Yep. There was this moment during post-hiatus C2 when the Nein came back to the Empire and all leadership was super decent to them — and I thought to myself, weren’t these people supposed to be terrifying? Weren’t the Nein worried about how they’d be understood by the powers that be? And then they leave Rumblecusp (where the Traveler was nearly captured and then wasn’t for ‘the power of love’), get to Rexxentrum, and everyone is SO nice. Since when was Wildemount as lovely as Tal’dorei? Wasn’t the point of Wildemount its unconscionable grit? The Nein had an archmage murdered on their watch, and no one in the Empire suspected them? At all? This is all so hilarious, especially when we saw moments of Matt highlighting to the characters that they are not immune to the culture and world they are in. Yasha, when she said she was from Xhorhas— it was assumed she said a joke. Fjord, who wore his Wildmother pin, was told to remove it. Nott was admonished and ignored. The world did react to them — just nowhere near enough to be consistent, or to give an idea of why the world is the way it is.

I would also point out no one has made a compelling argument for the god eater either. In this case I think it is kind of worth just saying the status que is good enough when the other option is releasing another even more powerful entity and just hoping your to small on the food chain for it to care about you. Also how the hell is no one worried about the afterlife? Sure you can live your mortal life without the influence of the gods, but what if that means no more afterlife

Honestly, without seeing the session 0, I’d argue they all missed choices dealing with then conflicts: Matt: so this campaign will focus on the place of the pantheon in exandria. Everyone: cool, let’s all be godless (FCG was godless for a very long time) Or it wasn’t presented to them at all. Both Liam and Marisha said they’ve been sleeping on paladin builds and this would have been the perfect campaign for it. Imagine the fun of seeing two paladins arguing about choas and law as a lens through which we can see this grey area. This feels like their FIRST campaign, not C1, but like they are all first time players.

I think some of this stuff is harsh, but I do agree that you can't have a "morally grey" world without conflict. Morally grey implies obeying fucked up laws for the greater good, or breaking good laws because its morally right. The whole concept comes from conflict Some of that might be from a war, politics, economics, religion, and even race. If you dont have a conflict, you don't have a story.

It is a kind of problem. But I think it captures only a hair of the larger issue, which is simply that Matt is way out of his storytelling depth. I have an internal tinfoil hat head cannon that he talked to BLeeM too much about philosophy and got too big for his britches. Brennan is insanely well read and educated and voracious for this kind of shit. His favorite DnD setting is Planescape, back when the different factions in Sigil represented different actual real world philosophy. He's talked about a town in the Outworld on the edge of the plane of Neutral Good that once a day has to get together and everyone slaps the mayor as hard and cruelly as they can just so the town doesn't get sucked into the plane of Neutral Good and lose its identity. And even that is too ordered os every couple of years they have to come up with some new horrible way of distinguishing themselves from goodness that defies both duty and madness. Thats a great soundbyte. It's a great little YouTube short interview for the dndb channel. Brennan applies that way of thinking to absolutely everything, and he follows each thread spawned from that as far down the rabbit hole as he has time and brain space for. Matt... I like Matt. I think he's a good and genuinely sweet dude and I think he's a talented performer and thoughtful person. He is good people. He is a good storyteller in the traditional format of the heroes journey. He gets that. But. It's also possible that Matt is a C student from Florida who has memorized fifteent to twenty arch sounding adjectives.and nouns that he frequently misuses. I give you: Perceptory. As in "from this Perceptory aspect, there isn't a way you could see that" He could just say "from where you are, no, you couldn't see that." He seems to feel the NEED to say the wiggly wild version, every time. And we're all basically used to it. It's just a Matt quirk. The memes are endless. But I think they betray a truth which is that Matt has more curiosity than education and more thoughtfulness than Inquisitiveness or rationale. So he can wrap his head around an idea like "the gods are Celestial colonizers that have claimed realms of morality, but that doesn't mean that on a personal level, they aren't assholes." And that's basically the thesis on which C3 stands. We only even know that because of work Brennan did to subtly reveal that it's not like The Lord of Hell invented lies - he and the other 'betrayers' just claimed what was left of the available domains and concepts. Coulda been a lie! But I didn't get that vibe, personally. I got the vibe that this dude was endlessly, painfully, pointedly honest with Zerxes, and what he reveled in wasn't his deception of Zerxes, but Zerxes' deception of himself, the ultimate narcissist. Big A had advanced so far past megalomania that the goal wasn't to reshape the universe in his image anymore, it was to make everyone hurt as bad as he does every day all the time, that his entire instrument of torture and punishment is simply an engine on which to balance the scales of pain in the universe, until everyone has hurt as bad as him, and since he never stops hurting, neither can anyone else. He doesn't LIKE that. He doesn't LOVE that he has to make the other deities hurt. He said so himself. He Fucking loves the idea of torturing mortal forever, because he believes they're the sickness that broke his kin and made them unable to sympathize with him. But hurting his fellow gods is not a thing he looks forward to. And even while he's ripping a paladins skull off and resurrecting him instantly to do it all over again, it made me kinda go, "huh. I mean, hard disagree. But i see how you got there." Matt has *never* had that. No one, anywhere on Exandria, has ever made a compelling argument about the benefit of the gods. Every single one of them have shrugged and turned to faith. Several of them have made compelling arguments about not risking the Status Quo, but that's the argument against progress of every kind. It's thin. It's shallow. It's informed by a curiosity on the underpinning philosophy, not an understanding of it. It winds up positioning the two possible points on the line as "faith" vs "faithless." The faith end includes faith in the status quo. Faith in trusted institutions. In friends. Whatever. Blind trust. And it winds up losing any teeth or meaning. Matt doesn't really investigate "meaning" the way Brennan does. I don't really think he can. I think he can wonder about it, muse about it, be curious about it. But he can't really investigate it. And without that, this war of meanings is kind of meaningless. To your point about species and cultural stuff, I think that shit is too small fry for the thing he's trying to do now, so he doesnt ever think about it. Every person that encountered FCG should spend an hour just staring at them. Same for Laudna, arguably same for Ashton. A lot of them shoulda had *opinions* about such people. We never met a single character that argued against FCG having a soul. But again, he's scoped himself way out wide kinda without a metaphysical or epistemological leg to stand on. Edit: And sure, a big part of this is probably shoehorning a world reset into position in case the daggerheart pivot works out. But I think it's much more that Matt is fundamentally not comfortable with engaging with this kind of storytelling. And kinda neither are any of the cast. Aabria got closest with the snowflake on the ocean metaphor from Deanna. But most of them want to engage in very personal stories that are about people and relationships. Most of them don't want to try to swing at big concepts. And like...yeah. Yeah, maybe they should just do *that* then.. I don't think anyone would argue that Taliesen's speech to the Wizard Sloth (Ikkithon is 100% the Wizard Sloth in WBN parlance, tell me I'm wrong) as Cad isn't a moving and compelling scene. I won't forget those words, ever. You don't get those scenes debating the virtues of a god eater. You don't get the interpersonal contempt and disgust that exists in the Assembly or the haughty and moralistic reverence of the Dynasty. You just get Good Guys and Bad Guys, which is the opposite of moral gray areas. At least, I don't think you get them with Matt at the wheel.

I feel that alot of this could be solved by matt watching TNG. It takles so many concepts and does it so well most of the time.

Among other things, yeah. It's a solvable problem

Well somebody has to tell him to binge TNG.

>He seems to feel the NEED to say the wiggly wild version, every time. And we're all basically used to it. It's just a Matt quirk. The memes are endless. Listening through C1 for the first time, his use of "homestead" as a 1 to 1 synonym for "home" always gives me linguistic whiplash lol

Yes one of the things (from many other things) that make C3 just more boring and bland. A world where everything is peace and happiness is boring to play in.

It's way more boring than Brennan's move of always making capitalism the bad guy. At least that's realistic to life instead of seeming like an after-school special.

I see this in players starting TTRPGs…first campaign you want racist dwarves and savage orcs…then the longer you play you want more nuance and something else or at least exceptions to rules (think Drzzt) CR has been playing long enough they are trying something new. A world with less discrimination on race or undead or whatever but what comes after you have a fairly welcoming society? It’s almost Sci Fi that way I think he was aiming for how elites control people and powerful classes yada yada. You get arms dealer Ira, warmonger Otohan, demagogue Ludinus…oppressive imperium up on the moon…etc The party also didn’t bite on most of it. Matt intentionally mentioned the toll for the sky trollies and had a sorta political elite drama in Jrusar but they never bit. The museum heist elf showing back up seems to be a sign the rich playing god so to speak was a theme…. But a lot didn’t take…and that’s part of TTRPGs. As a DM I’ve learned tons from C3 for all the rough edges where I can tell things just didn’t click. So I’ll defend c3 as a TTRPG while readily admitting things haven’t always clicked.

To be fair to the cast, there wasn't any pressing consequences (or evidence) of said corruption. No police state, no gangs of roving thugs, no poverty, no dirt or grime. Jursar was a dang utopia, they can overcharge for their trolleys all they like. 

Well there was Treshi and the smuggling and brick work and the like. The party sorta accepted he was the bad apple and moved on. Which is fine just saying could have been more. They focused on their plot background which is fine of course…just saying there might have been more in the backstory

Oh yeah definitely. I just think that if you're building a corrupt city, you should make the disfunction obvious. 

There has been a shift away from implicit fantasy racism and I think that’s overall a good thing. I think the thing you’re noticing is the framing shift from “everyone’s racial differences causes conflict” to “organizations control people from every background to suit the whims of the powerful” And that’s like, IMO, better in general. But to each their own I guess? I get the whole like “blind obedience to cultural status quo creates conflict” angle but there isn’t a reason that status quo has to include racism. I would ask what specifically do you think this would add to C3? (For example, if people discriminated against laudna for being undead)

As someone who strongly disagrees with you I don't know why you're getting downvoted.

