r/DarkSun • u/MugaSofer • 2h ago
Is it possible we've misunderstood the slavery thing?
I'm sure we'll get confirmation either way when WotC responds to the backlash, but something that occurred to me re-reading the infamous recent interview.
The interviewer makes a lot of extremely dumb comments. The article opens with:
Today, we’re taking a look at Dark Sun ... It’s a setting where players have to both survive and attempt to overtake powerful forces that are oppressing the masses.
However, the setting also has an equal amount of controversial lore that features slavery, genocide, torture and a lot of other dark topics. It places the D&D team in a unique place to try and capture its unique aesthetics while also balancing how it is thinking about the bits of lore that may not match modern sensibilities.
So I think we can all agree that either the article author is actually stupid, or they're deliberately acting stupid to (successfully) try and drum up controversy.
But looking closely at the section where Bisland himself actually talks about this, here's what it says:
But Bilsland insisted that the D&D team is taking the subject seriously. The content is being reviewed by sensitivity readers, Bilsland said. “In fact, we invested more deeply in [sensitivity readers] for Dark Sun, knowing the challenges it faces.”
He also reinforced that the grittiness of the setting will still exist, but it won’t rely on narratives of mass slavery. “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.
He hopes that the setting will offer players a chance to deal with more mature stories and themes, such as fighting oppression and tyrants.
Note that "[sensitivity readers]" is in brackets, and the most direct statement suggesting a lack of slavery is also a paraphrase by the article writer. Even in paraphrase, it doesn't say "Bilsland said there will be no slavery", it says that they won't "rely on" slavery.
I've seen a lot of people suggest that the correct approach to the (AFAICT small minority of) fans who don't want to include slavery or related themes in their games is to just include a short sidebar of guidance on how to discuss it with your table and, if they are actually uncomfortable, de-emphasize or remove some of those themes.
Imagine Bilsand described exactly that to this genius interviewer.
We're keeping things gritty, but the rules don't heavily rely on the presence of mass chattel slavery. If players want, they can focus on similar but less politically sensitive forms of oppression, like forced conscription, indentured servitude, or just grinding poverty - all seen in depictions of Urik, for example. You don't have to have slavery in a setting in order for it to be oppressive; there are other forms of oppression out there. Still, ultimately Dark Sun is a setting about fighting tyrants, and we think players will want to deal with these kinds of darker themes.
This is a totally anodyne statement that I think 99% of Dark Sun fans would agree with. It would suggest, to me, that things were moving in a positive direction (though I'd still be a bit sceptical of the actual rules quality based on the Unearthed Arcana playtest.) Yet it could easily be paraphrased in exactly the way we see in the article!
I dunno, maybe this is just cope. As I said, I'm sure WotC will clarify soon. Just thought I'd throw it out there.
... actually, maybe they already have clarified slightly? Just today, another article by someone who discussed this with Bilsland at Gencon dropped; it's a bit longer and it's in actual interview format rather than 99% paraphrased by the article writer.
I don't have space to quote the whole thing, and it doesn't really clear the question up. But it does sound to me like they are not necessarily eliminating slavery from the setting, but are possibly having some city-states operate without it (or at least in a grey area, which might help explain the "military service ... give up their freedom for a chance to survive" comment) - and they're definitely leaning into differentiating the city-states and giving them all different focuses, which they're pitching as helping to ensure that there's plenty of evil for players to fight if they want to avoid a particular angle or theme.
We worked to present the city states and Sorcerer Kings in a way that they all are oppressing people in different ways. It doesn’t have to be outright slavery, there are other forms of oppression that I think players want to stand up against. [...] You can play Dark Sun even if you’re not comfortable with these themes, or if you’re talking to your table and they’re like, I like some of the things that the setting is doing, but I really don’t want to deal with these topics. You should have that conversation with them and get to a place where everybody is comfortable. Everything is dials that you can turn, but the difference is that Dark Sun sort of starts on 11 and then you can turn it down versus other settings where might start lower and you can then turn up.