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]

No, I totally agree with you that you will reject any and all evidence. It's been presented repeatedly, and I know you've seen it. But, hey, you can lead a horse to water. Although, looking at this, I would amend your comment slightly:

"Some writing in D&D mirrors racist screeds used in the 20th century to dehumanize various minorities. That writing needs to be changed". See, to be honest, the whole "is it racist" or "is it racist enough" thing just isn't all that interesting. Does it mirror? Can I find quotes and hold them up side by side? Yuppers, I sure can, have done, and others have as well. You folks are the ones broadening it to encompass entire concepts like "orcs". Got zero problem with orc. Heck, don't even mind evil orcs. But, the whole racist baggage that comes with the writing? Yeah, that's not needed and can be excised pretty painlessly to the point where no one would even notice that it was gone.

You continue to twist or simply misunderstand my perspective, and thereby evade my actual point. It isn't that I "reject any and all evidence" but rather, I reject the interpretation and conclusions made from that evidence. Hermeneutics. In other words, I don't agree with your premise that having similarity with certain racist stereotypes makes orcs and/or the writing used to depict them, racist or particularly problematic.

I don't mind changing the language, btw. Here's a challenge: write a depiction of evil orcs that you think doesn't in any way mirror racist stereotypes.

 

[Hussar]

Really? That's been done several times now.

Umm, lessee - orcs are a violent race of pig faced humanoids whose god has twisted them over generations into evil pillagers who move, like locusts, from place to place, despoiling whatever they can find.

So, you see the evidence, but, refuse to accept the interpretation as valid. Hrm, that's an interesting take. See, I view all interpretations as valid, so long as you can find evidence for them in the text. What is your justification for rejecting the interpretation? Personal preference is the only reason I can see, but, hey, I'm open minded.

What reason do you have for telling people who are telling you that this text, that you agree mirrors racist texts, is problematic is not actually racist or particularly problematic?

 

[Fenris-77]

The orc smiles paternally as it accepts your loan application. He glances over it, tapping thoughtfully on one tusk while he does so. No Mr. Paladin, I'm afraid this won't do at all, he says, after a time. I'm afraid that orphanages just aren't growth industry, nor do they tend to be profitable, and you're only able to put 30% down. ... Goodness no, it's not a matter of interest at all, it's a matter of profit. ...What should you do with the children then? I really couldn't say. Perhaps you might look in a different neighborhood for something in a shack or a hovel. ... Yes, I realize it's the depths of winter, but that means prices should be low. I'll have my secretary show you out.

 

[Mercurius]

Really? That's been done several times now.

Umm, lessee - orcs are a violent race of pig faced humanoids whose god has twisted them over generations into evil pillagers who move, like locusts, from place to place, despoiling whatever they can find.

So, you see the evidence, but, refuse to accept the interpretation as valid. Hrm, that's an interesting take. See, I view all interpretations as valid, so long as you can find evidence for them in the text. What is your justification for rejecting the interpretation? Personal preference is the only reason I can see, but, hey, I'm open minded.

What reason do you have for telling people who are telling you that this text, that you agree mirrors racist texts, is problematic is not actually racist or particularly problematic?

I specifically said it has similarities. You've used phrases like "mirrors" and "word-for-word," and I haven't seen that...but I haven't read many 20th century racist diatribes. Feel free to post one that you feel this especially mirrors. As an aside, are you suggesting that the writers of those texts was deliberating drawing upon racist stereotypes? "Word-for-word" seems to imply that.

Yes, all interpretations are valid - but not necessarily equally valid. I think the key is to be "multi-interpretational", to be able to consider multiple perspectives and come to some sense as to how they relate, and how to integrate them into a synthesis. This may involve privileging one perspective over another, depending on context. In my view, the interpretation that sees racism in orcs is rather narrow and doesn't taken into account any other interpretation, even tending towards hostility to other perspectives ("you're either with us or against us").

I don't think that depiction is problematic for a variety of reasons. For one, it describes a fantasy race, and a non-human race. Secondly, even if it has similarities to certain stereotypes, for the connection to be problematic, orcs would have to have some actual connecton to real world ethnic groups - something more obvious. I don't see any, at least not to a distinct group.