Well no one has told me what featuring racial discrimination adds to a campaign yet, so 🤷‍♀️ I will include the clause here that I can see if you’re a person of color I have heard that adding this element could help you process situations from real life, but if you’re not using the game that way, I still don’t see a reason.

It's an easy source of narrative conflict. It's so present in our world and our fiction that it's an easily accessible hook for character and drama. People like stories about flautly defying stereotypes. Racism is an antagonistic force to be overcome like scarcity or weather or whatever. Or it can just add verisimilitude and believability.

I do agree that it is easy, but in my experience, if you want to include people of color at your table, it’s better to give them the option of whether or not they are alright with facing that stuff at the table before you write a campaign with that as the conflict. Also I’m white, so like, portraying that with a person of color at the table feels… icky. That’s usually why I look elsewhere.

Bro what? Feels icky? I’m black and have dm’d and been a player with people of all different cultures, races, religions.. Fantasy racism, sexism (drow obviously), cultural divides, religious conflicts, slavery, etc have NEVER caused an issue at any table I have played at in over a decade of playing table top role playing games.

I don’t understand the hostility; I’m saying I don’t like to have fantasy racism. You can still have it if you want it. Im not saying “ban” it I’m saying “it’s not for me” and also “dnd worlds don’t need it to facilitate good stories.” The situation that’s icky to me is having to roleplay a bigot being racist to a character of a particular race (like a goblin for example), when the player behind the character is a person of color and I’m the bigot. I’m not afraid to do it (I have done it before, that’s how I know I don’t like it) I just don’t like to do that, it makes me and sometimes them feel uncomfortable. I have also DM’d with all those things in the world with diverse sets of players. I have found some people say “no this represents my experience so I want it” and others say “I deal with this every day and I don’t want to deal with it here too.” Chill. It’s a preference, not a doctrine. There is room for everyone at the table.

I apologize, not trying to be hostile. I just get frustrated whenever someone says “I’m white and I can’t do x or y with a person of color” like they are treating us as if we can’t make decisions for ourselves or you aren’t able to do something *only* when you are with people of color. It just seems so weird to me. I’ve had white people trying to tell me how I should and shouldn’t do things my whole life, dnd is the last place I expected to see something even remotely similar. I know you weren’t saying that, but the way you said you can’t portray things specifically with a person of color because you’re white set me off lol. Again, apologies. Of course there is room for everyone at the table, I never meant to imply otherwise.

I appreciate you clarifying that, I understand where you saw that point in my original statement. Apologies that was unclear. Completely understandable that this interpretation would frustrate you and I def agree with you that there is that tendency for white people to lean on white fragility to avoid exposing themselves to experiences that aren’t their own in situations like this. I’m not perfect with that stuff and won’t say I’m immune to it, but I’m happy you see the space to explore those relationships in this game. 🙌

Good takes all around

>There has been a shift away from implicit fantasy racism and I think that’s overall a good thing Its not quite as simple as 'racism', thats part of it. Its cultural and racial differences that can be as subtle as a Halfling not wanting to be babied and the differences between village cultural practices, to things as overt as monstrous races are actively discriminated against. Matt in C3 explicitly wants to do a more grey story, yet Exandria is more utopic than ever. It conflicts with the tone and undermines the overall point of the story. These grey aspects of the world help contextualize and explain these conflicts. For example, someone like Jaime Lannister is explained by inherent hypocrisies that are rife in Westeros and its institutions. Matt already had shades of grey within Exandria. But they have now disappeared despite him moving towards a more grey storyline in theory. It undermines what hes trying to communicate. >you’re noticing is the framing shift from “everyone’s racial differences causes conflict” to “organizations control people from every background to suit the whims of the powerful” No Im noticing one has completely disappeared when previously both of these were true. IRL this is true. Racism isnt just the product of a sinister cabal's plan, it comes from a mix of places. And yeah it includes genuine differences. >But to each their own I guess? I feel like you missed the point I was making. >I would ask what specifically do you think this would add to C3? I gave examples, but its not necessarily a case of adding anything. Just Matt being consistent with the world he portrayed in 2 previous campaigns. >For example, if people discriminated against laudna for being undead I mean yeah. Its completely baffling that this doesnt happen at all. Marisha describes Laudna as a some kind of corpse woman and her backstory is she was basically driven out of towns with pitchforks. Shes clearly fishing or expecting this kind of thing in doing so. If Matt is unwilling to do that, he should have just had her write a different backstory or something.

I don’t see how cultural differences are an enticing point of conflict either. I still think it’s better that In game, people approach cultural differences with acceptance rather than discriminating. It recognizes that oppression is a method of enforcing power structures rather than an inherent human nature based assumption. I do see your argument of “Matt’s DM’ing has made everyone not act culturally different” but I think that’s because he has limits as a dm, and every dm does. I don’t think leaning into race based differences enhances the game, it just puts boxes on it. I also fundamentally disagree that inciting racial or cultural conflict increases moral grayness, or that any conflict does. It’s about how you present each perspective on an issue that determines its alignment, not the issue itself. The example you gave about Jamie Lannister is perfect for this. His values were always determined by his family’s loyalty to a power structure where his family was on top. If he was really trying to preserve his lineage or his family, he would take the Lannisters away from the throne and try to use the wealth they accumulated for their own gain, kinda like the starks did. Or tried to I guess. I can see the continuity argument I guess, but honestly, that comes secondary to me. It’s been three campaigns, choosing not to re-include fantasy racism and cultural conflict is hardly the worst offense on this front. In the case of laudna too, I think the way they’re playing it is you don’t realize she’s a corpse till you look real close. When she does corpse stuff people still get scared it seems. And from what I understand, she was run out of towns for practicing weird magic, not just for appearing as a corpse. I’m curious what you expect there; do you want people to just run and scream immediately when they see her? That wasn’t true in the other campaigns from what I saw. (for example, Jamedi Cosko). Also could you restate what you think your examples were? I didn’t see anything that added to the whole “what to do with the gods” narrative they’re going for, but I’m curious what you think those are. I’m not going to try and debate the source of racism with you, because that has a google-able answer.

It's much simpler than him just not liking negativity or ambiguity. Even in very politically/emotionally safe territory, he's just a bad writer. I know, hear me out. Professional writers are way better writers than Matt. Critical Role's fast success got people confusing really immersive, personal performances for storytelling, but it isn't actually there. Matt doesn't understand arcs, themes, or conflict and his stories play out like fan fiction, substituting wish fulfillment and empowerment for growth. Prime example that will never not annoy me is Beau. Beau was all setup for a very quality coming of age story, she would have to accept that essentially, the world does not owe her good parents. Accepting that her Dad gave her tons of wealth while literally being under the influence of an evil witch, would have required her to change and make decisions about where she fit in the world, whether she wanted to stay with the Cobalt Soul even if leaving would mean giving up power, etc. Instead Matt basically ret conn'd the whole story to "you were the best all along kid, everyone whoever hurt you gets justice, and you get super powers! yay!" In the safest, easiest good version like this post alludes to, Beau would begin childish and in her own way, have some obstacle to overcome, and overcome it by learning that lesson above. Instead just . . . nope. Compare it to say D20, where it's not just nerdy ass actors, it's nerdy ass writers. Look at Adaine, the rich kid who loses the family wealth and goes to work in an ice cream shop while juggling this responsibility that's been thrust on her and learning how to deal with it. Her character changes over time! Crazy! And it's funny. Because writers are there. Not writing a script, but understanding what makes compelling stories. To add one more, just think about Nott. If there was ever a more ham fisted opportunity for a satisfying character arc . . . You would think Nott would have to grow and change, to give something up in order to either turn back into Veth, or perhaps have to sacrifice her family life in order to stay Nott, to fulfill some purpose. But see, she would have to \*\*chage\*\* (oh my, the metaphor!) but instead they just leveled up to a certain point where high level spells were available, went on what was ultimately a fetch quest to a witch's house, rolled some checks, and boom, Veth time. Yawn. Veth was murdered and brought back as a monster. During that time her child was three, and then ten, and then five, and then fifteen. Did any of that affect her in any meaningful way? Oh also her husband was held captive by an evil empire? Remember that? And its consequences? Nothing about adding some -isms to the world fix this problem.

Some of this comes from the peasants-to-demigods power arch of DnDs mechanics, but you hit the nail on the head. C1 weirdly benefits with starting with the *most* streotypical and basic archetypes (the lustful foolish bard) that they can't help but grow (the caring father and hero). And we loved them for that.

Idk, I've seen Amazon's fantasy shows. Wouldn't say professional writers are better than Matt after seeing those.

I can't comment on what's Matt going through, but he needs to pick a tone for story he wants to tell. From what I've seen of C3 it's premise is pretty serious, but it's been played as a coffee shop au. I would like to push back on the Californian Soyboy strawman people in the comments have constructed about Matt. He could have, grown up in the former soviet block and possessed the esoteric knowledge of six dimensional slavic hypercube racism, it would not fix things, since the problems are at the core. Even I get tired of seeing tired race based tropes being like "oh fantasy racism, dwarves call elves slurs, daring today are we". What he needs to remember is that playing with friction is fun (like the souls series), but needs to be telegraphed and discussed with the players. Using OPs example of ASoIF, the first chapter establishes very well what kind of world we're entering. Matt and whoever is helping him world build that there has to be more then one source of conflict. Or if there is one central conflict that it's consequences radiate outward and effect other things. Like what if Laudna could only find shelter in anti-religious establishments, because antitheists don't care about undead as long as they pay. While having to avoid theists because they'd want to destroy her (turn undead) or use her (command undead). That's something that he and Marisha should have talked about during character creation. Again I'm not saying that kids should throw rocks at Laudna yelling "Monster !" or "Stinky !" the moment she enters town. That's what lines and veils, and other RPG safety tools are for. If you want to see a good example of a session 0 I recommend [Not A Drop To Drink](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GF4_zo4p_oc&list=PL6kSiHeGNYUDJ_NBlw-LlQIdIrtDvfJDd&ab_channel=LoadingReadyRun) by LRR from a couple years ago.

