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

[Justice and Rule]

You mean the legal blog site. Not his "column," but the running website with numerous academics? That ... column? Okay. You know that this isn't a column, or even a post from that website, but an actual law review article (that he made available minus the citations).

And, by the way, that's EV (Eugene Volokh) given that he is one of two people with that surname (Sasha, aka Alexander).

I mean, the blog migrated to the Washington Post and Reason. That's where I'm familiar with it.

No, that's not what it's about. Look again at page 5- it has enumerated mechanisms that the remainder of the article discusses. Here, let's try one!

It can change people attitudes about the propriety of further action. That one is easy, right? So, let us assume that a group, we will call them the Morin Majority, pushes hard for private businesses to remove things that they don't like because they think that it causes harm and offends them. Should they succeed, others will do so as well! Because it has become proper to do so. Unless people start to make stands on principle (I don't want groups pressured to remove things) then this will become the norm- again, this is different tha n just voting with your wallet, or trying to educate people.

But wait, there's other applications!

The change on its own may be small enough, but in concert with other changes may create momentum for larger changes. For example, few people would decry the loss of GAZ10 on its own. Or OA on its own. Or any number of other legacy books, on their own. But each change makes it more likely that further changes can be made.

And, again, this was about you being dismissive regarding slippery slopes. Remember?

You hate bards, but your loquaciousness indicates that is definitely a form of self-loathing.

But more to the point, I didn't say that the slippery slope is to be completely dismissed, but rather that it shouldn't be taken out of hand. In this case, I'm not sure it applies given the difference in scale and divisiveness. I simply disagree that this is one small push down the hill into simply removing the content. I think an educational gesture like OP suggested is far more effective at stifling momentum for that than simply doing nothing out of fear of the slippery slope.

Again, if life was as simple as an XKCD comic, that would be great. There are people who understand state action who still necessarily opposed to pressuring private actors to remove their product- because principles of free speech matter.

It's basic rule utilitarianism as far as I am concerned- I value the rule, even when the application might seem suspect. We see this in many situations. For example, to use a legal analogy again, we often note two truths- the first is that all people can be represented in court proceedings by counsel. The second is that attorneys get to choose their clients. From these two things, we get the following-
A. When "the other side" is pressuring attorneys to drop out, people say that it's unfair, and that everyone has the right to have counsel.
B. When "our side" is pressuring attorneys to drop out, people say that attorneys get to choose their clients, and people are just choosing to make the attorneys have consequences for their choices.

It's the same here. When the other side has power, and is trying to restrict private entities from providing something, we will complain about the principles involved (as I had to do throughout the 80s and 90s and 00s). But when our side is doing it, when we have the power ... what?

Sorry- the hard slog of education, and teaching, and allowing sunlight to be the best disinfectant might seem old-fashioned, or too hard, or maybe just not even relevant given the last few years- but it's the principles that have gotten us to where we are today. Where we can celebrate diversity. Where we can recognize inclusion. Where people can game together openly regardless of their gender expression, or race, or creed, or any number of factors.

That's me. YMMV. For the rest- search my prior posts. This is a too-long thread.

Yeah, but I feel like the worry of sliding into complete banning prevents proper education in a number of ways, not the least of which putting up a disclaimer or writing articles as to why these things are problematic. To create education, you're better off giving people direction at the sources of these things so that they understand what they are.

I would not want to link either that article (for obvious reasons) or even his excellent and widely-cited article regarding Title VII and Free Speech. Neither are really on point.

That said, I would avoid anything from the last three years from him; given the Kozinski stuff and (more importantly) some of the 230 stuff. But that's way off topic.

I dunno, I think they are maybe more appropriate to the "not banning" argument? Not to get too deep into it for obvious reason, but they are arguing for the ability to use these things to carry the full impact and meaning of the words in an educational and legal setting. To me, that rings pertinent to keeping such things around, but putting educational structures around them. Obviously these are far lesser stakes, but I suppose this struck me better as an actual argument to keep them, rather than a fear that they'll be removed.

 

[Mercurius]

Why did you say it was mixed if you didn't say there was anything wrong with it? That's my point: something isn't "mixed" if you don't have something bad to go with the good. You have to have the judgements in there for it to be mixed, otherwise it'd just be good or bad or indifferent.

Again, please be specific. What did I say was mixed? I've lost track of what you're asking me to be more specific about.

Finally, something of substance.

I don't get the whole "pick up sticks" thing: again, you can treat these things individually. This is not a legal process wherein you need to decide the fate of individuals, but rather looking at content that you own. This means you don't have to have a process that will have to be used dispassionately by others in a way that will affect people beyond your reach; you can just individually judge them on their merits and decide a response as appropriate.

