D&D General New WOTC racism allegations regarding Hadozee and Spelljammer

[cbwjm]

Sounds to me like this is just people looking for something to complain about.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

So here's the thing: when you've got yourself a brand-new monkey/ape-like race for your TTRPG game, you should probably avoid, at all costs, any unfavorable comparisons to african-descended peoples. You know, like... instances of slavery or minstrelsy.

WotC really need to get themselves a (much better, hopefully) sensitivity reader.

Yeah this is what it comes down to.

This SUPER BASIC stuff. Like absolute bottom-shelf, EZ mode, Baby's First Steps-type stuff.

You don't get any more basic than this. You got a monkey-race, that's okay, but you need to TRIPLE-CHECK if for racism. Like triple-check.

And this doesn't even look like it was checked once!

Like, I'm a 44-year-old privileged middle-class white guy, with absolutely no formal training in anti-racism (well, I mean like, one session everyone at my firm had to take), but like if I read this (I didn't get SJ yet - or probably ever but...), I'd have been "holy naughty word what now?!". It's just really not good. And it's not new either that WotC have messed this up - one of the tweets points out that Hadozee's previous D&D excursion, also with WotC, in 2005's Stormwrack was just like a big pile of racial stereotypes of "jolly [Black] people who like to sing and dance and love to do chores!" (kill me now - just shoot me in the head!).

Come on WotC, this is truly ridiculous.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Sounds to me like this is just people looking for something to complain about.

You gotta be kidding mate lol.

Sometimes maybe on the wilds of Twitter that does happen, but here? Uhhhhh no. This is ridiculous.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

No it just needs to not be approached. The game doesn't need slavery. Or rape. "But it's historically accurate." So are lots of terrible things that don't need to be in a fantasy game. D&D isn't a history text. It doesn't need this crap.

And no monkey/ape people. Just don't. How is that ever going to end well? Earth has over 2 million species of animals. This is the only problematic one. Pick a different one. It's not that complicated.

I agree. It doesn't need stuff like this. I already mentioned upthread that I think Paizo was probably right by announcing that they no longer plan on including slavery in any form in any future Pathfinder products. I was trying to say that if you're going to include slavery in a book or gaming product, you need to be sure that you approach it carefully and respectfully. And this was definitely not either of those. The game doesn't need slavery. It can be handled well, but I'm more convinced now than ever before that WotC cannot approach it carefully and respectfully, so they should probably not include it. Period.

And I agree that monkey/ape people are an extremely touchy subject, too. They need to be handled with just as much care as slavery. Which WotC proved they're incapable of in this release. I don't think it's impossible to have monkey/ape people in non-problematic forms, but for people with the track record that WotC does (with Tomb of Annihilation, Curse of Strahd, and other products), I think they shouldn't touch the subject with a 10-foot pole.

This . . . this is bad. Really bad. They took two touchy subjects (monkey/ape people and slavery) and combined them in one of the worst ways possible. This is worse than that Grippli controversy from when Candlekeep Mysteries was released. WotC needs to do something about this. Until then, I'm moving Dragonlance from a "maybe I'll buy it just for the mechanics and awesome art even though I hate the world" to "I don't trust WotC enough to handle its problematic elements with enough care to see myself buying this anytime soon".

 

[Ruin Explorer]

You would think so, but no, history suggests otherwise. WotC doesn't have a history of active belligerent racism, but they have a strong history of self-assured "but we're nice guys, not racists!" lack of introspection. Which really bites them in the butter when they try to bring forward older Edition material, particularly.

The 3E take on the Hadozee was arguably significantly more racist. It's actually at levels of "Oh dear god no" that exceed most dodgy 1E and OD&D stuff even.

But that should have acted as a massive bloody warning to them to not do it again, especially as they got away with it because it was in a relatively obscure book. Unfortunately for WotC the FR wiki knows all and sees all, kind of like Torm or AO, and it had some choice quotes pre-dug-up.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

And no monkey/ape people. Just don't. How is that ever going to end well? Earth has over 2 million species of animals. This is the only problematic one. Pick a different one. It's not that complicated.

Quite. They could have just leaned into the Sugar Glider aspect. Who doesn't love Sugar Gliders? I mean, ape-people have been done okay, but it take serious care, and that wasn't applied here.

I would say that's not the only potentially problematic animal though - at the very least if you have mice/rat people (or similar "vermin") you need to make sure you're not going to end up doing Nazi propaganda. Ironically I think lot of the guys who just rolled with this would have been sensitive to that though.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Sounds to me like this is just people looking for something to complain about.

This isn't "just people looking for something to complain about". We already have plenty to complain about with how poor the "finished" Spelljammer product was. People looking to stir up drama on Twitter and other social media already have 3 books full of half-assed game design and poor-quality books.

This . . . this is something else. This is a really bad step for Wizards of the Coast, inclusion-wise, especially when combined with the whole "the Gods themselves mandate that Giff be good with firearms" BS from the book (and the OneD&D playtest that does the same thing for Dwarves). This isn't just people being oversensitive to nothing in order to whine on Twitter. This was a combination of two really bad story decisions that merge into a really unflattering image for the race's lore and WotC.

 

[Parmandur]

The 3E take on the Hadozee was arguably significantly more racist. It's actually at levels of "Oh dear god no" that exceed most dodgy 1E and OD&D stuff even.

But that should have acted as a massive bloody warning to them to not do it again, especially as they got away with it because it was in a relatively obscure book. Unfortunately for WotC the FR wiki knows all and sees all, kind of like Torm or AO, and it had some choice quotes pre-dug-up.

WotC does have a long history stepping in it with racial issues. They have gotten somewhat better, by and large, but there's always something.

 

[Remathilis]

Seems to me the Hadozee should have been left to the dustbin of history.

Actually, I'm starting to think @Micah Sweet 's idea is solid: Start Fresh with all lore. New settings, new origins, new everything. The past is too loaded with baggage.

 

[renbot]

Quite. They could have just leaned into the Sugar Glider aspect. Who doesn't love Sugar Gliders? I mean, ape-people have been done okay, but it take serious care, and that wasn't applied here.

I would say that's not the only potentially problematic animal though - at the very least if you have mice/rat people (or similar "vermin") you need to make sure you're not going to end up doing Nazi propaganda. Ironically I think lot of the guys who just rolled with this would have been sensitive to that though.

You're right, I overstated it to make a point. Let's just say "there are plenty of noncontroversial animals, choose one or a hundred of those."

I mean, at least Star Trek got it right with the Ferengi, right? Right??

(OMG I am OBVIOUSLY kidding, please don't flame me!!)