D&D General Why a PETITION: Stop Hasbro's hurtful content is a Bad Idea

[Hussar]

I unsubbed from the other thread because I honestly do not have a positive point to make there.

But to clarify my earlier post which is referenced in the OP, I mentioned Mein Kampf as an example of an obviously problematic work that is still sold for profit. There are obviously many others as well. So the argument that a publisher should not sell a book for profit because it is objectionable doesn’t really hold a lot of water to me. I do believe that works like this, given the boilerplate warning, are not harmful to be sold.

There are all sorts of objectionable works in the canon of DnD. WotC is not promoting this work. They are not referencing it in any way. It is just there in the back catalogue along with the likes of Oriental Adventures and the original Ravenloft books. I’m pretty sure there are MANY more as well.

These are a part of our shared history as gamers. This, unfortunately is where we came from. Misogynistic, bigoted writing that is largely synonymous with the fantasy genre for a very large part of its history. Appendix N is filled with books that make you want to bleach your eyeballs after reading.

It’s uncomfortable but it is very much where we came from. And I say we because back then it was just accepted by much of the fandom. Criticisms of the time largely fell on deaf ears.

I strongly oppose the idea we should do rewrites on these books. That’s just sweeping history under the carpet. No we should be holding these works up every time someone makes the claim that we don’t need to worry about inclusivity in the hobby. We absolutely SHOULD worry about it.

 

[SteveC]

In looking at this issue, I remember when this book came out. I cringed at the artwork at that time, but I have never liked that artist outside of Paranoia. It really is a relic of the time and I get that the intention was to be a parody. I get that people aren't happy with it and can understand it, but this is a symptom of having things always in print with PDFs. If there were no PDF way to get it, the book would be pretty much lost to time.
I seriously doubt that WotC will ever recreate Mystara to the level that exists in the past: they haven't done this with much more popular product lines.
If I had to suggest, I'd say keep the book with the guidelines, but also open it up for someone to officially re-do as part of the DMsGuild. I think you could find people to re-do all of the Mystara line of products. Somewhere I even have a 5E Mystara book around that seemed solid. That way you can have both the original book and an edited one.
Even though I really get where people are coming from on this issue, I think it's a great example of the "Heckler's Veto".
I don't know how many people even know this, but there are groups that edit books, movies, and videos to remove content that they find objectionable. Sort of to make them "kid friendly" from their perspective. Most of the time those people get roasted for that. I see this in those same light, along with the recent Roald Dahl controversy. It's not like this book is even in the same league as James and the Giant Peach, but the idea of replacing content is something abhorrent to me.
Those are my thoughts in any case. More stream of consciousness than normal, but there you go.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I unsubbed from the other thread because I honestly do not have a positive point to make there.

But to clarify my earlier post which is referenced in the OP, I mentioned Mein Kampf as an example of an obviously problematic work that is still sold for profit. There are obviously many others as well. So the argument that a publisher should not sell a book for profit because it is objectionable doesn’t really hold a lot of water to me. I do believe that works like this, given the boilerplate warning, are not harmful to be sold.

There are all sorts of objectionable works in the canon of DnD. WotC is not promoting this work. They are not referencing it in any way. It is just there in the back catalogue along with the likes of Oriental Adventures and the original Ravenloft books. I’m pretty sure there are MANY more as well.

These are a part of our shared history as gamers. This, unfortunately is where we came from. Misogynistic, bigoted writing that is largely synonymous with the fantasy genre for a very large part of its history. Appendix N is filled with books that make you want to bleach your eyeballs after reading.

It’s uncomfortable but it is very much where we came from. And I say we because back then it was just accepted by much of the fandom. Criticisms of the time largely fell on deaf ears.

I strongly oppose the idea we should do rewrites on these books. That’s just sweeping history under the carpet. No we should be holding these works up every time someone makes the claim that we don’t need to worry about inclusivity in the hobby. We absolutely SHOULD worry about it.

Mein Kampf is a terrible comparison, given that it has broader historical significance and isn't meant to be a work of fiction that is offensive, but an expression of terrible actual-world views. It's historical significance is much greater compared to the topic.

I'd say a better comparison would be the Censored 11, which do have some historical significance but obviously aren't in print right now. I'd say both are a closer idea of historical and cultural significance.

Even though I really get where people are coming from on this issue, I think it's a great example of the "Heckler's Veto".

I don't really think it is, unless we are saying anything and everything that gets taken down is being hit by a "heckler's veto".

 

[SteveC]

I don't really think it is, unless we are saying anything and everything that gets taken down is being hit by a "heckler's veto".