That is reasonable on face value. But I honestly question the usefulness of combing through history and looking for things to assign the "problematic" label to, and even re-litigate it. I see nothing wrong with recognizing and discussion problematic elements, and agreeing--as individuals--to proceed forward, hopefully with more awareness.

As I've said, I'm not opposed to some kind of disclaimer, but within reason. And, of course, it really depends upon what the disclaimer says and how its applied.

Now you talk about public shaming, but I think a strong public apologies does way more than simply "We'll do better" because it shows actual action on the topic. Too often you get non-apologies from people, and one of the biggest problems we have in this whole thing is people not actually understanding the problematic nature of the product. I feel like being comprehensive is a way better show of good faith than a quiet assurance.

I'm not sure how an apology is "action." I think doing better is more important. And that's kind of why I'm saying I wouldn't push it, because a forced apology isn't a real apology, which is why I don't like the OP's suggestion. Not to mention that sometimes, apologies are used as a way to get out of actually doing things differently.

I would also add, understanding the problematic nature of a product and agreeing on how problematic it is or what should be done about it, are separate things. I'm not saying that you are saying otherwise, but so often this kind of emphasis on "understanding" implies that if you don't show signs that satisfy me that you understand, then you don't understand. That's kind of my point.

Because the specifics of the others side generally work like that, as you yourself pointed out. There are more dispassionate arguments, but they are not the ones that typically dominate this discourse.

I'm not seeing a lot of that in this thread, to be honest. What are you specifically talking about? Twitter? Other forums? Real life?

EDIT: I accidentally deleted part of one response, so added something back in.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Again, please be specific. Why did I saw what as mixed? I've lost track of what you're asking me to be more specific about.

You had said you were "mixed" on a disclaimer. I was wondering what you meant by that, because being "mixed" would mean you say good things and bad things and I was wondering what the bad things were. As it stands, we've kind of gotten to that, so we can actually have a discussion.

That is reasonable on face value. But I honestly question the usefulness of combing through history and looking for things to assign the "problematic" label to, and even re-litigate it. I see nothing wrong with

I'm going to guess you see nothing wrong with putting nothing and moving on? I'll edit this if you end up editing it.

And I see the usefulness, because I think it's actually very helpful in a product so very attached to its past. Like, you talk about driving while only seeing 5 feet ahead of you, but doing this sort of reexamination to me is useful to help direct where you want to go and what you want to use in the future. D&D is very much a product in love with its past, and I think not only does the modern company need to take a look at it, but it needs to show its audience that it has as well. And it can help future-proof your eventual nostalgia bait so that you don't have to explain why you put in the bad Universal monster movie Romani stereotypes into your modern game.

I'm not sure how an apology is "action." I think doing better is more important. And that's kind of why I'm saying I wouldn't push it, because a forced apology isn't a real apology, which is why I don't like the OP's suggestion. Not to mention that sometimes, apologies are used as a way to get out of actually doing things differently.

I think apologies are important for accepting that something happened, that it's there and they recognize it. I think it also helps bring closure to the people who were hurt.

Now apologies can be a way of getting out of things, but at the same time that's just as true for someone who doesn't apologize. In fact, I'd say more so. Apologies are shown through action, which is why I think the other parts of the OP's suggestion are needed.

I would also add, understanding the problematic nature of a product and agreeing on how problematic it is or what should be done about it, are separate things. I'm not saying that you are saying otherwise, but so often this kind of emphasis on "understanding" implies that if you don't show signs that satisfy me that you understand, then you don't understand. That's kind of my point.

I mean, this is why I like talking in specifics? I feel like we can agree that Orcs of Thar is problematic? If you want to talk about something else, then obviously the understanding can/will be different. But again, this is why specifics help: when I say it's okay to like problematic stuff as long as you recognize it's problematic, it's worth noting that both sides have recognized it as problematic.

I'm not seeing a lot of that in this thread, to be honest. What are you specifically talking about? Twitter? Other forums? Real life?

I mean, I think Snarf was a good example of dispassionate advocate against action on this topic?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

But more to the point, I didn't say that the slippery slope is to be completely dismissed, but rather that it shouldn't be taken out of hand. In this case, I'm not sure it applies given the difference in scale and divisiveness. I simply disagree that this is one small push down the hill into simply removing the content. I think an educational gesture like OP suggested is far more effective at stifling momentum for that than simply doing nothing out of fear of the slippery slope.