If we're then left with is the rather vague notion that the depiction of orcs is similar to general racial stereotypes, all we're really connecting is orcs and prejudicial ideas of the "projected other." Prejudicial ideas tend to be, in psychological terms, projections of an individual's or group's shadow. They are everything that "we" don't want to be, or won't admit to being. So if anything, as far as real world ethnic groups, that description you quoted sounds closest to...wait for it...white European colonialists! Who else's religious ideas have "twisted them," leading them to "move, like locusts, from place to place, despoiling whatever they can find"? No other real world group has as extensively "despoiled whatever they can find" than European colonialists.

So I think if we want to connect orcs to something in the real world, the best analogy is as a kind of representation of the destructive side of (European) colonialism. Sure, it could apply to the Mongol hordes or other conquerors, but no one has been as voracious in their pillaging as European groups.

 

[Aldarc]

I specifically said it has similarities. You've used phrases like "mirrors" and "word-for-word," and I haven't seen that...but I haven't read many 20th century racist diatribes. Feel free to post one that you feel this especially mirrors.

These have been posted before, I believe by @Doug McCrae on numerous occasions. I would have assumed that if we were actually bothering to have a good faith discussion that you would have already read them. But I suppose it's easier not to be persuaded when you ignore the citations.

As an aside, are you suggesting that the writers of those texts was deliberating drawing upon racist stereotypes? "Word-for-word" seems to imply that.

Likely not intentionally. However, D&D drew heavily from well-recognized genres burdened chock-full with colonialist overtones and undertones: e.g., Westerns, pulp adventures, or even Tolkien's whole Western Civilization at war with the Wicked East.

In my view, the interpretation that sees racism in orcs is rather narrow and doesn't taken into account any other interpretation, even tending towards hostility to other perspectives ("you're either with us or against us").

Maybe because your expectation to see other perspectives as valid is demanded but not reciprocated in earnest?

For one, it describes a fantasy race, and a non-human race.

And how exactly this rational is a problem has been discussed before.

Secondly, even if it has similarities to certain stereotypes, for the connection to be problematic, orcs would have to have some actual connecton to real world ethnic groups - something more obvious. I don't see any, at least not to a distinct group.

That's not true. The connection can be problematic simply on the basis of the fact that white supremacists use the language to talk about non-whites. That's the relevant connection that matters here, not whether orcs map onto a particular ethnic group. It's the language of racism.

If we're then left with is the rather vague notion that the depiction of orcs is similar to general racial stereotypes, all we're really connecting is orcs and prejudicial ideas of the "projected other." Prejudicial ideas tend to be, in psychological terms, projections of an individual's or group's shadow. They are everything that "we" don't want to be, or won't admit to being. So if anything, as far as real world ethnic groups, that description you quoted sounds closest to...wait for it...white European colonialists! Who else's religious ideas have "twisted them," leading them to "move, like locusts, from place to place, despoiling whatever they can find"? No other real world group has as extensively "despoiled whatever they can find" than European colonialists.

So I think if we want to connect orcs to something in the real world, the best analogy is as a kind of representation of the destructive side of (European) colonialism. Sure, it could apply to the Mongol hordes or other conquerors, but no one has been as voracious in their pillaging as European groups.

This sounds like a bunch of tone deaf reverse racism BS, Mercurius. Please tell us more about how white European colonizers and imperialists were the real victims of racist ideology all along.

 

[Hussar]

So if anything, as far as real world ethnic groups, that description you quoted sounds closest to...wait for it...white European colonialists! Who else's religious ideas have "twisted them," leading them to "move, like locusts, from place to place, despoiling whatever they can find"? No other real world group has as extensively "despoiled whatever they can find" than European colonialists.

So I think if we want to connect orcs to something in the real world, the best analogy is as a kind of representation of the destructive side of (European) colonialism. Sure, it could apply to the Mongol hordes or other conquerors, but no one has been as voracious in their pillaging as European groups.

I'd think that as a stereotype, you could probably apply it to any colonialist, or imperialist group that has waged expansionist wars on their neighbors. Doesn't have to be limited to European colonialists. OTOH, I'm drawing a blank on any real world group that has been described as locusts. Even colonialist forces generally aren't interested in simply burning everything to the ground. But, again, if you can find some real world examples of European colonialists being described as locusts, bestial, and driven by an evil deity, I'm all ears.

 

[Mercurius]

These have been posted before, I believe by @Doug McCrae on numerous occasions. I would have assumed that if we were actually bothering to have a good faith discussion that you would have already read them. But I suppose it's easier not to be persuaded when you ignore the citations.

