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)

 

[Umbran]

Do you know of any language that can be used to dehumanize a nonhuman creature that hasn’t been used to dehumanize a human? I don’t, so I’m genuinely curious is such language actually exists.

This is what sensitivity readers are for. They are professionals to help you find the language that works.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Do you know of any language that can be used to dehumanize a nonhuman creature that hasn’t been used to dehumanize a human? I don’t, so I’m genuinely curious is such language actually exists.

If I described my campaign setting’s Orcs as having vertically slit Pupils- like goats or octopi as opposed to humans- and had NPCs refer to them as “devil-eyed beasts”, that could dehumanize them without actually using RW stereotypes, while simultaneously showing the in-campaign fear and bigotry that ignores positive orcish cultural aspects of throat singing, scrimshaw or what have you.

Or make them bright green, scarlet red or- as I actually did for one campaign-translucent skinned.* That way, NPCs could easily do like RW humans and come up with slurs based on skin tones without actually using slurs describing human skin tones.

This isn’t rocket surgery. A 12-year old could do this with access to a thesaurus.



* which I utterly yoinked from Fritz Lieber’s Nehwon ghouls.

 

[dalisprime]

Devil eyed beasts is most certainly a description colonial times folks would have used to describe natives to underlie how unholy they are, so that's false.
References to brown, black, yellow or red skin colour are a no go as well, which leaves green (orcs are often already portrayed as such) or blue (now what colour were the aliens in Avatar?).
Any reference to skin colour that casts it in bad light (except white) is seen as problematic. Try as you might tiptoe around it with good intentions, you're treading over the same territory.
Someone stated earlier that seeing a race as evil isn't that much of an issue so long as the language isn't offensive - the crowd contesting evil drow would beg to differ. Ironically, i don't hear many complaints over high elves having supremacist views.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Devil eyed beasts is most certainly a description colonial times folks would have used to describe natives to underlie how unholy they are

Can you give a citation for this? Genocidal racists frequently describe their victims as beasts but I don't know of an instance of 'devil eyes'.

The closest example I can find is "Imagine a person, tall, lean and feline, high-shouldered, with a brow like Shakespeare and a face like Satan, a close-shaven skull, and long, magnetic eyes of the true cat-green" - Sax Rohmer, The Mystery of Dr Fu-Manchu (1913).

Rudyard Kipling used the phrase "half devil and half child" in The White Man's Burden (1899) to describe non-white people but there's no specific reference to eyes there.

 

[FrogReaver]

If I described my campaign setting’s Orcs as having vertically slit Pupils- like goats or octopi as opposed to humans- and had NPCs refer to them as “devil-eyed beasts”, that could dehumanize them without actually using RW stereotypes, while simultaneously showing the in-campaign fear and bigotry that ignores positive orcish cultural aspects of throat singing, scrimshaw or what have you.

Or make them bright green, scarlet red or- as I actually did for one campaign-translucent skinned.* That way, NPCs could easily do like RW humans and come up with slurs based on skin tones without actually using slurs describing human skin tones.

This isn’t rocket surgery. A 12-year old could do this with access to a thesaurus.



* which I utterly yoinked from Fritz Lieber’s Nehwon ghouls.

thanks for interacting with my post. Note I say this only for historical context: The Japanese have been referred to as slant eyed devils. Countless others have been referred to as beasts. Is devil eyed beasts really acceptable?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Someone stated earlier that seeing a race as evil isn't that much of an issue so long as the language isn't offensive - the crowd contesting evil drow would beg to differ. Ironically, i don't hear many complaints over high elves having supremacist views.

High elves are obviously a problem. The sections in the PHB showing the races' views on the other races are problematic as well.
High elves don't have racist language describing them, so they're not really mentioned a ton.

 

[FrogReaver]

Can you give a citation for this? Genocidal racists frequently describe their victims as beasts but I don't know of an instance of 'devil eyes'.

The closest example I can find is "Imagine a person, tall, lean and feline, high-shouldered, with a brow like Shakespeare and a face like Satan, a close-shaven skull, and long, magnetic eyes of the true cat-green" - Sax Rohmer, The Mystery of Dr Fu-Manchu (1913).

Rudyard Kipling used the phrase "half devil and half child" in The White Man's Burden (1899) to describe non-white people but there's no specific reference to eyes there.

Are you saying racist dehumanizing language used to depict real world cultures is okay as long as you don’t use a precise phrase that has been used to dehumanize them. So d&d races Referred to as beasts is okay? Calling them savages is as well? It only becomes wrong when you use the phrase “savage beasts” to describe orcs?

These are pointed questions but I am sincere in asking them.

 

[FrogReaver]

High elves are obviously a problem. The sections in the PHB showing the races' views on the other races are problematic as well.
High elves don't have racist language describing them, so they're not really mentioned a ton.

dwarves are often depicted as stubborn drunkards. Is that problematic as well? Maybe that’s a little too much Irish or Scottish stereotype to someone?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Any reference to skin colour that casts it in bad light (except white) is seen as problematic.

That’s a slippery slope fallacy.

Not only would the aforementioned translucent skinned not correspond to any RW bigotry and thus pass muster, but so would colors on the obvious non-human spectrum- crimson or scarlet reds, canary yellows, violet, turquoise, etc.

The aliens in Avatar weren’t dinged for their skin color, but for all the colonial/noble savage/manifest destiny stuff.

And that crack about white skin? That’s not universally true at all. A lot of us minorities understood that when MLK said “An injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”, he wasn’t excluding whites- a point I often make with my own racist relatives.

 

[Morrus]

dwarves are often depicted as stubborn drunkards. Is that problematic as well? Maybe that’s a little too much Irish stereotype to someone?

They're usually portrayed as Scottish.