WotC Older D&D Books on DMs Guild Now Have A Disclaimer

If you go to any of the older WotC products on the Dungeon Master's Guild, they now have a new disclaimer very similar to that currently found at the start of Looney Tunes cartoons.

We recognize that some of the legacy content available on this website, does not reflect the values of the Dungeon & Dragons franchise today. Some older content may reflect ethnic, racial and gender prejudice that were commonplace in American society at that time. These depictions were wrong then and are wrong today. This content is presented as it was originally created, because to do otherwise would be the same as claiming these prejudices never existed. Dungeons & Dragons teaches that diversity is a strength, and we strive to make our D&D products as welcoming and inclusive as possible. This part of our work will never end.

The wording is very similar to that found at the start of Looney Tunes cartoons.

Edit: Wizards has put out a statement on Twitter (click through to the full thread)

 

[Eltab]

I don’t think “preserving history” is what they’re doing. I’d argue that preserving history is a noble pursuit which involves things like making a documentary or putting something in a museum, not selling PDF or PoD copies it. (Not that they have claimed that they’re preserving history).

You have to be able to find the first tries, the baby steps, and the mis-steps.

At the minimum, to tell the next guy "look this over so you can build on / do better than it did."

 

[MGibster]

If there is a problem inherent in D&D, it's the core colonialism aspects of the game. Let's face it, the basic concepts of D&D are founded in playing an adventuring group of "heroes" that go from place to place, kill, murder, steal, pillage, ransack, dethrone, destroy, etc... All for the sake of the adventure. Take their treasures, go back to town, flood the market and destabilize economies, gain power, and repeat. They wipe out entire ecologies. They are not held accountable.

You refer to it as colonialism, but this has been true for most of human history. The Egyptians, Greeks, Phoenicians, Aztecs, and the Mali Empire all practiced colonialism is some form or another.

D&D itself is the problem.

I don't think it's a problem for most of us who participate in threads about playing the game.

 

[Morrus]

You have to be able to find the first tries, the baby steps, and the mis-steps.

At the minimum, to tell the next guy "look this over so you can build on / do better than it did."

I’m not sure your reply is related to my post. My post just said that WotC’s motivation wasn’t the preservation of history.

 

[VelvetViolet]

This was hashed over a lot in other threads (search for Orcs). One argument is that the descriptions of the orcs almost word for word matches the language used by racists and eugenicists in the late 19th and early 20th century, and once you see it, it's hard to unsee. Which seems bad for a race that can be a PC, or make half-orcs, or just be there to slaughter with no moral qualms. See for example General - Two underlying truths: D&D heritage and inclusivity for links. Replies about orcs should probably go there.

Should authors be discouraged from writing settings that are contrived to justify racism, genocide, and fascism simply because those things are evil in real life and said depictions arbitrarily hurt people's feelings? These situations are extremely circumstantial because power dynamics change over time and what would be hurtful to a group of people will vary based on their affluence and other social factors. I don't want to endorse censorship in law, even if that means authors are free to write fascist tracts like Terra Formars and Goblin Slayer.

If there is a problem inherent in D&D, it's the core colonialism aspects of the game.

Power Kill

If you take that viewpoint to its logical extreme, then any depictions of violence or other negative behaviors are morally bad and should be censored. Especially roleplaying games and video games, because those let you pretend to be a murderhobo.

 

[Firwood]

In my opinion this whole thing is just hypocrisy.
A fake "politically correct" with which one washes one's mouth to present an acceptable facade of a society, the American one, which instead has many problems and has to deal with racism, homophobia, and in general discrimination of all kinds.
Fortunately, on the other side of the ocean, where I live, the situation from the point of view of civilization is much better, even if far from perfection.
My impression is that with these ads "you" want to show how good you are, but instead of doing something concrete to solve the huge problem of racism, "you" cancel episodes of TV series from years ago for the presence of actors with painted faces, censoring texts, etc.. As I said before, these are all facade operations that try to hide or get around a problem that is more alive in the USA than ever.
The lack of respect and tolerance is not solved in this way, but with concrete acts that I don't know for sure these half-cocks adopted by film majors, publishers, and so on...

 

[Cadence]

Should authors be discouraged from writing settings that are contrived to justify racism, genocide, and fascism simply because those things are evil in real life and said depictions arbitrarily hurt people's feelings? These situations are extremely circumstantial because power dynamics change over time and what would be hurtful to a group of people will vary based on their affluence and other social factors. I don't want to endorse censorship in law, even if that means authors are free to write fascist tracts like Terra Formars and Goblin Slayer.

Iirc, the consensus in the other threads about Orcs seemed to be that WotC should highlight that humanoids can be of any alignment by the default (and in the books show a variety of takes from GH and FR to Eberron). That wouldn't even change the rules given the paragraphs at the beginning of the MM. It does get rid of having a race of people exist game-wide for no other purpose than to be othered, subjugated, and destroyed. It would change nothing about what could be done in individual campaign settings as each race could have its own background in them.