1. Most legacy products have serious issues. Whether it's the obvious errors of commission (in GAZ10), or the inevitable errors of omission (the absence of representation), they will have the problematic issues because they are products of their time. Trying to determine how much "better" or "worse" a particular product is becomes a fool's errand in many ways, simply because most of the products either reflect or do not reflect particular issues that went mostly unobserved at the time; and, as I noted before in this thread, these issues are particularly apparent with humor.

2. Nearly costless does not mean costless. While I don't know what WoTC's deal is with DTRPG, I assume they negotiated something less than the standard 30% sole source. Probably a good deal less. Still, they have operating costs associated with their legacy products, and have to give up a cut of the proceeds. Let's say it's 80% pure profit. That means that, assuming it never goes on sale, every single copy of GAZ10 sold would provide $8 of pure profit. Pretty good so far, huh?

3. Okay then, but how many copies do you think they sell of GAZ10? Honestly? I think 10 copies a month is generous, but I'd be happy to be corrected. So let's say it's 50 copies (that's 600 copies a year, which I would be SHOCKED BY). That would make it quite the outlier! And it would provide ... $400 of pure profit per month, and $4800 per year. Which, again ... really generous (IMO).

4. Here's the thing, though. The OP was specifically asking for this to apply to all legacy products. All of them. The OP is well within their rights to ask for that! But that's where I will disagree. I think the OP's analysis of GAZ10 was correct, but I also think that these are historical (legacy) products, and as such a disclaimer is sufficient. Otherwise, this quickly ends up being not cost effective, given that there are so many legacy products, and so many issues. I have a rational (and well-founded) belief that most corporations don't want to deal with products that cause a lot of controversy, and little profit (or even a loss).

5. Then there's the issue of the charitable selection. The OP concentrated on the slurs toward American Indians and suggested (IIRC) a Lakota charity. Great! But they weren't the only ones that were insulted, were they? There are insults towards Asians, towards women, towards black Americans... there's a lot that didn't age well. So this, too, becomes yet another issue of covering the corporate behind- when everyone gets insulted, you just end up with a charitable donation to some pabulum charity, like the United Way (ugh). And again, we have to direct this toward the appropriate charities for all groups.

6. Now, here's the rub. Maybe you think that this specific product is so offensive it has to be dealt with- obviously, the peanuts generated by it don't really matter, and it's almost tokenism at that point, right? But there's so many products, from the ones that people keep calling attention to (GAZ10, Oriental Adventures and its progeny, Ravenloft, etc. etc. etc) to all the issues in all the books (like the casual misogyny that I mentioned above). Any review would find these issues. Recurring, Over and over again.

So in the end, what do you think a rational company would do? Enter into an endless cycle of publicly apologizing and making amends and paying money to charities (and getting into controversy if they don't select the right charities) for products that don't even make them much money, or just pulling the whole thing?

WOTC isn't a charity, or an educational institution. It is a subsidiary of Hasbro, which is a corporation- and corporations exists to make money- not to spend it on educating us about the ills of the past. If we keep the outrage meter dialed up on legacy products that aren't really part of their profit plan, we will go back to the situation we had not too long ago when they aren't available. I'd rather not see that happen. That is separate and apart from continuing to press them on making their current products more inclusive, which we should continue to do.

(And as an aside, the sad and unfortunate truth is that while the overall market for 5e and D&D is much younger and more inclusive ... which is great .... it is also likely the case that continued rancor over these issues will cause an impact in the sales to the specific sub-market that is most interested in legacy products. Which sucks, because #notallgrognards, but it's also somewhat true.)

The past is foreign country- they do things differently there.

Yeah, but I feel like the worry of sliding into complete banning prevents proper education in a number of ways, not the least of which putting up a disclaimer or writing articles as to why these things are problematic. To create education, you're better off giving people direction at the sources of these things so that they understand what they are.

Look- if this is all that mattered, life would be pretty simple, right? All we have to do is ... tell people not to be baddies! Problem is all solved.

Let me ask you a question- did you ever have to take a required traffic education course because of a ticket or something? How did that make you feel? Did you take it seriously?

The people that understand the issues will seek the information out. The people that don't care will ignore it anyway. This does no good at all (IMO). You want to make things better? Make them better today. Don't call on Hasbro to make an educational program. You donate some money to the Lakota school (or other worthy charity). The best way to make things better is to do things to make it better- not to agitate for others to do it for you.

