D&D 5E WotC: Why Dark Sun Hasn't Been Revived

In an interview with YouTuber 'Bob the Worldbuilder', WotC's Kyle Brink explained why the classic Dark Sun setting has not yet seen light of day in the D&D 5E era.

I’ll be frank here, the Dark Sun setting is problematic in a lot of ways. And that’s the main reason we haven’t come back to it. We know it’s got a huge fan following and we have standards today that make it extraordinarily hard to be true to the source material and also meet our ethical and inclusion standards... We know there’s love out there for it and god we would love to make those people happy, and also we gotta be responsible.

You can listen to the clip here.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There also needs to be room for disagreement about what is problematic. It is fine to have the conversation. But if you don't convince someone, it might not be that they can't recognize the truth. They may simply have taken another view of the trope than you have, and that is okay.

Thank you! Please let everyone accept that their opinion is not fact, and not shared by everyone else.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I love Lovecraftian-style literature, media, and games. Big fan of Call of Cthulhu, and Eldrtich Horror might be my favourite board game. That's because, despite (possibly because of?) his abhorrent world views, Lovecraft came up with a story concept that is really compelling. But the thing is, you can do Loveraftian horror without all those abhorrent views.

So look at the current starter set for Call of Cthulhu. It opens with a bit of historical detail about HP Lovecraft, specifying his nasty views, and then stipulates that an objective of the game is to use the cosmic horror ideas while "lampooning" and otherwise discrediting his obnoxious beliefs. Then, it includes player character sheets representing a diversity of genders and ethnicities. One of the starting adventures is set in 1920s Harlem and features mostly Black characters. Or take Victor Lasalle's novella The Ballad of Black Tom, which retells Lovecraft's "The Horror at Red Hook" from the perspective of a Black protagonist (HBO's Lovecraft Country, though flawed in many ways, attempted something similar).

I think you're not wrong about the ideas of Lovecraft being bigger than the man, but there is inevitably a tension between the ideas and the fact that people love to use his name to advertise their products. And I think a lot of products are smart to deal with him early, but it doesn't stop the fact that they are still using his name a bunch.

It's also worth noting, like you do, that there have been a lot of people using his work to reclaim and move specifically against what he talked about. You mention The Ballad of Black Tom, and I would add in Harlem Unbound as another example. It shows how complicated the situation is, and why context is so important rather than demanding hard rules to be applied impersonally to all things.

So if Lovecraft's mythos can be reclaimed, you could certainly take what is good in Dark Suns and update it, if you wanted. My perspective is: why? Lovecraft had a BIG IDEA about the horror of a cosmos largely indifferent to us that, artistically speaking, has a lot of legs. What is Dark Sunsoffering that makes it worth the trouble to reclaim and update it? Sell me on it.

I think there are interesting ideas in Dark Suns that have been outlined (the idea of ecological disaster and climate change being a massive part of the setting), and I think changes can be made to things like slavery and eugenics (changing the latter to a different mode of oppression, while the later can probably be straight-up removed) could be done.

Though if I'm being honest, I feel like D&D is just a bad system for dealing with these sorts of things. To me, 5E and its future iteration looks like it sits in a bad middle ground being too crunchy for the sort of narrative game that could explore these aspects without just killing people, but also maybe not crunchy enough to make realistic, deadly combat. I dunno, that's just my opinion.

Most, doing some lifting.

It happens, it's happened in the last 3 days, it's happened by various posters, on various topics.

Everyone, yes indeed everyone, sees it.

Not really doing much lifting. Someone already tried to get me over on badly interpreting one of @Hussar 's posts and I'm not particularly moved by the argument. On the other hand I can point to people who liked (even "loved") posts that resulted in people getting kicked from threads due to being non-inclusive.

So really, if you want to call me out for liking certain posts, I'm not particularly worried about that given how it'll go in the other direction.

Thank you! Please let everyone accept that their opinion is not fact, and not shared by everyone else.

That'd be a great conversation for you to start instead of talking about being "shunned" or "persecuted".

 

[Alzrius]

Oh for the love of...

That's not calling people racist for liking Lovecraft, that's asking people to put yourself into the shoes of the peoples that Lovecraft hated and despised.

No, it's really not. To be honest, I'm having a hard time understanding how anyone can make that point without a straight face, short of concern trolling.

There is a real point to be made about our continued focus on him as an individual author, putting him front and center at this sort of stuff. It is not calling you racist, but asking you to imagine that you were called subhuman by an author and in 2023 watch as people support something that uses his legacy.

