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)

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Yes, when the movement actually leads to progress.

How do you know this won't lead to progress? Even if it doesn't, what's the worst that can happen from this? That we no longer have possibly racist tones in d&d products?

But when it leads to erasing history, censorship, or perpetuating the problem it seeks to solve, it doesn't work out so well.

I don't see how this is erasing history, or perpetuating the problem. I have nothing against censoring offensive products.

Your statement is based upon the assumption that OA/Orcgate is synonymous to the Civil Rights movement. I don't agree with that equivalency and in fact find it somewhat absurd, not to mention insulting to those impacted by the CR movement.

I never said this was equivalent to the Civil Rights movement and I am certainly not trying to minimize their accomplishments. I said that in situations in history where the topic was racial inclusion, the "other side" is not remembered well.

I didn't say there wasn't a problem. And I understand the interpretation, I just don't think it takes into account other interpretations. I try to take into account multiple interpretations and weigh them, trying to come up with a synthesis. That's not "one-sided."

"All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing. "

 

[Hussar]

And I don't think it's possible to avoid that at all times. No matter what fictional group is created, there's a good chance someone will read into it and be uncomfortable. And trying not to offend anyone is a fool's errand.

I disagree. 99% of D&D in inoffensive. At least, no one has ever complained about it. I've yet to see anyone complain about dragons or beholders or most of the game. So, trying not to offend is actually successful nearly all of the time.

That there are a couple of elements where things break down doesn't mean that they weren't successful most of the time. Only thing is, we don't talk about success because, well, it's a success and there's nothing to talk about. "Does the write up of Githyanki bother anyone? No? Ok, then moving on..."

I'd argue from evidence that it's actually extremely easy to write without offending anyone.

 

[Hussar]

/snip
Not enough of that "live and let live" going on in society now. Too many people are falling into the "US versus THEM" 'clique' mentality...and anyone who refuses to pick a side is placed into both, in stead of neither.

PS: I'm done with this thread. IMNSHO, this 'news' shouldn't have even been posted. The entirety of the news subject virtually assured that people from opposing views would come and each argue their point. I fell into the trap. I should do better and just ignore them. I will do better in the future and I encourage everyone to do the same. If an article comes up that basically necessitates using words, terms and ideas that go contrary to the sites "Terms and Rules"...just ignore it. People are different and don't usually agree on everything. It's not going to end well. For anyone.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

Do you not understand why that is happening now? That "live and let live" is no longer considered acceptable? It's because "live and let live" is an excuse for not doing anything to fix the problem. It's a smoke screen for pretending that problems don't exist and if we just stop talking about it, the problem will go away. It's the equivalent of sticking fingers in your ears. And, well, that's not good enough anymore. Society has decided that those who refuse to pick a side are actually significantly part of the problem.

 

[Umbran]

The implication is clear: if you don't unquestioningly agree with offended people, you don't care about the pain of other people.

No. But thank you for the leap to the conclusion.

We were given an example for comparison. We were literally and explicitly asked how we felt about the case, and what parallels we could draw. I laid out how I felt about the case, with supporting facts.

I declined to draw parallels. Largely because I had a sneaking suspicion that the poster didn't know the facts*. I don't think this case would have been brought up for comparison if they did. It would not have been sporting to take the example seriously further than that.

So, you can... jump to the conclusion you did. Or you could find the ways in which the analogy fails. Or, perhaps most wisely since you didn't raise this case for comparison, you can simply decide this is a case where someone in the discussion has stuck their foot in their mouth and chewed rather vigorously on it, and stay the heck away from the point.

It ignores the possibility that, some of us at least, do care about other people, but either think some of the assumptions that lead to being offended are erroneous and based on one-sided interpretation, and/or don't think that the suggested course of action will lead to a positive result.

So, maybe I've missed it in the hundreds of pages of this stuff. If folks do care... actions speak louder than words. What are folks doing for the discomfort of those who are offended? What I recall is mostly people trying, like above, to establish that offended people are wrong, and tell them they should not even voice their discomfort. I submit that those are not helpful things, but maybe there was something else material and constructive?




* The case was back in 1994, before the web made finding information quite so easy. For years, the case was often held up and peddled (perhaps by McD's itself) as an example of a frivolous lawsuit, in which one loud person made a major corporation kneel and change its ways. It is possible he was still holding to that idea. If so.. I'm sorry, their poor scholarship on this matter is not my fault.

 

[Mercurius]

How do you know this won't lead to progress? Even if it doesn't, what's the worst that can happen from this? That we no longer have possibly racist tones in d&d products?

Again, did I say no changes should happen? No. I'm pointing out that change can lead to a variety of results, and that we should tread carefully and be cognizant of collateral damage. Some forms of change lead to worse problems.

I don't see how this is erasing history, or perpetuating the problem. I have nothing against censoring offensive products.