The OP was unfortunately thread banned, but I am sure they would acknowledge the many problems that American Indians face today and would support efforts to do things RIGHT NOW that make a difference. How about instead of worrying too much about the racism in book from more than three decades ago that almost no one remembers, people instead do something about a baseball team that just won the world series that uses a tomahawk chop and racist chant? Just saying... we can solve many problems, but maybe some are a little more on-point to today?

I dunno, I think they are maybe more appropriate to the "not banning" argument? Not to get too deep into it for obvious reason, but they are arguing for the ability to use these things to carry the full impact and meaning of the words in an educational and legal setting. To me, that rings pertinent to keeping such things around, but putting educational structures around them. Obviously these are far lesser stakes, but I suppose this struck me better as an actual argument to keep them, rather than a fear that they'll be removed.

Arguing for measures in a low-margin industry that will greatly increase the cost of the product will have the same effect as a ban, given that the for-profit company will simply make it unavailable. After all, it's cheaper to simply not provide it than to go through this.

 

[Mercurius]

You had said you were "mixed" on a disclaimer. I was wondering what you meant by that, because being "mixed" would mean you say good things and bad things and I was wondering what the bad things were. As it stands, we've kind of gotten to that, so we can actually have a discussion.

Oh, right. There are so many things flying around, and it is hard to tell what is what, and when we're actually talking about, I don't know, Orcs of Thar?

I'll explain further my views on "disclaimer-hesitancy" below...

I'm going to guess you see nothing wrong with putting nothing and moving on? I'll edit this if you end up editing it.

Yeah, I edited it - accidentally deleted something before posting.

And I see the usefulness, because I think it's actually very helpful in a product so very attached to its past. Like, you talk about driving while only seeing 5 feet ahead of you, but doing this sort of reexamination to me is useful to help direct where you want to go and what you want to use in the future. D&D is very much a product in love with its past, and I think not only does the modern company need to take a look at it, but it needs to show its audience that it has as well. And it can help future-proof your eventual nostalgia bait so that you don't have to explain why you put in the bad Universal monster movie Romani stereotypes into your modern game.

OK, that's reasonable - and I certainly agree as far as having the discussion goes.

But here's my main hesitancy about over-using disclaimers, or over-explicating them with specific pointers about what is and is not problematic in a given work. While I think most people will agree that Orcs of Thar is problematic as it is so blatant, it isn't necessarily the case with lots of other products, or certain tropes in D&D that get argued over, again and again.

So my suggestion would be to keep the disclaimers--at least on product pages--as general as possible. Something like, "Some elements of this work may be considered problematic and do not represent our current view on such matters."

If you want to write articles or vlogs about specific works, more power to you. But I don't think WotC should be in the business of educating people on socio-cultural issues.

From a purely utilitarian perspective, I think that would be counter-productive and lead to numerous--and even endless--arguments. I mean, we've seen that here with discussions around orcs and drow. We know we're not going to come to a consensus one way or the other, or at least the very same view on these topics, so why enforce a singular perspective?

For instance, someone way up-thread said that Orcs of Thar put to bed the idea that orcs aren't inherently racist in their depiction or that there's no deliberate connection to specific peoples in the real world, as if it somehow represented all orcs in D&D. I don't think that's the case. This supports your view of discussing specifics, and not overly extending or generalizing from the particular to the universal. Orcs of Thar is Orcs of Thar, and that's all.

I think apologies are important for accepting that something happened, that it's there and they recognize it. I think it also helps bring closure to the people who were hurt.

Now apologies can be a way of getting out of things, but at the same time that's just as true for someone who doesn't apologize. In fact, I'd say more so. Apologies are shown through action, which is why I think the other parts of the OP's suggestion are needed.

Yes, but only when the apology comes from the person, not when it is asked for or, worse, insisted upon. If Bruce Heard wants to apologize, he should apologize. But we shouldn't demand it.

I mean, this is why I like talking in specifics? I feel like we can agree that Orcs of Thar is problematic? If you want to talk about something else, then obviously the understanding can/will be different. But again, this is why specifics help: when I say it's okay to like problematic stuff as long as you recognize it's problematic, it's worth noting that both sides have recognized it as problematic.

But how do you enforce this? Do people need to stand in a line and say, "I like Orcs of Thar, but I recognize it is problematic so because of that, I can continue to like it."

I'm being a bit silly, of course, but hopefully you get my point. I mean, I agree that a thinking person should be able to recognize the problems with Orcs of Thar, but I can't imagine how one would go about enforcing such recognition, or keeping track of whether that recognition has occurred or not. And a disclaimer doesn't guarantee any real understanding, no matter how elaborate.

I mean, I think Snarf was a good example of dispassionate advocate against action on this topic?

Snarf's a good cat.