Yeah, no. In fact, it's saying that if there's even one thousand people who are willing to pay money for a Cthulhu game, then the entire hobby is unwelcoming, which is self-evidently an unreasonable stance to take. At no point did that other poster call for empathy; they said that anyone who liked something they hate necessarily make them feel unwelcome. That's not "asking you to imagine" anything; it's saying that people who like Lovecraft's content are bad people.

This is the reason why we need to be so welcoming: because it's so hard to divorce ourselves from certain elements that we should try in every instance because some things will be difficult to get rid of.

"Get rid of"? What happened to, "nobody's saying you're a bad person for liking problematic content"? Funny how the goalposts shifted there, isn't it?

This is what @Hussar is talking about, and if you hadn't cut out the next paragraph which makes it clear the viewpoint he is talking from

Um, what? The next paragraph was a rambling screed which somehow goes from "one thousand people liking a Cthulhu RPG means that I don't feel welcome" to "something something Rings of Power." At no point did it come anywhere close to a coherent point, beyond "the hobby is full of immoral things and immoral people who like those things." Which is, of course, categorically wrong.

So yeah, not a great example for you.

Given that you claim how @Bedrockgames was concern trolling despite their making rational points in a calm manner, while defending a hysterical rant about how one thousand people liking Cthulhu poisons the entire hobby, I think you need to take a step back and analyze the perspective you're coming from.

 

[Scribe]

So really, if you want to call me out for liking certain posts, I'm not particularly worried about that given how it'll go in the other direction.

I'm not calling you out, simply lets acknowledge that yes people absolutely get tarred, sometimes pre-emptively, for simply not agreeing on the degree to which we must denounce, renounce, and never indeed engage, with topics that some call "problematic".

I mean dude, can we include art like that comic you linked me to or does that make you and I sexist?

 

[Micah Sweet]

That'd be a great conversation for you to start instead of talking about being "shunned" or "persecuted".

Both things are worth talking about, and both have truth to them.

 

[Justice and Rule]

No, it's really not. To be honest, I'm having a hard time understanding how anyone can make that point without a straight face, short of concern trolling.

I mean, it literally is? Just read what they wrote. The concern-trolling here is people talking about how they feel persecuted, not people talking about the actual issue. This is just like any other thread on the matter, where it turns into "But what about my feelings?!" rather than actually examining the matter.

Yeah, no. In fact, it's saying that if there's even one thousand people who are willing to pay money for a Cthulhu game, then the entire hobby is unwelcoming, which is self-evidently an unreasonable stance to take. At no point did that other poster call for empathy; they said that anyone who liked something they hate necessarily make them feel unwelcome. That's not "asking you to imagine" anything; it's saying that people who like Lovecraft's content are bad people.

They literally call for empathy when they are talking about being at a table where someone is complaining about there being black hobbits in Rings of Power. They are asking you to understand how that feels. I don't know how this can be put any more clearly.

"Get rid of"? What happened to, "nobody's saying you're a bad person for liking problematic content"? Funny how the goalposts shifted there, isn't it?

I'm referring to getting rid of bad tropes and such. That is so self-evident in reading what I wrote that I can only assume this was just made in bad-faith.

Um, what? The next paragraph was a rambling screed which somehow goes from "one thousand people liking a Cthulhu RPG means that I don't feel welcome" to "something something Rings of Power." At no point did it come anywhere close to a coherent point.

It does, it's just not the point you want. @Hussar is talking about how unwelcoming things can feel in the RPG community, whether it be Lovecraft's name being used to advertise a popular kickstarter to people complaining about diversity in roles in fantasy media. It's making a broad point about the atmosphere of the hobby and how hard it can be to feel welcomed.

Given that you claim how @Bedrockgames was concern trolling despite their making rational points in a calm manner, while defending a hysterical rant about how one thousand people liking Cthulhu poisons the entire hobby, I think you need to take a step back and analyze the perspective you're coming from.

Do you understand what concern trolling is? It's not about "rational points", but rather arguing about something that is not actually the subject. Instead of discussing slavery in Dark Suns they are talking about shunning and persecution of RPGers who don't agree with the idea that slavery is problematic. It's a tactic to avoid talking about the subject, to try and move off to a tangent. It is a side issue that really isn't relevant to the discussion that is suddenly being made into the discussion.

That's what concern trolling is, trying to find an issue and morph the subject at hand into it to avoid talking about what we are really talking about. So I don't know how I could be concern trolling when all I want to talk about is Dark Sun and the actual topic at hand. What I find frustrating and disingenuous is the persecution complex that always comes up in these topics about people thinking they are going to be somehow booted out of the community.