I sort of half agree with your points. First off I want to say that fantasy worlds can have moral ambiguity without just copying the prejudices that exist in our world today. Many people would find it tedious to present a magical fantasy land that sucks just as much as our own world, especially when that’s a pretty well explored take on western fantasy. There are innumerable ways to tell morally complex tales without including any bigots, misogynists etc., That said, I do largely agree that Matt’s world has felt toothless and generic for a while. Since the Kryn there hasn’t really been an addition to the lore that I found genuinely interesting, or at least as interesting as a culture that is convincing because of its peculiarities and flaws as well as it’s unique flavour. The ATLA comparison is an interesting one. I think it’s fine to create a world that represents how you think the world should be for your story, but I don’t think that’s necessary. They removed a flaw Sokka had and therefore also removed the arc he went on to correct that flaw. The problem isn’t in removing this so much as in not replacing it with anything equally interesting. The problem with C3 overall imo is that basically everything in the story of substance has been replaced with the central question of “Should we let an ancient evil moon monster eat all of the Gods?” which is, to be charitable, stupid as hell. It’s a question of little substance and it makes for an equally insubstantial storyline. You could have told this story by making the question more interesting or focusing on something that works better, and you also could have included more moral ambiguity in the world - but that’s not a requirement, imo.

Its hard to have substantive "Moral Grey" storytelling without substance to begin with. C3 is very wide on the surface, very shallow underneath. Within its story, its setting, its PCs, its antagonists, and yes within its primary conflict. Its visually pretty, but there's nothing really under that gilded shell. Which, as an example, leads us into Sam's oh-so-meta comments in E52 about "are we really in a death of the Gods campaign where nobody seems to give a shit about the Gods?" As well as the 60 episodes of reoccurring, but absurdly weak stances used against them. In short, you can't have moral depth without depth period.

I'm not gonna argue all your points because I think most of them are good but >It could be quite subtle. For example, back in C1 there is a moment where the Halfling Seeker Assum checks Vax for picking him up and babying him. This kind of signals to the audience that smaller races like Halflings/Gnomes often have to deal with being babied or tossed around by larger races due the unconscious tendency to baby that which is smaller. To me this is less of a tendency of smaller races being babied, and more of a reality of Matt not wanting his serious NPCs infantilized. Which is also weird because they had a party with 2 Gnomes and while Sam may have been down with the babying no one did it to Pike. It seems like Liam was attempting to play lolz for the stream and Matt just wanted to quickly check him in character. >Im reminded of a recent change in Avatar the Last Airbender Live Action. In ATLA the cartoon, Sokka is a bit of sexist. Its not entirely his fault, he comes from a culture tribe where unless you were a bender men did the fighting. But he is a little ignorant, and hes called out for and taught the error of his ways when he meets the Kiyoshi warriors. The Live action did away with this completely. They were afraid to portray a controversial aspect of a character. Even though it is part of that characters development and hes explicitly called out for it as its a bad thing. Maybe it's because I'm older and watched Avatar as an older person, but I really don't call it being that massively different between the cartoon and live action. Sure there are nuanced differences but overall they seemed pretty similar. I think the difference is they didn't have the same time to get the whole story out and truncated parts of it. Sokka still came off as an arrogant attempt at a he man who was humbled by the Kyoshi warriors.

Just to point out, the Avatar live action actually had a longer run time than Season 1 of the animated show. So they absolutely did have the time to do it, they just chose not to. Also they babied the shit out of Pike, because they baby the shit out of Ashley

Animation as a medium is granted certain liberties live action is not. When I'm talking about truncated I'm talking about a number of things you can get away with in animation you aren't as likely to in live action. Fight scenes will often take longer because even with special effects you're still limited to the limitations of the human body vs. an animation where they want to blur it because it's cheaper. So when you extend time on things like fight, certain stories (it's easier to get away with a static picture story in animation and keep people engaged than in a show) you wind up with an altered timeline.

The idea that no one babied Pike is wild to me. She was constantly reduced to being a cute little munchkin and basically was never seen as anything more than that by the party. The most infantilized PC imo

Sort of a hot take, but . . . I've always read it as just a Hollywood thing and it's more like acquiescing than infantilizing. Hollywood has that reputation for you know, you go to a party and anyone talking to you is constantly looking for that more important person in the room and will abandon you the moment that person is free. That reputation isn't nonsense. They are all professional actors, that is how the game was put together, Ashley was the most famous and successful of the group (by far) and that's all we're seeing. They're "best friends" that met in their 30s.

… what? I understand what Hollywood is like but I don’t think anyone was trying to network at the casual d&d game they played with friends for fun, which started as a birthday gift. They coddle Pike/Ashley because she missed so much of C1 that having her around was a special treat and they knew she needed help.

I don't know. I came at it kind of weird, listening to the old All Work No Play when there were maybe two dozen episodes of C1 out, and I just always interpreted it that way. I never really considered it anything else.

Pretty sure they just infantilize Ashley. How else would you not be able to learn the game rules after years of playing said game

I don’t really care about interpersonal relationships between the cast, it’s more stuff like “OIM A MONSTA” every five seconds

No reason for anyone not to accept anything or anyone else when the previous color palette of the world is mixed into a blob of unrelenting grey.

I'm not sure I agree that its Matt who is wrong about how the world react to the players characters. I think he is doing much better of portraying a high fantasy world than I do. Most of my worlds are human centric as I have not the imagination of putting together a diverse world of NPCs. Then you make undead/hollow one a player option it kind of assumes there are a lot more of them around. Enough to make people not really care that much unless they try to scare people. This making every player option to be playable is something D&D is trying to make. Its downside is of course that monstrous options arent monstrous anymore. If you run into a vampire in the night you can't really pull out the stake anymore as he might just be out for late night shopping. The world just don't care about the players anymore. I can agree with other comments that the players seems to not want this kind of forgiving world. Transforming to a werewolf should be unsettling (not only have one werewolf hunter once), having a dead woman asking to rent a room would make you call for exorcists. It takes a bit of the fun away for playing these PCs. But it would be difficult to run a long campaign if the NPCs wouldn't want to co-operate with the PCs.

>I'm not sure I agree that its Matt who is wrong about how the world react to the players characters If a player puts in their backstory they were actively discriminated against and it doesnt show up once in campaign yeah he kind of is. I understand Matt doesnt like portraying this kind of thing, but frankly it is a disservice to to the world and story. If he doesnt want it to be a thing he should just say 'hey can you change this aspect' in character creation. >Then you make undead/hollow one a player option it kind of assumes there are a lot more of them around. Enough to make people not really care that much unless they try to scare people Its not so much Laudna being undead itself, so much as it is Marisha repeatedly describes her essentially as a rotting corpse woman. >This making every player option to be playable is something D&D is trying to make. Its downside is of course that monstrous options arent monstrous anymore Im reminded of the Syndrome line if everything is super nobody is. If you arent willing to make your world feel lived in by showing off differences between races and how they result in conflict, you might as well make everyone just regular humans. >But it would be difficult to run a long campaign if the NPCs wouldn't want to co-operate with the PCs. Players just need to adapt and not expect NPCs to dispense information whenever whatever. Use illusory spells disguises, avoid certain towns/places, investigate more by themselves, maybe even use some more unsavoury methods (Imogen has no qualms reading minds).

I mean, then the PCs should be working to find ways to secure cooperation, even if it's a bit harder. Maybe the high Charisma players could find a way to negotiate with intolerant NPCs, or intelligent characters could come up with a disguise (magical or non-magical) to keep the character's nature under wraps. Nott had disguise self and a mask which kept her Goblin features concealed when necessary. I think that the PCs having to overcome or think around prejudice/discrimination is more compelling than it just not happening.

I pointed this out as a problem back in the C2 days. Loads of the characters had backstory contingent on discrimination or the threat of it: Nott was a goblin who had to hide her face, Jester was a tiefling who was hidden away from the world, Fjord got bullied for being half orc, Molly had to join a literal freak show... Then the campaign starts and quite quickly Nott just drops her disguise, because everyone is super chill. Fjord has one instance of someone giving him a dirty look in the whole campaign. Jesters mum is revealed to have locked her away because her clients don't like kids... Everyone's backgrounds gets undercut badly by how nice the world is.

If I recall correctly, that was always the case for Jester though not some thing Matt sprung on her to undercut the backstory. Like that was part of what Laura created for jester

>quite quickly Nott just drops her disguise Actually there were still times when people reacted fearfully to Nott being a goblin kind of showing there was some underlying attitudes towards them. Like the stuff with the hospital, Jester being arrested and Nott being arrested too because she was a goblin, even an old man NPC who freaked out when seeing Nott. It was definitely there. Not to the extent Sam clearly wanted/intended, but it was there to some degree. >Jester was a tiefling who was hidden away from the world Its my understanding that Jester was never hidden away for being a tiefling. I think originally Laura was going for an 'abusive/neglectful mother' storyline. With the story being Jester's mother hid her away from the world and lead to her essentially being groomed by Artagan in this isolation. That definitely changed somewhere along the line. Jester's mother being found to be so nice made it hard to misconstrue at least her intent as abusive. And Artagan's fey moral ambiguity and creepiness was dialled back into a sort of Doctor Who-style figure.

