Are they replacing D&D's blacktop playground with foam?

[Asmor]

A couple things have me a bit worried...

1: The mention that when they release half-orcs on DDI, they're going to try and change their assumed origin, with the specific mention that currently the origin of half-orcs (i.e. often the result of rape) is something they do not wish to dwell on.

2: The language in the OGL announcement about community standards and such.

Now, one of the big problems with the SRD at first was the glut of crappy products. It sounds like that may be what they're aiming at with my second point... Nonetheless, it sounds like an excuse for censorship, and I'd be a lot more comfortable if they'd say specifically the intent, if not the language, of the standards. Is this supposed to stop bad products, or is it supposed to stop products with objectionable content (like the Book of Erotic Fantasy; not my cup of tea, but I'm glad it was able to be published).

I'm just worried that it seems like they're trying to make D&D "family-friendly" by covering all the sharp edges with foam rubber. Maybe it's an irrational worry, but I can't help how I feel.

They made reference to one case where the community standards clause was enforced, which was supposedly resolved amicably. Does anyone know what that's about?

Ok, I apologize for my inane ramblings. I'm sure it's much ado about nothing.

[Piratecat]

I wouldn't fret about community standards. Scott Rouse was really clear about this on the call; it's no big deal, and not really any different than now. I think of it as the "Book of Erotic Fantasy" clause, and I doubt it'll come into play with any sort of frequency.

[FourthBear]

If so, it's pretty selective foam. Only a little while ago we had a fair number of posts on how 4e was pandering not to the family friendly crowd, but the "Evil is Kewl!" crowd. This was based on the introduction of the tiefling race and the warlock class. Certainly, they haven't been at all shy on the darker subjects involving evil magic, fiends and the like.

[Darkwolf71]

Evil is kewl! It is also sensitive to women.

[S'mon]

Originally Posted by Darkwolf71

Evil is kewl! It is also sensitive to women.

Yeah, my impression is that WoTC's stance is "Devil worship OK. Sexism not OK."

[mhensley]

Originally Posted by S'mon

Yeah, my impression is that WoTC's stance is "Devil worship OK. Sexism not OK."

Nah, it's "Devil Worship Good. Gnomes Bad."

[The Ubbergeek]

Originally Posted by S'mon

Yeah, my impression is that WoTC's stance is "Devil worship OK. Sexism not OK."

Devil worship was a moral scare of the 80s, a false thing. Only the (american protestant) religious right is caring and the satanist abuses cases stories where debunked.

Sexism, including rape, is a VERY real and serious matter.

Strawman arguemnt.

[Stereofm]

Originally Posted by Piratecat

I wouldn't fret about community standards. Scott Rouse was really clear about this on the call; it's no big deal, and not really any different than now. I think of it as the "Book of Erotic Fantasy" clause, and I doubt it'll come into play with any sort of frequency.

Well, there were some good parts in that book that I use .... gave me some really good ideas for campaign development and torments i could use on the PCs...

No, seriously, It was crap, but at least it was fun reading.

[Zelster]

I cast "Enlarge Member" at the darkness!

[Kesh]

Originally Posted by The Ubbergeek

Devil worship was a moral scare of the 80s, a false thing. Only the (american protestant) religious right is caring and the satanist abuses cases stories where debunked.

Sexism, including rape, is a VERY real and serious matter.

Strawman arguemnt.

Agreed. Devil worship is pure fantasy, while sexism & rape are very real and very harmful to people in real life. Not to mention claiming 4e states "devil worship is okay" would be a falsehood, but I have a feeling this discussion will devolve into "Warlocks are evil" again.

[Rechan]

If WotC is replacing the blacktop with anything, it's probably that brown gravel stuff that gets in your shoe.

[Kwalish Kid]

Originally Posted by Piratecat

I wouldn't fret about community standards. Scott Rouse was really clear about this on the call; it's no big deal, and not really any different than now. I think of it as the "Book of Erotic Fantasy" clause, and I doubt it'll come into play with any sort of frequency.

I would thing of it as the FATAL 4E clause. Didn't Rouse say that they weren't merely concerned with shoddy art?

[Spinachcat]

Why would half-elves not be the result of human brigands raping elves?

Why is elf / human breeding always tragic love?

Orcs = auto evil, elf = auto good is standard, but when did human = auto good?

I would be happy for WotC to create a new race that some people call half-orcs, but whose lineage is a pure race of their own. Like the Caliban in a Ravenloft campaign I played. The Caliban are 1/2 orcs mechanically, but they are their own race.

[Asmor]

Originally Posted by Stereofm

Well, there were some good parts in that book that I use .... gave me some really good ideas for campaign development and torments i could use on the PCs...

No, seriously, It was crap, but at least it was fun reading.

Like I said, not my cup of tea, but I'm very glad it was allowed to be published.

And I think the parallel between devil worship and rape is an apt one. D&D does not promote either, and doesn't even mention either except as tangential background information at best. Demons and devils were scrubbed out of many games (not just D&D; Magic was completely demon-free for a long period as well) because some people would be insulted by the mere mention of them. The same goes for rape.

This is nothing specific to rape. I object to any concept being eliminated primarily because it will offend someone.

[Piratecat]

Gang, please keep the topic away from real-life rape and real-life devil worship.

Discussion of such things in-game is okay as long as you use good sense.

Thanks!