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)

 

[Morrus]

But that it’s premised on the notion that only a cultural expert can determine if something is offensive I do actually object.

Nobody has ever said that.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

give it 20-30 years. That’s the typical turnaround time on stuff like this.

 

[FrogReaver]

Nobody has ever said that.

Then why did you tell me to ask an expert about what offends Scottish?

 

[Morrus]

Then why did you tell me to ask an expert about what offends Scottish?

I didn't. You asked me what Scottish people found offensive, and I suggested asking a Scottish person as I didn't know.

 

[prabe]

Then why did you tell me to ask an expert about what offends Scottish?

Because he is expecting the person he's referring you to, to have broader knowledge on the topic.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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?

It doesn’t need to be authentic, no. And we can’t change the past, merely illustrate its current context.*

But it would be nice if the writer of such an piece of fiction today didn’t rely on stereotypes. If it did, it’s probably dreck on more than one level. If I were reading a piece of fiction and a character like Mickey Rooney’s from Breakfast at Tiffany’s was used, the author wouldn’t have many pages to convince me he or she wasn’t being racist.



* assuming we’re not talking about actual reprints, which CAN be edited.**

** and classic literature is a different beast from an RPG book.

 

[GrahamWills]

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.

Well ... no. Sometimes you re wrong, but there is no good way to know it.
For example, in 1850 you might have asserted that atoms were indivisible and the smallest possible piece of matter. You would have been wrong, but have really no way to know it.

Bad depiction of racial stereotypes have always been wrong, but in the past, it is understandable why they were accepted. When we realize that things that we thought were not important actually are important, then we take steps to fix the situation. But we don't want to condemn people for their past errors when it would have been hard for them to realize they were in error.

I have laughed at TV shows that I now consider pretty racist. The shows were wrong and I was wrong to laugh at them, but because of the culture I was in, it would have been hard for me to realize that they and I were wrong. If asked I will add a disclaimer to my opinions on those shows that yes, I enjoyed them, but now realize they are wrong, and so if you want to watch them, you need to be aware that they are the product of a culture where those prejudices were pervasive.

So, to your statement, although it was wrong, it would not need to have been a concern at the time.

 

[FrogReaver]

I didn't. You asked me what Scottish people found offensive, and I suggested asking a Scottish person as I didn't know.

just so I’m clear, you aren’t saying you can’t know what offends a Scottish person, you are only saying that you don’t currently know?

 

[Morrus]

just so I’m clear, you aren’t saying you can’t know what offends a Scottish person, you are only saying that you don’t currently know?

I have no idea what that means.

 

[Mercurius]

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.

Thanks for putting the work in, Doug. I think this illustrates a couple things:

1. It really depends upon the quote. Obviously the quotes have similarities, but they are depicted in a variety of ways, with different phrases and emphases.
2. We can, to use Snarf Zagyg's language, link up "signifier" and "signified." That is a hermeneutic process and can be done in a variety of ways. For instance, I could take that text and link it to European colonisers by shifting the interpretation.
3. I come back to one of this psychologist's points: "Essentially this question boils down to something of a Rorschach card: If you want to see racism in Tolkien’s [or D&D's] orcs, you will; if you don’t, you won’t." Again, interpretation.

As @FrogReaver has pointed out, if we view orcs as a nonhuman fantasy construct, the whole argument collapses. In order for this argument to be made, fantasy has to be viewed as--at the least--intentional allegory. I tend to resonate with Ursula K Le Guin's view on fantasy, that it is more symbolic than allegorical. A symbol has a multi-faceted meaning that can be unpacked in a variety of (often individualistic) ways, whereas an allegory has a clear A = B formulaic nature.

Meaning, if we don't view fantasy as allegory, then the "meaning" becomes symbolic, and thus relative to the individual. Allegory does imply that one interpretation is the correct one, but fantasy is not allegory. Or rather, I would suggest three levels of possible meaning-making:

1. Fantasy as its own reality, with the meaning being within the microcosm itself.
2. Fantasy as symbolic, with multiple possible meanings, depending upon the individual.
3. Fantasy as allegory, with a singular meaning in the guise of the fantasy "clothing."

Hopefully this clarifies why I see the "orcs as racist" interpretation to be of a, at best, narrow bandwith of meaning-making. It either requires a specific allegorical meaning, or a limited symbolic meaning, ignoring other symbolic interpretations.