D&D General "Red Orc" American Indians and "Yellow Orc" Mongolians in D&D

[Cadence]

WOTC is banning selected language from the books, which is a partial ban. By expunging parts of the book, they can censor ideas and change the original meaning of the book. Plus, it's a stealth ban--you gradually chip pieces of the material away, so it's less noticeable, and then you chip another piece, and another piece, until you've effectively banned the book. By not banning the entire book, it can be make to look like it's not a banning at first glance, which also allows the censors to deny that they're banning by using a Motte and Bailey strategy.

For example, WOTC is banning all references to orcs being evil, and yuan-ti being cannibals but ignoring stereotyping for all the other humanoids (as if their descriptions are any different). In a few months, you edit hobgoblins. Then you justify each follow up by saying "well nobody minded orcs and hobgoblins, so why not goblins". "Nobody minded censoring cannibalism with the yuan-ti, so you shouldn't have any problem with censoring cannibalism with Gnolls." Wash, rinse, repeat.

What I find the most disturbing, is that there seems to be no realization that if you endorse censorship, then you open yourself to future censorship by people who disagree with you. Better to not censor at all, than to erode an inalienable right that applies to all.

So, you're arguing that IP owners shouldn't be able to exercise control of IP they own?

 

[Neonchameleon]

What I find the most disturbing, is that there seems to be no realization that if you endorse censorship, then you open yourself to future censorship by people who disagree with you. Better to not censor at all, than to erode an inalienable right that applies to all.

What I find the most disturbing is that there seems to be no realization that if WotC's writers are not allowed to put out the fiction and the books they want to put out using their IP then that is itself censorship. And the attempt to say that orcs as described by WotC's writers in 2021 must be the same as orcs as described by WotC's in 2005 and also the same as orcs as described by TSR's in 1989 is the biggest element of censorship I am seeing here.

I expect future generations to occasionally re-edit me if they choose to reprint my works. I also expect them not to create a team of ninjas that stealthily go from house to house stealing books. And if there are discrepancies in the edits those themselves are interesting.

And no, WotC are not banning all references to orcs being evil.

 

[Mordhau]

I'm thinking that nothing would ensure the spread of GAZ 10 online like making it unavailable for regular purchase. Wouldn't it make it become a thing among a "certain segment of gamers". It would certainly pop up as a .pdf file in lots of places. And WotC seems to have little to no ability to make sure bootleg .pdfs aren't widely available.

On the other hand I can certainly see WotC not wanting it to be up for sale with their name on it.

Does much of the book banning argument go away if they have a program making out of print works available to scholarly research or the like?

Why though should only recognised scholars be able to learn the history of the hobby?

 

[Zardnaar]

IMHO it's a marketing stunt to generate goodwill toward his new books. I have trouble taken this serious from the guy that always hated the extended drow pantheon and is one of the reason that Eilistraee and her good drow, that existed for decades already, have been downplayed and ignored.

Can't make Drizzt less special by actually mentioning the many good drow. Well, except when it's the brand new good drow that he just invented ....

Would rather they do a war of the Spider Queen pt 2. He wouldn't have the required skill to write that as it's been 20 odd years since the last great Drizzt book.

Wonder what Elaine Cunningham us up to. Her Drow books were also better.

 

[Mordhau]

So, you're arguing that IP owners shouldn't be able to exercise control of IP they own?

I would say there's a big difference between putting out a new edition of something to correct errors, or include updated information etc, and going back and editing material from 30 years ago.

I personally feel it's unethical to muddy the waters of history.

There's gradiation here. If they wanted to make an entirely new book that included material from old books but is clearly something new that's one thing. Erasing history from view by quietly changing it, or by stating that things have been changed, but not making the original material clearly accessible is another.

 

[Maxperson]

Sigh. No, they're not. They're not banning references to orcs being evil. But since I've already explained this to you, I'm just going ask this: why is it so important for you that all orcs are evil, and why do you consider it to be "censorship" when WotC chooses to write orcs as not always evil?

WotC is moving "forward" to the way orcs have been since at least 1e.

 

[CleverNickName]

I would say there's a big difference between putting out a new edition of something to correct errors, or include updated information etc, and going back and editing material from 30 years ago.

I personally feel it's unethical to muddy the waters of history.

There's gradiation here. If they wanted to make an entirely new book that included material from old books but is clearly something new that's one thing. Erasing history from view by quietly changing it, or by stating that things have been changed, but not making the original material clearly accessible is another.

I don't know if it was your intent, but you have written a solid defense of the Legacy Content disclaimer here.

 

[Cadence]

I would say there's a big difference between putting out a new edition of something to correct errors, or include updated information etc, and going back and editing material from 30 years ago.

I personally feel it's unethical to muddy the waters of history.

There's gradiation here. If they wanted to make an entirely new book that included material from old books but is clearly something new that's one thing. Erasing history from view by quietly changing it, or by stating that things have been changed, but not making the original material clearly accessible is another.

Should IP owners be forced to keep every edition of everything continually available?

 

[Mordhau]

Should IP owners be forced to keep every edition of everything continually available?

When it's costing them nothing to do so? I think at the very least it's a good thing to do so.

As I said earlier, this is not analogous to keeping a book in print. There's no production involved and no cost.

I tend to think that if they are going to claim exclusive rights to digital distribution then they do need to keep it available.

Edit: There's a lot of context here that matters. It would hard to call the BBCs destruction of old Doctor Who episodes at a time when it would never really have occurred to them that anyone would want to watch them again particularly unethical. TV was regarded as ephemera that was mostly broadcast once. If they were to do it now, in the 20th century, when the history of Doctor Who over time is considered of cultural value and importance, that would be very different.

Now destroying something is not exactly the same as not making it available, but for practical purposes it's not that different either. And making something available only to academics working on PHDs on request smacks of both elitisism and a basic distrust of the public being able to handle basic material.

Revising an academic text for specialists and releasing a new edition because of new information is one thing. Revising say "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" to update it to current thinking and scholarship would be a travesty. It's dated and its historial value is the reason to read it.

 

[Vaalingrade]

So Disney should be required to make the cut of The Rescuers with the naked lady spliced in on Disney+?