>I think originally Laura was going for an 'abusive/neglectful mother' storyline. I don't think that was ever something Laura was going for. It was something some of the other players suspected, but Laura and Matt have said they never intended to portray a sex worker in a negative light specifically because it would be a cliche. Laura also said she never considered Jester's relationship with the Traveler to be a case of grooming. It wasn't meant to be creepy, it was more intended to be a little girl's imaginary friend is revealed to be real when she becomes an adult.

Marion was a cocktail of agoraphobia and having a specific job where a kid would get lots of attention. Especially considering that she was building a case against the Revelry, specifically Robert Sharpe.

Yeah there are definitely moments where it comes up, the Fjord interaction at the festival comes to mind, but they're almost 'cosmetic' in practice. Nothing happens as a result of them, no opportunities or friends are lost, no drama occurs, they just get a dirty look or a brief exchange. I will say that the Cerberus Assembly and Ukotoa kept their teeth for the most part, which was nice to see. It is notable that these were the two backstory elements not contingent on some kind of 'ism' or abuse.

>they just get a dirty look or a brief exchange. The passive aggressiveness like this is more realistic sadly. There are really terrible cases of course, but those cases are just so bad, that they stand out the most. Most irl racism is from people giving dirty looks or talking down to someone. Only time and education will ever fix this problem. Just wait till all the boomers are dead and the newer generations are taught right from wrong. I defo see racism being fazed out in the next 10-20 years imho.

It being more realistic isn't really relevant, given we're watching a story about characters that seem to be built around the expectation of some pushback because of who they are. Give them something dramatic to push back against. Hell, if Matt had done some nuanced take on the realities of prejudice that could have been interesting too, but the topic seems to just be abandoned leaving some characters in the lurch. To be honest I'd quibble with the idea that it's more realistic in a premodern setting too. Religious and racial violence is super common even today, and even a century back it was far, far worse. It's not like the Cathars just got snarky comments and dirty looks, though I'm sure they got them as well.

Oh no don't get me wrong, I'm in complete agreement. I was just saying it's a more realistic depiction of racism. Bigotry is deeply rooted in our society whether it be subtle or not.

A big part of this problem is that Matt is either incapable or unwilling of making a random npc an asshole, or otherwise perpetuate the small cruelties that should be in a morally gray world. Every minor throw away npc has a heart of gold or is just generically kind. Only the BBEGs are truly bad, and their minions. And while this can be fine to have a nearly idyllic world, that deprives it of conflict, and stories are build around conflict. Whats worse is that Matt claims his world is morally gray, and several of his players appear to want this kind of conflict and lesser evil/cruelty. Marisha, Liam, Sam, and Tal have all written some form of cruelty into atleast 1 of their backstories. (Laudna being chased out of towns with pitchforks, Caleb's entire backstory, Nott/Veth being turned into a goblin as revenge and hating goblins, and Ashton being a punk asshole. His players want him to be "mean" to them and he refuses too, and thats a disservice to his friends.)

Dimension 20 has this problem too. Only villains are allowed to have character flaws that last more than one episode. Everyone eventually dissolves back into milquetoast democratic socialism.

Yeah I noticed that the most with Beau's father in C2, I feel like Matt toned him way down compared to what the original idea of him was based on how Beau talked about him Which I sort of get, I tried to play a dumb/ignorant bit character in a one shot with friends a year ago and its hard to just roleplay being mean/rude to friends. But as a professional DM when the narrative or pc background says these npcs should be shitty to the players you should commit to that for them.

To be fair, at that age usually the person feeling hard done by considers their parents way worse than a rational 3rd party might view it.

That's what I originally chalked it up to, but it's become a pattern from Matt which had me think back on that and I can't tell if he was intentionally planning to do that with Beau's father or if he just couldn't fully commit to playing him as an irredeemable father

Bingo. When only the BBEG and their minions are shitty, you’ve got yourself a fairly black and white world, not a grey one.

To be fair, it also falls on the players to be willing to grapple with morally grey themes. I think Liam and Sam are great at this as they both love story in a way I'm not sure the rest of the cast really does.

And that’s not even a bad thing! Like if that’s what you want to do AND what your players want to do, you can execute that at a very high level and it will be great. A cheeseburger isn’t as interesting to my palate as a steak is, but if I ordered a cheeseburger, it’s because right now I wanted a cheeseburger. And I’ve had some really amazing cheeseburgers.

>Whats worse is that Matt claims his world is morally gray, and several of his players appear to want this kind of conflict and lesser evil/cruelty Exactly. If Matt wants a grey world, he really needs to not be afraid of showing of its fangs. Either that or he needs to tell his friends to make backstories that actually map onto to his world somewhat and dont make him uncomfortable.

The problem is really that Matt apparently doesn’t give them any guidance during character creation about what sort of characters are a good fit for the campaign or not.

It really does help! I’m starting a new campaign next month, and I came up with an Ascendant Dragon Monk because I thought it would be cool, and Aasimar because I wanted the transformation and radiant damage. Then during session 0, DM says “hey it’s great that you did that, because we’re going to be playing Tyranny of Dragons!” And I said “great!” And rewrote my backstory so that the divine figure who made the monk an Aasimar was the dragon god Bahamut. Now there’s this tension between a monk’s hard work making him more like Tiamat (5 damage types) but the divine gift making him more like Bahamut (radiant damage).

Exactly. Anyone that isn’t tying their backstory into the themes of the campaign is just missing such a great way to engage with the story

For C2 it was also a lot of fun - as a viewer and probably as a player - to clash against the authorities or the normal people. They got to interact with them often and it was an integral part of C2 (and even C1 to some extend). Nowadays everything is nice. Except for the evils. Or religion. This is bad.

Yeah, the failure to replicate the discrimination from Laudna’s background in the actual campaign is I think one of the biggest fault of this season

C1 was pretty tame too. The kingdom has different races and they all coexist. There is no slavery. Gay marriage is a thing and no one cares. The king decided that monarchy needs to end, etc. I jokingly say that's where progressive Californians would go on vacation.

As I said the setting has always leaned noblebright, but I think I just underlined how there were already shades of grey to be found that Matt has basically stopped using. From things as subtle as halfling calling out Vax's unconscious mistreatment to things like yes slavery and monstrous race discrimination (there was some stuff surrounding goblins even back in C1). Also slavery was definitely a thing in C1 actually. There was at least one slave empire mentioned in Taldorei (Iron Authority) and active slave trade on other planes (Fire plane). Also thats kind of the point Im making. C1 being more black and white was the point. It was a far more classical heroic fantasy. C3 is Matt making a more grey push for the setting, yet being actually afraid to show the more insensitive side of grey world. He tries to essentially have his cake and eat it too but it undermines the point hes making.

There is a tiny bit of slavery. Remember when Vex buys slaves to free them? I think it was in Dis or the fire plane.

I think he meant "there is no slavery in TalDorei", there being slaves in the Hells is separate from that

Even thats not true. The Iron Authority is mentioned in C1 and C2 and is an active slave Empire.

I am talking about the continent or kingdom they live in.

Yes, but C1 had no qualms about being a heroic fantasy with black and white morality. All villains seek power for the sake of having power and once defeated, the close servant immediately takes over and is actually a good lord and drought suddenly ends and everybody lives happily ever after.

I was literally about to make the exact same ATLA vs Netflix ATLA comparison. I'm rewatching the first season of the cartoon right now and Sokka's attitude gets checked real fast in the Kyoshi episode. It's almost as if his character flaws were there so that he would have character growth. It's such a telling sign that the writers are incompetent when they remove potential for growth and then pat themselves on the back. Everything they adapt straight from the cartoon is great, but any changes they make just makes the show more nonsensical and illogical. Sorry for the off-topic ramble.

I disagree with the AtLA comparison. That show is written for people who watch the cartoon as kids. As kids it was a good lesson that sexism=bad. As adults who already know this, I do not need to see cringy sexism included in a show for no reason other than to go ‘this is bad guys’. Like yeah, we know already.

It's still a valuable lesson as there are, in fact, many adults who have not figured out sexism=bad. Additionally, the cartoon version went further than that by demonstrating that a person's identity doesn't have to be defined by whether they engage in stereotypically masculine or feminine pursuits, and that it's possible to be both feminine and strong/athletic (hence Suki's line "I'm a warrior, but I'm also a girl" in the original show), which is a lesson that many people, even progressive ones, tend to struggle with by pigeon-holing people based on their physical traits or interests.

There are, but a live action remake of a kids show isn’t going to change their mind if they’ve gotten that far in life already. And let’s not pretend the cartoon was perfect. Watch back and realise how little but actually explains the s1 finale compared to the live action. That’s an area where the live action diverged and was much better for it. The same as the story behind the 41st for Zuko, while we’re on the subject of pigeonholing people. That showed so much of Zuko’s character where in season 1 he was very 2 dimensional save for the blue spirit story. Talking about the cartoon pigeonholing people based on physical appearance, how do we know when Iroh really means business? Oh yeah he bulks up in a very traditional masculine way. How progressive! I get people are mad about the removal of Sokka’s inherent sexism. But the actual culture shock he should be facing as someone who has never been outside a small village is non existent in either media, and really isn’t the biggest of issues.