We'll have to agree to disagree, especially when we're talking about 35-year old books. I also dislike the vagueness of "offensive" and the idea that anyone is qualified to decide what is offensive enough to censor it. I'd rather see us learn from the past and move forward. Leave the record of history as it actually is, rather than paint over it with an Orwellian brush.

I never said this was equivalent to the Civil Rights movement and I am certainly not trying to minimize their accomplishments. I said that in situations in history where the topic was racial inclusion, the "other side" is not remembered well.

I'm all for racial inclusion. I don't agree with the argument that orcs (for instance) prevent racial inclusion, because (among other reasons) I don't equate "offending some people" with "racial exclusion."

What I am trying to point out is that some of the people who you think are against racial inclusion aren't actually against racial inclusion. They (we) disagree with what you're saying leads to racial exclusion in the context of RPGs.

"All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing. "

Hey, that's why I'm still here .

 

[Mercurius]

No. But thank you for the leap to the conclusion.

I'm going to leave @FrogReaver to defend his own position, if he feels so inclined. I don't know enough about the McDonald's case to comment, which is why I didn't. You raised some pertinent information that makes it look like a poor analogy, but I think he had an underlying point that was missed.

Anyhow, yes, it was a leap. That's the nature of implications - they aren't certain. But to quote Patrick Stewart as Leodegrance in Excalibur, "I saw what I saw!" It certainly seemed that you were implying this, and the following only strengthens that conclusion:

So, maybe I've missed it in the hundreds of pages of this stuff. If folks do care... actions speak louder than words. What are folks doing for the discomfort of those who are offended? What I recall is mostly people trying, like above, to establish that offended people are wrong, and tell them they should not even voice their discomfort. I submit that those are not helpful things, but maybe there was something else material and constructive?

What some folks are doing is offering different interpretations of the phenomena, and/or different solutions. I don't see a lot of folks, here at least, saying that people shouldn't voice their discomfort. If anything, they're saying that some people's discomfort shouldn't negate other people's freedom to purchase or play, say, OA. I mean, consider the logic: Why would Daniel Kwan's discomfort be lessened if random grognards no longer have access to OA? (And what does that say about him? This is where we can't avoid psychology, but we can't really talk about that without getting personal).

I personally don't see how "cancelling" OA does anything for anyone. All it does is prevent some people from having access to a book. I suppose it wins "crusader points" for Kwan and others who feel similarly, but that doesn't seem like a good enough reason. It doesn't negate racial stereotypes, nor does it really impact real racism.

Again, understand that I have said that I'm OK with the disclaimer. It strikes a good balance point: acknowledging that some people take issue with the product, but also keeping it available for those that still want to use it.

 

[MGibster]

I disagree. 99% of D&D in inoffensive. At least, no one has ever complained about it. I've yet to see anyone complain about dragons or beholders or most of the game. So, trying not to offend is actually successful nearly all of the time.

I would have said 99% of it was inoffensive as well, but in recent years I've learned that D&D is steeped in colonialism, choosing a race and have attribute bonuses echoes the racists thoughts of the past, and, well, you find me a published setting that someone doesn't find problematic. I'd say it's more than 1%. And dragons and beholders aren't humanoid so it's a little difficult to draw parallels between them and actual living people past or present.

That there are a couple of elements where things break down doesn't mean that they weren't successful most of the time. Only thing is, we don't talk about success because, well, it's a success and there's nothing to talk about. "Does the write up of Githyanki bother anyone? No? Ok, then moving on..."

And if there were a published adventure featuring a clan of greedy githyanki bankers, a group of elf raiders on horseback, or a dwarf empire where the workers ceased the means of production someone would draw some parallels between them and a real life group.

I'd argue from evidence that it's actually extremely easy to write without offending anyone.

Can you point me to any D&D setting that isn't problematic?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Can you point me to any D&D setting that isn't problematic?

There's a whole thread already discussing this. Exandria is probably the best fit.

 

[Hussar]

I'm all for racial inclusion. I don't agree with the argument that orcs (for instance) prevent racial inclusion, because (among other reasons) I don't equate "offending some people" with "racial exclusion."

What I am trying to point out is that some of the people who you think are against racial inclusion aren't actually against racial inclusion. They (we) disagree with what you're saying leads to racial exclusion in the context of RPGs

Well, of course you don't because you presume that those voicing issues aren't actually affected in any way by the verbiage in the game, but, rather, are simply manufacturing offense.

OTOH, if you assume good faith on the side of those who are claiming offense, all of your issues vanish.

 

[Hussar]

I personally don't see how "cancelling" OA does anything for anyone. All it does is prevent some people from having access to a book. I suppose it wins "crusader points" for Kwan and others who feel similarly, but that doesn't seem like a good enough reason. It doesn't negate racial stereotypes, nor does it really impact real racism.

You don't see how removing racist elements from a game does anything to negate racial stereotypes?

Seriously?