What We Lose When We Eliminate Controversial Content

[The-Magic-Sword]

I haven't caugh up on the thread, but earlier discussion on the 'necessity' of a given piece of art made me recall this excellent video essay by Jacob Geller, so with the knowledge that it might not be germane to wherever this thread has gone since, some of you might find it interesting to the overall topic.

 

[Synthil]

There are people who are advocating for slavery now, though, or at least the discrimination against and subjugation of Black people

Subjugation isn't quite the same thing as slaver though, is it? And I said I wouldn't include real life bigotry in products for that reason. The slavery advocated for nowadays is more in line with indentured servitude. Like prison labor.

And yeah, I meant cannibalism where people are specifically killed for the purpose of eating them. Not ritual cannibalism. You could even have people who eat their foes who aren't evil. They may just think worthy opponents are fit to become part of their group posthumously.

I can make a bad guy unambiguously bad, by making their individual actions bad, rather than create an entire culture of that badness, and make the ones I need for the PCs to beat up members of that culture.

True! And that certainly works. I guess I just like my bad guys to have a position of power, and not be the scrappy underdogs. So changing systemic injustices is just more my jam rather than having conservative (lower case conservative here!) fantasies about preserving a generally good status quo. This is entirely my preference however. The culture being bad should also always be the ones the heroes belong too. Fighting an evil "other" culture has its own pitfalls.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I haven't caugh up on the thread, but earlier discussion on the 'necessity' of a given piece of art made me recall this excellent video essay by Jacob Geller, so with the knowledge that it might not be germane to wherever this thread has gone since, some of you might find it interesting to the overall topic.

Thanks for posting this. Just getting to the part on Piss Christ now (this photograph and the reaction to it, had a very big impact on how I view things like art and free expression). Enjoying the video so far

 

[MGibster]

I started out in this thread by talking about how including controversial content made people feel unwelcome in the hobby. Now, let's take a look at this thread as a good example. In this thread, those that have a problem with including controversial material have been compared to the following:

1. Pat Puling - one of the most disliked individuals in the history of the hobby who is known for lying and spreading mistruths about the hobby in order to drum up support to shut the hobby down.

Specifically, I compared those who made the argument that slavery in RPGs was a bad idea because, unlike a book or movie, gaming is not passive entertainment, it's "you" making the decisions to one of the arguments made by Pat Pulling on why role playing games were psychologically harmful to young people. The idea that gamers can't separate the game from reality is baloney. It was baloney when it was made about D&D in the 80s, it was baloney when it was made about video games in the 90s, and it's baloney when the argument was brought up in this thread. I only compared a specific argument to Pat Pulling rather than all the arguments against slavery in the game.

 

[Scribe]

I've skipped on buying books I didnt think were marketed, or designed for me.

Does that mean I've been told to leave the hobby?

 

[Bagpuss]

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

When you have powers like Wish in the hands of mortal men, and you know some gods have been killed what makes God's special? Aren't they just slightly more powerful beings, why worthy of worship?

 

[Justice and Rule]

you can do this for sure, but then you don't have Roman Empire levels of epic empire expansion and enslavement, gladiatorial arenas (they would at least need to be all volunteer or something) as a potential campaign backdrop.

I mean, you can absolutely have "epic empire expansion" without mass enslavement, and you can get the same sort of stuff through just basic economics. Like, you talk about "volunteer gladiators", but what if they are desperate people at the end of their rope who can't leave because they are contracted out to a certain number of matches by a powerful gladiatorial stable owner. People don't need to be sold into chattel slavery to still be trapped in such things.

I am fine if someone wants to make a campaign world where all the evils are at an individual level. Campaign worlds at their best are thought experiments and that sounds like a good thought experiment to me. But I also think we need to have room for society wide evils in a setting two (including things like slavery)

Again, if you think the only society-wide ill is "slavery", then you aren't looking hard enough. I've had my disagreements with @Ruin Explorer , but they're absolutely right when they are talking about how oppression is what people are looking for, and that doesn't need to necessarily be through slavery.

I've skipped on buying books I didnt think were marketed, or designed for me.

Does that mean I've been told to leave the hobby?

I dunno, were they "not made for you" by including things that may be insensitive to your heritage? I think there's a difference between me not getting into Ponyfinder because that lacks appeal to me and someone looking at a setting that gratuitously uses things like slavery because I'm a minority.

Like, it's not a matter of taste, but a matter of being welcoming to certain minorities at that point.

 

[Scribe]

I dunno, were they "not made for you" by including things that may be insensitive to your heritage? I think there's a difference between me not getting into Ponyfinder because that lacks appeal to me and someone looking at a setting that gratuitously uses things like slavery because I'm a minority.

Like, it's not a matter of taste, but a matter of being welcoming to certain minorities at that point.

Sure, and I've moved well on from thinking the core of D&D offerings needs to appeal to me, and me alone.

The crux of the question is, if a book is released that offends someone, makes them feel unwelcome, does that mean they are being shown the door to the entire hobby, or does that mean that book is not something they care for?

Now personally, I absolutely feel that Wizards has no interest in my money. That doesnt mean I'm unwelcome. It doesnt mean they are excluding me.

It means my personal tastes, do not align with what they are providing in a general sense, and so I can look elsewhere to other games/books/companies.

If a 'controversial' book, singular, was released, that is not excluding people from the entire hobby. It is a matter of taste. Its a matter of personal choice, as I certainly do not assume that any demographic views near any issue as a monolith.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I mean, you can absolutely have "epic empire expansion" without mass enslavement, and you can get the same sort of stuff through just basic economics. Like, you talk about "volunteer gladiators", but what if they are desperate people at the end of their rope who can't leave because they are contracted out to a certain number of matches by a powerful gladiatorial stable owner. People don't need to be sold into chattel slavery to still be trapped in such things.

Of course. I wasn't saying you can't have epic expansion without slavery, I was saying epic imperial expansion is an evil that presumably people would also want to exclude.

In terms of gladiators, yes you absolutely can do what you are saying. Like I said, settings are thought experiments at their best so I am always in favor of more being on the table (if someone wants to make a world where the kind of gladiators you describe exist, I am all for that). But I am also for not taking Roman style gladiators and slavery off the table as a creative choice by publishers and designers.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Again, if you think the only society-wide ill is "slavery", then you aren't looking hard enough. I've had my disagreements with @Ruin Explorer , but they're absolutely right when they are talking about how oppression is what people are looking for, and that doesn't need to necessarily be through slavery.

I wasn't suggesting slavery was the only society wide ill (genocide is another that leaps to mind, but many forms of oppression can exist at the society level, mass impoverishment, moral panics, etc). I don't think we are in disagreement here. I was responding to Umbra's suggestion of focusing on evil at the individual level, not focusing on slavery as the sole societal evil.