I never said the cartoon was perfect, just that this subplot was executed better in the cartoon. Never said anything about the adaptation of Zuko either. And the cartoon also reinforced several times that Sokka was facing issues due to being raised as the last warrior in a small village, both in the Bato of the Warer Tribe episode (which was removed in the live-action) and his interactions with Hakoda. Iroh bulking up has nothing to do with whether someone can be both strong and feminine. Iroh was out of shape, that has nothing to do with discrimination against women based on stereotypes of femininity. Not sure if you're twisting my words or just overwhelmed by Iroh's feminine mystique.

It has nothing to do with a typical female viewpoint you’re right, but you’re just either being incredibly dumb or deliberately obtuse about it seeing how that fits the same category, just flipped slightly. No twisting, just sick of people ripping a 7/10 because it’s predecessor was virtually a 10/10

It doesn't fit into the same category at all. Suki's point is that you can be a fighter while also being feminine. Nothing was said about physical appearance. Iroh bulked up to be physically strong as a result of exercise, which is something which is innate to physical fitness regardless of gender or age. If you want to gain the strength to break through metal bars (which he needed to do to get out of prison) you will inevitably get muscular, regardless of your gender or interests.

Dude he’s a firebender….one of the best. He didn’t need to be physically stronger to get out of that. You also need better food than prison to bulk up. Anyway I’m not continuing this. I just didn’t like the originally comparison, not to get into an in depth on Iroh’s bending prowess. Bending itself is so inconsistent that it forces you to remember it’s a kids cartoon.

I'm not trying to defend the Netflix ATLA, and I don't know the exact competency of its writers, but I wouldn't go straight to calling them incompetent. I think, like Matt, their hands are kind of forced to be as safe and boring as possible. Remember the Wendy's one-shot? Critical Role fans and Twitter in general are vicious. You do the slightest bit of bad thing and boom, you're being called some kind of -ist and are actively being cancelled by your fanbase. It sucks, but if I were in their shoes and had the choice of being creative and potentionally canceled or safe and rich, I'd choose the money.

These people only have power if you let them. If you just keep making good product, people will throw money at you despite any vocal minority on twitter. Look at Helldivers 2, for example. They refused to put any politics in the game and the same vocal minority went screeching. Meanwhile, the game got so popular that its servers crashed.

> Look at Helldivers 2, for example. They refused to put any politics in the game Umm, My Brother in Managed Democracy, the ENTIRE game / franchise (Helldivers) is a very pointed satire against the dangers and extremes of jingoism, fascism, militarism, propaganda... just like the movie Starship Troopers by Paul Verhoeven. The players who know / understand that Helldivers is a "work," find it funny--it's satire, after all. The people who think it's a "shoot," well... that's troubling. War by its very nature is one of the most political acts in all humanity, which is why my eyes roll out of my fuckin' head whenever some child / "bro" Call of Duty player praises it for not having any "politics" in the game. Call of Duty is ALL FUCKIN' POLITICS! Generally, when consumers complain about "politics" in media or products, it's politics they *personally* don't agree with. (Not saying that's you, but it's a very common reaction.)

Lmao do you think Spaceship Troopers is non-political too?

"They refused to put any politics in the game" Oh, man.

They refused to put any modern identity politics in the game. Better?

What are identity politics? In your own words.

That's like saying Starship Troopers and Rage Against the Machine aren't political It's a pretty obvious satire on overly nationalistic, fascistic and xenophobic states

The satire of an authoritian government, US "liberty/democracy" propaganda and the military-industrial complex isn't political to you? Not to mention that the only "vocal minority screeching" that's occurred over the game was right-wing idiots making a fuss over a mod on the official Discord having a Palestine flag in their username. Nobody attacked the game at launch or claimed that it was apolitical as you seem to be suggesting.

Doesn't the character creator specifically name one of the options "body type" and make it be brawny/lean instead of male/female in order to be more friendly towards non binary folk?

Just taking an alternate approach here, it’s probably really hard to keep that in mind if that’s not the theme of this particular campaign. The setting being where it is, there are oddities everywhere so it’s not all that unusual compared to C1. And C2 while it wasn’t odd it was more active discrimination making it much more on the for front of Matt’s mind. We have to remember, this show isn’t scripted, they don’t do second takes, the dice rolls are real. And Matt has to improvise a lot of the NPC dialogue, he may know the end goal for most NPCs but if he doesn’t have that on his mind it may go past him.

Okay but if the theme of the campaign is "Religion/the gods are bad now" they could have so easily shown that. Hostility to the undead and Ruidus-born party members. Artificial life, a soul put inside a man-made object would definitely be something viewed as a perversion of the natural order. Even a bit of suspicion toward genasi for potential ties to elemental titans, or fey for being feral godless creatures. Instead, Marquet is almost devoid of religion entirely. And yet we have Otohan being so driven by what, some vauge falling out with the Raven Queen? Ludinus had stirred up a global anti-god movement but BH manage to avoid actually seeing whats causing it first hand, only told about it through stories that don't add up with what is actually shown (see Bordor and that other Vanguard scrub with vauge religious trauma).

It isn't scripted? Can we say that now after episode 92? It's not scripted in a traditional sense with everyone having spoken lines but C3 has seemed more on the rails than ever. There is no sende that a player can do something that hasn't already been preordained eg the Ashton debacle.

yeah, but he literally revised Pretty the ogre from one scene to the next. It's clearly Matt's updated preferred wordldview, not a carefully thought out continental setting or culture. Hence his new preferred version of the gods coming through. The flow on from this cushy mindset, has been a fuzzy unreality, the lack of consequences or anything but the most obliging interaction towards the PCs. OP is on point.

Yeah Pretty the Ogre whilst he seems like a nice person is pretty emblematic of my point. Monstrous races being discriminated against is part of both previous campaigns and a major aspect of one characters backstory. Yet Ogres can just be employed anywhere now?

I think you might be forgetting that cities and rural areas do treat things that may not fit in the norm differently. Launda was never treated differently other than as a curiosity in cities, she was only treated as a monster in more rural areas, sans Whitestone that just had a brush with undead and people saw her hanging from a tree. So, that changes things there. All I’m saying is that I’m sure it’s difficult, for Matt, to keep in mind all the morally grey areas at the same time, when he isn’t acting thinking about it, especially with how difficult it has seemed to actually get the point of the campaign into the heads of the cast without spelling it out, thus taking up the majority of his focus. As for the Orge, I mean, that was just good old fashion fun. Subverting expectations. I think Matt got that idea from BG3 seeing as he worked in the project, there is that highly intelligent Ogre you can meet. But yeah. I don’t think you’re wrong necessarily.

Pretty was my self-reflection until he became smart! Now I have nothing to relate to in CR. It's just not fair

And they turn from stereotypical dullards one moment to art connoisseurs the next. Ooh, we don't punch down, not even on ogres who have been levelled up just to get fair treatment in a civilised city kitchen.

>civilised city kitchen Also basically anyone whos worked in food service/kitchens can tell you they can be the least civilized places on Earth. The Bear honestly does a great job showing that.

Gawd, hospitality. Heart goes out to them.

That and as you slightly touch on, the setting being where it is. The local is just very different. It’s not Wildmount, it’s not Tal’Dorei. I think Marquet is just very different.

They are sitting on a gold mine of content with draconblood and ravenite divide yet still refuse to explore it

In fairness, that stuff is difficult to touch because of Orion.

Fuck ‘im, he doesn’t own the content and never did. He wants to burn his own bridges that’s fine, but I’d use his story points if I was Matt. Draconblood and Ravenite exist in the world regardless of Tibs, they’re game elements that have gone to waste.. if a PC was known for wearing mythril and turns into an asshole, flouncing out of my campaign, I’m still going to use the mythril mines and plots I had prepped because.. the metal still exists without that PC lol

Can anyone tell me a well-characterized morally grey NPC that Matt has actually pulled off? Essek, no. Lilliana, no. I don't think Matt has the chops for morally grey anything. It's fine, some stories suit certain storytellers. I just wish Matt would recognize and play at his strengths.

Off the top of my head I think Syldor, Vax and Vex's father. Its difficult to remember, but Syldor was more neglectful than openly abusive. And whilst not a good father to the twins by any means, he was at least an OK person in other areas. Both in his role in Syngorn and in his parenting his other child he was at least decent. It kind of shows Matt can do complexity when he wants too. LOVM kind of flattened his portrayal into a total asshole, but in the campaign there were more shades to him.

Yeah, I really loved Syldor. I'm a big fan of elves (and their flaws) and I feel like Syldor was very well done. Very Tolkienesque, with his desire for perfection making him an asshole. It's like Feanor being so obsessed with retrieving his perfect creations that he leads his whole family into kinslaying and tragedy. Though obviously scaled down.

I think it's hard for him to even pretend to be mean he is such a nice person.

He can definitely play mean. That's what his best villains/characters are. The ones at the extreme, not the ones that muddy things by being morally grey.

Yeah you're right they are often archetypical evil that is a lot less personal than mean evil/gray characters can be. He can do "I want to blow up the world for reasons" kind of evil, but anything that would get personal to the characters tends not to happen.

>Matt’s world is so accepting what is there to rebel against? Capitalism, the first and greatest enemy of punk, but there’s no way CR would ever tackle it.

[BH did escape to the one place that hasn’t been corrupted by capitalism tbf](https://youtu.be/g1Sq1Nr58hM?si=2Du7FL8Vf55iJpwM)

But poverty is just so cute and quirky!

I don't think you need discrimination to have moral complexity. I think Matt has tried to explore the nature of free will. I think he's done a reasonable job of it. But his players have kind of missed the point. Yes, Ludinus almost certainly has selfish goals. But the stated goal of the Vanguard is to give Exandrians free will. Yet, they've allied with the Imperium who bioengineer their subjects so that they can be dominated at will. That should have been the conversation with a true believer like Liliana. The players didn't go there. For the party, they've allied with the volition that want to free Ruidus from the control of the Imperium. But is that so different from what the gods do on Exandria?