I'm not calling you out, simply lets acknowledge that yes people absolutely get tarred, sometimes pre-emptively, for simply not agreeing on the degree to which we must denounce, renounce, and never indeed engage, with topics that some call "problematic".

I mean dude, can we include art like that comic you linked me to or does that make you and I sexist?

Sure? I'll do it myself.

You didn't think she was always dressed in the classic get-up, did you?

Both things are worth talking about, and both have truth to them.

No, not really? If you want to start a topic about how shunning and player persecution are a problem, please do. I'd love for you to post that with some examples. But as it stands, it's just a really bad topic.

 

[Voadam]

Media that deals or references situations or portrays people in a way that might be considered disrespectful or harmful to others given modern outlooks.

That seems an overly broad definition that labels lots of things problematic that I don't think we want to.

Plenty of things could be disrespectful without being generally considered problematic.

"Might be considered" seems too wide open to things that most would not consider problems. "Potentially problematic" does not seem a redundant phrase.

Harmful I think could be a key aspect to work from for a definition.

 

[Justice and Rule]

That seems an overly broad definition that labels lots of things problematic that I don't think we want to.

Plenty of things could be disrespectful without being generally considered problematic.

"Might be considered" seems too wide open to things that most would not consider problems. "Potentially problematic" does not seem a redundant phrase.

Harmful I think could be a key aspect to work from for a definition.

The definition is broad, but part of it is because it's not meant to be a hard rule. It's meant to be an example of what to look for, what to examine, what to discuss.

 

[Scribe]

You didn't think she was always dressed in the classic get-up, did you?

Based on the Google hits when you offered that author up? lol yeah I did.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Based on the Google hits when you offered that author up? lol yeah I did.

Does liking the classic get-up make you sexist? I'm pretty sure that was the implicit question here, @Justice and Rule .

 

[Alzrius]

I mean, it literally is? Just read what they wrote. The concern-trolling here is people talking about how they feel persecuted, not people talking about the actual issue. This is just like any other thread on the matter, where it turns into "But what about my feelings?!" rather than actually examining the matter.

You do realize that someone saying "one thousand people who'll pay for a Call of Cthulhu tabletop game makes me feel unwelcome" is someone talking about how they feel persecuted, right? There's no "actual issue" there, beyond someone saying that even a small number of people who like something they don't like poisons the entire hobby. And yet you're saying we should "examine the matter" and ignore "what about my feelings?!" while saying we should pay careful attention to that person's feelings.

So yeah, your point here is rather garbled.

They literally call for empathy when they are talking about being at a table where someone is complaining about there being black hobbits in Rings of Power. They are asking you to understand how that feels. I don't know how this can be put any more clearly.

No, they're not calling for empathy. They're saying that one thousand people who'll pay for a Call of Cthulhu game is enough to make them feel unwelcome in the entire hobby. A hobby which has had over fifty million D&D players alone, to say nothing of countless other tabletop RPGs which have nothing to do with Cthulhu or Lovecraft. But a mere one thousand people who'll play a Cthulhu game is enough to make them feel not welcome. That says far and away more abut that person, and anyone defending them, than it does about the hobby.

I'm referring to getting rid of bad tropes and such. That is so self-evident in reading what I wrote that I can only assume this was just made in bad-faith.

You don't seem to understand that you don't get to decide what's a bad trope and what isn't. No one person does, no matter what groups they happen to belong to. Everyone gets to decide that for themselves, and if one person says "one thousand other people who disagrees with me makes the entire hobby unwelcoming," then that's one person who clearly thinks the world of their own opinion and nothing at all of anyone else's. There's nothing welcoming in such a stance, regardless of how aggrieved they present themselves as being.

It does, it's just not the point you want. @Hussar is talking about how unwelcoming things can feel in the RPG community, whether it be Lovecraft's name being used to advertise a popular kickstarter to people complaining about diversity in roles in fantasy media. It's making a broad point about the atmosphere of the hobby and how hard it can be to feel welcomed.

That point lacks the merit that you seem to think it possesses. If someone else says "one thousand people who like something I don't ruins the entire hobby for me," then that's them indicting themselves, not the hobby. That should be understood by anyone who agrees to the point that liking "problematic" content doesn't make you a bad person, and yet you're defending someone who made it clear that they think it does make you a bad person.

