What We Lose When We Eliminate Controversial Content

[Kaodi]

Absolutely yes.

Slavery is okay because the victims are white is not a good look.

Not a question of what is okay so much as a question of what is triggering.

 

[Faolyn]

If a person I was playing with had an issue with slavery being referenced in our game, and I was running GoS, of course I'd remove it. But I see no reason to take it out of the book, and have no issue with it being there in the first place. If anything, having it there gives a concrete example of just evil that NPC is.

But if it wasn't in the book at all--there had never been slavery in it at all, a new edition was published and something else was substituted for slavery--and you read it for the first time... would you feel it wasn't enough? Would you go, "this guy is evil, but not evil enough; he needs to be a slaver for this adventure to make sense"?

Because there are a lot of types of evil out there. Maybe he sells counterfeit medicines and people have died from it. Maybe he swindles elderly widows out of their life savings. Maybe he forces children to steal for him. Maybe he runs a dog fighting ring. Maybe he deliberately infects people with lycanthropy as part of an animal-god cult so he can spread mayhem and destruction. Maybe he captures unicorns and keeps them chained up so he can harvest their horns (maybe unicorns regrow their horns) and then sell them as components for evil spellcasters. Maybe he seeks out and cuts down dryad soul trees and makes expensive furniture out of the wood.

There's lots of options out there. Slavery doesn't have to be the only concrete example.

 

[Faolyn]

There is very few people alive in the world not “descended from a marginalised group” and I find it troubling that you think we should be using bloodlines as a sort of barometer to who gets to veto what.

Are you still part of a marginalized group? Or just descended from one?

 

[Sepulchrave II]

That's part of the beauty of building a fantasy setting - if I want social cleavages to be present in the setting, my players and I can pick and choose the ones we want and not be beholden to the specifics of Earth history.

Absolutely this. You can fragment society in any number of dimensions in order to provide a framework for conflict.

But published D&D campaigns do not treat the structure of religions, or of taxation, or of the right to bear arms, or of social mobility, or of gender roles, as specially constrained by any kind of historical precedent.

There are lots of games which are anchored to a particular time and/or culture in Earth's history, and which might reasonably be expected to be restricted by the historical realities of their premise. D&D is not one of them.

And, again: people are free to play, buy or publish whatever they want. No-one is forcing anyone to do anything. You are free to explore whatever you want, in as much depth as you want.

But an explicit statement in a published product that "so-and-so is a slave trader" or "such-and-such is a slave-owning society" does not miraculously lend verisimilitude, or act as some kind of beacon for free speech.

 

[Umbran]

There is very few people alive in the world not “descended from a marginalised group” and I find it troubling that you think we should be using bloodlines as a sort of barometer to who gets to veto what.

So, note that there's a difference between "descended from a group that was, at one time, marginalized" and "descended from a group that is still currently marginalized."

The point is that folks who are not currently marginalized maybe shouldn't profit off those who currently are.

 

[MGibster]

Not a question of what is okay so much as a question of what is triggering.

What exactly do you mean by triggering? If you had typed this 15 years ago, I would have thought you meant trigger as in something that causes overwhelming emotional distress. But these days, I'm not sure if triggering just means "I don't care for it" or "It makes me uncomfortable."

 

[Faolyn]

What exactly do you mean by triggering? If you had typed this 15 years ago, I would have thought you meant trigger as in something that causes overwhelming emotional distress. But these days, I'm not sure if triggering just means "I don't care for it" or "It makes me uncomfortable."

It can mean any of those, so why not err on the side of caution.

It's like with allergens. Some people who are allergic to a food may eat it and get a stomach ache for an hour or two, while others may go into anaphylactic shock and possibly die. If you're making food for someone who's allergic, you avoid the allergen altogether; you don't add it because hey, it may just make them uncomfortable.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It can mean any of those, so why not err on the side of caution.

It's like with allergens. Some people who are allergic to a food may eat it and get a stomach ache for an hour or two, while others may go into anaphylactic shock and possibly die. If you're making food for someone who's allergic, you avoid the allergen altogether; you don't add it because hey, it may just make them uncomfortable.

Is the assumption then that you are publishing for an audience in which there is bound to be  someone who is allergic?

 

[Hussar]

Yes because offense is down to the individual. There is a difference between an rpg product that nearly everyone would find offense say one where the players are recruited to capture run away slaves prior to the US Civil War, or one where some people might find offense just because slavery features in it, even though the players are hired to break free the slaves, in a fantasy setting.

You can't be banning something just because a minority of people have an issue with it, for reasons the majority disagree with, unless it actually causes some harm to that minority and they need protecting.

But there’s the trick isn’t it? We’re not talking about one product. Slavery features in DnD pretty often. Monster descriptions, setting guides, adventures. Slavery is a very common theme.

So by telling me “don’t like it, don’t buy it” you’re basically telling me I’m not welcome in the hobby.

That’s the basic problem. And because products are always designed for the majority, minority voices can be safely ignored because it’s not causing “harm”.

 

[Bagpuss]

But there’s the trick isn’t it? We’re not talking about one product. Slavery features in DnD pretty often. Monster descriptions, setting guides, adventures. Slavery is a very common theme.

So by telling me “don’t like it, don’t buy it” you’re basically telling me I’m not welcome in the hobby.

It comes up significantly less often than giant spiders, and you don't hear arachnophobes claiming they aren't welcome, or that spiders shouldn't appear in any RPG product. If you have a arachnophobe at your table as a GM you just make modifications, or don't pick a scenario where they feature heavily, you don't try and get them removed from every product because they are still a useful and important story element for most people.