Elon Musk Calls for Wizards of the Coast to "Burn in Hell" Over Making of Original D&D Passages

Elon Musk, the owner of the app formerly known as Twitter, is calling on Wizards of the Coast and its parent company Hasbro to "burn in hell" for the publication of Making of Original Dungeons & Dragons. On November 21st, former gaming executive turned culture warrior Mark Hern posted several passages from Making of Original Dungeons & Dragons on Twitter, criticizing the book for providing context about some of the misogyny and cultural insensitivity found in early rulebooks. These passages were pulled from the foreword written by Jason Tondro, a senior designer for the D&D team who also worked extensively on the book. Hern stated that these passages, along with the release of the new 2024 Player's Handbook and Dungeon Master's Guide for D&D's "40th anniversary" (it is actually D&D's 50th anniversary) both "erased and slandered" Gary Gygax and other creators of Dungeons & Dragons.

In response, Musk wrote "Nobody, and I mean nobody, gets to trash E. Gary Gygax and the geniuses who created Dungeons & Dragons. What the [naughty word] is wrong with Hasbro and WoTC?? May they burn in hell." Musk had played Dungeons & Dragons at some point in his youth, but it's unclear when the last time he ever played the game.

Nobody, and I mean nobody, gets to trash E. Gary Gygax and the geniuses who created Dungeons & Dragons. What the [xxxx] is wrong with Hasbro and WoTC?? May they burn in hell.

- Elon Musk​

Notably, Making of Original Dungeons & Dragons contains countless correspondences and letters written by both Gygax and Dave Arneson, including annotated copies of early D&D rulesets. Most early D&D rules supplements as well as early Dragon magazines are also found in the book. It seems odd to contain one of the most extensive compliations of Gygax's work an "erasure," but it's unclear whether Hern or Musk actually read the book given the incorrect information about the anniversary.

Additionally, Gygax and Arneson are both credited in the 2024 Player's Handbook and Dungeon Master's Guide. The exact credit reads: "Building on the original game created by Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson and then developed by many others over the past 50 years." Wizards of the Coast also regularly collaborates with Gygax's youngest son Luke and is a participant at Gary Con, a convention held in Gygax's honor. The opening paragraph of the 2024 Player's Handbook is written by Jeremy Crawford and specifically lauds both Gygax and Arneson for making Dungeons & Dragons and contains an anecdote about Crawford meeting Gygax.

Musk has increasingly leaned into culture war controversies in recent years, usually amplifying misinformation to suit his own political agenda.

 

[Bedrockgames]

So...

Why is that relevant?

I mean this with absolute sincerity. Like, let's reframe this into a hypothetical about a fictional person who made homophobic comments instead of sexist ones. If someone cracks jokes about gay men being incapable of being real men, of being weaklings or pansies, or using as a punchline that every gay man is automatically a depraved predator....how is that better? How does that in any way reduce the harm that these comments make to gay men, who are even to this day vilified, driven to suicide, or murdered for these very reasons?

Why should we forgive someone for expressing homophobia when they're angry? I don't forgive someone for causing physical harm while angry. In fact, that actually adds a second problem on top of the harm done: the fact that the person has so little self-control that merely getting them worked up means they could injure or even kill somebody! That is in no way a reason to think more kindly of their actions. Why should we forgive someone for expressing homophobia coded as a joke, rather than as just straight invective? Jokes are still hurtful--in fact, they can be more hurtful, because they make the target an object of both hatred and ridicule, intensifying the harm intended, not ameliorating it.

Yes, it's good to be kind to others. It's good to reach out when they're hurting and try to help that hurt. But causing harm--whether through words or through acts--is causing harm, regardless of whether it is done in anger or in malice. Second-degree murder is still murder, after all. Even if it is a crime of passion, it is still the crime of intentionally, knowingly taking someone else's life. I don't see why intentionally, knowingly doing or saying or writing sexist things in the heat of passion is anything less than sexism.

Because the thing being debated is what is the persons heart and what their actual beliefs were.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Why should we forgive someone for expressing homophobia when they're angry? I don't forgive someone for causing physical harm while angry. In fact, that actually adds a second problem on top of the harm done: the fact that the person has so little self-control that merely getting them worked up means they could injure or even kill somebody! That is in no way a reason to think more kindly of their actions. Why should we forgive someone for expressing homophobia coded as a joke, rather than as just straight invective? Jokes are still hurtful--in fact, they can be more hurtful, because they make the target an object of both hatred and ridicule, intensifying the harm intended, not ameliorating it.

It isn't about forgiveness. It is about whether they meant what they said, because we are talking about how to characterize a person's view of the world. When people say things in anger, I tend to view them through a different lens than if they say them in a state of calm. Does that mean what they say has no consequence or significance? Of course not. If a person is angry and berates me, I am going to make a judgment about them. But if someone is exasperated and expresses belief out of frustration in the moment, I am going to put less stock in that reflecting their beliefs than if they had said it in a less emotional state

 

[Steampunkette]

You heard it here, first, folks. No one is a bigot UNLESS that is their carefully considered opinion expressed only while perfectly calm and civil.

They must express their position in no uncertain terms and anything else they say or do doesn't actually -count- because maybe they're just being a bigot playfully or in anger or they don't know they're being a bigot or the devil is tricking you into thinking their a bigot when actually they're a saint.

