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)

 

[Aldarc]

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).

I'm surprised that you would want anyone judging your arguments on their own merits. Part about making a coherent argument is also about presenting supporting evidence for your claims. And so far, when people have been citing supporting evidence regarding the racist rhetoric that is part of the orc description, your response has basically amounted to "nuh uh" and asking "where is the evidence?" When I mention the arguments that you are likely to find in academic circles, the point is not about appealing to academic credentials, but, rather, that academics are (more or less) required to make citations with supporting evidence to back up their arguments. Academic discussion is one of the better places to examine the back log of citations regarding these arguments.

 

[Hussar]

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.

But, this is the point your are missing, IT WASN'T DONE. No one actually described European colonialists of the 15th to 18th centuries as locusts or being twisted by their deity.

OTOH, real people were actually described using the same sorts of descriptions that you find in orcs in D&D.

So, you're creating a connection where none actually exists. I'm pointing to a connection that ACTUALLY exists in history as a demonstrable fact.

Do you see the difference?

 

[Aldarc]

Here is another problem with the argument of orcs as European colonialists: up until relatively recently, the hyper majority of depictions of humans, elves, dwarves, and halflimgs in D&D were white, whereas orcs are invariably non-white, whether they are black, grey, green, or orange. They are non-white aggressors who act as opposition to the forces of civilized society who have been overwhelmingly depicted as white-skinned.

 

[DammitVictor]

This happened with the drow (thanks to Drizzt). This happened with goblins, orcs and kobolds. They literally humanised the races that were never intended to be represented as humanlike and now take issue with original portrayal.

Frankly, Gygax did that himself when he changed orcs from being the product of elves being twisted by the literal Prince of Darkness to a people with women and children and their own (written) language... and then stuffed them with almost every single stereotype the English (and their offshoots) used to justify murdering and enslaving anyone who had something they wanted.

If Dungeons & Dragons had been written in 1774, it would have been the orcs who got the Scottish accents.

 

[Mercurius]

But, this is the point your are missing, IT WASN'T DONE. No one actually described European colonialists of the 15th to 18th centuries as locusts or being twisted by their deity.

OTOH, real people were actually described using the same sorts of descriptions that you find in orcs in D&D.

So, you're creating a connection where none actually exists. I'm pointing to a connection that ACTUALLY exists in history as a demonstrable fact.

Do you see the difference?

Yes, I do. But, as I've said and explained why, I don't draw the same conclusions from the similarity between the orc description and racist stereotypes, because I'm coming at it from a very different hermeneutical approach. I have provided extensive reasons for my interpretation; you don't have to agree with them, but you didn't really address them or offer any indication that you understood or even read what I wrote. I refer you back to post 384, for instance.

If we read the description of orcs and ask the question, "What real world group does this best describe?" The answer is not Africans or Asians or indigenous people. A far more accurate answer is colonialists, especially European colonialists. Meaning, while the depiction has some similarity with racial stereotypes (which, by their very nature, are falsely caricaturish) of various-but-no-specific ethnic groups, it has a striking resemblance to the historical negative behavior of an actual group. Out of curiosity, I tested this with a person (my partner) who knows nothing about D&D, but a fair amount about social and cultural issues. I read the description and asked her, "which real world group of people do you think this sounds like?" She replied, "European colonialists."

Anyhow, to speak more generally for a moment, I think the main problem with the "orcs are racist" argument is that it relies entirely on a specific interpretive framework: critical theory and its "offspring." I am merely suggesting that we--at least--also look to other lenses and incorporate different perspectives in this discussion; for instance, various forms of psychology (like this piece). Critical theory has its own merits, but is also deeply problematic, mainly because it is extremely self-referential and essentially a closed system. It is the embodiment of Abraham Maslow's famous adage, "If the only tool you have in your toolbox is a hammer, then everything starts looking like a nail."

My point being, let's use other tools. One of the reasons I see these discussions getting into stalements is that proponents of this general perspective (orcs are racist, OA should be taken down, drow are racist and sexist and anti-BDSM, etc) just continually double-down on that insular framework. Any other perspective that is brought into the conversation is interpreted away and "assimilated" into the hermeneutic framework. It doesn't matter what is brought into the discussion, what angle or perspective--or where the "dissenting view" is coming from. It is just interpreted away; it doesn't fit into the closed system. So the debate goes on and on.

