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

[mamba]

Honestly, I think the morality clause and content creator badge provisions should be pulled, and be made part of a separate licensing agreement.

the badge can simply be voluntary

 

[The Stray]

the badge can simply be voluntary

Should still be pulled.

This is not supposed to be a WotC Content license, it's supposed to replace an Open Game license. As in games that have little or nothing to do with Wizards' product identity.

And that's the giant problem with this in the first place. WotC sees all the hobby as belonging to them, and 3PP as ticks leeching off them. Whether though ignorance or (more likely) malice, they think "TTRPGS" and "D&D" are interchangeable. That's why they're willing to kill 20+ years of Open Game Content -- they don't see it as relevant or legitimate.

A line in the sand needs to be drawn to show them that no, you don't get to play Monopoly with our stories.

 

[Branduil]

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.

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...

Oh my god, no! I absolutely do not want to hear any stories about a young RPG writer getting cancelled because they wrote something outrageous on social media like "Palestinians have human rights and do not deserve to be murdered forever."

Of course, I don't trust WotC with this power either. This is ultimately the problem with this clause, because it's an absolute power, with no way to defend against it, and WotC have absolutely proven themselves untrustworthy in this regards. And this ultimately goes back to the OGL itself-- if WotC had never put D&D into the OGL, yes, I'd say they have a right to make a clause like that. I wouldn't trust them to administer it fairly, but I would not be particularly upset about it. But as it is, this is just the best excuse they have to falsely claim the right to de-authorize the OGL.

 

[mamba]

Should still be pulled.

This is not supposed to be a WotC Content license, it's supposed to replace an Open Game license. As in games that have little or nothing to do with Wizards' product identity.

that is why having an optional one works for both cases

 

[Lanefan]

For me, the only way this could fly would be WotC giving themselves the right to pull your license if something you published under the OGL was found to be hateful/offensive/defamatory/whatever by a court of law or other external judicial body.

That'd cover the really bad stuff, which in theory should be all this is trying to catch anyway.

 

[raniE]

The need for a morality clause would make more sense to me if WotC had more recognizable IP that could be exploited for, say, pornographic purposes. Like, I can get why a company like Disney would insist on a morality clause for anyone licensing their work. But WotC doesn't really have any recognizable IP that is available through the OGL to be exploited in this way, does it?

What I'm trying to say is, if someone uses the OGL to make a adults-only RPG, or one that is hateful in some way, I don't see it being attributed to WotC, either legally or in terms of public perception. But I'm no lawyer. Maybe this changes when the movie comes out, if it is a big hit?

Book of Erotic Fantasy, Sisters of Rapture, The book of Passion, 5e Guide to Sex, the Lover's handbook, Rolling for Seduction, Erotic Arcana etc. There are a bunch of OGL sex books. There’s also Lamentations of the Flame Princess and the incredibly gory art therein, and tons of other examples. How much of any of those things have ever come to rest above the heads of WotC and official D&D? This is a solution not only looking for a problem but ignoring the actual solution that was already there in order to scream “I am the only solution!”

 

[Horwath]

Morality clause needs to be hacked completely.

You make the product,
people will either buy it or not buy it.

I certainly wont buy anything filled with racism, sexism and whatnot-isms.
And I'm sure 99% of "D&D" customers will not also.
And if you plan your business model with alienating 99% of possible customers; all I can say, good luck to you. You'll definitely need it.

 

[Zardnaar]

Book of Erotic Fantasy, Sisters of Rapture, The book of Passion, 5e Guide to Sex, the Lover's handbook, Rolling for Seduction, Erotic Arcana etc. There are a bunch of OGL sex books. There’s also Lamentations of the Flame Princess and the incredibly gory art therein, and tons of other examples. How much of any of those things have ever come to rest above the heads of WotC and official D&D? This is a solution not only looking for a problem but ignoring the actual solution that was already there in order to scream “I am the only solution!”

Most of that stick a label on it. Not my cup of tea but whatever floats ur boat

 

[Autumnal]

In Unearthed Arcana, which is still open content at this moment, there’s a section in the Sanity rules (adapted from d20 Call of Cthulhu) on Psychosexual Disorders:

Recognizable disorders of this type include transsexualism (a belief that one is actually a member of the opposite sex), impaired sexual desire or function, nymphomania and satyriasis (inordinate and uncontrollable sexual appetite in women and men, respectively), and paraphilia (requirement of an abnormal sexual stimulus, such as sadism, masochism, necrophilia, pedophilia, exhibitionism, voyeurism, fetishism, or bestiality).

Most of these disorders could make players of the afflicted characters uncomfortable and thus are not appropriate for most roleplaying groups, although they can make for striking (if unpleasant) NPCs.

So you could use WotC’s own OC to build a world where transgender characters aren’t fit to be PCs but can be unpleasantly memorable NPCs. And someone could accuse you of offensive hate speech if you declare the opposite to be true. It’s the official policy of the ruling party in the UK and of the party that’s taken the US presidency three times this century so far that it is hateful, disruptive, and false to say trans people are normal people who deserve the same rights as anyone else.

Right now, WotC won’t frown at you for saying that Jenna Katerin Moran, creator of Nobilis, is striking but not unpleasant or disordered. All of us who know and like her and/or her work are glad that’s so. But can anyone say with certainty that Hasbro will never, in the next twenty years, have EOs allied with anti-trans forces, who tend to be exuberantly pro-corporate? Sure enough to bet the creative prospects, not to mention personal safety, of everyone like Jenna who’d want their framing to treat trans people well?

And it goes like that through issue after issue, many of which you probably never thought of. I know that I, someone who’s been marked and marginalized several ways for forty years, keep getting surprised by bigotries I never thought of since they happen not to target me or to have come up where I’d notice them. And I’m an expert pro at it! I have prestige levels in being enfeebled!

It’s just too darned too easy to assume that of course a provision I approve when used against targets I approve of targeting will always and ever be used that way. History suggests, alas, that it’s not so reliably simple, however much I used to think or wish it so.

 

[MGibster]

For me, the only way this could fly would be WotC giving themselves the right to pull your license if something you published under the OGL was found to be hateful/offensive/defamatory/whatever by a court of law or other external judicial body.

We don't have a court of law here in the United States whose job it is to determine if any particular work is hateful or offensive. And while you can sue someone for slander or libel, you can't really sue someone for defaming a group of people because of race, religion, national origin, disability, etc., etc. And even if we did have a court whose job it was to make these determinations, such actions would potentially take years to resolve. i.e. This idea is impractical.

I do realize the United States doesn't make up the whole world, but WotC and Hasbro are both American corporations.