What We Lose When We Eliminate Controversial Content

[Scribe]

What do you actually mean by "heard and respected" though?

If more people like "sexist" art, do we keep it in, or don't we because "everybody deserves to be heard and respected"?

If say 99% of people like something but 1% doesn't do we have to remove it to respect their views?

I decline to agree that "Conan-esque" art is sexist anyway.

If people should be heard and respected, than perhaps the majority who want 'controversial' content from the poll here (near 9-1 last I looked) should be heard and respected in their desires?

Its ok, I already know the answer.

 

[Xamnam]

I decline to agree that "Conan-esque" art is sexist anyway.

If people should be heard and respected, than perhaps the majority who want 'controversial' content from the poll here (near 9-1 last I looked) should be heard and respected in their desires?

Its ok, I already know the answer.

Come now, that poll was intentionally stark and without nuance. There's value in having to make a black and white choice like that, but many people said things along the lines of "I voted that companies are allowed to publish it, but I don't think D&D is the best place to highlight it." That's the line that some folks in this thread are also limiting their argument to.

 

[Bagpuss]

Come now, that poll was intentionally stark and without nuance.
There's value in having to make a black and white choice like that, but many people said things along the lines of "I voted that companies are allowed to publish it, but I don't think D&D is the best place to highlight it." That's the line that some folks in this thread are also limiting their argument to.

Sure but some of the people in this thread have also been stark and without nuance. They have said there is no place for slavery for example.

 

[Scribe]

Come now, that poll was intentionally stark and without nuance. There's value in having to make a black and white choice like that, but many people said things along the lines of "I voted that companies are allowed to publish it, but I don't think D&D is the best place to highlight it." That's the line that some folks in this thread are also limiting their argument to.

Sure, which is again pointing to "term intending to reflect a softer approach to the art and tone of D&D without causing offense" that has been ongoing for years, which people still seemingly deny.

A softer, gentler, more sanitized version of reality, leading to well, actually negative impacts because its reflected in not just 'some' books, or 'some' movies, but the majority of what people are being fed by the various gorillas in the space.

TLDR: If its simply not permissible to have Wizards provide A SINGLE book, that is outside of the 'moral comfort zone' of a minority of the player base, then yeah, thats not a net positive, and I would argue that its having a negative impact across the whole fabric of society because its not just Wizards, its not just Disney, its a wider trend.

 

[Xamnam]

Sure but some of the people in this thread have also been stark and without nuance. They have said there is no place for slavery for example.

Sure, and I'd rather keep in mind that most people are not arguing for the extremes on either side. It keeps the conversation less tense and more interesting.

Sure, which is again pointing to "term intending to reflect a softer approach to the art and tone of D&D without causing offense" that has been ongoing for years, which people still seemingly deny.

A softer, gentler, more sanitized version of reality, leading to well, actually negative impacts because its reflected in not just 'some' books, or 'some' movies, but the majority of what people are being fed by the various gorillas in the space.

TLDR: If its simply not permissible to have Wizards provide A SINGLE book, that is outside of the 'moral comfort zone' of a minority of the player base, then yeah, thats not a net positive, and I would argue that its having a negative impact across the whole fabric of society because its not just Wizards, its not just Disney, its a wider trend.

You've argued this point consistently, and I understand your perspective. I think WotC could come out with a specific line of books that caters to that particular sort of content, and as long as it was marketed properly, would allow for them to expand what they feel they can offer. I just don't think avoiding the thorniest topics in most of their mainline releases is a bad decision, on either a business or moral front. It is rather rare that the big tent first stop provider offers the more niche or controversial takes, in most arenas.

 

[Scribe]

I think WotC could come out with a specific line of books that caters to that particular sort of content, and as long as it was marketed properly, would allow for them to expand what they feel they can offer. I just don't think avoiding the thorniest topics in most of their mainline releases is a bad decision, on either a business or moral front.

Sure! I'd have no issue with that at all. As I've said about a million times on this site, I'm not trying to force the single view of what I deem correct on folks, I just wish others could say the same.

 

[Xamnam]

As I've said about a million times on this site, I'm not trying to force the single view of what I deem correct on folks, I just wish others could say the same.

Yeah, it really is a shame when the conversational fronts get so entrenched that it feels like there is no possible compromise, the full spectrum of opinions get subsumed into the most pithy, and the farthest flag afield is the one to defend. I find the core of this topic truly interesting to see the different perspectives on, even when they don't match my own.

 

[Faolyn]

I am not that familiar with the 5e SCAG for the Forgotten Realms. Is slavery not mentioned?

It was a fairly big issue in 1e Forgotten Realms with Thay, Mulhorand, Unther, and the rest of The South; Drow; Zhentarim slave trading; and minor mentions about Northmen slaving in the Moonshaes and also in different areas pirates and orcs and Zhentarim and a resurgence in slavers in the Moonsea all mentioned in the 1e Campaign Setting boxed set.

From SCAG:

In Calasham, human slaves of the genasi started following a Chosen of Ilmater and then overthrew their genie masters.

In Mulhorand, the gods declared slavery illegal. Previously, people had been enslaved by the Imaskari.

Ladugar is the dwarf/duegar god of slavery, and the duergar keep slaves.

Worshipers of Bane institutionalized slavery.

Worshipers of Loviatar have underground slavery rings. Although it's not made clear in the text, given Loviatar's role as goddess of pain and bad BDSM, I would imagine these are sex slaves.

The Zhentarim had enslaved many dwarfs in Thornhold.

People in Tuern enslave any outsiders who arrive on their island.

The economy of Najara depends on slavery; they apparently sell slaves to other people. Considering they're mostly even snake people, I don't know why they don't just eat people instead of selling them.

The slave trade is illegal in Luskan.

The drow keep slaves.

The Arkaiun humans used to be slaves of the drow.

The dragonborn used to be slaves to dragons on Abeir; they're free on Toril.

Many tieflings used to be enslaved by the Thay.

 

[Faolyn]

Then why single out slavery for removal? Plenty of people are made uncomfortable or unwelcome by references to other forms of violence. Why pick some to remove and leave others in?

Possibly because, in the real world, slavery has primarily targeted a specific group of people who still suffer the ramifications of it today.

 

[Faolyn]

Yup. I really don't understand why avoiding the things that make you uncomfortable in your hobby time is somehow not an option.

If it makes you uncomfortable to play a game that doesn't include slavery in it, you can feel free to avoid that game.

...Somehow, I don't think that answer, despite being 100% true, actually feels like an option to you.