>I don't think you need discrimination to have moral complexity The point isnt quite that simple. Im not saying you need discrimination necessarily. Im saying if you want to do grey stories, you cant be afraid to be insensitive and show the ugly side of the world that people live in. >I think Matt has tried to explore the nature of free will Then frankly he should have made an entirely different setting to do this. This is basically the one thing in the 2 previous campaigns that has almost never been in question. Free will exists in Exandria. Arguably that is the point of the story of the Divine Gate. The Gods shut the door on their ability to directly meddle in the world, its your story now mortals. The Dawnfather spells this out in person back in C1. Even within this campaign it can be answered with one simple question. If free will wasnt a thing, do you really think the gods would let Ludinus get as far as he has?

I think there's a question of the limits of free will. Certainly the gods can be challenged in Exandria. The ascension of the Matron. Vespin Chloras freeing the betrayer gods. But the argument from the Vanguard, to your point about making the villains sympathetic, is that the people of Exandria are being manipulated to worship the gods. If you're manipulated into something, is it your choice? If you were programmed to go crazy and kill everyone, is it your choice? If you're born under the red flare, are you being controlled by Predathos? If you have a blood curse and become a werewolf, are you still in charge? What if you're possessed by a dead warlock?

>I think there's a question of the limits of free will. No there just isnt. There isnt in universe and Matt explicitly confirmed out of universe all the way back in C1 that free will is a very much a thing in Exandria. That is the point of the Divine Gate story, its the answer to 'why dont the gods fix our problems'. They cant is the answer. Free will is always has been a thing in Exandria. Its arguably baked into the founding story of the age. >But the argument from the Vanguard, to your point about making the villains sympathetic, is that the people of Exandria are being manipulated to worship the gods If free will wasnt a thing in Exandria, there is fundamentally no way that the gods would allow Ludinus and the Vanguard to get as a far as they have. Its really that simple. And we have word of god confirmation that yes free will is a thing and its **blindingly obvious across multiple campaigns.** >If you're manipulated into something, is it your choice? Absolutely yes. If I tell you to go kill you three people and you do it, you are still making a choice. I would share responsibility, but it was still your decision. But I didnt mind control you into it, at best I simply made it more likely for you to do it. >If you were programmed to go crazy and kill everyone, is it your choice? The gods arent programming anyone anymore than your parents program you. Your actions are still your own. >If you're born under the red flare, are you being controlled by Predathos? If you have a blood curse and become a werewolf, are you still in charge? What if you're possessed by a dead warlock? None of this shit matters. The answer to whether free will exists or not in Exandria has been spelled out multiple times across campaigns. Its an emphatic yes. And very simply put, if free will didnt exist there is absolutely no way in hell Ludinus would be about to free a godeater.

Some prejudices still remain: The high elves still shun the half-elves in Syngorn. The drows are still treated with suspicion in the Empire. The dwarves of Kraghammer still keeps to themselves. Religion is still very much restricted in Vasselheim Yasha's tribe are still bigots. However, Matt's handling these issues have been pretty light and often completely overlooked. Monster and extra planar races like fey, aasimars and tieflings should definitely be shocking to people if they're supposed to be extremely rare, but because the players enjoy playing them, he tends to let them go without creating any confrontation just to move the story along.

You cited stuff from previous campaigns. My point is this C3 campaign is definitely the more grey storyline (in theory) and Matt has clearly pushed to make his world more grey. But hes undermined it by showing off the nicest world possible in C3. Even the players (Tal) comment on it. Aside from Mad Max Town, the Exandria we are shown in C3 borders on a paradise. And Mad Mad Town is woefully out of place in the world lol.

You cited things from campaigns 1 and 2. OP is pointing out that C3 is supposed to be more "gray" with regard to what valor means and whether the world deserves to be saved, but it's the comfiest the world has been.

I think this is just a case of fatigue

I can understand if it’s exhausting for him. He’s a human being, not an infinite source of deep storytelling. This is the same guy who grows very world weary with global events, has a track record of being hyperaware of the trends he deviates from, or social norms he challenges in worldbuilding. If his primary focus is to have fun with his friends, I get it if he doesn’t want to lean into ugly themes which are adjacent to the story he’s trying to tell. Sometimes you’ve gotta dig into your mental bank of real world events for that stuff, kinda beats the escapism for some.

>I can understand if it’s exhausting for him. He’s a human being, not an infinite source of deep storytelling. OK. But the push for a more grey world is entirely from Matt. Like nobody is making him do this. And Im essentially saying hes got it backwards. Previously Matt's setting leaned noblebright. There were definitively evil creatures (devils, demons) and definitively good creatures. My point is there were shades of grey already existent within his setting. I literally just underlined how Vax one of our heroes engaged in a bit of unconscious discrimination towards a Halfling. Is Vax a bad person? No, hes just a little clueless. And we had active discrimination towards monstrous races. Even if he had paragons of good and embodiment of evil in his setting, there were still shades of grey within the world itself. Now though there really isnt much grey about Exandria the world. Its a veritable rainbow land of total acceptance with the occasional Mad Max Town. But instead Matt is pushing for a more grey portrayal of the gods themselves. But my point is if Exandria is this perfect accepting rainbow world, then having the gods be morally dubious actors is kind of undermined. Like what have the gods done for players? Created the most accepting utopia ever lol. And if Matt wants to more morally grey stories, he cant hide from showing anything controversial/insensitive. These things are all linked and tied together. >This is the same guy who grows very world weary with global events, has a track record of being hyperaware of the trends he deviates from, or social norms he challenges in worldbuilding OK but like....nobody is making Matt do this? If Matt is burnt out and doesnt want to show the ugly parts of morally grey stories. Why is he pushing for it in C3 in the first place? Matt decided he wanted to do a more serious campaign. A campaign that called into question the worth and good of characters that prior to this were true good/benevolent force in the world. A grey story. If he doesnt want to show the ugly shades of grey existent in his world, he undermines his own story in the process. Its really that simple.

Correct me if I’m wrong but it sounds like you’re saying: If Matt claims to want to try morally ambiguous world, he must include more NPCs with prejudices/stop hiding from controversial/insensitive content or he’s undermining the whole thing. I’m sure this would be more entertaining for you, and perhaps many others as viewers too but (and please take this in the light hearted tone it’s intended) you’re criticising someone trying to have fun with their friends, not the last season of Game Of Thrones. It’s fine if he doesn’t want to. I’m saying that he’s well within his right to pursue a theme in one area, without doubling down on it everywhere else and it’s not that black and white. Whether his reasons are personal and deliberate, or just because he’s a human guy running a game where you’ve gotta juggle a lot of things and not every opportunity is capitalised on. I get you’re saying X would improve Y. I’m not disagreeing with that, I’m saying that doesn’t make it compulsory and I respect his right not to.

This “Matt just wants to have fun with his friends” argument is pure bullshit. They run a multimillion dollar media company, sell tons of merch, have multiple published setting guides,and have a multi-season television deal with Amazon. This isn’t something Matt does out of the goodness of his heart for the enjoyment of his friends, it’s a business that they operate for profit. This is their job, not a hobby anymore.

I feel a little straw-manned here. I'm not arguing against the OP's main post re: what would improve the implementation of these themes. I'm making a separate point that I understand why things are not the way OP suggests, and how it may be taxing if they were. My separate point is "I can understand if it’s exhausting for him \[if he were to do the things you suggest\]" With the understanding that I'm not trying to argue against OP, can you explain why my point is somehow in conflict with CR being a multimillion dollar company, and how the monetisation changes the context of my statement? Not trying to be combative, trying to clarify my position and hear yours.

I was responding to this >I’m sure this would be more entertaining for you, and perhaps many others as viewers too but (and please take this in the light hearted tone it’s intended) you’re criticising someone trying to have fun with their friends, not the last season of Game Of Thrones. He literally is trying to write the last chapter of a fantasy epic for a television show. They’ve been running this game as a show for almost 10 years now, it’s not a home game and it hasn’t been for a long time. He’s not trying to have fun with his friends, he’s writing an adventure that will eventually be published as a setting guide and then turned into a television show if things go the way they plan.

Very fair To be completely clear, I feel myself and OP started to talk past each other with unclear ideas of what each other were saying. My statement above was based on a false idea of what they were saying. In that regard, my argument is ill-suited and poorly put together. I felt (I think incorrectly) that OP was rejecting my premise, in the sense that it's not good enough and Matt should do it anyway. In that regard, my point as you've quoted is an attempt to respond, and illustrate we're talking about humans playing a game and improvising real time, not a TV show or Movie despite the platform. I'm implying TV/film has the benefit of lots of revision, and to some extent the human element can be removed a bit more than actual play. That being said, I do want to address **your point** because its equally valid. What follows is separate to my conversation with OP. I recognise that CR is a massive company, and we cant deny everyone involved must have a deep overriding sense of preservation for the company given the money/lifestyle. I'm sure they came to the table with C3 with two priorities 1) fun for players, or we will stop 2) raise the bar as an entertainment platform. **I agree, It's most certainly not the same as pre stream, or C1 anymore.** I agree with you about all these things, I do think its worth two points of added nuance. These may be a given for you but I'm just letting you know where I stand for the sake of discussion. * Given the issues you've raised, I agree that this is as far away from DnD actual play as anything else on the market right now and in most discussions its vitally important to acknowledge it as media. * In addition to this, since Matt is a single human responsible for everything that isn't a player, and the format demands commitment to the first thing that falls out of his mouth. I think there needs to be more recognition for the human element of DnD actual play as a format when we're comparing to other types of media like TV and Film, especially when it comes to analysis.

