• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

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

And they've done something about it. Warning labels and what they're doing in 5E.

Only thing they can really do is remove it from sale is that what you're advocating? Just to be clear.
Warning labels...do you mean the Legacy Disclaimer? Because it isn't a warning:

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.

It's not a warning to the consumer. It's a statement that they recognize a problem (that some older content may reflect ethnic, racial and gender prejudice), and they explain their decided course of action (to not modify the original material).
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Warning labels...do you mean the Legacy Disclaimer? Because it isn't a warning:

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.

It's not a warning to the consumer. It's a statement that they recognize a problem (that some older content may reflect ethnic, racial and gender prejudice), and they explain their decided course of action (to not modify the original material).

That's basically a warning label. It more or less says it's a product of it's time and doesn't reflect modern values.

Do you consume any other legacy products eg movies, old music etc?
 

That's basically a warning label. It more or less says it's a product of it's time and doesn't reflect modern values.

Do you consume any other legacy products eg movies, old music etc?

Again, that is not a warning label. It does not have any warning language in it at all. "This product has been known to cause cancer" or "this may cause drowsiness." Those are warning labels. They outline a clear and present danger to the consumer. Don't drink this if you're pregnant, don't use this if you operate heavy machinery, etc.

Read that Legacy Disclaimer again. You'll not find any warnings at all in there.

Sorry to be such a stickler about this, but there is a very small and very loud group of people (on these boards and elsewhere) who are trying very hard to shape the dialogue about the legacy disclaimer into something it's not. They are trying to claim it is a type of censorship, or a type of threat, or an insult to consumers, etc., presumably to fan the flames of outrage and misdirect everyone's attention from the issue at hand. So I'm afraid I am going to have to insist: this is not a warning label. It is an acknowledgment/explanation of why they didn't modify their original works.
 

Again, that is not a warning label. It does not have any warning language in it at all. "This product has been known to cause cancer" or "this may cause drowsiness." Those are warning labels. They outline a clear and present danger to the consumer. Don't drink this if you're pregnant, don't use this if you operate heavy machinery, etc.

Read that Legacy Disclaimer again. You'll not find any warnings at all in there.

Sorry to be such a stickler about this, but there is a very small and very loud group of people (on these boards and elsewhere) who are trying very hard to shape the dialogue about the legacy disclaimer into something it's not. They are trying to claim it is a type of censorship, or a type of threat, or an insult to consumers, etc., presumably to fan the flames of outrage and misdirect everyone's attention from the issue at hand. So I'm afraid I am going to have to insist: this is not a warning label. It is an acknowledgment/explanation of why they didn't modify their original works.

Potato/potato. You also missed my question about consuming other legacy media?
 


Apple/pinecone. I understand why some people on the Internet want to make the legacy disclaimer sound more aggressive, disturbing, or dangerous than it is. But it's just a disclaimer.

Doesn't really matter though in this instance perception is reality. Disclaimer/warning label the effect is much the same. Much like Disney it's old content that doesn't match modern values.

Mostly so they don't get crucified on social media.
 

Honestly, and 100% not intended as an attack or anything like that? It's okay that you don't get it. That's perfectly fine. You don't have to, to be honest. Just understand that those of us who do get it, are pretty happy with the results.

As far as "hiding" anything, that's not the point. You don't have to talk about Lovecraft to talk about the Mythos stories. You can talk about Mythos stories and tropes and themes without talking about Lovecraft at all. The author is largely unimportant, really, when discussing a body of work. We don't generally have to discuss Tolkien the person when discussing Lord of the Rings, after all. It's one point of view, but, hardly an important one. You look at the text itself and work from that, just like you do with any other body of work.

I mean, we have Sherlock Holmes without the misogyny and racism. Doyle's personal life is almost never referenced at all when we talk about Holmes stories. Heck, the recent Robert Downey Jr. versions of Holmes would have had Doyle absolutely spinning in his grave. But, we don't really care, do we?

Same way as we can have a female, Chinese protagonist (to pick a purely random example) in a remake of Shadows over Innsmouth and no one would bat an eye.

Frankly, the author is generally the least important element of any body of work.
Talk about stating opinion as fact! A body of work depends upon the author for its existence, and is initially shaped by that person's experiences (positive and negative). In what possible universe are they the "least important element of any body of work"? You can choose to ignore them in analysis and adaptation, of course, but that decision makes them not important to you, not in general.
 

I am not shocked. It is pretty par for the course. In our society we don't talk much about abuse.
I know, I guess you're right, but it's just like a constant, and it's always weirded me out that we have all these imaginative people here, and they can't imagine themselves into a situation where they weren't them, and couldn't get away with stuff?

