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

[Snarf Zagyg]

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!”

Well ... the last time D&D was this popular, there was the Satanic Panic (which was both a product of the morality of the time, but also the more adult nature of the product in the late 70s).

And TSR instituted its own internal code to clean things up, and began the process of sanitizing the game.

The reason that most of these things didn't land on D&D's head is because it's been more niche. If you're in the hobby, you know about it. But it's only been in the last, what, six years or so that we've seen explosive growth. And a movie. And TV shows on the horizon.

Kind of a difference.

 

[delericho]

The only way I can see the morality clause being acceptable is that if/when WotC publish infringing material themselves they are required to remove the offending work from sale (and not publish a revised version down the line).

If that's not acceptable to them, why would we accept it for ourselves?

 

[Alzrius]

You can't rely on other organizations, you need one specifically made for gaming.

I worry about how transparent any such organization would be, i.e. who's actually making the decisions.

By that same token, if they were open about that, I'd expect that there'd be instances where something controversial was found not to be hateful/bigoted, and the people who reached that decision would be subject to a community outcry by those who disagreed with the decision. That could lead to hashtag campaigns against them personally, and the company they work for in general (e.g. "Hey, do you realize you're employing someone who just decided this filth was acceptable? Is that really what your company stands for?").

The entire "decision panel" idea is only somewhat less bad than WotC reserving that power for themselves. But if we have to go that way, I think the best decision panel is the entire gaming community itself, and their "revocation" power should be not to buy the work in question.

 

[Alzrius]

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.

<frantic Googling intensifies>

 

[Umbran]

1) Have a third party like the antidefamation league make the call, with the publisher/creator bring given a chance to make their case.

If you were any such organization, where would/should such an action sit in your list of priorities?

These organizations have resource limits - should they take a squabble over IP in a game before, say, a young African American man brutalized by police? Or maybe it could bump over a rash of anti-Semitic graffiti?

I don't find a morality clause, in general, to be a problem. WotC does have legitimate brand safety concerns. But, using resources from a group engaged in real-world public works to address when WotC over-extends seems inappropriate.

It might be better to just remove the provisions that limit accountability on this item - if someone feels they've been wronged, let them take WotC to court over it. Yes, WotC is an 800-lb gorilla, legally speaking, but court cases mean visibility, which means exposure to public opinion. And we've seen the past week or two, that can give them pause.

So, WotC is incentivized when someone's being a real racist jerk - because public opinion would generally be for them, and disincentivized when it it trumped up to abuse their license power, because we are apt to see through it when it becomes public.

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?

Well, someone like nuTSR, who are not using any WotC game license, would not be impacted by any morality clause in a license.

This provision should not be seen as a way for WotC to police the gaming community for us - it should be for their legitimate brand-safety concerns.

 

[Dreamscape]

A morality clause (and the creator badge) would be acceptable if there was no "O" in OGL 1.2. That's all.

 

[Felonious Ntent]

I see nuTSR thrown around as an example of why a morality clause is good. Lets look at something that is currently a grey area morality and what some people view as fine and some as immoral, Only Fans. What if a content creator has an Only Fans. Some would consider that fine other problematic. Should WotC be able to revoke a creators license because they also have an Only Fans?

 

[Alzrius]

I see nuTSR thrown around as an example of why a morality clause is good. Lets look at something that is currently a grey area morality and what some people view as fine and some as immoral, Only Fans. What if a content creator has an Only Fans. Some would consider that fine other problematic. Should WotC be able to revoke a creators license because they also have an Only Fans?

Just a quick reminder to everyone that the proposed OGL v1.2 draft does apply to conduct as well as content (emphasis mine):

No Hateful Content or Conduct. You will not include content in Your Licensed Works that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing, or engage in conduct that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing. We have the sole right to decide what conduct or content is hateful, and you covenant that you will not contest any such determination via any suit or other legal action.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

Maybe I am wrong but my suspects are before of the end of this starting year is we are going to see a new wave of satanic panic, and this time will be worse, but D&D will be not the main target.

We can agree Hasbro wants D&D to be a family-friendly brand, I don't blame it, but I untrust about the censorship and possible incoherences. I have banned from Facebook, and my conscience is clear. I have been victim of censorship.

My fear is two different yardsticks to measure to be used. For example a vampire wearing a morrion (helmet used by Spanish conquerors) couldn't be tagged as Hispanophobia, but a vampire wearing a turbant could be reported as Islamphobia. An atagonist could be a sinnister minister, an erstaz of cardinal Richelieu, for example but don't dare to do the same with the founder of a Protestant sect.

Something could be allowed in Western society, but not in Russia, China or a Muslim country.

Warner's cartoon character Speedy Gonzales, the mouse with superspeed, was going to be cancelled, but Mexicans said that shouldn't be done because it was not offensive at all, and they loved the funny character.

The guidelines about what is hate speech may be not enough coherent in the eyes of different people.

 

[raniE]

Well ... the last time D&D was this popular, there was the Satanic Panic (which was both a product of the morality of the time, but also the more adult nature of the product in the late 70s).

And TSR instituted its own internal code to clean things up, and began the process of sanitizing the game.

The reason that most of these things didn't land on D&D's head is because it's been more niche. If you're in the hobby, you know about it. But it's only been in the last, what, six years or so that we've seen explosive growth. And a movie. And TV shows on the horizon.

Kind of a difference.

No, because no one in the hobby associated things they hated that were released under the OGL with WotC. Because nothing released under the OGL is allowed to use trademarks or trade dress or anything like that, the risk of anything released under the OGL being associated with D&D by people who have no clue what they’re talking about is the same as a product having nothing to do with any version of D&D or any version of the OGL being associated with D&D.

So the fear is of a phantom, but even if there suddenly was another satanic panic, that’s not a good reason to censor. We think of the Comics Code, the Hays Code and the response to the Satanic Panic as bad. Why the hell would we think it’s reasonable to change the OGL to add the ability to censor in case of another satanic panic?