What We Lose When We Eliminate Controversial Content

[Lanefan]

But they don't nip discrimination, sexism, or homophobia in the bud?

Hell no! Sure, some of them try; meanwhile others promote it and the rest don't care one way or the other.

And magic can make up for the need for slavery as well.

Magic, as opposed to use of a different social structure or economic model such as serfdom or paid labour, can only make up for slavery if one or more of the following is true:

• the setting has magic widespread and powerful enough to allow for the creation of lots of golems and constructs, e.g. D&D's Eberron;
• the presence of large numbers of undead workers is tolerated by all, including those deities and religions to whom undead are anathema;
• some sort of world-scale enchantment blocks the buying and-or selling of sentient creatures.

Personally, I wouldn't go for either of the first two of these while the third runs hard aground on the definition of what is sentient when talking about pets, familiars, animal companions, and so forth.

 

[Minion X]

The concept of “race” arose approximately in the 16th century, shortly before the transatlantic slave trade began.

Well, the Western "scientific" concept of race at least. While it did make use of morphic differences between different human populations which exacerbated the difference between slaves and non-slaves, you get something similar in all cultures. Like how Russians literally call Muslim Caucasians "black", the Indian caste system or the burakumin of Japan. It has often been convenient to have an arbitrary "us" vs "them", and I don't think the racialism of modern Europe (and its colonies) is that different really, it's just that it's still relevant for many to enforce these ideas for social and political reasons (like how the caste system is still a big deal to many in India).

 

[Micah Sweet]

Mental stress and trauma is already included in Sanity rules within the DMG. If you want you can use it. It's an optional rule. I do use it. I've tried fleshing it out more.

You can also use Bonds/Ideals/Flaws along with Inspiration in this regard.

I would use Level Up's Strife personally.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I would use Level Up's Strife personally.

I bought one of the books already - the one that dealt with Exploration Challenges I believe. I need to get the others.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Well, the Western "scientific" concept of race at least. While it did make use of morphic differences between different human populations which exacerbated the difference between slaves and non-slaves, you get something similar in all cultures. Like how Russians literally call Muslim Caucasians "black", the Indian caste system or the burakumin of Japan.

Just googled the burakumin and went a little down that rabbit hole. Interesting stuff.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Except that slavery is also a game mechanic, because you're expected to go off and fight the slavers (or become enslaved, or become slavers). It's not just a background element that can be ignored.

It could be. It depends on the campaign.

 

[Justice and Rule]

There is slavery going on right now that is completely unconnected to the American historical experience, you know that right?

I mean, yeah, and? The slavery that happened in the Americas (not just the United States) still echoes the structures of our society. So I'm not sure what you are trying to prove other than to minimize the effect of those things.

OK then. So why care about that one? Why is slavery better than some of the others?

This is really my big question. People keep running in circles to specifically defend slavery, something that is difficult to actually explore in RPGs unless the thing is about it while tossing off stuff like PTSD and the like, which is way easier to explore and has been done in other games.

I'm a little surprised Blade Runner hasn't come up given that the entire premise is built on the titular runners going after slaves. You even have the option of creating a slave character who goes after other replicant slaves.

No one brings it up because that game is specifically about that concept and the ludonarrative it creates pushes you to empathize and free those slaves from your position within the system... unless that thread complaining about the game was wrong. I haven't bought the game yet, so I can't be fully sure.

 

[Kaodi]

Maybe I am forgetting some mechanics but I would suggest that generally it would be a terrible idea for the DM to constantly inflict chronic mental conditions like on the PCs that interfere with players' agency. It is one thing to put PCs in a bad situation where the players have to choose between suboptimal means of resolving them, it is another for the DM to give them conditions that effectively allow them to dictate the PCs actions to the players.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

And magic can make up for the need for slavery as well.

Slavery has never stemmed from a "need", so this is some misguided stuff, dude.

Slavery is about power and avoiding costs.

Magic could help, but not in the "replacing the 'need' for slaves", because slaves are never 'needed'. It could help by making it nearly impossible to enslave people long-term because magic/the gods keep freeing them. Especially if people can access divine magic through prayer, or develop powers internally or the like (psionics, sorcerer) or talk to third parties and gain powers (warlocks, etc.), slavery might well not work very well.

And you still don't understand that reducing something that has harmed, and continues to harm, millions of people to a fun pastime may be something that major companies don't want to do?

This is a very weak argument AND as a bonus profoundly misunderstands why companies avoid slavery.

By that logic, the colonial/imperial attitudes present in the vast majority of RPGs should be done away with - and maybe they should be - but D&D's entire "kill things and take their stuff" is reliant on that. Further, violence should be excised from RPGs. Violence is a much bigger problem than slavery, right now, in the world. It's likely to continue to be that way for a very long time. Most RPGs absolutely glamourize violence of almost every possible form - physical, mental, magical, cultural (some argue sexual re: VtM etc.). Far more people worldwide have bad real experiences of violence than slavery.

And before you try any "whataboutery" nonsense, let's be clear, special pleading re: slavery is itself dubious. This whole thread is about "controversial content".

Anyway, the real reason slavery is avoided at the moment in RPGs has nothing to do with real sensitivity to the issue, nor to do with it harming people today. It has entirely to do with the fact that US chattel slavery was particularly vile, even compared to other forms of slavery, and only ended relatively recently, and the US as a country, has miserably and completely failed to deal with the consequences of that, so it's very much a live issue in the US. That is really the primary driver. I don't know if you don't know that, or don't want to face it, but that's what it's about.

It's also notable that this is solely a TTRPG thing, other media absolutely is not following that rule and never will, I would suggest (one possible exception being YA novels, but that's because that's a bizarre environment with its own rules and conflicts). So there's always going to be a kind of messed-up deal where you can watch heroic characters kill slavers and the like on screen, but the game you run an hour later, it's inappropriate for you to feature that.

The funny thing is, I don't entirely disagree the full-on slavery, especially not US-style chattel slavery is best left out of most games. It's not going to be handled well. But the arguments you're deploying are specious.

 

[Justice and Rule]

This is a very weak argument AND as a bonus profoundly misunderstands why companies avoid slavery.

By that logic, the colonial/imperial attitudes present in the vast majority of RPGs should be done away with - and maybe they should be - but D&D's entire "kill things and take their stuff" is reliant on that. Further, violence should be excised from RPGs. Violence is a much bigger problem than slavery, right now, in the world. It's likely to continue to be that way for a very long time. Most RPGs absolutely glamourize violence of almost every possible form - physical, mental, magical, cultural (some argue sexual re: VtM etc.). Far more people worldwide have bad real experiences of violence than slavery.

I know what you are saying, but I'm going to take issue here: violence can affect more people directly, but also violence is a much broader-spectrum concept than slavery. You can have people glorify and glamourize violence, but that's because we view different justifications for violence differently. Captain America beating up HYDRA agents is looked at differently than someone beating their wife. And yet, it's worth noting that domestic and child abuse and such are generally not included in RPGs while other violence is for just that reason: they are perceived differently and can't be justified in the same way certain kinds of violence can be.

And that's the same for slavery, but the difference is that the echoes of slavery in the Americas (not just the United States, to be clear, but the Americas as a whole) is deeper and has effected certain peoples more specifically, which is why we're having this debate at all: domestic violence has effected many people and many people can empathize with that. It's harder to empathize with the structural problems created by slavery and its aftermath in the Americas, especially if you aren't living it.

And as you say they should do away with colonialism, it's worth noting that a lot of games are moving away from that sort of idea because of the harmful ideas it can perpetuate.