Do you understand what concern trolling is? It's not about "rational points", but rather arguing about something that is not actually the subject. Instead of discussing slavery in Dark Suns they are talking about shunning and persecution of RPGers who don't agree with the idea that slavery is problematic. It's a tactic to avoid talking about the subject, to try and move off to a tangent. It is a side issue that really isn't relevant to the discussion that is suddenly being made into the discussion.

The irony here... I'm going to skip right over your misattribution about people saying that there's nothing wrong with slavery, and instead go straight to the fact that you're arguing about something right now which is itself not the subject. Now, if you're trying to give a high-level demonstration of the issue, then I suppose more credit to you, but otherwise this entire paragraph is just...eesh.

That's what concern trolling is, trying to find an issue and morph the subject at hand into it to avoid talking about what we are really talking about. So I don't know how I could be concern trolling when all I want to talk about is Dark Sun and the actual topic at hand. What I find frustrating and disingenuous is the persecution complex that always comes up in these topics about people thinking they are going to be somehow booted out of the community.

You say that, and yet you keep overlooking that someone saying "one thousand people who'll pay for CoC content makes me feel unwelcome" is itself evidence of a persecution complex. Most people understand that other people can and will like things that you don't, and that doesn't make them bad people, let alone make an entire hobby unwelcoming. Any statement to the contrary not only has no rational basis, but cannot be taken seriously for its indicting an entire pastime on the basis of a fraction of a percentage of its hobbyists (who never did anything wrong to begin with). Defending that point just makes you look bad, even if you're trying to morph it into something that isn't so judgmental and exclusionary.

 

[Bedrockgames]

There is, but you're not disagreeing with what is "problematic" and just focusing on concepts like censorship and public shaming. If you want to talk about how slavery is not problematic, be my guest. But at the end, people seem to avoid that argument because I think they know it's a losing one. It's easier to talk about nebulous ideas of "persecution" that haven't happened and have no examples I can think of.

I am out and not able to give a full reply but I have discussed both. I have talked about how slavery in Dark Sun isn’t a problem and why. But censorship and shaming came up, they are also relevant to the overall discussion , so I addressed them (importantly because there have been posters defending those kinds of tactics)

Elements of things can be changed. People have pointed out a variety of ways where it doesn't actually have to be slavery. You talk about the "harshness of the planet", but slavery is not the only way to do oppression. This comes off as a complete lack of imagination. Multiple people have come up with multiple interesting solutions to this, some of which would be way more interesting and allegorical.

No one is saying slavery is the only way to do oppression. We have already had this discussion. Of course it isn’t the only way but a lot of us thinking is the most effective for Dark Sun because of its cruel nature, it’s role in the history and genres being drawn on, and how it can do things like heighten stakes, etc. Like I said, hard to have a Spartacus campaign without slavery. And many people would want that. Further I also said I use those other approaches, like unfair contracts at a manufacturing facility, in plenty of other campaigns and settings. So I am not saying you can’t do them and achieve good effect, I just think slavery is crucial to dark sun and it’s themes. It shows just his devalued life. I have explained why before. If you aren’t persuaded, that is fine. We don’t have to agree

You talk about "socially conscious gamers", but I think most "socially conscious gamers" would feel squicked by the idea, and more that those who aren't conscious who would be most okay with it.

I strongly disagree with this. I know plenty of socially conscious gamers who love dark sun and who can watch Spartacus without getting queasy.

Also learn to multiquote. It's just tapping a button.

I know how. But I sometimes find it helpful to focus on each point in separate posts

 

[Parmandur]

Is it necessary for it to be the primary focus for that discussion? If you are making use of themes originating or popularized in older media, how much discussion of the modern sensibilities perspective to you actually need in the work to pass muster? How front and center do those themes need to be in the work before social media considers your take to be sufficiently analytical and nuanced?

Depends on how much one wants to avoid the pitfalls of being perceived as holding sexist or racist ideas. So for WotC, absolutely as much as possible.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Based on the Google hits when you offered that author up? lol yeah I did.

Yeah, I think the first arc has her in that, but given how the run goes from there I think at a certain level it was mandated. Not that she isn't in sexy stuff after

Does liking the classic get-up make you sexist? I'm pretty sure that was the implicit question here, @Justice and Rule .

I mean, if that's what you demand she wears, maybe? I'm reminded of the Mortal Kombat debate between MK9 and MK10 and 11 where certain fans were outraged at the changes of the female outfits. As it stands, I think it's probably better for someone like Sonja to wear something that is, err, a bit more functional given the nature of her stories. But including the old outfit isn't always a problem.