Come the hell on.

 

[Chaosmancer]

My experience with people is things often aren’t this simple

You are right, it isn't always that simple.

Sometime people, when told "hey, that was sexist" go "Ah, right. Sorry, that sounded better in my head."

Other times they say "HOW DARE YOU JUDGE ME! YOU SHALL GO TO HELL FOR THIS CRIME OF JUDGING ME! I WAS ONLY MAKING A JOKE! WHAT? IS HUMOR NO LONGER ALLOWED?!"

One of those I might give the benefit of the doubt to. Though, might seriously reconsider my impression of them if it happens again, and again, and again for years and years. The other, less so.

 

[darjr]

OK I can’t stand it.

It’s the 50th! FIFTY! Five-O!

Mark is an idiot.

 

[Azzy]

OK I can’t stand it.

It’s the 50th! FIFTY! Five-O!

Mark is an idiot.

I'm missing something.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I am only replying to this part of your post because I have two mod warnings in this thread so I think it is not a great idea for me to respond to all your other points. Like I said I would not want to put words in her mouth but her post mentioned that she acknowledged he was a man born in 1938 with views that would be considered sexist by today’s standards. To me that reads as a qualified statement, especially with the additional sentiments she included.

So... she said he was sexist.

Because being a man born in 1938 has nothing to do with anything. I mean, heck, would we say someone born today in this era, where women's rights are under attack and men are putting up the slogan "your body, my choice" should be judged as not actually very sexist? Maybe only a little sexist. Because... there are virulent sexists currently in positions of power?

Because, I know you are very aware that we dug into this point heavily in the last thread, showing that... sexism wasn't "in vogue" during Gary's lifetime. It was constantly being called out as problematic.

Or, in actuality, is what you are saying is that Gary Gygax was cognitively incapable of learning to respect women? Because, he still was saying sexist stuff in the 2000's. Did the 50 years of social change that made it not okay to be sexist to the point where we are no longer able to claim people born in those eras simply have no effect on the man? Was he incapable of learning in your opinion?

Because, either, you are trying to say that men born in certain decades have carte blanche to be as sexist as they want because they were born before those actions were wrong OR you are saying that men born before a certain time cannot learn to treat women as equally whole and complete human beings.

I am not trying to involve her in anything. She and Mentzer both mentioned they believed the quotes were not being understood in their context. Mentzer suggested he was joking in one instance.

So we are back to it being okay to say, as long as it is a joke?

And, I know you've been asked this again, but what context makes these statements okay? "I was too old to know better than to say that women are genetically incapable of liking role-playing games"? Does that context actually make that opinion valid, or is it still invalid... because being old isn't an excuse. Because saying it is an excuse means that everything that happened in those times was okay. It was acceptable. It wasn't actually sexist or racist, it was just "of the times". Which makes you wonder what those oppressed people were complaining about, didn't they know what time they were in? Didn't they know that it was considered okay to oppress them and they just had to wait for the future when it would magically be... well the exact same, but it looked to be getting better for a bit.

 

[Chaosmancer]

No that isn't what I said. I am saying when someone expresses any sentiment with humor, it impacts how I interpret the statements because it can mean the intent isn't always what it seems on face value. Similar when people express things in anger or frustration. Sometimes they say things they might not mean but are venting anger or exasperation

If you say something out of frustration, with the intent of causing harm, and you never retract or clarify that statement, and you die and someone else looks back and thinks "wow, they must have been very frustrated being called that, which is why they doubled down and said they were that and never once disagreed with that or publicly retracted their statement".... I don't think you get to claim that the thing wasn't true.

I mean, sure, I've said things in anger. I've rarely typed things in a blind rage, but it has happened.

I've never typed something, edited it, printed it, put it in an envelope, stamped and addressed it, walked it to the mailbox, sent it internationally... all while so angry and frustrated to not, on some level, mean what I said.

 

[Chaosmancer]

It isn't about forgiveness. It is about whether they meant what they said, because we are talking about how to characterize a person's view of the world. When people say things in anger, I tend to view them through a different lens than if they say them in a state of calm. Does that mean what they say has no consequence or significance? Of course not. If a person is angry and berates me, I am going to make a judgment about them. But if someone is exasperated and expresses belief out of frustration in the moment, I am going to put less stock in that reflecting their beliefs than if they had said it in a less emotional state

"I didn't mean to beat my wife officer, she just made me so angry. In my heart of hearts I would never want to cause her any harm, I swear it."

If that didn't make my point clear. Anger is not an excuse. It may be an excuse for something said that you later apologize for, but "I was so angry I printed hateful content to get back at them" doesn't make your opinions not hateful ones. In fact, it kind of makes it worse, because you don't even believe it. You just wanted to hurt people and were looking for an excuse.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Because the thing being debated is what is the persons heart and what their actual beliefs were.

I genuinely don't get the logic here. Why is choosing to mock a disenfranchised group better than simply saying bad things about them? Why is a racist tirade less of a reflection of "what is in the person's heart" when it's said when angry, rather than when calm?

I genuinely don't understand why "oh, they only say horrible things when angry" is somehow proof that a person's heart is blameless.