I don't recall anyone saying games couldn't depict racism, genocide, fascism, and slavery. The common ask seemed to be for them not to be portrayed as good or heroic things.

 

[ChaosOS]

Should authors be discouraged from writing settings that are contrived to justify racism, genocide, and fascism simply because those things are evil in real life and said depictions arbitrarily hurt people's feelings? These situations are extremely circumstantial because power dynamics change over time and what would be hurtful to a group of people will vary based on their affluence and other social factors. I don't want to endorse censorship in law, even if that means authors are free to write fascist tracts like Terra Formars and Goblin Slayer.

Power Kill

If you take that viewpoint to its logical extreme, then any depictions of violence or other negative behaviors are morally bad and should be censored. Especially roleplaying games and video games, because those let you pretend to be a murderhobo.

There's a huge gap between "The law shouldn't censor fascist creeds" - a point I agree with, publishers should feel within their rights to distribute Mein Kampf or enormously racist works like the Lovecraft Mythos. However, that doesn't mean Wizards of the Coast, the by-far leader in the RPG industry, should condone extremist ideologies. This doesn't even mean you can't include totalitarians in your work! In fact, they're by far the preferable and more interesting enemies. There's a huge gap between including/referencing bad acts and endorsing (or platforming people who endorse) bad acts.

The bigger problem here is going to be how fantasy tends to exalt "good monarchs" as the highest form of government, which is something that I think is a lot messier to deal with. IMO the best handling is stories that show the failings of the hereditary system - Eberron does this with its Last War, but plenty of other fantasy works and settings have pursued similar stories.

 

[Mercurius]

Iirc, the consensus in the other threads about Orcs seemed to be that WotC should highlight that humanoids can be of any alignment by the default (and in the books show a variety of takes from GH and FR to Eberron). That wouldn't even change the rules given the paragraphs at the beginning of the MM. It does get rid of having a race of people exist game-wide for no other purpose than to be othered, subjugated, and destroyed. It would change nothing about what could be done in individual campaign settings as each race could have its own background in them.

I don't recall anyone saying games couldn't depict racism, genocide, fascism, and slavery. The common ask seemed to be for them not to be portrayed as good or heroic things.

I can't think of a D&D product, past or present, that depicts those things as good or heroic, although wouldn't be surprised if there were one or two among the thousands published.

As for whether they "should" be allowed to be published, I would argue for "yes," and then we can decide, as individuals, whether or not to support such a product. We all vote with our dollar.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I don't recall anyone saying games couldn't depict racism, genocide, fascism, and slavery. The common ask seemed to be for them not to be portrayed as good or heroic things.

A related, and interesting issue, is the extent to which racism, genocide, fascism, slavery, and other issues (sexual violence when it comes to orcs / half-orcs, etc.) can be or should be reflected in the base rules.

For the most part, no one (and using the words, I immediately realize that there will be a some one ... so, almost no one) thinks that tables can't make the game as G-rated or X, as serious or as funny, as the table wants.

But I think there is a divergence of opinion as to the amount that certain serious subjects should be reflected in the rules; how much "fantasy racism" should be (and can be) there, for example.

I don't really have answers to those questions.

 

[Mercurius]

There's a huge gap between "The law shouldn't censor fascist creeds" - a point I agree with, publishers should feel within their rights to distribute Mein Kampf or enormously racist works like the Lovecraft Mythos. However, that doesn't mean Wizards of the Coast, the by-far leader in the RPG industry, should condone extremist ideologies. This doesn't even mean you can't include totalitarians in your work! In fact, they're by far the preferable and more interesting enemies. There's a huge gap between including/referencing bad acts and endorsing (or platforming people who endorse) bad acts.

The bigger problem here is going to be how fantasy tends to exalt "good monarchs" as the highest form of government, which is something that I think is a lot messier to deal with. IMO the best handling is stories that show the failings of the hereditary system - Eberron does this with its Last War, but plenty of other fantasy works and settings have pursued similar stories.

It is one thing to "condone extremist ideologies," and quite another to "exalt good monarchs" within the context of a premodern fantasy settings. I don't think that's messy; its just fantasy.

That said, I like to explore alternate forms of government in my fantasy world-building than the default medieval/feudal tropes, but that's personal aesthetic preference. The vast majority of premodern real world societies were monarchical, so it makes sense that a "good monarch" would be exalted as the highest form of government within the the context of premodern analogues. Of course, fantasy is fantasy, and there's no reason that other--more democratic--governments can't be explored. For instance, one would think that elves--who in most settings attained a developed level of civilization tens of thousands of years before humans--wouldn't have developed other forms.