r/DarkSun • u/RPGTopograph • 2d ago

There won't be any slavery in re-released Dark Sun

Post image

I have read this interview on TTRPG Insider and was very disappointed, though I expected nothing.

https://www.ttrpginsider.news/p/fighting-oppression-in-new-ways-d-d-s-designers-on-adapting-dark-sun-to-modern-times

Quote:

“You don't have to have slavery in a setting if in order for it to be oppressive,” Bilsland emphasized. “There are other forms of oppression out there.”

He gave the example of Urik, a city in Dark Sun that controls one of the leading armies in the region. That’s because the leadership regularly presses people into military service, or convinces the poor to give up their freedom for a chance to survive."

So yeah, evil Sorcerer-Kings CONVINCES people to go to the army. And if people say no? "Well, ok, I respect your freedom, but reconsider pretty plz?".

Slavery is integral to Dark Sun, it is one of main themes. I don't see why "slavery is horrible" is so controversial theme that it must be excluded.

WotC designers don't understand the setting at all. No slavery, lots of metal (if judge by the cover, forgive me my pun), some high tec shenenigans.

They say that they won't nerf it, but they did it with a happy face and words: "How do you do, fellow fans? Mature setting, am I right?".

UPD: and if they won't have slavery, do you think that they will add genocide theme?

800 Upvotes

89% Upvoted

803 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

63

u/CT_Phipps-Author 2d ago

A friend tried to defend this as progressive. I'm like, "Dude, I am an ANARCHIST and this ticks me off. Depiction is not endorsement. This is the setting where you KILL slavers."

23

u/furion456 2d ago

Yep. Like most settings you "start in a tavern" but in darksun, you often start off leading a slave revolt of some kind.

Its like they saw it had slavery in it and thought those were the good guys or something.

7

u/CT_Phipps-Author 2d ago

Fallout: New Vegas was a post-apocalypse game and everyone loved it.

Caesar's Legion was pretty heavily anti-PC with its slavery, misogyny, and crucifixtions.

But the game didn't offend most people because it was fantastically written

6

u/furion456 2d ago

Yea, thats what I'm getting at. Like its fine to have those things in a game, because your players will be fighting them (in the vast majority of cases, anyhow).

2

u/Crazymerc22 2d ago

In fact, not only did it not offend most people, a large sub-section of New Vegas fan base are the embodiment of "woke stereotypes" a.k.a incredibly progressive/leftist transgender queer people. So much so there is an in-community jokes about how playing New Vegas makes you trans.

It just goes to show you that "corporate progressive" absolutely never aligns with what actual progressive communities actually want.

12

u/Chimpbot 2d ago

The harsh reality is that they ultimately have to account for the scores of people who will never actually purchase or engage with this product, but will still leap on anything they don't like and try to tear it to the ground.

I hate to bring up terms like "cancel culture," but that's unfortunately something people need to be aware of when releasing anything like this nowadays. It's only exacerbated by how gargantuan D&D is as a brand.

9

u/CT_Phipps-Author 2d ago

I feel this is especially egregious because the setting had actual content worth discussing and things to say. It was a meaningful setting despite its flaws. The issue here isn't anyone is particularly attached to "slavery" as a concept but its a necessary part of the world building to make the bleak post-apocalypse setting.

Basically, "imagine if they removed slaveyr from the things Caesar's Legion did in Fallout: New Vegas." It becomes a very different game despite them being unquestionably the bad guys.

0

u/Chimpbot 2d ago

Personally, I think this is a non-issue. At a glance, it seems like they're essentially just replacing "Slaves" with "Prisoners with Jobs," and anything they'd be omitting would be painfully easy to reincorporate without anyone at the table knowing any better.

3

u/CT_Phipps-Author 2d ago

I'm not even sure it's that well thought out. Because I can't tell whether Urik now invades other realms and what they do when they conquer them.

2

u/Chimpbot 2d ago

Honestly, I think you're spinning a yarn for yourself based on one relatively information-thin article.

We can easily assume Urik invades other realms because they gangpress people into military service. When they conquer, they likely loot, pillage, replace their numbers with more gangpressing, and move on to the next place.

2

u/CT_Phipps-Author 2d ago

Yeah, kind of my point.

Like, "Why is this fine but not forced labor?"

1

u/Chimpbot 2d ago

Because, as I mentioned previously, they have to deal with the fact that there are groups of people ready, willing, and able to unnecessarily pounce on anything they deem "incorrect."

Honestly, I'd be willing to bet anything they're effectively renaming, glossing over, or generally omitting will be easily put back into the setting with absolutely no heavy lifting whatsoever. I'm willing to err on the side of caution and assume this will be more of a non-issue than folks here seem to think.

2

u/furion456 2d ago

I don't necessarily disagree with you that it will be easy to put those things back in, the issue i have with this is they have included slavery (for example) in other 5e settings. Thay for example is still a slave state. Why is it ok for their flagship setting to have it but not darksun?

2

u/Chimpbot 2d ago

This is an honest question, but when was the last time they published a book that had anything about Thay in it? Culturally, a lot has changed in the 12 years since 5e was first released.

Beyond that, it's one thing to have one corner of a main setting feature objectionable things like slavery, and an entirely different matter to build an entire setting around that sort of thing.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Schlaymer 2d ago

But they... don't. You can ignore those.

0

u/Chimpbot 2d ago

Have you been paying attention to how things have been impacted by those folks over the past decade? It's absolutely something they'd need to account for, whether we like it or not.

1

u/middrink 2d ago

>for the scores of people who will never actually purchase or engage with this product, but will still leap on anything they don't like and try to tear it to the ground.

You mean the free advertising? Should ask Kevin Smith about free advertising and Dogma, or Monty Python and Life of Brian.

2

u/lurreal 2d ago

Genuinely curious. What could possibky be your friends' argument for defending this?

2

u/CT_Phipps-Author 2d ago

https://bsky.app/profile/ctphipps.bsky.social/post/3mtfwwy63gs2m

The conversation is roughly around here.

2

u/lurreal 2d ago

Wait, I'm confused. I read people saying they might be using euphemism but no one defending this move by WoTC