 

[Justice and Rule]

1. Most legacy products have serious issues. Whether it's the obvious errors of commission (in GAZ10), or the inevitable errors of omission (the absence of representation), they will have the problematic issues because they are products of their time. Trying to determine how much "better" or "worse" a particular product is becomes a fool's errand in many ways, simply because most of the products either reflect or do not reflect particular issues that went mostly unobserved at the time; and, as I noted before in this thread, these issues are particularly apparent with humor.

2. Nearly costless does not mean costless. While I don't know what WoTC's deal is with DTRPG, I assume they negotiated something less than the standard 30% sole source. Probably a good deal less. Still, they have operating costs associated with their legacy products, and have to give up a cut of the proceeds. Let's say it's 80% pure profit. That means that, assuming it never goes on sale, every single copy of GAZ10 sold would provide $8 of pure profit. Pretty good so far, huh?

3. Okay then, but how many copies do you think they sell of GAZ10? Honestly? I think 10 copies a month is generous, but I'd be happy to be corrected. So let's say it's 50 copies (that's 600 copies a year, which I would be SHOCKED BY). That would make it quite the outlier! And it would provide ... $400 of pure profit per month, and $4800 per year. Which, again ... really generous (IMO).

4. Here's the thing, though. The OP was specifically asking for this to apply to all legacy products. All of them. The OP is well within their rights to ask for that! But that's where I will disagree. I think the OP's analysis of GAZ10 was correct, but I also think that these are historical (legacy) products, and as such a disclaimer is sufficient. Otherwise, this quickly ends up being not cost effective, given that there are so many legacy products, and so many issues. I have a rational (and well-founded) belief that most corporations don't want to deal with products that cause a lot of controversy, and little profit (or even a loss).

Let me ask you: should Wizards be making money off this sort of thing? I mean, this is blatantly racist stuff... do you think Wizards should be pocketing anything from this?

I ask because I think the idea of this disappearing is unfounded. This is the internet. Nothing disappears. When we talk about this being available through DM's Guild, we're talking less about preservation and more ease of access, because at some level we can find this. This is not me advocating or condoning any sort of piracy, but simply recognition that once something is on the internet, it never leaves.

So we move on to the idea that is it ethical or right that WotC should make money off something they didn't produce and is just inherently, terribly racist? Even as a joke, it's bad, right? And that's where I think maybe we differ: I actually think it's really unethical for them to make money off this. And I'm not saying that they should do this for everything, but I do love my specifics and this specific thing? I think it's necessary.

5. Then there's the issue of the charitable selection. The OP concentrated on the slurs toward American Indians and suggested (IIRC) a Lakota charity. Great! But they weren't the only ones that were insulted, were they? There are insults towards Asians, towards women, towards black Americans... there's a lot that didn't age well. So this, too, becomes yet another issue of covering the corporate behind- when everyone gets insulted, you just end up with a charitable donation to some pabulum charity, like the United Way (ugh). And again, we have to direct this toward the appropriate charities for all groups.

Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. You may not please everyone, but you can please some people and hopefully more than those you don't. Maybe not charity for all, but at least there are big offenders that it would be worthwhile to give something up for.

6. Now, here's the rub. Maybe you think that this specific product is so offensive it has to be dealt with- obviously, the peanuts generated by it don't really matter, and it's almost tokenism at that point, right? But there's so many products, from the ones that people keep calling attention to (GAZ10, Oriental Adventures and its progeny, Ravenloft, etc. etc. etc) to all the issues in all the books (like the casual misogyny that I mentioned above). Any review would find these issues. Recurring, Over and over again.

So in the end, what do you think a rational company would do? Enter into an endless cycle of publicly apologizing and making amends and paying money to charities (and getting into controversy f they don't select the right charities) for products that don't even make them much money, or just pulling the whole thing?

WOTC isn't a charity, or an educational institution. It is a subsidiary of Hasbro, which is a corporation- and corporations exists to make money- not to spend it on educating us about the ills of the past. If we keep the outrage meter dialed up on legacy products that aren't really part of their profit plan, we will go back to the situation we had not too long ago when they aren't available. I'd rather not see that happen. That is separate and apart from continuing to press them on making their current products more inclusive, which we should continue to do.

The past is foreign country- they do things differently there.

The past is a foreign country, but that doesn't mean you can't reexamine it and reflect on it. You don't need to have a giant press release every day you do this. Like, the OP wasn't demanding that every day you put up a new press release on a disclaimer talking about what they did that was so terrible. I mean, to me it seems like the disclaimers are not the most important thing. They have value, they should be there, but they are the easiest part.