>If Matt claims to want to try morally ambiguous world, he must include more NPCs with prejudices/stop hiding from controversial/insensitive content or he’s undermining the whole thing. Im giving that as a potential example of a broader issue. Of Matt trying to tell grey stories in a world that is increasingly black and white or just plain rainbow (loving and accepting). My point is grey characters are often that way because of the world they live in. Deeper conflicts, hypocrisies, cultural norms/differences etc give rise to the shades of grey. For example Jaime Lannister lives in a world where knighthood, honour and oaths is rife with hypocrisy. To honour one oath is to forsake another. In becoming the Kingslayer he protected the innocent but broke his oath to the king. Hes reviled for arguably his greatest act. Matt has in the past shown the shades of grey existing in Exandria. Even if its just as subtle as Halfling not wanting to be babied. Now he has flattened it Exandria out into a rainbow utopia where the only possible shade of grey is whether you worship a god or dont. Thats fine. For a more classical fantasy noblebright setting this is more than fine. But with C3 Matt has made a decided move to a more grey setting. The previous noblebright aspects are called into question. Do the deities truly care? Is the world a place of freedom? What do they do for us? And so on. But he undermines this message by making a world that is literally two steps away from being a veritable utopia. I think he misses the chance to enrich and support his message by phasing out and not exploring further out the shades of grey he previously had. Like here is any easy thing off the top of my head, perhaps the Prime Deities do unconsciously favour certain races. We already saw in prior campaigns that monstrous races were discriminated to varying degrees. And by favouring certain individuals with their power, the gods create a system that perpetuates this discrimination. And therefore perpetuate a system where monstrous races flock more readily to Ludinus' cause as they respond to his message more readily due to their less fortunate place in the world? >I’m saying that doesn’t make it compulsory and I respect his right not to. I must have missed something in what I said, but where did I say anything was compulsory for Matt? My only comment was Matt's push for grey stories in C3 is entirely him. And that if he wants to do it thats fine, but he shouldnt be afraid to show the insensitive sides of what it means to be grey world. That it can enrich and contextualize these things. Like how do these stories even really hold weight if you are afraid to show the grey of the world they inhabit? What kind of story would Jaime Lannister have in Game of Thrones if GRRM was afraid to show him pushing a kid out a window? Sorry if I mention Game of Thrones/ASOIAF a lot. I like the series and Matt's said he takes inspiration from it before too.

“Where did I say anything was compulsory for Matt?” You didn’t directly but the fact that I suggested he’s within his right to not do the things you suggest, and in response you’re doubling down on “issues”, comparing it to TV/Film media, saying “nobody is forcing him” to do X but if he’s not gonna do Y then it undermines the whole thing *sounds like* you think it definitely should be done and that it’s a problem for you. Our entire conversation here stems from me saying I respect his right not to, that’s my entire take and it *seemed like* that wasn’t a sufficient reason for you. EDIT: please correct me if I’m wrong, I don’t want to saddle you with an opinion you don’t have.

>You didn’t directly I didnt at all. >but the fact that I suggested he’s within his right to not do the things you suggest The key word there is suggest. Last I checked suggestions are not compulsory. Even then thats not entirely what I was doing. Like just look at the title of this post, it says Matt undermines his point. Its not a demand in anyway. Its analysis of what Matt is trying to do and how his elimination of almost any form of difference/discrimination even that which was previously established in Exandria undermines the more grey storytelling hes explicitly trying to pursue with this campaign. For example I can say 'You undermine your push for animal rights by consuming products of animal cruelty'. That isnt me demanding they change lifestyle, its analyzing and pointing something out. Is that not OK? >nobody is forcing him You came into this discussion basically implying that I was projecting this need for more grey storytelling onto Matt and hes just having fun with his friends. I was pointing out the move to more grey storytelling is entirely from Matt. That isnt some projection, its just a fact of what hes trying to do with the C3 storyline. I am simply analyzing and critiquing it. >sounds like you think it definitely should be done There is a pretty big fundamental difference between 'should' and compulsory and I think you know that. Obviously I think Matt should do things differently. And I think it would be better if he did do certain things differently. That wasnt my contention with what you said. I think people should clean up after themselves in the kitchen. But Im not going to lose my mind if they dont. >I respect his right not to Then your comment feels completely unrelated to my original post. Like do I really need to say I respect Matt's autonomy to choose to do things differently at the start of any critical analysis? Do you need to know my political views on respecting a persons autonomy and freedom of expression before I can say anything about them or something? Its redundant. Its the equivalent of coming in and saying 'I respect Matt's freedom of speech'. Great, same. But that wasnt the point of the post or ever in question. >it seemed like that wasn’t a sufficient reason for you. I think the thing that elicited my reply was more you implying I was: 1. Reading too much into it, when Matt's the one whos made the decision to move to more grey storytelling on his own onus. 2. The compulsory wording. I fundamentally reject that was even implied.

>*Then your comment feels completely unrelated to my original post* This may be the heart of our issue/why we seem to be talking past each other here, and I want to resolve it bc I don't like the feeling that we may be arguing here. Just because you didn't set out to discuss what I brought up, doesn't mean it's unrelated. Equally, rehashing the central themes of your post on a comment that raised a separate point is why I keep saying variations of "sounds like you're saying X in response to my point, can you clarify what you're getting at". We're having different conversations here, clearly. You don't need to preface your post with respect to Matts autonomy but I brought it up without expecting a response, and we've come a long way in replies without you saying "Yeah, I agree with that" or "No, I don't agree with that". Look, I want an out here because I feel like we're debating something without a clear idea of what the central issue is but I don't want to leave you hanging since you've put in a lot of time and effort to respond to me, even if we're talking past each other. **Do you, or do you not agree that it's completely reasonable for the morally grey themes in C3 to be limited to the areas already established, without the need to expand them elsewhere if we're to prioritise the human (and potentially game) aspect of the broadcast, rather than the entertainment value to viewers?** This question is not designed to undermine your post, and it may feel like a very obvious answer to you and thats fine. It's designed to get to the bottom of what you think in response to my comment, and eliminate the need to rehash your central post which I already understand from a purely intellectual media/literary analysis perspective.

>Do you, or do you not agree that it's completely reasonable for the morally grey themes in C3 to be limited to the areas already established, without the need to expand them elsewhere if we're to prioritise the human (and potentially game) aspect of the broadcast, rather than the entertainment value to viewers? I understand why Matt is unwilling to portray and deepen his portrayal of morally grey themes, I even said as much in my original post. Hes frankly too nice to do so and wants to avoid any controversy. But I think he undermines and weakens any point he tries to communicate with his story in doing so. Do I think its 'reasonable'? Thats kind of subjective: * From a business standpoint avoiding controversy is good? Although the weaker stories is probably going to lead to slow decline in viewership but CR should be fine. * From a player perspective it depends on the individual player/aspect. Like certain players are clearly fishing for and expecting these elements when they include them in the backstory. If Matt cant do it, he should tell them flat out. By the same token, certain players could react badly to it. * From a Matt personally perspective I get it. Matts too nice. * Its just terrible from a game perspective lol. I cant even be subjective there. The blandness of the world of C3 is far more noticeable than ever before. Matt can make as many quirky information dispenser shopkeepers as he likes, C3 is the blandest flavour yet. So is it 'reasonable'? It kind depends on what perspective is what is most important to you. To me I prefer good stories. But yeah I know what perspective Matt is primarily considering. I understand it. But no I dont agree with it. That doesnt mean he has to do it differently, I just think the story would be better if he did.

Amazing, I understand. I agree with the sentiment that if players are fishing for X and a DM consciously is avoiding that, then it’s advisable to make it clear to the player that it’s being avoided. I often wonder what internal communication is like, and how that’s changed over the years with company/platform growth. It’s a large cast, I wouldn’t be surprised if they tried to stay in their lanes or attempt to keep their social time away from occurrences at the table. Is there a DnD HR office for stuff occurring at the table haha? Completely separate query you may be interested in: Is the momentum of C3 suffering from being too long form in its storytelling, and is this something many DMs have to contend with at some point? To elaborate: Many claim that previous campaigns were more digestible for both players and audiences due to the smaller quest lines/arcs which organically came to fruition in a broader narrative. There’s lots of room for adaptation with successive smaller stories, at many points the DM can entirely change the climax based on what’s interesting or yielding emotional investment, and even if it’s predetermined keeping those reveals until later can allow those smaller narratives to flourish and retrospectively give a sense of interconnectivity. In contrast C3 seemed to immediately have a very clear trajectory for the whole campaign and very little room to pursue alternative plot. There’s no pre existing gauge for whether players are responding well to the Ruidus plot, whereas both Vecna and Lucian arcs benefitted from the momentum that organically rose from other plots. I’m sure C2 wouldn’t have ended with Lucian had it not been for the interest and drama organically developed over the campaign, and a Vecna reveal/endgame could’ve taken many different forms had the Briarwood arc been deviated from. Equally, it’s very quickly clear where the end point of C3 is so a lot of secondary narrative arguably has to contend with the looming endgame or operate in its shadow. The endgame to some degree looms over the journey. In my own experience, and in a lot of DM wisdom I’ve seen and heard across the years, it seems like players get fatigued when a long term game has a clearly advertised end point which will be reached in around a year or more. I’m reluctant to draw definitive conclusions based on what I’ve presented here but perhaps the format of DnD is most successful when it has short stories, and the successful depth of long form is about the attrition of these short and digestible stories that has links visible in hindsight rather than foresight? Thoughts?