You do realize that someone saying "one thousand people who'll pay for a Call of Cthulhu tabletop game" is someone talking about how they feel persecuted, right? There's no "actual issue" there, beyond someone saying that even a small number of people who like something they don't like poisons the entire hobby. And yet you're saying we should "examine the matter" and ignore "what about my feelings?!" while saying we should pay careful attention to that person's feelings.

So yeah, your point here is rather garbled.

No, it's not talking about someone feeling persecuted, it's explicitly talking about someone feeling unwelcome. That is very different, and I think if you don't understand the difference between the two this dialogue is not going to go far.

No, they're not calling for empathy. They're saying that one thousand people who'll pay for a Call of Cthulhu game is enough to make them feel unwelcome in the entire hobby. A hobby which has had over fifty million D&D players alone, to say nothing of countless other tabletop RPGs which have nothing to do with Cthulhu or Lovecraft. But a mere one thousand people who'll play a Cthulhu game is enough to make them feel not welcome. That says far and away more abut that person, and anyone defending them, than it does about the hobby.

But they are. You're just not willing to recognize that. They are asking you to understand how they feel and how others like them feel about putting the name of someone who is incredibly racist as part of your ad copy, as well as how it feels for people to complain about having diversity in fantasy media. I thin

You don't seem to understand that you don't get to decide what's a bad trope and what isn't. No one person does, no matter what groups they happen to belong to. Everyone gets to decide that for themselves, and if one person says "one thousand other people who disagrees with me makes the entire hobby unwelcoming," then that's one person who clearly thinks the world of their own opinion and nothing at all of anyone else's. There's nothing welcoming in such a stance, regardless of how aggrieved they present themselves as being.

I don't believe I positioned myself as the sole keeper of what tropes are good and what tropes are bad and I'd say that's pretty self-evident from a good faith reading of what I wrote.

And again, it's all about how you don't feel welcomed by someone feeling that certain aspects of the community aren't welcoming to individuals such as people complaining about minorities or still advertising on the legacy of racists. Again, this all comes off as "But what about my feelings?!" instead of what we are talking about.

That point lacks the merit that you seem to think it possesses. If someone else says "one thousand people who like something I don't ruins the entire hobby for me," then that's them indicting themselves, not the hobby. That should be understood by anyone who agrees to the point that liking "problematic" content doesn't make you a bad person, and yet you're defending someone who made it clear that they think it does make you a bad person.

No, it makes them feel uncomfortable and unwelcome. That's very different, and maybe it's something you should listen to instead really trying to dismiss it as saying you are racist.

The irony here... I'm going to skip right over your misattribution about people are saying that there's nothing wrong with slavery, and instead go straight to the fact that you're arguing about something right now which is itself not the subject. Now, if you're trying to give a high-level demonstration of the issue, then I suppose more credit to you, but otherwise this entire paragraph is just...eesh.

Again, you switch words to try and catch me in a gotcha. There are literally people who want to argue how problematic something is. @Bedrockgames literally was doing that. This coming off as being exceedingly desperate.

And I'm addressing the point that you didn't get the definition of concern trolling right. I'm not the one who started the tangential argument, I'm trying to bring it back while you keep talking about someone else's post making you feel like you are a racist.

You say that, and yet you keep overlooking that someone saying "one thousand people who'll pay for CoC content makes me feel unwelcome" is itself evidence of a persecution complex. Most people understand that other people can and will like things that you don't, and that doesn't make them bad people, let alone make an entire hobby unwelcoming. Any statement to the contrary not only has no rational basis, but cannot be taken seriously for its indicting an entire pastime on the basis of a fraction of a percentage of its hobbyists (who never did anything wrong to begin with). Defending that point just makes you look bad, even if you're trying to morph it into something that isn't so judgmental and exclusionary.

Again, this is a bunch of concern trolling. They said it made them feel unwelcome, that doesn't mean they are saying those people are racist. You are conflating things to feed your own persecution complex. You lack an argument for discussion so you resort to these tactics and honestly I'm done with it.

I am out and not able to give a full reply but I have discussed both. I have talked about how slavery in Dark Sun isn’t a problem and why. But censorship and shaming came up, they are also relevant to the overall discussion , so I addressed them (importantly because there have been posters defending those kinds of tactics)

It always comes up and it always becomes a focus. It is not relevant to the discussion, yet it always gets steered that way.