I think it's a textbook definition: a very small group of people attempting to get something removed. If you look at the comments on the product page, it's full of people asking for a POD and not making complaints.

I've heard people saying "we're not about censorship," but it's my understanding that the goal is to recreate it with the problematic content removed, which is censoring it. There's a lot of gaming product out there that I don't like and am not interested in, and much of it is pretty offensive. I think both of us can think of some of those products that would violate the Eric's Grandma convention to discuss here. I don't think that any of it should be removed (except for some very extreme cases, I there are restrictions for speech under the First Amendment after all).

 

[Voadam]

I think the best thing is providing information like the original thread so that people are aware of the issues and can make informed decisions about getting it or avoiding it and are not surprise shocked if they buy it when just looking for a cool humanoid area sourcebook or a sourcebook for humanoid mechanics in their OSE/Labyrinth Lord/ Basic D&D games.

It is really unfortunate that the description and cover art show it as a cool Conan the Barbarian Orc sourcebook but that it is a stupid humor and stupid stereotype caricature product for a lot of it.

I bought it at the time based off the front and back cover information and that cool premise and how Thar had been built up in Mystara as a cool place and was deeply disappointed by the actual contents and the humor style. The orc queen who is a short overweight black woman with big lips who bonks her husband over the head with a bone is particularly distasteful.

That said I am in favor of it being available to be sold with the rest of the D&D catalogue and I mention it to people if they ask about humanoid race classes in OSR games or examples of humanoid kingdoms in D&D. I try to give context as well when I do so they are aware of the big issues with the product.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Unless you add a lot more words to your thread title I’m not participating. That other thread seems way cooler.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I think it's a textbook definition: a very small group of people attempting to get something removed. If you look at the comments on the product page, it's full of people asking for a POD and not making complaints.

For starters, I think that's more of an argument as to why Wizards should be donating any proceeds they get for that book, but I also think it's only a "small number of people" because only a small number of people know what content is in that book. I think if you were to show that off, most people would find it distasteful.

I've heard people saying "we're not about censorship," but it's my understanding that the goal is to recreate it with the problematic content removed, which is censoring it. There's a lot of gaming product out there that I don't like and am not interested in, and much of it is pretty offensive.

So were you against Wizards removing the harmful Romani stereotypes from Curse of Strahd? Was that bad or good to you?

I think both of us can think of some of those products that would violate the Eric's Grandma convention to discuss here. I don't think that any of it should be removed (except for some very extreme cases, I there are restrictions for speech under the First Amendment after all).

I think it depends on how it is framed and sold. As is, I have a lot of problems with people pocketing cash off this work.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Mein Kampf is a terrible comparison, given that it has broader historical significance and isn't meant to be a work of fiction that is offensive, but an expression of terrible actual-world views. It's historical significance is much greater compared to the topic.

I'd say a better comparison would be the Censored 11, which do have some historical significance but obviously aren't in print right now. I'd say both are a closer idea of historical and cultural significance.

How about Birth of a Nation? It does have historical significance in a rather technical way (it is the very first feature-length film to use a large number of techniques we consider to be fundamental to movie-making today, like having a fixed film score, using close-ups and panoramic shots, certain kinds of transitions, etc.) But it's also horrible in terms of content, given it's based on a book ("The Clansman") literally written by early Ku Klux Klan members, and became a massive recruitment pitch for the KKK and thus literally did contribute to actual racial violence.

You can't edit out the racist garbage of it, because it's literally racist garbage to its very core. Yet it remains very important as part of art history...and yet art history isn't that relevant to most people (there's a reason you usually won't see the film unless you're studying art history. Despite all that, it isn't like it's banned or anything, you can totally find it online both in DVD and stream form.

Early D&D books seem to me to be more similar to this than they are to Mein Kampf, which as you say is preserved as an example of unacceptable moral-ethical beliefs, not as a foundational work riddled with concerning elements. By comparison, the early works of the D&D canon set the stage and format and design ideas for the products that would follow, and in many ways we are still living in a world that is "D&D-alikes" and metaphorically "all the rest" (which often define themselves, or are forced to define themselves, in opposition to D&D.) We haven't really seen that paradigm break yet, where it becomes more important than whether something is or isn't like D&D. (For comparison, MMOs settled on EverQuest for a few years, until WoW took over and became THE hegemonic game everyone defined themselves through, either by imitation or by opposition; we are only just now getting into a "post-WoW" world, something like 18 years later.)