What is important is how OP frames what they want to do: It's in a paper, a serious and thoughtful examination of what they found and where things were wrong. I know they say to detail individual bad portrayals, but I'm guessing they don't mean a literal long list, but rather showing the public these bad portrayals and why they are bad. Like, GAZ10 is very easy, but I know various things about Chult (even the newer stuff) has received criticism for different things: destroying the biggest civilized hub in Chult for 4E, and the mishmash remix for a generic African culture for Chult.

Now if you don't know why that last one is problematic, then that's why we need this. This isn't meant to be a gigantic flagellation of D&D and the community, but a self-examination of where we came from, and to recognize what we did wrong, both the easy stuff to see and the more difficult. And through this, to create the tools and the understanding to help people who might not know about this stuff but want to improve.

We can't go back to the past, but we can look back and understand the mistakes we made so that we don't make them in the future.

Look- if this is all that mattered, life would be pretty simple, right? All we have to do is ... tell people not to be baddies! Problem is all solved.

Let me ask you a question- did you ever have to take a required traffic education course because of a ticket or something? How did that make you feel? Did you take it seriously?

The people that understand the issues will seek the information out. The people that don't care will ignore it anyway. This does no good at all (IMO). You want to make things better? Make them better today. Don't call on Hasbro to make an educational program. You donate some money to the Lakota school (or other worthy charity). The best way to make things better is to do things to make it better- not to agitate for others to do it for you.

The OP was unfortunately thread banned, but I am sure they would acknowledge the many problems that American Indians face today and would support efforts to do things RIGHT NOW that make a difference. How about instead of worrying too much about the racism in book from more than three decades ago that almost no one remembers, people instead do something about a baseball team that just won the world series that uses a tomahawk chop and racist chant? Just saying... we can solve many problems, but maybe some are a little more on-point to today?

Look, I can't speak for OP, but I don't think they'd like their efforts and examination to be written off as worrying about something they shouldn't. They were looking at something they clearly cared about: the first link to this thread is a post about updating Mystara from two three four years ago (My God, it's been four years) started by them! This wasn't just worrying, but something out of love. Like there are always more important things to worry about, but you write lengthy examinations of different issues and ideas in D&D that I read all the time. If I told you there were bigger things to worry about than whatever topic you decided to write about... well, I don't think I have that right.

And I mean, you change what you can. They love Mystara, clearly. They want to change it because they want to be comfortable there, and for them they want WotC to come to terms with the past of the pdf they are selling. I don't have to go through life seeing all the little ways that the system talks down to me (at least, not for my race or gender, at least) and for those who do, I can understand wanting to change what aspects they can, even the little ones. Given that this seems way more of a slam dunk than trying to change the chop, why not ask for it?

I dunno. For me, I see what the OP wants as something positive and hopeful, not castigating. You can always keep doing other things at the same time, since it's not like this sort of thing has to occupy too much of one's time. Why not try, if only because maybe they could succeed?

Arguing for measures in a low-margin industry that will greatly increase the cost of the product will have the same effect as a ban, given that the for-profit company will simply make it unavailable. After all, it's cheaper to simply not provide it than to go through this.

Again, for me it's more the ethics of should they make money off this or not. For you, it may be different. But I think that's why I'm more okay with the egregious stuff being put to charity. Not everything problematic necessarily go to charity, but I'm sure there are big things that can.

 

[Umbran]

Its like that now, someone says something then everyone repeats it until it becomes the new "truth". very little thinking left in the world tbh, almost zero research, just lazy tweets.

Mod Note:
So, a really fast way out of a discussion is to take the position that the folks who disagree with you do so out of some personal fault.

Please find a discussion that brings out better in you.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Oh, right. There are so many things flying around, and it is hard to tell what is what, and when we're actually talking about, I don't know, Orcs of Thar?

Inherent problem in fisking everything is trying to hold multiple conversations with people.

I'll explain further my views on "disclaimer-hesitancy" below...

Yeah, I edited it - accidentally deleted something before posting.

OK, that's reasonable - and I certainly agree as far as having the discussion goes.

But here's my main hesitancy about over-using disclaimers, or over-explicating them with specific pointers about what is and is not problematic in a given work. While I think most people will agree that Orcs of Thar is problematic as it is so blatant, it isn't necessarily the case with lots of other products, or certain tropes in D&D that get argued over, again and again.

So my suggestion would be to keep the disclaimers--at least on product pages--as general as possible. Something like, "Some elements of this work may be considered problematic and do not represent our current view on such matters."

