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.

 

[Justice and Rule]

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

But it's not the question. I'm trying to ask how important you think it is to the setting, regardless of "canon" or what not. I'm asking if slavery is integral to making the Realms work as a setting.

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.

 

[Irlo]

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.

I wouldn't say that was loss due to censorship but rather to editorial oversight.

But I'd also say that wasn't a loss at all, regardless of marketablity.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But it's not the question. I'm trying to ask how important you think it is to the setting, regardless of "canon" or what not. I'm asking if slavery is integral to making the Realms work as a setting.



View attachment 277869

I think those parts of the setting would not be the same without them, and as I said I value setting fidelity. Do they need slavery to make sense? Maybe, maybe not, I'm not deeply versed in Realms lore, but like @Bedrockgames I don't feel something has to be integral to be included and have worldbuilding value.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But it's not the question. I'm trying to ask how important you think it is to the setting, regardless of "canon" or what not. I'm asking if slavery is integral to making the Realms work as a setting.



View attachment 277869

Oh, and I don't understand the dog picture. I only speak meme well enough to ask where the bathroom is.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

The problem is, you’re ignoring the fact that pepperoni has been used to the virtual exclusion of other toppings, resulting in numbers of pizza lovers who would love to have pizza with you feel unwelcome because every time they come to the restaurant, there is a very good chance (not 100% but still high) that the pizza will have pepperoni and not other toppings.

In other words, you insist on sticking to theoreticals and ignore actual facts and history.

I am using metaphors because this topic is about "Controversial Content" not "Slavery".

If use a singular concept like slavery as an example, then the discussion is about slavery. If I say controversial content people just ignore that and say slavery.

By speaking theoretically I'm discussing all controversial content not just a singular controversial topic.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

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.

The topic is controversial content, not just slavery. I'm trying to discuss the entire idea of controversial content not a single instance of it.

 

[Minion X]

View attachment 277869

I think you can confirm most of my claims just by reading Greenwood's QAs on the Candlekeep site.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Why would you think it's fair or reasonable to tell everyone else that they do need a trope because otherwise their worlds won't be as realistic or as rich?


"I said that when you remove concepts (aka specific colors of crayons) from the list of available topics that can be included in a game (the box of crayons) then the area your game can cover (your pictures color palette) is not as wide as if you still had access to all concepts (a larger color palette)."

"Previously in this thread I have stated that you shouldn't remove the red crayon from the box, because it limits possibilities in storytelling."


And I'll go through with one last analogy as well.

If a pizza parlor chooses to not sell a specific topping, then that's perfectly OK. Ledo's pizza has salami and meatballs as potential toppings, but Pizza Hut doesn't--but Pizza Hut does have sun-dried tomatoes, which Ledo's doesn't. And California Pizza Kitchen has broccoli and avocado, which neither Ledo's or Pizza Hut sell.

Why? Because they are different restaurants selling different types of pizza.

Just like different companies produce different games and different genres of game with different target audiences, and will thus include different topics. And some companies are choosing not to sell slavery as an option for their pizza.

Notice that in the parts of my posts you quoted I never claimed that everyone had to use the red crayon, I just said it should stay in the box for others.

But now that I'm being personally mocked for trying to come to an understanding I think I'll bow out of this discussion.

 

[Faolyn]

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.

Sexual harassment, as far as the eye can see!

That's what really would have happened, considering that teens and young adults were the main players at the time.

 

[Faolyn]

Does that mean that no one should sell pepperoni then? That from now on if you want pepperoni you need to make it yourself?

Pepperoni (and red crayons) =/= having fun with the idea of treating people as property.