What We Lose When We Eliminate Controversial Content

[Bedrockgames]

No? Because comments about Lord Soth's dead wife and child suggest otherwise.

On the Soth subject, this is subjective, and it isn't like the character has been super consistent over time. But I was reading the Knight of the Black Rose again (my favorite TSR era novel) and it retells the origin of Soth (which I vaguely remember from reading the Dragonlance books but it has been ages so not sure how well it lines up with those details). I found the treatment of it worked pretty well for me. It was bloody, operatic, biblical, and the rejection of redemption felt kind of powerful given the gravity of his crimes (but also the gravity of his crimes made his evil incarnation as a Death Knight more believable). Not going to land perfectly with everyone. For me it landed. Also I realize the whole Soth in Ravenloft thing is its own controversy

 

[Kaodi]

A character is interesting because they are interesting. Yasuke is a person, just as Masamune is. Without slavery, Yasuke is still a person. Still African. Still a samurai. He just got there for a different reason in that timeline.

It sounds like you are suggesting that Yasuke was fated to be a samurai, which is pretty out there.

Also, I do not get why you are bringing Keanu Reeves into this.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I know people have been pointing out the examples of mythic Africa in DnD, but that was always my point. Unrestrained creativity hasn’t actually led to writers being more creative.

That is not a good reason to restrain creativity by removing options. That is a reason to do better, be more creative, in the future.

 

[Imaro]

It sounds like you are suggesting that Yasuke was fated to be a samurai, which is pretty out there.

No it sounds like he's saying having been a slave isn't the thing that makes his story compelling. The things he accomplished did.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is a fundamentally flawed concept.

A character is interesting because they are interesting. Yasuke is a person, just as Masamune is. Without slavery, Yasuke is still a person. Still African. Still a samurai. He just got there for a different reason in that timeline.

What you're doing here is defaulting. Yasuke is only interesting because he's Black AND a former slave. Otherwise, he could have been white. Because white folks have been interesting without being slaves for all the other stories.

Yasuke catches attention in our modern context because we are recognizing the white-washing of our history and finally giving credit that Yasuke got to save Japan before Keanu Reeves did. Without slavery, he'd still be worthy of interest and respect for being who he was. A foreigner becoming respected Samurai is an accomplishment. Not just for being Black. Just like every other white dude doing something interesting.

A setting can have evil. But it doesn't have to repeat our history. It doesn't have to force players of a given demographic into the same roles, tropes, and denigrations of our history.

Don't confuse something the cause and effect of our history for being required content in a fictional setting.

No one says it has to, but some people are saying shouldn't, and maybe it can't anymore. That's where I have a problem.

 

[Kaodi]

No it sounds like he's saying having been a slave isn't the thing that makes his story compelling. The things he accomplished did.

He said, "He got there for a different reason in that timeline," which is pretty much an entirely different subject to what makes him interesting.

 

[Fenris-77]

It sounded like you were saying people don’t like safe. Sorry if I misunderstood.

Well, I suppose there's something vaguely unsafe feeling about horror and other things like that but I think there's a big difference between that and being actually unsafe. I think that one of the very useful roles that media of various sorts, TTRPGs included, fill is to provide a safe space to experience, deal with, or discuss ideas that would feel very unsafe in different contexts.

 

[Willie the Duck]

Again, I don't think this should be in every setting or anything, but I would be reluctant to say it should never appear in a game or that its automatically in bad taste to include it (anymore than I would accuse Schindler's List or the Killing Fields of being made in bad taste). Including the atrocities of war, the evil that humans are capable of doing to one another, is something I can definitely see working in certain settings. I found the way it was handled in Ravenloft in Falkovnia for example quite effective (and most of my gaming group in high school at the time was made up of people with relatives who were killed in pogroms and the holocaust). That is probably why that aspect of the setting resonated with us. Different people will have a different reaction to that kind of thing for sure, so I am not suggesting it ought to be rubbed in peoples face if they find it distasteful or that there aren't less respectful and more respectful ways to handle it.

Things aren't monolithic and implementations aren't monolithic. Context does matter, as does the people in question and their emotional interaction with the broader topic to which their own historical tragedy is an example (I can imagine someone with family killed in pogroms could have a different interaction with fantasy genocide than child of a Cambodian Khmer Rouge survivor, or than that of a descendent of North American Afro-Caribbean slave trade does to fantasy slavery). Likewise, what you do with it will matter (if fighting said evil is the actual primary intended play loop of the game, it will be different than if said evil is simply part of the worldbuilding where you might address it or maybe accept it, which will be different from if it is part of the worldbuilding and it is coded as something you can't hope to address). What I am saying is you are right that one should never say never and that the specifics matter.

But once again I think people will often be surprised by how people they think they are shielding from certain kinds of content will react to it (groups aren't monolithic, some people engage in stuff you would think would trouble them, specifically because its troubling nature makes them fascinated by it).

I doubt it was meant this way, but I worry that such a statement might give fuel to a prevalent and (IMO) misplaced notion that people advocating... -- let's just broadly call this 'cultural sensitivity' since the thread in general contains multiple specific stances -- are always outsiders to the issues who making these changes 'for' other groups without consulting with them or understanding their real positions. Certainly we've all seen an IP or another in that vein and definitely seen someone on social media do something along those lines*, but that's at the anecdotal level. I've yet to see it backed up at the demographic level, and certainly we don't want to exclude well-thought-through and well-implemented** attempts at making IPs more hospitable to groups with historical traumas out of a notion that the attempt must be some clueless do-gooder doing things for other groups instead of asking said groups how they really feel/what they really want.
*plus, we were all 18yos with more ideals than sense and worldliness at one time
**hopefully including cultural consultants and scientifically rigorous survey data, or the like.

 

[Umbran]

No one says it has to, but some people are saying shouldn't, and maybe it can't anymore. That's where I have a problem.

I, at least, am more saying that the majority of publishers only approach the matter casually, with minimum effort, little sensitivity, and little accuracy. You should expect folks to react as if that is dismissive and insulting, because it is! Folks pushing back on treating the topic casually, for a casual entertainment game, is not unreasonable behavior.

If someone makes themselves an expert on the matter, and does a really good, serious game supplement on it, that might be different. But slapping a slave-race history on the Hadozee and dressing them as minstrels wasn't an expert treatment. Just putting in slaver cultures for PCs to beat up isn't a serious treatment.

It is okay if WotC and Paizo don't choose to be the ones to do a serious treatment. It is not a bad, or slippery slope choice on their part.

 

[Umbran]

Again, I don't think this should be in every setting or anything, but I would be reluctant to say it should never appear in a game or that its automatically in bad taste to include it (anymore than I would accuse Schindler's List or the Killing Fields of being made in bad taste)

That's fine, as I don't think the folks you are arguing against are saying "never".

When someone wants to do the serious, thoughtful, sensitive Schindler's List of RPGs, we can talk about that. But so long as it is a cheap, "Well, the PCs need to fight someone, so let's put in an analog to the Holocaust just so we are clear it is EVIL," folks are going to respond as if it is cheap.