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)

 

[Doug McCrae]

Cthulhu mythos? Conan the Barbarian?

There's nothing necessarily wrong with the Cthulhu Mythos and Conan. The writing of HP Lovecraft and RE Howard otoh isn't merely problematic, it's racist.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I wonder if it's possible to future-proof any fantasy milieu.

All that need concern us is the time in which we currently live. Trying to figure out what those in the future might think of us would be impossible and bizarre.

I hope they consider us to be deeply wrong about many things. That means progress will have been made.

 

[FrogReaver]

As noted - there are people who review language use professionally. You seem to be seeking definitive answers on very particular bits from folks who aren't experts, which isn't a great way to get the job done.

I’ll get back to you after I consult an expert about whether we need experts to tell us what is offensive.

 

[Morrus]

I’ll get back to you after I consult an expert about whether we need experts to tell us what is offensive.

Do you actually object to the idea of using a cultural consultant to improve a book and make it more authentic and avoid any foot-in-mouth insulting content?

 

[arjomanes]

All that need concern us is the time in which we currently live. Trying to figure out what those in the future might think of us would be impossible and bizarre.

I hope they consider us to be deeply wrong about many things. That means progress will have been made.

But the disclaimer said "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."

If it was wrong then, it should have been a concern at the time. If that's the case, James Wyatt was wrong when he wrote Oriental Adventures and ENWorld was wrong when they gave the book an ENNIE.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Crimson or Scarlet Red - Indians
Canary Yellow - Asians

Making a Crimson orc you can get associations of Chief Wahoo.

Goblins have existing criticism for their yellow skin as coding for Asians and Yellow Peril. Making it cartoonishly more so does not make the problem go away.

Violet and dark blue drow are still pretty much black-skinned drow, particularly when those are the colors used in comics to show black. Everquest dark elves are still visually the drow and share their associations visually.

Did a search for “crimson” and native Americans. Got tapestries, headdresses, jewelry and other inanimate objects, no slurs.

Ditto “scarlet”.

Did a similar search for “canary yellow” associated with Asians. Got tapestry, clothing and jewelry. No slurs.

In conjunction with that, the yellow skinned goblins were NOT described as having a skin tone like Big Bird, so that’s another fruitless reach.

The purple-skinned Omecs of the TV show Defiance were the source of ZERO legitimate complaints*, despite being “cannibalistic” space Drow that everyone feared.


* some opined that they might draw complaints from minorities because they were “blackface” villains, but none materialized.

 

[Mercurius]

Do you actually object to the idea of using a cultural consultant to improve a book and make it more authentic and avoid any foot-in-mouth insulting content?

If I'm writing a fantasy novel set in a fantasy world, yes. If I'm writing a historical novel, no. OA is somewhere in-between. It is fantasy drawn from real-world inspiration. But so is Faerun and other Europe-based fantasy settings.

I think the "authentic" part is key. Authentic to what? What do fantasy ideas need to be authentic to other than the setting itself? If I create a setting that draws from Japanese culture--but is not meant to be historically accurate--does it need to be authentic?

 

[Morrus]

If I'm writing a fantasy novel set in a fantasy world, yes.

You literally object to someone running it past a person more familiar with that culture?

 

[FrogReaver]

Do you actually object to the idea of using a cultural consultant to improve a book and make it more authentic and avoid any foot-in-mouth insulting content?

Yes and no. It’s a wise practice in these times and so judged on practicality I have no objection. But that it’s premised on the notion that only a cultural expert can determine if something is offensive I do actually object.

 

[billd91]

I disagree. 99% of D&D in inoffensive. At least, no one has ever complained about it. I've yet to see anyone complain about dragons or beholders or most of the game. So, trying not to offend is actually successful nearly all of the time.

Is it?!? To your perspective, maybe. But the fact that people have protested it for decades means that there are perspectives for which that is not true. You and I may think they're batshit crazy - but the point is there are lots of different perspectives flying around here. Whose is right? Whose is the best to follow? And why?