Likely not intentionally. However, D&D drew heavily from well-recognized genres burdened chock-full with colonialist overtones and undertones: e.g., Westerns, pulp adventures, or even Tolkien's whole Western Civilization at war with the Wicked East.

Maybe because your expectation to see other perspectives as valid is demanded but not reciprocated in earnest?

And how exactly this rational is a problem has been discussed before.

That's not true. The connection can be problematic simply on the basis of the fact that white supremacists use the language to talk about non-whites. That's the relevant connection that matters here, not whether orcs map onto a particular ethnic group. It's the language of racism.

This sounds like a bunch of tone deaf reverse racism BS, Mercurius. Please tell us more about how white European colonizers and imperialists were the real victims of racist ideology all along.

Man, your entire entire response is simply too fraught for me to want to get into a tit for tat and expect constructive discourse. I will only respond to the last bit, because I think it is a very important point. That is not what I'm saying. At all. I am pointing out that the description of orcs that Hussar quoted works better as an analogy for European colonialists than for any other ethnic group. That is not me calling them victims, both because European colonialists were definitely not victims, and because the description of orcs is not "racist ideology" but a depiction of a fantasy race.

It is closer to the opposite: that European colonialists have justified their conquest through religion ("twisted by their god"), have spread throughout the world ("like locusts"), conquering wherever they go ("pillaging...from place to place") leaving entire cultures destroyed ("despoiling whatever they can find").

 

[Mercurius]

I'd think that as a stereotype, you could probably apply it to any colonialist, or imperialist group that has waged expansionist wars on their neighbors. Doesn't have to be limited to European colonialists. OTOH, I'm drawing a blank on any real world group that has been described as locusts. Even colonialist forces generally aren't interested in simply burning everything to the ground. But, again, if you can find some real world examples of European colonialists being described as locusts, bestial, and driven by an evil deity, I'm all ears.

I'm saying that their actual behavior and history better fits the description than than any other group.

And yes, the description could be applied to any colonialist group, but perhaps especially the European colonialists of the 15th to 18th centuries. In other words, if we want to connect that description to a real world group, the best analogue is European colonialists, who used religion to justify their conquest, pillaged and destroyed entire cultures.

 

[Aldarc]

It is closer to the opposite: that European colonialists have justified their conquest through religion ("twisted by their god"), have spread throughout the world ("like locusts"), conquering wherever they go ("pillaging...from place to place") leaving entire cultures destroyed ("despoiling whatever they can find").

Or how Europe has historically talked about non-European powers perceived to be encroaching on their borders: e.g., Huns, Arabs, Turks, etc. And again, considering how we have links between Tolkien's orcs and some of these cultures, maybe European colonists is not the most obvious connection one can make. But again, much as @Hussar, has said: if you would like to make a compelling counterargument, then citations would be welcomed. However, I can assure you will be facing an uphill battle, as most academic citations that you will find regarding fantasy, racism, D&D, and orcs are not arguing what you are. In fact, I'm at a bit of a loss with any academic article that argues that orcs represent European colonials. Cite away. Make a coherent argument supported by evidence. Show us what you got please. (FYI, you will also find that academics won't find the whole "not really human" argument to be a compelling one.)

 

[Mercurius]

Or how Europe has historically talked about non-European powers perceived to be encroaching on their borders: e.g., Huns, Arabs, Turks, etc. And again, considering how we have links between Tolkien's orcs and some of these cultures, maybe European colonists is not the most obvious connection one can make. But again, much as @Hussar, has said: if you would like to make a compelling counterargument, then citations would be welcomed. However, I can assure you will be facing an uphill battle, as most academic citations that you will find regarding fantasy, racism, D&D, and orcs are not arguing what you are. In fact, I'm at a bit of a loss with any academic article that argues that orcs represent European colonials. Cite away. Make a coherent argument supported by evidence. Show us what you got please. (FYI, you will also find that academics won't find the whole "not really human" argument to be a compelling one.)

I honestly don't care about credentials, academic or otherwise. Our discussions and viewpoints should be judged on their own merits. In other words, form your own opinion, not just parrot this or that person whose vocabulary and academic credentials you are impressed with. I've made as coherent as argument as I can. Whether or not you understand or agree with it doesn't necessarily correlate with its coherency (or lack thereof).