No one is saying slavery is the only way to do oppression. We have already had this discussion. Of course it isn’t the only way but a lot of us thinking is the most effective for Dark Sun because of its cruel nature, it’s role in the history and genres being drawn on, and how it can do things like heighten stakes, etc. Like I said, hard to have a Spartacus campaign without slavery. And many people would want that. Further I also said I use those other approaches, like unfair contracts at a manufacturing facility, in plenty of other campaigns and settings. So I am not saying you can’t do them and achieve good effect, I just think slavery is crucial to dark sun and it’s themes. It shows just his devalued life. I have explained why before. If you aren’t persuaded, that is fine. We don’t have to agree

It's role in history doesn't matter when we are making a fantasy world. There are plenty of other things in history that don't make it into games all the time that would be more appropriate, whether it be the economics of these worlds, language barriers, how governments worked and other such things. Slavery always gets the "It's historical!" defense, but Athas isn't a real place and isn't related to our history. This always a defense and it is always frustrating because it is a really bad usage of history.

I strongly disagree with this. I know plenty of socially conscious gamers who love dark sun and who can watch Spartacus without getting queasy.

I can watch Spartacus without getting queasy, but it's rather different to actually interact with a world that has slavery rather than simply be an observer to it.

 

[Bedrockgames]

That's not calling people racist for liking Lovecraft, that's asking people to put yourself into the shoes of the peoples that Lovecraft hated and despised. There is a real point to be made about our continued focus on him as an individual author, putting him front and center at this sort of stuff. It is not calling you racist, but asking you to imagine that you were called subhuman by an author and in 2023 watch as people support something that uses his legacy.

Sometimes people who are flawed and have bad ideas make great works of art.

He called people like me subhuman too. He would have had issues with most of us. He certainly had issues with Irish, Jews (though that was surely complicated) and Italians (which checks off all my boxes). It was one of the first things so realized about him because he is very much a blend of that old New England patrician racism blended with the racialist science of the early 20th century. His racism was very focused on bloodlines and more focused on people’s and ethnicities than race so think (it was largely about being purely English).

But he was also a complicated and deeply troubled man, who wasn’t static and whose views seemed to have changed over time. I don’t think he was ever free of this kind of thinking, but you can see a softening and a response to revelations like when he learned of the violence perpetrated by the nazis in Germany). If you read his diary he says done despicable things but also seems to have moments of clarity and greater open mindedness. But the bad things he writes are still there for sure.

I think everyone needs to decide for themselves how they want to handle and view Lovecraft (it is a bit like the ‘is it okay to listen to Wagner’ discussion). But there is also an oversimplification that happens around Lovecraft where is is miraculously said to have been out of step with thinking of his time even though he was writing at the height of him crow, at the height of racialist science, at a time when racism in the US was prevalent and cane in much more violent forms than Lovecraft himself. I think his racism was very much of its time in New England. And I don’t think it should be ignored. I also don’t think it means there isn’t value in his works, that he wasn’t massively influential to the horror genre, that his stories are not magnificent, nor do I think all his creative work can be boiled down to that racism

 

[Justice and Rule]

Sometimes people who are flawed and have bad ideas make great works of art.

Sure, but we also need to come to terms with that. Also, we probably need to move away from him and stop, well, putting him as part of the advertising.

He called people like me subhuman too. He would have had issues with most of us. He certainly had issues with Irish, Jews (though that was surely complicated) and Italians (which checks off all my boxes). It was one of the first things so realized about him because he is very much a blend of that old New England patrician racism blended with the racialist science of the early 20th century. His racism was very focused on bloodlines and more focused on people’s and ethnicities than race so think (it was largely about being purely English).

Yeah, I don't think him not liking me as a Catholic Frenchman is worth as much as some of his other views, either. I think we need to recognize that all of his racism is more pronounced than others. We don't share the same sort of burden that minorities might in that regard.

But he was also a complicated and deeply troubled man, who wasn’t static and whose views seemed to have changed over time. I don’t think he was ever free of this kind of thinking, but you can see a softening and a response to revelations like when he learned of the violence perpetrated by the nazis in Germany). If you read his diary he says done despicable things but also seems to have moments of clarity and greater open mindedness. But the bad things he writes are still there for sure.

Sure, but we're don't live in the Star Wars universe where tossing one guy into the power core can forgive you for destroying a planet full of people. While he may have shown some clarity in his own racism, I don't know that it really does enough.

