What We Lose When We Eliminate Controversial Content

[Ruin Explorer]

This is wrong. There is a difference between slavery and indentured servitude. If there wasn't, they wouldn't be different things with different names. Therefore it cannot be exactly the same.

That is a completely irrational argument.

Loads of things have different names but are the same thing, or functionally the same thing. In this case, they are functionally the same, and you've made absolutely no rational argument that they're not. You've just irrationally asserted they're not because their names are different.

Remove any of those things and the feel of the setting changes.

This is also a terrible argument.

All settings change regularly. It's not change that matters, it's magnitude and type of change, and whether it actually impacts the main themes of the setting. Dark Sun is a great example of that - even back in 2E, the material added and changed in the second boxed setting significantly changed the tone of the setting and the hopefulness of it. Slavery is not one of the main themes of the setting - societal oppression is, but not slavery specifically - note that not all the Sorcerer-Kings are even very keen on slavery, nor is it a large feature of all the kingdoms. But they're all extremely oppressive.

 

[Maxperson]

Loads of things have different names but are the same thing, or functionally the same thing. In this case, they are functionally the same, and you've made absolutely no rational argument that they're not. You've just irrationally asserted they're not because their names are different.

It's not about function. It's about feel. Slavery and servitude do not feel the same.

All settings change regularly. It's not change that matters, it's magnitude and type of change, and whether it actually impacts the main themes of the setting. Dark Sun is a great example of that - even back in 2E, the material added and changed in the second boxed setting significantly changed the tone of the setting and the hopefulness of it. Slavery is not one of the main themes of the setting - societal oppression is, but not slavery specifically - note that not all the Sorcerer-Kings are even very keen on slavery, nor is it a large feature of all the kingdoms. But they're all extremely oppressive.

Sure. They change the feel of settings with each edition. I stopped using their changes for the Realms after the Time of Troubles. The time of troubles didn't change the feel of the Realms. The Spell Plague and Sundering altered too much and the Realms would not have felt the same.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That is a completely irrational argument.

Loads of things have different names but are the same thing, or functionally the same thing. In this case, they are functionally the same, and you've made absolutely no rational argument that they're not. You've just irrationally asserted they're not because their names are different.

This is also a terrible argument.

All settings change regularly. It's not change that matters, it's magnitude and type of change, and whether it actually impacts the main themes of the setting. Dark Sun is a great example of that - even back in 2E, the material added and changed in the second boxed setting significantly changed the tone of the setting and the hopefulness of it. Slavery is not one of the main themes of the setting - societal oppression is, but not slavery specifically - note that not all the Sorcerer-Kings are even very keen on slavery, nor is it a large feature of all the kingdoms. But they're all extremely oppressive.

But it didn't change the history of Athas retroactively. The history of the setting was the same. Removing slavery is quite different.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It's not about function. It's about feel. Slavery and servitude do not feel the same.

"My argument is vibes".

Okay I guess? That's not a good argument tho.

They change the feel of settings with each edition.

More often than that, a lot of the time - my specific example was two boxed sets a mere three years apart in the same edition.

But it didn't change the history of Athas retroactively. The history of the setting was the same. Removing slavery is quite different.

My dude, you made a huge argument, which I agreed with, in the First World thread, that the First World recontextualized multiple settings. The second DS boxed set recontextualized Athas entirely. With respect they did change things - also I think it's okay to change things between editions, if I'm honest.

 

[Micah Sweet]

"My argument is vibes".

Okay I guess? That's not a good argument tho.

More often than that, a lot of the time - my specific example was two boxed sets a mere three years apart in the same edition.

My dude, you made a huge argument, which I agreed with, in the First World thread, that the First World recontextualized multiple settings. The second DS boxed set recontextualized Athas entirely. With respect they did change things - also I think it's okay to change things between editions, if I'm honest.

I really don't think its ok. Changes of an existing setting should be additive.

What parts of the original setting were different in the revised? Actually different, not additive?

 

[the Jester]

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?

Groups that limit the option. I've also heard of groups that don't allow CN either.

 

[haakon1]

I just quoted the 2e PHB saying that there were no limitations. It tried to discourage evil, but there was no RAW ban on evil PC alignments and in fact they were expressly allowed. Read the 2e PHB page 47.

Good for you!

 

[MGibster]

Loads of things have different names but are the same thing, or functionally the same thing. In this case, they are functionally the same, and you've made absolutely no rational argument that they're not. You've just irrationally asserted they're not because their names are different.

As far as US history goes, indentured servitude and slavery were radically different. Indentured servants entered into a contract agreeing to provide a number of years of service (typically 5) in exchange for passage to the Americas. Once their contract was up, they might receive a sum of money, land, or other valuables as stipulated in their contract (there's a term for this but I can't for the life of me remember what it was). In the 17th century, roughtly 2/3rds of the colonist from Great Britian and Germany were actually indentured servants. By the end of the 17th century, the use of African slaves as a source of labor became preferrable to most planters.

There are certainly similarities between indentured servitude and slavery as practiced in what would become the United States. Your contract could be sold to another person without your consent, you could be beaten for breaking the rules (and some indentured servants were severely beaten indeed), they needed permission to marry, and quite a few of them died before their contracts were up because conditions in the Americas were pretty harsh.

But an indentured servant chose to be in Virgnia whereas a slave did not. An indentured servant wasn't completely separated from his culture whereas a slave often was. An indentured servant had some access to courts and certain rights whereas a slave did not. An indentured servant knew when his servitude would end whereas a slave knew it was neverending.

Quite frankly, the only people I hear who say slavery and indentured servitude are functionally the same are the "What about white slavery?" people. And they're only doing it as a way to draw attention from the horrors of the enslavement of Africans.

 

[MGibster]

I always thought the idea of an atheist in Forgotten Realms was silly. The equivalent of being a flat Earther today.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

quite a few of them died before their contracts were up because conditions in the Americas were pretty harsh.

The majority as I understand it.

In the 17th century, roughtly 2/3rds of the colonist from Great Britian and Germany were actually indentured servants. By the end of the 17th century, the use of African slaves as a source of labor became preferrable to most planters.

I'm well aware. One of the major reason for this change was that indentured servants were increasingly making common cause with the slaves, which was seen as a big risk to society.

Once their contract was up, they might receive a sum of money, land, or other valuables as stipulated in their contract

Or not.

But an indentured servant chose to be in Virgnia whereas a slave did not.

No. An indentured servant "chose" to accept an indenture to the US, which is different to a specific part of it. And they "chose" because they had no real choice in most/many cases. Only some were taken by force, rather than all as with chattel slaves, but it was very much "a thing" and discussed at the time. No efforts were made to free them even when they were known to have been kidnapped. A huge proportion were deceived into signing contracts they didn't understand (many being unable to read) or were simply lied to about - possibly the vast majority.