I think you can be more specific (in covering the problems, that is, and I'm speaking in the general "you" and not literally you). The thing doesn't need to be 8 pages, but I think you can cover a decent amount of ground in a few paragraphs.

If you want to write articles or vlogs about specific works, more power to you. But I don't think WotC should be in the business of educating people on socio-cultural issues.

From a purely utilitarian perspective, I think that would be counter-productive and lead to numerous--and even endless--arguments. I mean, we've seen that here with discussions around orcs and drow. We know we're not going to come to a consensus one way or the other, or at least the very same view on these topics, so why enforce a singular perspective?

For instance, someone way up-thread said that Orcs of Thar put to bed the idea that orcs aren't inherently racist in their depiction or that there's no deliberate connection to specific peoples in the real world, as if it somehow represented all orcs in D&D. I don't think that's the case. This supports your view of discussing specifics, and not overly extending or generalizing from the particular to the universal. Orcs of Thar is Orcs of Thar, and that's all.

I think it would be helpful to Wizards to put articles up, but make them be from people who understand this stuff. I don't think you need Jeremy Crawford putting out VLogs, but people who have experienced these feelings over the years. To me, I think you have to lead the community, and I think that's a great way to do it.

I don't think that utilitarian argument works at this point: the horse is out of the barn and across the county. Those arguments have been ongoing for a while now, and given their direction, they're better off making their stance clearer and more helpful than to stay silent and try to please both sides (and likely pleasing none). Like, clearly they want to say that all Drow aren't biologically evil now; you already created the errata for it, so you're already ripping off the bandaid, right? Same with Orcs and a bunch of other things. I think it's better for them to own the arguments rather than let the different communities project an answer, because I don't think either will like non-committal silence.

Yes, but only when the apology comes from the person, not when it is asked for or, worse, insisted upon. If Bruce Heard wants to apologize, he should apologize. But we shouldn't demand it.

I dunno if they're asking Wizards to march up to the dude's house, but rather that it'd be a great gesture if he wrote something on the topic.

But how do you enforce this? Do people need to stand in a line and say, "I like Orcs of Thar, but I recognize it is problematic so because of that, I can continue to like it."

I'm being a bit silly, of course, but hopefully you get my point. I mean, I agree that a thinking person should be able to recognize the problems with Orcs of Thar, but I can't imagine how one would go about enforcing such recognition, or keeping track of whether that recognition has occurred or not. And a disclaimer doesn't guarantee any real understanding, no matter how elaborate.

There's no way to enforce self-realization. All you can do is try to educate people and hope they take the last few steps themselves.

Snarf's a good cat.

Unless you're a bard.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Let me ask you: should Wizards be making money off this sort of thing? I mean, this is blatantly racist stuff... do you think Wizards should be pocketing anything from this?

I ask because I think the idea of this disappearing is unfounded. This is the internet. Nothing disappears. When we talk about this being available through DM's Guild, we're talking less about preservation and more ease of access, because at some level we can find this. This is not me advocating or condoning any sort of piracy, but simply recognition that once something is on the internet, it never leaves.

So we move on to the idea that is it ethical or right that WotC should make money off something they didn't produce and is just inherently, terribly racist? Even as a joke, it's bad, right? And that's where I think maybe we differ: I actually think it's really unethical for them to make money off this. And I'm not saying that they should do this for everything, but I do love my specifics and this specific thing? I think it's necessary.

1. But ... you are advocating piracy. If you cannot obtain a copy legally, then you are obtaining it ... there is a word for this, and it means "not legally."

2. Not everything is available illegally. Some people have archives, sometimes they are available, and sometimes they aren't. The best way to ensure something remains available is to allow the rights-holder to continue to make it available.

3. These are not exactly high-profit products. Again, we always think of it as "pure profit," but they still have to pay for stuff. When it comes to legacy (long-tail) products, it makes more sense to think of them as low margin.

4. Finally, this just circles back to the original question which is being ducked. Okay, GAZ10 is really really bad. And OA. And Ravenloft. And stuff with the Drop (remember Community). And don't forget the misogyny and sexism, so probably can't have the 1e DMG. The various monster books, and the Monster Manual (1e). Oh no... did you know that they statted up the actual gods of people's religions" There goes the OD&D supplement, and Deities & Demigods (Legends & Lore). And so on.

Again, I just simply disagree with you completely on this. Lots of things are products of their time- you are welcome to agitate for banning, removal, or de-profting (or some other variation of that), and I will oppose you, just as I opposed the people in the 80s, 90s, and 00s who tried to pressure private companies into removing positive depictions of gay (and later trans/queer) people.