I think everyone needs to decide for themselves how they want to handle and view Lovecraft (it is a bit like the ‘is it okay to listen to Wagner’ discussion). But there is also an oversimplification that happens around Lovecraft where is is miraculously said to have been out of step with thinking of his time even though he was writing at the height of him crow, at the height of racialist science, at a time when racism in the US was prevalent and cane in much more violent forms than Lovecraft himself. I think his racism was very much of its time in New England. And I don’t think it should be ignored. I also don’t think it means there isn’t value in his works, that he wasn’t massively influential to the horror genre, that his stories are not magnificent, nor do I think all his creative work can be boiled down to that racism

Sure, but the point would be that Lovecraft's works are set, our future works based on his are not. People move away from his racist themes and focus on the cosmic horror, adapt and kind of mock his bad views in their new works. That's what helps make these things more acceptable: it's not Lovecraft, but the people using his work as a stepping stone to do better works that remove those things, move on from those things, or actively oppose them.

Now ask: is that what people want done with Dark Sun? Are we moving on from the problematic parts but keeping the themes and aspects that are still powerful?

 

[Alzrius]

No, it's not talking about someone feeling persecuted, it's explicitly talking about someone feeling unwelcome. That is very different, and I think if you don't understand the difference between the two this dialogue is not going to go far.

It's a distinction without a difference, one which I think you're artificially propping up in an attempt to defend the indefensible. Quite simply, there is no justified criticism to be made of the hobby as a whole because one thousand people choose to buy a CoC game, and anyone who feels to the contrary has no right to expect that their position be validated by others as reasonable.

But they are. You're just not willing to recognize that. They are asking you to understand how they feel and how others like them feel about putting the name of someone who is incredibly racist as part of your ad copy, as well as how it feels for people to complain about having diversity in fantasy media. I thin

They're not, and you need to find it within yourself to accept that. They're demanding that you validate their feelings of persecution (i.e. they're being gatekept out of the entire hobby) because a mere one thousand people are paying for something that one person thinks is immoral. One might wonder why that person isn't capable of sufficient empathy as to realize that liking something problematic doesn't make you a bad person. But to them it does make you a bad person, and even one thousand such people taints the entire hobby enough to drive them away from it.

I don't believe I positioned myself as the sole keeper of what tropes are good and what tropes are bad and I'd say that's pretty self-evident from a good faith reading of what I wrote.

Yes, you did, and that's completely obvious from reading what you wrote. When you make a declarative statement about "bad tropes," which no definition and no presentation of "in my opinion" or "to me" (which are not assumed), then you are positioning yourself as the sole keeper of those virtues. I'm just pointing out that you're not.

And again, it's all about how you don't feel welcomed by someone feeling that certain aspects of the community aren't welcoming to individuals such as people complaining about minorities or still advertising on the legacy of racists. Again, this all comes off as "But what about my feelings?!" instead of what we are talking about.

Again, you overlook that the quoted post was one person ranting "everyone else is selfish because they won't think about my feelings!" Which of course ignores the fact that such a sentiment is far and away more selfish than anyone else. Why you keep ignoring that is beyond me, but it's not painting your points in a good light at all.

No, it makes them feel uncomfortable and unwelcome. That's very different, and maybe it's something you should listen to instead really trying to dismiss it as saying you are racist.

It's not worth listening to carefully; exclusionary rhetoric never is. Saying "everyone needs to do what I want" isn't virtuous, even if it's falsely framed in a context of "you're paying for a game I don't like, which means you're either evil or ignorant, and so I don't feel welcome." It ignores the self-evident truth that you can like problematic content without being problematic. There's no painting that as a statement asking for empathy when the statement itself contains none.

Again, you switch words to try and catch me in a gotcha. There are literally people who want to argue how problematic something is. @Bedrockgames literally was doing that. This coming off as being exceedingly desperate.

What's desperate it acknowledging that you got caught in a "gotcha" (to use your words) and then trying to say "but not really" the way you are here. To repeat, no one is saying there's nothing problematic about slavery, which is what you falsely accused them of, as though the people arguing against you were longing to go back to the antebellum American South. They're saying it's not problematic in the context of a role-playing game; and even then they're actually presenting it with far more qualifiers than that, noting the context and presentation, as well as how it's only in certain games, etc.

But you characterized it all as people saying "there's nothing problematic about slavery." I don't need to set a gotcha for you; you're doing just fine on your own.

And I'm addressing the point that you didn't get the definition of concern trolling right. I'm not the one who started the tangential argument, I'm trying to bring it back while you keep talking about someone else's post making you feel like you are a racist.

Leaving aside that you're one again deliberately misrepresenting my argument, presumably because you have no substantive counterpoint to it, you're once again concern-trolling here. Knock it off.

Again, this is a bunch of concern trolling. They said it made them feel unwelcome, that doesn't mean they are saying those people are racist. You are conflating things to feed your own persecution complex. You lack an argument for discussion so you resort to these tactics and honestly I'm done with it.