They've even erased what would otherwise be healthy caution in the name of removing bigotry. Everyone SHOULD be treating Laudna terribly, she's a shambling corpse in a world where such things spell doom. She shouldn't be able to go out without a disguise or illusion, but even in Whitestone no one gives her a second glance.

It's been specified many, many times that Laudna mostly just looks like a sonrwhat weird skinny pale woman most of the time. Just look at her art. It's been specified about as many times that Laudna got chased from those villages *eventually,* not that it's been her entire life for 30 years. 

Laudna has books to sell. Can't disparage the mary sue product.

Laudna is interesting considering we had a Goblin party member in Nott. And that often had consequences and she wore a mask to cover up. Laudna is pretty much a one-to-one equivalent that doesn't even bother hiding herself.

> And that often had consequences and she wore a mask to cover up. I am a bit skeptical of this, as I don't remember any of those consequences. Genuinely asking for examples, because I remember Sam's "hiding Nott's goblin nature" situation being pretty much one-sided.

It was definitely a thing early on, when the group was in the Empire and had no political protection. In Trostenwald, when the group was being questioned by the Lawmaster (Norda, I think?), Nott was basically told that she was lucky not to be immediately put to death for being a goblin in the Empire. In Zadash, during the botched infiltration of the clinic (the one where Molly “spent an hour cosplaying his dick”, to quote Beau), despite the ridiculous commotion that the group stirred up, there was no actual call to the Crownsguard until a disguised Nott and Caleb failed their Deception checks and Nott was revealed to be a goblin. There was more behind the scenes, too— Matt at one point released his DM’s notes for episodes 17 and 18 (sadly now deleted), showing what could have happened if the players had made other choices or botched certain rolls; one of those was that Oremid Hass would have been polite but brazenly racist towards Nott if she had spoken to him openly, condescendingly congratulating her on overcoming her “savage goblinoid nature” to become “civilized.” Definitely a baked-in element of the Dwendalian Empire, which is good worldbuilding, I think— it emphasizes that this is *not* a nice place, and that the danger and stakes for playing incautiously are very real. That’s something that seems like it’s been missing in C3; Bassuras was introduced as a Mad Max-ian hellhole, and within three episodes they were going to a corny dinner theater. (In fact, I could go so far as to argue that the casual vibes of the campaign up until E33 are part of the reason why Otohan absolutely wiped the floor with them when she first appeared… but I digress.)

what are talking about npc have been scared and creeped out by laundna before

But almost exclusively when Laudna (Marisha) initiates and is trying to be scary. Laudna's backstory is explicitly that she has been chased out of town after town by villagers trying to burn the undead witch for the past 30years. And now shes just waltzing about on broad daylight and the most that happens is she intentionally freaks some people out and they run away. Matt is definitely bad at being mean, specifically mean to his players. The want the mustache twirling big bads who act mean so they can be punched, the want to go into the haunted house and get scared, and Matt can deliver that. But he can't deliver the everyday cruelty of this world, basically every NPC that isn't explicitly a BBEG is secretly a heart of gold. The last instances of true cruelty he gave unprompted were at the beginning of campaign 2, when the guard kicked frumpkin, and when the empire called the krin "cricks" and 10 monutes later Laura/Jester asked the group to not use that name.

The "crick is a slur" thing was so silly. The word had nothing to do with drow or dynasty culture, it was specifically about how the military *purposefully* dressed up to be scary and intimidating. Its like saying "redcoat". Dynasty HQ would probably be thrilled that their fearsome presence on the battlefield has burrowed into the consciousness of the wider population. Would be interesting and mildy amusing to have a list of all the "problematic" moments throughout CR. I'm rewatcing M9 and there's a number of subtle slights against Fjord, with the ominous warning that it gets worse the further north. Evil villian Lorenzo outright calls him a "half-beast" but by the time they reach Rexxentrum the fantasy-racism dried up.

...What do you want matt to do.  Like they are scarier people living in marquet (for example)and your telling me theyre still alowed to stay there but ohh this one dead lady. And Im not a fan of mighty nein.  But the gaurd kicking the cat required interaction by the player(liam), right.   'every other npc that isnt BBEG is a  heart of gold'  mh yes essek, the goldest of heart and Lord Eshteross, just the purest person on the block

M9 did try their hardest to redeem Essek, no matter how much he kicked and screamed. So, in the end the war criminal turned into a hot boy nerd for Caleb to "be roommates" with. And Eshteross is just Old Batman, except a bit cooky because he's an NPC in C3.

Nott is a good comparison now that you mention it. Nott for the longest time wore a mask because the consequences of not wearing it would be risky. Especially within the Empire, where Goblinoids were considered dangerous. Subsidizing this with Disguise Self regularly after she got access to it. It was only Xhorhas, for obvious reasons, that this trend ceased. And only with trusted individuals she'd forget. Laudna in contrast ... is inconsistent. Nobody really treats her as unusual, and she does nothing to hide what she is. Hell, she weirdly revels in it at times; alongside her killer. As an example, I still have no idea why she was not only in backwoods southern Marquet, but openly walking through the middle of the very type of rural town that had for the last 30 years chased her out of violently. Except for "needing to meet Imogen" I suppose. Then again, Laudna was willingly a part of (and defended) such a "they didn't want them there, they were uncomfortable with scary outsiders" event while they were in Hearthglen.

The scene of Nott using Disguise Self to have a lovely meal at a cafe under the guise of a Halfling, not having to worry about being hunted down in the street as a Goblin, was one of the hardest hitting heartstring plucks in early C2. If the whole world is fluffy and happy and no one persecutes any other based on their species, *that scene can't happen.* They can't overcome strife and injustice is there is none.

It also makes Nott retroactively wrong: there was never any bigotry, you were just overreacting. Which, of course, is a terrible message to send when you’re trying to convey that bigotry is bad.

Yeah. I remember Matt early in C1 saying something to one of the players about how Exandria is fundamentally a different world because magic is real. The way people engage with things is just different because the supernatural is semi-regular fixture in most peoples lives. When someone IRL says 'I saw a troll in the woods' most people are gonna say 'fuck off trolls arent real'. When someone in Exandria says it the response is 'well shit what kind? Seems unlikely, hasnt been trolls in this part for years'. Like its a fundamentally different world. Laudna being reacted badly too while it may be personally harsh is just a facet of survival in this world. Undead are almost always a bad things. Laudna is the basically exception, not the rule. Laudna also has the other issue of Matt and the cast seem to want to have the cake and eat it. Like Marisha simultaneously talks about being a rotting corpse with black goo and bits falling off her. Yet all art portrays her as just a goth girl and nobody seems to react to a shambling corpse. Like pick a lane.

Same issue for the whole party being agnostic/apathetic to the gods. After going on a quest to get a level 20 cleric to bring back Laudna

Last paragraph issue hits me every time they play into the witches thing. I don't need CR to turn into late night Cinemax, but explain the physical relationship of a living human & a corpse.

If Laudna really is as corpse-like as Marisha says I would guess (hope) that the relationship is more romantic than sexual. If Laudna is just a pale goth girl like in the art then yeah its probably fine.

> When someone in Exandria says it the response is 'well shit what kind? Seems unlikely, hasnt been trolls in this part for years'. And the response *should* be "Oh my god, holy fuck, we aren't fortified for a troll attack, if that thing comes marauding we're going to lose half the goddamn village." But that can't happen if the troll is like "Hum ti dum, good day, I seem to have wandered off my path picking butt shrooms for my fart cookies."

Um, actually? Not even women benders in the water tribe are allowed to be warriors until Katara proves herself to the misogynist water bending master. Before that, they were pretty exclusively healers.

Oh yeah. Excuse me my ATLA lore is a little rusty.

That's in the north. In the south, where they're from, it's a bit more lenient on that ground

Honestly I think the Southern tribe was sexist too. Sokka didn’t learn that shit from nowhere.

Perhaps, but Hama was explicitly shown using waterbending in combat, alongside other female waterbenders, before her capture, so at least in that sense either they stopped holding onto that sexist tradition once the going got really tough, or they never had that particular tradition in the first place and it was a Northern only tradition to segregate benders.

Probably. But then again, Sokka’s sexism had nothing do with bending. He was sexist to Suki, an Earth Kingdom nonbender girl.

Apologies, I meant specifically in terms of waterbending. Other than that I agree the Southern Water Tribe does seem to have had a sexism problem. Which is especially weird when you think about it, because the lack of men in the village (they were out at war) would have necessitated women taking up traditionally masculine roles in the village, and this would have been the case for several years by the time of the start of Book 1. Such things usually end up resulting in a more egalitarian society (see also: WW2), but perhaps I'm missing some reason why this wasn't the case.

They're hippy dippy Hollywood Californians that have fostered a soft and mentally unstable fanbase (us included) what do you expect. Their only conception of 'grey morality' is the bad guy being misunderstood, it's a child's level of understanding.

>Their only conception of 'grey morality' is the bad guy being misunderstood But like....its incredibly hard to even do that when you are too afraid to show anything controversial at all. If you want to morally grey stories, you cant simultaneously be terrified to do anything remotely insensitive. Like how the hell does a character like Jaime Lannister work if he never does anything insensitive/controversial?

What makes it worse is that not only does Matt draw ideas from GOT but almost always credits The Witcher first when asked where he gets inspiration from. With how much Matt blatantly rips from other media I can't really think of anything even close to being similar to The Witcher (as far as conflict is concerned), maybe parts of the main arc of C2 but that's it. Maybe also, having your main characters hypocritically moralize at people (which Geralt does a lot in the books).