When the early works have historical significance because they set the stage for what would follow...but they're also riddled with things we repudiate today...it is reasonable to ask whether we should preserve those works in their entirety, eschew them and bury them, or try to filter out things we don't approve of. I, personally, think it is unwise to edit the works of the past to clean them up. If they contain both worthy and unworthy content, let us bury them not with censorship (whether it be "updating" them or banning them), but with new content that actually outshines the old. Then we can rightly see these things as flawed stepping stones, the necessary result of humans gaining greater moral, empirical, and formal knowledge over time.

I don't really think it is, unless we are saying anything and everything that gets taken down is being hit by a "heckler's veto".

I'm not entirely sure I understand the phrase as used.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I've heard people saying "we're not about censorship," but it's my understanding that the goal is to recreate it with the problematic content removed, which is censoring it.

I don't see where the problem is, if they are in fact creating new work that seeks to eclipse the old, rather than trying to take the old work and simply snip away the bad or cover it with correction fluid. Why is it bad to say, "We think that work was bad, so we're going to make a new one that does the job without the horrible parts."?

 

[Justice and Rule]

How about Birth of a Nation? It does have historical significance in a rather technical way (it is the very first feature-length film to use a large number of techniques we consider to be fundamental to movie-making today, like having a fixed film score, using close-ups and panoramic shots, certain kinds of transitions, etc.) But it's also horrible in terms of content, given it's based on a book ("The Clansman") literally written by early Ku Klux Klan members, and became a massive recruitment pitch for the KKK and thus literally did contribute to actual racial violence.

You can't edit out the racist garbage of it, because it's literally racist garbage to its very core. Yet it remains very important as part of art history...and yet art history isn't that relevant to most people (there's a reason you usually won't see the film unless you're studying art history. Despite all that, it isn't like it's banned or anything, you can totally find it online both in DVD and stream form.

Yes, but Birth of a Nation has a significant amount of actual examination of what it is and its racism. Part of the reason it gets shown and examined is because of that. Not every pop culture thing necessarily needs or deserves that level of treatment, hence why I bring up the Censored 11. Not all racism needs to be preserved in its entirety to know that it existed.

Early D&D books seem to me to be more similar to this than they are to Mein Kampf, which as you say is preserved as an example of unacceptable moral-ethical beliefs, not as a foundational work riddled with concerning elements. By comparison, the early works of the D&D canon set the stage and format and design ideas for the products that would follow, and in many ways we are still living in a world that is "D&D-alikes" and metaphorically "all the rest" (which often define themselves, or are forced to define themselves, in opposition to D&D.) We haven't really seen that paradigm break yet, where it becomes more important than whether something is or isn't like D&D. (For comparison, MMOs settled on EverQuest for a few years, until WoW took over and became THE hegemonic game everyone defined themselves through, either by imitation or by opposition; we are only just now getting into a "post-WoW" world, something like 18 years later.)

Noooooo, I'm sorry, this is not the same. One is the manifesto of one of the most unfortunately consequential people of the last century, stating his beliefs and why he would do what he did. The other is a terrible collection of racist stereotypes applied to fantasy races. There is plenty to be said about the problematic nature of early D&D, but I'm not sure that this is emblematic of what we are generally talking about.

Like, I know there are Mystara fans out there, but is this an incredibly significant release? There are people here who said they were embarrassed upon seeing it. Its portrayal of Orcs is certainly racist, but is it actually significant? Like, did it contribute to what came after it in a notable way? And in what way if so? Like, I got into D&D in the mid-90s as a kid and it wasn't until @Dungeonosophy did his thread that I had even heard of this book.

When the early works have historical significance because they set the stage for what would follow...but they're also riddled with things we repudiate today...it is reasonable to ask whether we should preserve those works in their entirety, eschew them and bury them, or try to filter out things we don't approve of. I, personally, think it is unwise to edit the works of the past to clean them up. If they contain both worthy and unworthy content, let us bury them not with censorship (whether it be "updating" them or banning them), but with new content that actually outshines the old. Then we can rightly see these things as flawed stepping stones, the necessary result of humans gaining greater moral, empirical, and formal knowledge over time.

I would much rather a new work be created than an old one edited, but also I don't think just selling this book with POD is good, either. I don't fully agree with all the suggestions in the other thread, but I really think there are works that are more important than others, and I'm not sure that this book deserves the defense it gets.

I'm not entirely sure I understand the phrase as used.

If we're talking about anything that gets protested being taken down as a Heckler's Veto, then it dilutes the term to just any sort of protest. More generally, I don't see the petition as any sort of "heckler's veto".