Again, you're literally presenting your own bad arguments as mine, and then responding to them. It's a tired old technique for refusing to engage with the actual substance of the debate, and isn't something that people do in good faith. They said that one thousand people paying for a game they don't like makes the entire hobby unwelcoming to them; it's self-evident that their reason for that is because they think those one thousand people are bad people paying for bad content, and so impugns the entire hobby if the entire hobby won't repudiate them. That kind of anti-inclusive thinking needs to be called out wherever it's encountered, along with the people defending it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's role in history doesn't matter when we are making a fantasy world. There are plenty of other things in history that don't make it into games all the time that would be more appropriate, whether it be the economics of these worlds, language barriers, how governments worked and other such things. Slavery always gets the "It's historical!" defense, but Athas isn't a real place and isn't related to our history. This always a defense and it is always frustrating because it is a really bad usage of history.



I can watch Spartacus without getting queasy, but it's rather different to actually interact with a world that has slavery rather than simply be an observer to it.

A story element's role in history absolutely does matter when you're using historical elements in your fantasy world. It certainly doesn't have to be, but historical verisimilitude is a perfectly valid reason for it to be there. All those other elements you mentioned are also valid. I use them at least as often as I would use something like slavery. My favorite RPGs make a strong point of including those kind of historical elements as much as the gameplay itself makes practically possible.

The interaction argument may be valid for some individuals, but I do not buy into it as a universal issue.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure, but we also need to come to terms with that. Also, we probably need to move away from him and stop, well, putting him as part of the advertising.



Yeah, I don't think him not liking me as a Catholic Frenchman is worth as much as some of his other views, either. I think we need to recognize that all of his racism is more pronounced than others. We don't share the same sort of burden that minorities might in that regard.



Sure, but we're don't live in the Star Wars universe where tossing one guy into the power core can forgive you for destroying a planet full of people. While he may have shown some clarity in his own racism, I don't know that it really does enough.



Sure, but the point would be that Lovecraft's works are set, our future works based on his are not. People move away from his racist themes and focus on the cosmic horror, adapt and kind of mock his bad views in their new works. That's what helps make these things more acceptable: it's not Lovecraft, but the people using his work as a stepping stone to do better works that remove those things, move on from those things, or actively oppose them.

Now ask: is that what people want done with Dark Sun? Are we moving on from the problematic parts but keeping the themes and aspects that are still powerful?

It depends. Do we all agree on what the problematic parts are?

 

[Laurefindel]

Sometimes people who are flawed and have bad ideas make great works of art.

He called people like me subhuman too. He would have had issues with most of us. He certainly had issues with Irish, Jews (though that was surely complicated) and Italians (which checks off all my boxes). It was one of the first things so realized about him because he is very much a blend of that old New England patrician racism blended with the racialist science of the early 20th century. His racism was very focused on bloodlines and more focused on people’s and ethnicities than race so think (it was largely about being purely English).

But he was also a complicated and deeply troubled man, who wasn’t static and whose views seemed to have changed over time. I don’t think he was ever free of this kind of thinking, but you can see a softening and a response to revelations like when he learned of the violence perpetrated by the nazis in Germany). If you read his diary he says done despicable things but also seems to have moments of clarity and greater open mindedness. But the bad things he writes are still there for sure.

I think everyone needs to decide for themselves how they want to handle and view Lovecraft (it is a bit like the ‘is it okay to listen to Wagner’ discussion). But there is also an oversimplification that happens around Lovecraft where is is miraculously said to have been out of step with thinking of his time even though he was writing at the height of him crow, at the height of racialist science, at a time when racism in the US was prevalent and cane in much more violent forms than Lovecraft himself. I think his racism was very much of its time in New England. And I don’t think it should be ignored. I also don’t think it means there isn’t value in his works, that he wasn’t massively influential to the horror genre, that his stories are not magnificent, nor do I think all his creative work can be boiled down to that racism

Whether the work of a man can be separated from the man itself is not a new debate. There was a lot of calls to boycott Michael Jackson's music a few years back, or to boycott stations that wouldn't boycott his music.

And the same situation is applicable to soooo many artists, public figures and leaders, political or otherwise. At a point one starts to doubt what they should be allowed to like or not. Personally, my stance is that the work/art/legacy does not gain or lose worth based on its maker, but people need a certain distance or time to appreciate that. It's natural that some require more time and/or distance based on how personally their life was affected by the artist/figure/leader and while this should be respected, it is also natural that some people have an easier time making the dissociation.