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)

 

[Mercurius]

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

Seriously?

I was specifically talking about OA. Going forward? Yes, I'm all for that, although with care, as I don't agree with some of the tropes being racial stereotypes.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Most D&D monsters are not humanoid. And, even the ones that are, most of them aren't problematic. Is anyone complaining about GIthyanki? Or Shadar-Kai or Dragonborn (beyond the cliche grognard rants)?

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'm sure you could. But, since no one is doing that, why are we talking about it?

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

Just to drill down a bit further here. What do you mean by problematic. And, no, I'm not being pedantic here. Having one or two problems doesn't make the whole setting problematic. It just means that we need to patch up one or two problems. I don't find Forgotten Realms to be terribly problematic and, given its popularity, I'd say that most people don't. Could it be better? Probably. FR is freaking enormous and has writing that stretches back decades by dozens of writers. I'm absolutely sure I could find something in FR if I wanted to go hunting for it.

But, who cares? We identify the problematic stuff and change it and move on. Easy peasy. So much of this is tempest in a teacup. The solutions are simple and, largely, everyone agrees what the solutions are. Now, it's people pissing about arguing about which smurf is the most blue.

 

[Mercurius]

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.

I think some are affected, although the majority of folks in these discussions here don't seem to be.

I fully realize that some of those who claim offense really feel offended. I don't think it inherently follows that A) their offense is justified (it may be) and B) their suggested solutions are good ones (e.g. remove OA).

 

[Haldrik]

It all boils down to freedom. The freedom to offend. The freedom to debate. The freedom to walk away. What shouldn't you be free to do? Have someone fired from their job (for example) because they like someone you don't, or because they said something you disagree with, or because they don't subscribe to the same world-view as you do, or because they "hurt your feelings" by playing a game that offends you.

There is a wise old statement that gets FAR less play nowadays than it should. It goes like this: "Lets just agree to disagree and go our separate ways".

Freedom to offend? It depends.

Freedom to debate? Yes.
Freedom to do hatespeech? No.



I suspect we can all agree, earlier editions of D&D never intentionally propagated hatespeech.

The problematic texts seem infrequent. They tend to come from ignorance about other identities groups, from recycling uncritically certain tropes from an earlier era, from a confluence of tropes that appears accidental and unfortunate, and from "well-meaning" tone-deafness.

For example in D&D 1e, the Dungeon Masters Guide has a random table where women are either "harlots" or else goodwives who falsely accuse men of "rape". This is offensive, even crosses the line into hatespeech against women. Yet it seems obvious, Gygax was trying to put together a table for fun encounters for the game. For players to be in a situation of being falsely accused of rape can be alarming thus a fun encounter. The problematic content came more from paying too much attention to designing gaming encounters, thus failing to notice how recycling tropes uncritically can lead to ethically unacceptable results. I am confident that if someone reminded Gygax how hateful that random table comes across, he himself would immediately have modified it. But in an earlier era, these kinds of concerns were less on the radar of audiences, even tho today they are WTF.



Obviously, TODAY, D&D 5e must avoid any hatespeech against women. Gamers today, including more women gamers, notice how such content is hateful.

Also for corporate economic reasons, the goal is to appeal to as many customers as possible, including most customers who value women.

I appreciate the recent announcement that WotC is combing thru the 5e texts so far, to flag and remedy problematic content. I welcome this. It will help future gamers deal with less headaches.

 

[Haldrik]

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

Seriously?

I completely agree with your point. Well said.

At the same time, for earlier editions that are too late to correct, perhaps a "warning label" is an adequate way to "remove" them? In other words, they are removed from products that are sold as-is, and are elevated to a category that is more concerning.

Also, some earlier books are worse than others, thus seem to benefit from a stronger warning label.

 

[Haldrik]

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

I am unfamiliar with Exandria. What is it that makes this setting more inclusive for reallife players?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I am unfamiliar with Exandria. What is it that makes this setting especially inclusive more reallife players?

Orcs aren't forced to be evil, and they are instead cursed by Gruumsh and can break free of him. Drow aren't evil, and can be any alignment as humans as well. Humans aren't evil, but they are the "worse" of the two nations at war. There are multiple examples of LGBTQ+ characters throughout the book. There's multiple other examples, but this is the basic explanation.

 

[Haldrik]

Orcs aren't forced to be evil, and they are instead cursed by Gruumsh and can break free of him. Drow aren't evil, and can be any alignment as humans as well. Humans aren't evil, but they are the "worse" of the two nations at war. There are multiple examples of LGBTQ+ characters throughout the book. There's multiple other examples, but this is the basic explanation.

It seems to me, D&D 5e can achieve similar results by assigning an alignment to the ideology of "faction", rather than to the innate quality of a humanoid.

So for example, some Orcs belong to a Gruumsh faction, but other Orcs belong to other factions. (Actually, I prefer this to breaking free from a curse. Simply different factions.) Drow can subscribe to any faction, while being any alignment.

When two human nations are in conflict, sometimes one side has a more hateful ideology. Hence two different factions, each having a different alignment.

A member of a faction can have a personal alignment that differs from the faction, thus be in various degrees of personal conflict with their own faction.

With regard to LGBTQ, it seems mentioning examples of characters in narratives, stories, images, and options resolves most concerns? Heh, one of the advantages of having been made "invisible" is these identity groups have fewer negative tropes against them. It is more about how absurd it is to assume that gamers are straight males, and simply mention examples that appeal to gamers who are not straight or are not males.

 

[FrogReaver]

It just struck me: D&D depicts all humans of all skin colors the same. They are all humans with +1 bonus to all stats. No matter what your skin color in D&D all humans are equals!

 

[Haldrik]

It just struck me: D&D depicts all humans of all skin colors the same. They are all humans with +1 bonus to all stats. No matter what your skin color in D&D all humans are equals!

That is the saving grace of D&D, since forever. There is only one human race. Every human ethnic group is a "Human", with the same stats.



The problem happens because the other "humanoids" are defacto little more than a human in a costume. So any tropes for the Nonhuman races might have unfortunate tropes relating to reallife ethnic groups.