D&D General D&D Assumptions Ain't What They Used To Be

Belen · Jul 5, 2024

Cap'n Kobold said:
Hierarchy of needs vs harm I would guess. While most of the playerbase doesn't care less, there are demographics that are traditionally underrepresented amongst D&D players for which it could be unpleasant or even traumatic.

The numbers of people who would find graphic depictions of slavery enough of a turn-off to not play the game are probably higher than the numbers of those who would find graphic depictions of slavery enough of a turn-on that they insist on its inclusion.
The former are probably more the target audience that WotC are aiming D&D at rather than the latter as well.

Except I do not believe that anyone is arguing for graphic depictions. I would not support graphic depictions; however, evil beings will most likely use it if only as a way to increase power and I think it is fine to acknowledge it.

My current campaigns has a group of slavers from outside the region raiding villages. The people of the region would never allow the practice so the characters are on a quest to save the villagers.

The pirate slavers will be early antagonists for the region and slavery will not move beyond there unless the characters decide to leave the region to do something about the external threat.

Chaosmancer · Jul 5, 2024

MGibster said:
The original I-6 Ravenloft was a single adventure, so to adapt it into a fullblown campaign WotC added quite a bit to Curse of Strahd. Near the town of Vallaki, player characters might encounter the dusk elves who are described as having dark hair and dark skin but are otherwise just wood elves. Four centuries priod to the campaign, after the death of Strahd's boo Tatyana, Petrina Velikovna, a dusk elf herself, petitioned Strahd to make her his bride. Thinking it wasn't a great idea for someone evil like Petrina to hook up with a monster like Strahd, they stoned her to death. Strahd responded by slaughtering all the dusk elf women and forced the surviving men to remain in Barovia to watch them languish and eventually die out.

So, yeah. It's there. Check out all the other icky stuff in the campaign as well.

Okay, wow that is a blink and you miss it detail. Even after finally finding the Dusk elves I had to read the section three times to find what you are talking about. No wonder I've talked to people about this adventure multiple times without any of them ever mentioning it.

Lanefan · Jul 5, 2024

MGibster said:
I kind of figured you were leading me somewhere. I didn't think it was necessary to include the price of slaves because I don't expect PCs to be buying and selling slaves. You know, because PCs are good guys.

I play a PC who could, if she wanted, walk down to the city square (she's in the setting's direct equivalent to republic-era Rome) and buy herself some slaves right now. Were she a different sort of person, that's exactly what she'd do as she needs staff for her new domus (townhouse). But, for reasons of sheer practicality rather than altruism, she eschews slaves in favour of free and paid employees: slaves have no reason to be loyal and every reason not to even if treated decently; where I can earn the honest loyalty of paid staff by treating them well and paying them fairly.

And having loyal people around you is important in that city, believe me.

That said, were she to decide to buy herself a few slaves where does the DM look for guidance as to pricing?

Lanefan · Jul 5, 2024

Clint_L said:
There are plenty of IRL topics that are best avoided by WotC. If someone wants to make a niche adventure that is all about them, that’s great. But, for example, Lanefan suggested that “slaver” could be an acceptable background for a player character. I think it goes without saying why that should be a choice made at individual tables and not promoted by WotC.

There's a big difference betweem "promoted" (which implies being made front-and-centre) and "included at all".

I don't see the simple inclusion of slaver (or slave, for that matter) as one possible background out of a whole bunch of other possible backgrounds as being promotion of slavery. Even less so as there's already societies in the default setting that are known to keep slaves; why can't a PC have been, in the past, one of said slaves?

CreamCloud0 · Jul 5, 2024

MGibster said:
I kind of figured you were leading me somewhere. I didn't think it was necessary to include the price of slaves because I don't expect PCs to be buying and selling slaves. You know, because PCs are good guys.

i don't think the PCs being good guys is a watertight argument that they will never ever buy a slave, out of plot necessity or even just desire to "i need the assistance and i'll treat them better than some other people might", and also that's a big assumption that PCs are good guys IMO, nothing in any part of any book says that PCs must be good: evil or even just morally ambiguious PCs have been around since basically the start.

Hussar · Jul 5, 2024

Maxperson said:
Which is somethin that I find to be offensive. If you* want to support me when I am offended at something, that's fine. If you* want to guess at what might offend me and then argue that it's offensive, you've* gone too far.

*General you

Because it doesn’t bother me therefore no one should be bothered is such a positive contribution to the discussion.

Maxperson · Jul 5, 2024

Hussar said:
Because it doesn’t bother me therefore no one should be bothered is such a positive contribution to the discussion.

I have yet to meet a single Jewish person who is offended by it. Nor have I heard anyone online be offended by it. There were several jews in the discussion who said it wasn't an issue, though.

I think someone quoted 1 Rabbi who was offended by the word phylactery. If you have to scour the internet to find one person, it's not a big deal.

Cadence · Jul 6, 2024

CreamCloud0 said:
i don't think the PCs being good guys is a watertight argument that they will never ever buy a slave, out of plot necessity or even just desire to "i need the assistance and i'll treat them better than some other people might", and also that's a big assumption that PCs are good guys IMO, nothing in any part of any book says that PCs must be good: evil or even just morally ambiguious PCs have been around since basically the start.

I had a character who bought a child from the child's abusive father (a few levels later she might just have killed the father to get the child out of the situation) and adopted her. I think the DM just made up a price.

Tying into things from others up thread,

There are tons of objects and occupations that could be in the rule book but aren't. I assume we also don't need the various backgrounds and prices that would be prompted by the 1e harlot table, for example. More mundanely, how much is a really nice silver platter that would impress the noble as a gift but not reveal the parties true massive wealth? Does it matter what dynasty that tea set is from? How exactly does the range in prices for horses affect their capabilities? Can we get prices for each different type of wine available? etc...

Alzrius · Jul 6, 2024

Hussar said:
Because it doesn’t bother me therefore no one should be bothered is such a positive contribution to the discussion.

It's more positive than passive-aggressive snark.

Eric V · Jul 6, 2024

Alzrius said:
It's more positive than passive-aggressive snark.

No, it isn't.

D&D General D&D Assumptions Ain't What They Used To Be

Belen

Hero

Chaosmancer

Legend

Lanefan

Victoria Rules

Lanefan

Victoria Rules

CreamCloud0

One day, I hope to actually play DnD.

Hussar

Legend

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Cadence

Legend

Alzrius

The EN World kitten

Eric V

Hero

Similar Threads

Voidrunner's Codex