Even just being a DM, you see power dynamics in play, you see how some people have louder voices than others (metaphorically and literally), and part of your job is to mitigate that. I've spoken about it before but one of my biggest "lessons from being a DM" moments was when I've foreman of a jury, and both times, I found I had to work, using skills primarily practiced in D&D, to ensure everyone on the jury got a fair hearing and to express their ideas without fear, and without being bullied by louder and more aggressive jury members.

And it was nothing new. So it does still somehow surprise me, despite you being right, that people, other DMs, don't get that.

racism and how it crept into his work
I mean, that seems like an understatement of a pretty extreme degree, and I'm not saying that to burn Lovecraft, who I think as a fascinating nutter, and such a powerless weirdo I judge him less for his racism than others. Lovecraft's racism, his complicated fear, even terror of the Other, absolutely shaped his work, in pretty fundamental ways. It's not like his dark force that occasionally crept in, or like a bad habit which just made some of it seem sleazy (which is how it looks with Asterix, say). It's a significant, kinda major part of his complex and highly unusual psychology. I also don't tend to think he really succeeded in promoting racist attitudes (I don't think he intended to either, in his work - it doesn't seem intended to convince), instead the incredible extremeness of his racism actually highlights the absurdity of racism (entirely accidentally), with the only people likely responding positively to the racist elements likely being pretty extreme racists themselves, everyone else being somewhere between mildly puzzled to outright vexed by them. But what I'm trying to say is I don't think his racism, particularly expressed as a broad fear of Otherness (other being anything except a narrowly-perceived White Anglo-Saxon Protestant East Coast world), "crept in" like it did with a lot of authors - I think it was an important part of why he wrote what he wrote. That doesn't make it a good thing, but it makes it a thing, and not something that can be separated from his work or seen as external to it, even though other authors managed to write plenty of Mythos stuff without it.

I think it's part of what made his work so weird that it's remained interesting to this day, and why it's been reclaimed by minority authors and others. We can certainly say he held incredible racist views whilst finding his work interesting. The fact that it's not propaganda or proselytization, and generally amoral stuff with no real "message" except "AAAAAAAAHHHHH THE UNIVERSE IS SCARY AND WE MEAN NOTHING" separates it from stuff like, say, C.S. Lewis' work, which was almost all proselytization, apologia or propaganda, all intended to "instruct" the reader and convey specific moral values. Racism in a work intended to instruct the reader (and there's plenty in Lewis) is much more pernicious and worthy of condemnation (and Lewis had bonus misogyny, sectarianism, anti-science rhetoric and so on).
 
Last edited:

I know, I guess you're right, but it's just like a constant, and it's always weirded me out that we have all these imaginative people here, and they can't imagine themselves into a situation where they weren't them, and couldn't get away with stuff?

Well, our games are largely about getting away with stuff. Our PCs generally stand up to abusers, very often kill them, and suffer no negative consequences, because the abusers were the Bad Guys. Actually putting ourselves into the shoes of the abused is possible, but I don't see it as that normal mode of RPGs.

There's the added element that unless you've specific experience or education on the subject, you don't understand the deep changes in cognition or behavior that come with chronic abuse. It isn't a clear linear extrapolation from what they do know. There's a reason we keep asking, "If he's an abuser, why doesn't she just leave?"
 

Honestly, and 100% not intended as an attack or anything like that? It's okay that you don't get it. That's perfectly fine. You don't have to, to be honest. Just understand that those of us who do get it, are pretty happy with the results.
That's just it. I don't even know what results you're talking about. But if you're happy, great.

As far as "hiding" anything, that's not the point. You don't have to talk about Lovecraft to talk about the Mythos stories. You can talk about Mythos stories and tropes and themes without talking about Lovecraft at all. The author is largely unimportant, really, when discussing a body of work.
We might not have to but we do talk about it. Just about any thread where Lovecraft's work is discussed someone brings up his personal beliefs. And it's brought up often because some of the tropes and themes of cosmic horror stem from Lovecraft's personal beliefs and experiences.

We don't generally have to discuss Tolkien the person when discussing Lord of the Rings, after all. It's one point of view, but, hardly an important one. You look at the text itself and work from that, just like you do with any other body of work.
Again, while we don't have to discuss Tolkien the person we discussing his work we very often do. People discuss his experience the Somme, his academic work, and even his religious beliefs. And from what I remember about my literature courses from high school through university, we almost always discussed the authors whose work we were reading. We do it here with all sorts of authors including Gary Gygax himself. We don't just analyze Gary's work in isolation what he said in interviews is part of the discourse.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top