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)

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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?

But not “devil-eyed”- I’m fully aware of the slant eye slur, which is why I carefully chose my description and words. That kind of vertically slitted pupil comes out of Judeo-Christian ideas about Satan, and why goats are associated with evil, not the epicanthal golds found mostly in Asians, but also some Caucasian and African peoples as well.

 

[FrogReaver]

But not “devil-eyed”- I’m fully aware of the slant eye slur, which is why I carefully chose my description and words. That kind of vertically slitted pupil comes out of Judeo-Christian ideas about Satan, and why goats are associated with evil, not the epicanthal golds found mostly in Asians, but also some Caucasian and African peoples as well.

You don’t think someone could make the comparison with your fictional slur nonetheless?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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.

Certainly, those words can be used, if not also associated with racist stereotypes. It’s called subverting the trope.

Imagine, if you will, the typical visual aesthetic of the D&D high elf. Now ADD to that them being so xenophobic that they conduct war like anthropomorphic killer bees, ignoring civilized conventions like white flags of truce. (Sort of like the Promethians (?) from the Alien franchise.) Then give them an Athasian kender style penchant for eating their fallen foes...sometimes during the battle.

I’m pretty sure “savage” would be an apt and useful descriptor.

 

[FrogReaver]

They're usually portrayed as Scottish.

K, so is the drunk and stubborn stereotype of dwarves problematic?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

You don’t think someone could make the comparison with your fictional slur nonetheless?

Could? Sure.

But it’s much less likely if I explicitly spell out the goat/devil connection in the game material (no Bible needed).

 

[FrogReaver]

Hmm, let's try a different version: It's ok to dehumanize a xenos species. Now what do we think?

not sure what a Xenos species is

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

K, so is the drunk and stubborn stereotype of dwarves problematic?

Ask a Scotsman.

But also imagine if they were depicted as Irish instead...

 

[FrogReaver]

Ask a Scotsman.

But also imagine if they were depicted as Irish instead...

I’m asking you.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Duergar, Derro, Drow (Dark Sun has cannibalistic halflings as well) are typically seen as antagonistic races - each with its own set of flaws so your example isn't exactly accurate. Plus we have the racial dislike between dwarves and elves and the high elven sense of superiority.

His example actually is perfectly accurate.

If it is perfectly acceptable to dehumanize and treat as savage beasts Orcs, because they are not humans, then it is fine to treat Gnomes, Halfings, Elves, Dwarves, ect the same way.


Sure, you can point out that Dark Sun has cannabalistic halflings, but what about Forgotten Realms? If a person in power decided to gas and destroy a halfling village, treating them like a mouse infestation that needed to be cleared, would your players accept the "Well, they aren't human." explanation as perfectly fine?

But, massacring an Orc village is fine, because they aren't human?

Somehow, I think in practice, that would never fly.

 

[Chaosmancer]

not sure what a Xenos species is

Xenos is used to refer to aliens, since the term Alien has been used in a lot of different ways.