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.

 

[Faolyn]

I was saying there are plenty of campaign setting ideas out there that explore similar genres and themes that don't include things you clearly don't feel should exist in published product, like slavery. Many such ideas have been posited by you and others. Why don't you play one of those and leave Dark Sun back in the past if WotC considers it socially non-viable today? Why this insistence that an established setting be changed?

Think of it like a recipe for pie. The recipe is time honored, the oven cooks evenly, the cook is really good at pie-making. The apples are perfectly ripe, the dough is the exact right texture, the spices are perfectly blended. And the pie pan is covered in cracked teflon which can leak PFCs into the food, build up in your body, increase the risk of cancers and other serious illnesses.

And you want us to ignore that because you you insist that the teflon is perfectly fine for us to cook food in. Hey, you group up eating the food baked in that pie pan, and you're fine, right? And if I don't like it, I should get cheesecake instead. And hey, I like cheesecake. But I want that apple pie, which means that I also want to get a new pie pan so I can make an apple pie that won't sicken me.

Dark Sun has a lot of very interesting concepts in it. It would be a terrible shame, and a great disservice for the entire gaming community, for it to be lost just because some people would rather let it die out completely than fix a few things.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Think of it like a recipe for pie. The recipe is time honored, the oven cooks evenly, the cook is really good at pie-making. The apples are perfectly ripe, the dough is the exact right texture, the spices are perfectly blended. And the pie pan is covered in cracked teflon which can leak PFCs into the food, build up in your body, increase the risk of cancers and other serious illnesses.

And you want us to ignore that because you you insist that the teflon is perfectly fine for us to cook food in. Hey, you group up eating the food baked in that pie pan, and you're fine, right? And if I don't like it, I should get cheesecake instead. And hey, I like cheesecake. But I want that apple pie, which means that I also want to get a new pie pan so I can make an apple pie that won't sicken me.

Dark Sun has a lot of very interesting concepts in it. It would be a terrible shame, and a great disservice for the entire gaming community, for it to be lost just because some people would rather let it die out completely than fix a few things.

Things which can be fixed at the table level.

 

[Faolyn]

Things which can be fixed at the table level.

And if you buy the pie from a restaurant or a store, I imagine you would rather they change the pan instead of shrugging and saying that you can just make your own pie.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And if you buy the pie from a restaurant or a store, I imagine you would rather they change the pan instead of shrugging and saying that you can just make your own pie.

Sure, and if you like the pie as is, you probably don't want to make it at home instead either. It works in either direction.

 

[Umbran]

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.

There's several ways the practices were different: Indentured servitude as seen in the Colonial Americas was typically for a period of 5 years. Slavery was for life, and usually the lives of your descendants. Indentured servants were also not generally prohibited from reading, or becoming educated, or engaging in the cultural practices of their homelands, where these were often illegal for slaves.

Indentured servitude was still an abuse, but it wasn't the same as slavery.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

"My argument is vibes".

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

I think the words slave, slavery carry a great deal of psychological weight, one not shared by thralldom, peonage, serfdom, indentureship, and even though the rights of slaves have varied by time and place, it is within the context of the US that some of the most egregious abuses took place - within relatively recent history, and about which we have clear documentation.

Slavery is also integral to the aetiological stories concerning early Christianity, and its significance is embedded very deeply in Western culture because of that; when we illuminate the practice of slavery by ostensibly Christian nations and peoples, we are confronted by a profound hypocrisy and shame. Dehumanization was the tool to avoid the cognitive dissonance which would otherwise ensue - a collective act of willful sociopathy.

Maybe the fact that it elicits such a visceral reaction is precisely why it is so problematic.

 

[Hussar]

Heh, take a couple of days off and wind up with tons of reading to catch up.

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.
2. The Satanic panic - again, a group of people pushing mistruths and outright lies about the hobby to shut the hobby down.
3. Someone with such severe psychological issues that simply talking about spiders, the source of the phobia, would cause that person to have a panic attack. Not actual spiders. Not pictures of spiders. Simply talking about spiders.
4. Someone with peanut allergies who could literally die if subjected to peanuts with the obvious analogy that people were fabricating melodramatic, over the top reactions in order to push their ideas.
5. No less than three different people have specifically told me that if I didn't like something in the material, I should find another hobby, and that I would not be welcome to play at certain public events because I wasn't comfortable with the material.

Now, remember, this is a heavily moderated forum. Very heavily. If that's the reactions for suggesting that maybe we shouldn't have controversial content in the game on a heavily moderated forum, imagine what it would look like anywhere else.

So, tell me again how controversial content doesn't make people feel unwelcome. I've been told to leave the hobby and compared, repeatedly mind you, to some of the most disliked people in the history of the hobby and to people with crippling psychological problems.

THIS is why we don't need controversial content in the game. Because, in most of the history of the game, people were told exactly what I was told. And, so, they left the hobby. And the hobby stayed dominated by a single demographic for most of its history. Same as the fantasy genre in general. Don't like it? Too bad. There's the door and don't let it hit you on the way out.

People can wrap this up any way they feel like. At the end of the day though, I'd much, much rather err on the side of making the hobby inclusive for everyone.

 

[Synthil]

THIS is why we don't need controversial content in the game.

My problem is more with what is considered controversial. Slavery and cannibalism were easy markers for evil to me, precisely because they're universally condemned. They're the opposite of controversial. No one is advocating for them or making excuses, unlike sexual assault. The latter also directly impacts a lot of people. But when was the last time a player lost someone to cannibalism?

How do you make the bad guys bad, if everything bad cannot be depicted? Do you guys just use saturday morning cartoon villains?

Regarding Serdom/thralls/indentured servitute: I said it in the other threat, but claiming that what happened to some of our ancestors is worse than what happened to other ancestors (slavery versus seefdom etc.) and thus cannot be used, just stinks of oppression olympics.

 

[Maxperson]

"My argument is vibes".

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

It's all there is. There's nothing about Dark Sun and it's elements that isn't feel. Defiling? Either you like it or you don't. Feels. Same with all the rest.

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 don't think that was me, or at least I don't remember making that argument. In any case, I also think it's okay to change things between editions. I just don't have to like it and can refuse to buy the updated versions, which I would if Dark Sun were changed to remove slavery.

 

[Umbran]

I think the words slave, slavery carry a great deal of psychological weight, one not shared by thralldom, peonage, serfdom, indentureship, and even though the rights of slaves have varied by time and place, it is within the context of the US that some of the most egregious abuses took place - within relatively recent history, and about which we have clear documentation.

And, perhaps most importantly, we are still living with the repercussions of it to this day, with descendants of victims still struggling to be taken as equals.