It's a principle- and to me, this is as wrong now, as it was then.

The past is a foreign country, but that doesn't mean you can't reexamine it and reflect on it. You don't need to have a giant press release every day you do this. Like, the OP wasn't demanding that every day you put up a new press release on a disclaimer talking about what they did that was so terrible. I mean, to me it seems like the disclaimers are not the most important thing. They have value, they should be there, but they are the easiest part.

Yes, you are right. Disclaimers ARE the easiest part.

That's why they did it. That is exactly what I was saying. They can put up blanket disclaimers with ease. But it's like anything else- they do not exist to serve you. Hasbro isn't in the business of having shareholder meetings and saying, "So, out of the goodness of our heat, we are entering into a giant controversy and losing money in order to educate people, even though this is just for our old products that most of our current customers DON'T CARE ABOUT since it has nothing to do with 5e. You're welcome!"

What is important is how OP frames what they want to do: It's in a paper, a serious and thoughtful examination of what they found and where things were wrong. I know they say to detail individual bad portrayals, but I'm guessing they don't mean a literal long list, but rather showing the public these bad portrayals and why they are bad. Like, GAZ10 is very easy, but I know various things about Chult (even the newer stuff) has received criticism for different things: destroying the biggest civilized hub in Chult for 4E, and the mishmash remix for a generic African culture for Chult.

I agree that what the OP did was great. Wonderful analysis. Spot on.

Now, the OP should continue the work. Maybe, with even more examples, the OP can publish it. That's how this normally works. Companies aren't doing academic works on their old products. The only, very very rare exception is a product that is both incredibly problematic, incredibly popular, and incredibly profitable- like the 4 minute disclaimer that now is added to Gone With the Wind, which is a film studies professor explaining that while it is uncomfortable, it is important that classic Hollywood films are available to us in their original form for viewing and discussion."

This isn't that.

Now if you don't know why that last one is problematic, then that's why we need this. This isn't meant to be a gigantic flagellation of D&D and the community, but a self-examination of where we came from, and to recognize what we did wrong, both the easy stuff to see and the more difficult. And through this, to create the tools and the understanding to help people who might not know about this stuff but want to improve.

We improve with the stuff we are releasing today, as I keep saying.

We can't go back to the past, but we can look back and understand the mistakes we made so that we don't make them in the future.

Woah. Look, this is the worst point made. The mistakes we make today aren't the ones from GAZ10. Those are easy to see.

No, the ones we would need to learn from and understand are the ones that would be painful to acknowledge, and that we have been making in the last ten years.

But that's hard, and not nearly as easy to feel good about.

Again, for me it's more the ethics of should they make money off this or not. For you, it may be different. But I think that's why I'm more okay with the egregious stuff being put to charity. Not everything problematic necessarily go to charity, but I'm sure there are big things that can.

And for me, this is about seeing people who had power using it to make sure that marginalized communities didn't get the information and representation that they needed. And the way that they were fought was because you could point to principles- they didn't always work, but even when the times were darkest, those were the values you could lean on.

And I am not going to discard those values simply because I now find it convenient to silence people I don't like. Because I had that happen to me and people I cared about. And for me, it's wrong, even when you think you are doing it for the right reasons.

 

[Gradine]

I appreciate your apology, but I also used what you said as an example in my replies to other posters, but it exemplifies how "one side" isn't exempt from this sort of thing.

Hey, everyone gets carried away sometimes. I would never claim to be immune.

I don't think it is absurd to be concerned about de-platforming and censorship.

De-platforming has nothing to do with censorship. They are not even remotely the same thing, and linking one to the other is absurd.

There are values that don't deserve a platform. And if it's my platform, then I have not only the right but also, I would argue, the moral imperative, to use that platform responsibly. That means ensuring that nothing I platform does more harm than good. And if I make a mistake, I have a responsibly to correct it.

Nor does the word "expert" invalidate any other perspective. And we're not talking about hard sciences here, but social sciences. An expert in Freudian psychology may think that everything comes down to Freudian concepts, but tell that to a humanistic psychologist.

The "hard" sciences are less "hard" than most think, just as the social sciences are "harder" than most give them credit for. Again, objectivity is a myth. There is theoretical physics just as there is quantitative sociological studies.

And there are certainly fields of academia I disagree with, including within my own field (full disclosure: sociology). But I would never deign to challenge the legitimacy of an entire field of study. I might take exception to certain branches of disciplines, but I again wouldn't outright dismiss a branch of thought outside my own expertise; there are people who are better informed and better positioned to make those arguments than I.