I think I know how the morality clause acceptable(+)

[MoonSong]

I was thinking how the morality clause could be made acceptable.

1) Have a third party like the antidefamation league make the call, with the publisher/creator bring given a chance to make their case. Edit: After some arguments, I change this idea to having a panel (with at most one representative of WotC and at least one member of each of the harmed or potentially harmed groups) make that determination.

2) Have it apply to works( not creators), and only to the extent of the actual hateful content. Content deemed hateful can be removed from the work to make it acceptable. Parts not being deemed hateful can still be salvaged

Edit: and lets make this a plus thread. I don't like that clause anymore than you. But for the argument's sake...

 

[Clint_L]

I like the clause fine because nuTSR really is a thing and what if we get another group like that but who know what they are doing? I think the only issue is having WotC in sole control. I would have any cases arbitrated by a three member panel of OGL stakeholders, only one of them from WotC, and one from a neutral third party.

 

[MoonSong]

I like the clause fine because nuTSR really is a thing and what if we get another group like that but who know what they are doing? I think the only issue is having WotC in sole control. I would have any cases arbitrated by a three member panel of OGL stakeholders, only one of them from WotC, and one from a neutral third party.

This might be new to you, but the griefers at nuTSR didn't need nor used the OGL for their purposes. This clause doesn't stop any future similar hate group from griefing in the future. It doesn't even slows them down.

That said, there is a point to the panel idea. It could also work. But still I'd be more at peace if it applied to works instead of creators.

 

[Thomas Shey]

That WOTC is the sole decider is the issue; it gives them essentially unlimited ability to pull the plug and point at the morals clause.

 

[Langy]

The "morality clause" needs a third-party arbitration clause and general "harmful" content needs to either be defined or removed ('harmful to our profits!' is still harmful).

 

[MGibster]

Many organizations, including the Anti-Defamation League, have a mission statement. The ADL's mission statement is to "Stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment for all." The ADL, like most tax exempt organizations, have to budget their resources in a responsible manner, including hours worked and funds, in order to accomplish their mission. Assuming monitoring the OGL is within their mission, are they the best choice for the job? Will this take away precious resources from other more important projects? I don't think they'd be interested. If I were a donor, I'd be upset if they decided to monitor the OGL because that's not what I give them money for.

If you're going to have a third party manage the OGL, it's going to have to be some sort of gaming trade association like the Recording Industry Association of America, the Motion Picture Association, or the National Cotton Council. These are non-profit organizations made up of various businesses in the same industry. Hell, I suppose the Game Manufacturers Association qualifies as well. You can't rely on other organizations, you need one specifically made for gaming.

 

[humble minion]

Thinking about it, i'm actually legitimately surprised that, in the 20+ years the OGL has been in operation, that there HASN'T really been much awful content created under it. Or at least not much that I've heard of. Book of Erotic Fantasy was, to the best of my knowledge, certainly crass and juvenile, and there's certainly been plenty of probably-unconscious stereotyping re 'savage natives' etc, and way back in the early d20 days Avalanche Press and their cover art made everyone embarrassed, but if there's been a really nakedly racist OGL product then I've missed seeing the furore. Nobody's tried to kickstart Rahowa 5e (and KS would boot the campaign if someone did), nobody's done a d20 Modern game where you play square-jawed Nazis fighting eeevil Jewish cults, nobody's published any equivalent to the worst bottom-feeding consent-lacking sexually exploitative stuff that you can find in the sordid depths of the video game industry. Not even really as a troll. And I can easily guess the community response if something like this did happen. The RPG sector as a whole has its share of notorious ick of course, but despite D&D and the D&D-adjacent ecosystem seems to have missed most of it. Even FATAL used a homebrew system (using the word 'system' generously), and there's been loads more offensive or unpleasant stuff published by White Wolf or even Onyx Path than the whole 5e industry which is many times larger.

Is it possible under the current OGL that something awful could get published at any moment? Yeah, sure, though the content policies at DTRPG, Kickstarter, and DMsGuild act as a pretty reasonable set of gatekeepers. Is it possible that WotC is genuinely trying to close that particular stable door before the horse bolts? Maaaybe. Does it seem like this clause is an attempt to address a problem which doesn't actually exist in any concrete form right now? Yeppers.

 

[MGibster]

Is it possible under the current OGL that something awful could get published at any moment? Yeah, sure, though the content policies at DTRPG, Kickstarter, and DMsGuild act as a pretty reasonable set of gatekeepers. Is it possible that WotC is genuinely trying to close that particular stable door before the horse bolts? Maaaybe. Does it seem like this clause is an attempt to address a problem which doesn't actually exist in any concrete form right now? Yeppers.

Combatting racist/sexist content was just a weak justification WotC used to justify their motives behind changing the OGL. It's not a problem, and truthfully I worry about how such a clause might be enforced.

 

[bloodtide]

I can't see any way this could ever work. No matter the person or group that is "in charge" of deciding what is wrong: it will always be that random. Except for the most vile stuff, you'd be hard pressed to even get two people to agree.

I guess WotC is worried a publisher might use a wrong word and then everyone will put that on D&D?

But has that ever even happened?

Maybe that would be a way to could work: Have WotC look at all the 3PP from the last 23 years and point out the things, that if published under OGL 2, that they would immediately dump. This would let us know what WotC is thinking.

Or maybe add an "Adult Audience Tag" too: Content can be tagged as "potentially offensive and not in anyway approved or endorsed by WotC. Then a publisher can use the word 'race' and won't have to worry about WotC.

 

[Parmandur]

I thinkntheybneed to tie it to a strong existing standard (EU regulations seem plausible?), so that WotC doesn't have to make a subjective call, with an option for arbitration. Otherwise doing business under the OGL seems dicey.