On a personal note, I'm finally getting to the point of exhaustion, and even feel a bit sheepish to the part I've played in continuing it. I think it may be time for me to wind down my participation, because we're just repeating the same discussions with the same people. Ya know?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

If we read the description of orcs and ask the question, "What real world group does this best describe?" The answer is not Africans or Asians or indigenous people. A far more accurate answer is colonialists, especially European colonialists. Meaning, while the depiction has some similarity with racial stereotypes (which, by their very nature, are falsely caricaturish) of various-but-no-specific ethnic groups, it has a striking resemblance to the historical negative behavior of an actual group. Out of curiosity, I tested this with a person (my partner) who knows nothing about D&D, but a fair amount about social and cultural issues. I read the description and asked her, "which real world group of people do you think this sounds like?" She replied, "European colonialists."

This may point to the change in signifieds.

The signifier may stay the same (the text of locusts, etc.) but what it means has shifted (what it signifies). That's because most people now have a much more ... nuanced ... view of European/American expansion and colonialism than they once did.

For example, Christopher Columbus was once seen as a hero; now, not so much. Andrew Jackson is usually removed from the go-to for good Presidents. References to the British Empire and the East India Trading Company are usually seen in a negative light. Romanticizing colonial images of Africa and India (to use just two examples) is ... not a great idea! Belgium has suddenly caught a case of the memories ... and so on.

I think that there's an interesting and deep point here, but it's eluding me right now.

 

[Mirtek]

Frankly, Gygax did that himself when he changed orcs from being the product of elves being twisted by the literal Prince of Darkness to a people with women and children and their own (written) language... and then stuffed them with almost every single stereotype the English (and their offshoots) used to justify murdering and enslaving anyone who had something they wanted.

If Dungeons & Dragons had been written in 1774, it would have been the orcs who got the Scottish accents.

To be fair orcs in Middle Earth are also people with children, farms, etc.

After Melkor twisted the captured into orcs, those orcs then multiplied and formed societies just like the other races

The main books don't really tell more about the orcs than neccessary for the immediate story, but the extended works actually have some stuff about the orcish society

E.g. behind the wasteland part of Mordor where the troops gather there are fertile farming grounds growing the food for All these troops

 

[Doug McCrae]

Tribes like Plagues. Orcs gather in tribes that exert their dominance and satisfy their bloodlust by plundering villages, devouring or driving off roaming herds, and slaying any humanoids that stand against them. After savaging a settlement, orcs pick it clean of wealth and items usable in their own lands. They set the remains of villages and camps ablaze, then retreat whence they came, their bloodlust satisfied.​

European colonists are not regarded as tribal. Those they colonised are. European colonists are not perceived as having “bloodlust”, that’s a claim they made about those they colonised. The colonists were not primarily interested in eating or driving off herd animals, they were most interested in occupying land and taking mineral resources. The buffalo herds destroyed in their tens of millions as United States government policy in the late 19th century were left to rot. The Europeans of course rather notably failed to "retreat whence they came". This is probably the biggest difficulty in regarding orcs as colonisers. The text specifically says they don’t colonise.

There are many other difficulties:
The European colonisers aren’t a race.
Don’t have dark skin.
Aren’t perceived as having less than human intelligence or greater than human strength.
Didn't regard physical strength as the greatest virtue.
Don’t have dominant 'genetic' traits - "the resulting child is either an orc or a half-orc". This was believed to be true of black people by early 20th century race pseudo-scientists.
Didn’t worship evil gods. They are perceived today as having misinterpreted Christianity as a justification for colonialism and racism. Native Americans otoh were accused of devil worship by Spanish missionaries.
We could perceive some of their actions as "savage" but not as an inherent racial property.
Aren't regarded as technologically inferior to those they colonised, quite the reverse.
Didn't occupy buildings constructed by others.
Did not "seldom settle permanently", quite the reverse.
Weren’t united by a "war chief". This language is used of those they colonised.
Last but not least, they absolutely did NOT believe in “[r]ejecting notions of racial purity”.

There is afaict only one aspect of orcs that supports the idea. They are patriarchal.

All quotations are from the orc entry in the 5e MM.

 

[DemoMonkey]

How would a fantasy race that WAS intended to be a stand in for European colonizers be described?

 

[Aldarc]

Possibly as the Kargads in Earthsea.