do you mean gaming groups which limit player options?

 

[Maxperson]

Dark Sun with indentured servitude but not chattel slavery would be a bit weird.

There would be no threat of slavers and no slavers to directly fight.

Gladiators as indentured servants can kind of work in a horrific ultra-capitalism critique/spin but it is a lot different than the typical Spartacus slave gladiator setup that Dark Sun traditionally has.

You would switch a bit of the fantasy ancient civilization vibe that Dark Sun has to a more European colonial capitalism one.

You don't breed muls for indentured servitude.

Escaping indentured servitude and freeing people from indentured servitude would have a significantly different connotation than from full on chattel slavery.

It would be a setup for a more cyberpunk/shadowrun escaping the wage slave paradigm rather than Spartacus killing the slavers thing that Dark Sun has built in.

That's the part I wouldn't mind leaving the setting. You don't need forced breeding of Muls to have slavery in Dark Sun. You could eliminate that aspect without altering the setting at all. Muls would exist. Slavery would exist. Muls could even be slaves.

 

[Lanefan]

Absolutely. That's exactly my point. The answer isn't removal by the company. The answer is removal by the table. I have played in and run evil campaigns or mixed campaigns where there is an evil PC. I have also played under DMs who don't allow evil because it bothers them. The game, though, allows evil by RAW and has since day 1.

Well, not quite: the initial release of 2e technically put evil alignments off limits to PCs.

One of the many dumb moves made in 2e design to placate the Satanic-panic crowd.

 

[Voadam]

Do you mean there are game systems with written rules against evil PCs? (If so, can you provide examples?) Or do you mean gaming groups which limit player options?

D&D 4e PH comes close.

"If you choose an alignment for your character, you should pick either good or lawful good. Unless your DM is running a campaign in which all the characters are evil or chaotic evil, playing an evil or chaotic evil character disrupts an adventuring party and, frankly, makes all the other players angry at you."

In 4e there was unaligned instead of neutral.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, not quite: the initial release of 2e technically put evil alignments off limits to PCs.

One of the many dumb moves made in 2e design to placate the Satanic-panic crowd.

It did not. Page 47 of the 2e PHB.

"Playing the Character's Alignment
Aside from a few minimal restrictions required for some character classes, a player is free to choose whatever alignment he wants for his character. However, before rushing off and selecting an alignment, there are a few things to consider."

And...

"Third, some people choose to play evil alignments. Although there is no specific prohibition against this, there are several reasons why it is not a good idea."

It tried to talk you out of it, but there was nothing that made it off limits except the restrictions to Paladins and the like.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Well, not quite: the initial release of 2e technically put evil alignments off limits to PCs.

One of the many dumb moves made in 2e design to placate the Satanic-panic crowd.

Are you 100% sure on that? I don't have my 1989 PHB on hand so I can't check, and it is definitely a detail I could see missing even after all these years, but I don't recall this (and I remember it being quite common in settings like Ravenloft for the mechanics to anticipate players doing evil things with the powers check system).

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Absolutely. That's exactly my point. The answer isn't removal by the company. The answer is removal by the table. I have played in and run evil campaigns or mixed campaigns where there is an evil PC. I have also played under DMs who don't allow evil because it bothers them. The game, though, allows evil by RAW and has since day 1.

I don’t think anyone is denying that, and I’ve re articulated that I don’t shy away from controversial material in my own games. This is more about what is a reasonable, uncontroversial baseline for Wizards in terms of their product.

WotC has to make rational choices about how they market their product, what demographic they capture, their reputation etc. Slavery - in any form - is a hot potato, and I’m not sure they have the bandwidth to treat it thoughtfully. It seems likely that they will pass over Dark Sun entirely - this is probably the right choice; do not diminish the setting; do not aggravate the fan base or attract critical censure.

 

[Faolyn]

And without salt humans wouldn't exist on Earth. Earth is not the salt planet. Dark Sun is not the slavery setting. Stop misrepresenting.

I wasn't aware that a necessary nutrient was the same as pretending to own other intelligent beings like they were animals. Good to know.

I did answer it.

No you didn't. You said you added it back. That's not the same as saying if the Realms are no longer the Realms. It just means that you prefer a specific thing from the setting.

Sure I could add it back in. I shouldn't have to. There's no good reason to eliminate it. It doesn't support slavery in any way. It doesn't encourage players to play slavers. People with an issue with slavery can have it not exist at their table.

There's no good reason to keep it, either. How about, people who don't have an issue can add it back in.

The wall isn't attacking anyone in real life. D&D is not real life. The gods are KNOWN to be real in D&D. And it isn't a matter of atheism. If you believed in the gods, yet chose not to venerate/respect them, you ended up in the wall. Faithless =/= unbeliever.

You're being deliberately obtuse on this topic. It doesn't matter if it's real life or not. The game went out of its way to say that people who didn't believe in or chose not to worship any gods get turned into a brick until they dissolved or got turned into a demon. This is insulting, cruel, and, in a fantasy world, completely unnecessary.

Ditto slavery, which is badly done and completely unnecessary, and is a topic that has harmed and continue to harm people today.

Frankly, it doesn't matter why it was added. You might be right with that statement, or you might be wrong. It's not relevant. It was added and IS an integral part of the setting, regardless of why.

It does matter. If it was added because slavery actually meant something for the world, because the world was built around it, then it would be integral. If it was added because everyone else was doing it, then it doesn't matter.

And slavery doesn't add anything to Dark Sun. Everything else in Dark Sun makes the setting interesting and unique. So go on, name two things that slavery actually adds to Dark Sun that (a) would actually make Dark Sun totally different if removed and (b) can't be replicated with serfs or paid workers.

 

[haakon1]

The hobby has been that way since day 1. Not everyone is comfortable running or playing in evil campaigns or even with an evil PC. The solution has never been to remove evil from the player options and has always been to just not play it.

AD&D 2nd Edition banned the Assassin class and Half-Orcs, and said evil wasn’t for player characters.

I didn’t like 2e, and that was one of the reasons.

 

[Micah Sweet]

AD&D 2nd Edition banned the Assassin class and Half-Orcs, and said evil wasn’t for player characters.

I didn’t like 2e, and that was one of the reasons.

I did like 2e, but I didn't like that part.