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

[Azzy]

As I've opined in other threads, the only way I could be on board with such a clause is if the a) stop using vague, ill-defined terms in lieu of clear, well-defined terms, and b) a third-party arbiter.

 

[Argyle King]

Hypothetically, if a panel were created to evaluate whether or not content was "harmful," what does the community feel would be the criteria for that determination?

 

[mamba]

Hypothetically, if a panel were created to evaluate whether or not content was "harmful," what does the community feel would be the criteria for that determination?

isn't that the panel's job then?

 

[MoonSong]

Hypothetically, if a panel were created to evaluate whether or not content was "harmful," what does the community feel would be the criteria for that determination?

The criteria isn't as important provided there is transparency to remove arbitrariety out of the equation. If we know the criteria they come up with, the process eventually turns predictable and reliable.

 

[FormerLurker]

I don't mind the idea of a content/ morality clause.
DriveThruRPG has content guidelines and the ability to report violations, and has removed content for violating its guidelines in the past.
Paizo also has rules for it's Community Content policy, which allows you to use its IP.

Most gamers are good, decent people. The vast majority. But there are A-holes in the world. If even 0.1% of gamers is a racist monster, heck let's go with 0.01% of gamers... with tens of millions of D&D players out there that's thousands of bad apples. The more popular D&D gets, the more likely someone will make a flagrantly racist or offensive 3rd Party product.
(I'm also biased because I've been spending a lot of time in the White Wolf fandom of late, and there are a LOT of fascists in the Werewolf community. And a lot of people pissed the more flagrantly racist aspects of Vampire the Masquerade were edited out for V5.)
Pretty much all laws exist despite most people being decent. Most people aren't murderers, but it's a good idea to have laws against murder on the books. Most people are racists or sexist, but it's good to have a policy protecting the hobby against those that are.

There's a lot of people who really want to make offensive content under the auspices of making things "adult." Not just stuff like the Book of Erotic Fantasy, which was adult but largely sex positive and tasteful, but offensive.
As an edgier example, Lamentations of the Flame Princess is already walking the edge of good taste. It wouldn't be hard to imagine a similar product that actually crosses the line to misogynistic. Someone like the RPGPundit is already a content creator. (It's uncomfortable reading his Twitter page and seeing arguments made here against WotC and the policy being discussed sandwiched between some pretty reprehensible thoughts.)

So far, D&D has avoid such products really garnering attention, but it's only a matter of time before one is published. And it's better to have such an exception in the license and never use it than have someone do a d20 OGL version of FATAL or full of white supremacy dog whistles and not be able to do anything about it.

There definitely needs to be steps better outlined in the policy, with WotC contacting the publisher and seeing if things can be edited and revised. WotC has several examples of content that seemed like a good idea at the time. And the vast majority of publishers should be willing to fix content.
Maybe giving better examples of offensive content that crosses a line or examples of content they might not approve and might encourage people to rethink but that won't result in a ban (like racial ability penalties). And clear wording that adult content is fine, so long as it's advertised as a mature product and isn't hateful towards vulnerable groups and minorities. Queer content should be fine and should NOT be targeted in any way, and this should be explicit in the license.

 

[bloodtide]

The criteria isn't as important provided there is transparency to remove arbitrariety out of the equation. If we know the criteria they come up with, the process eventually turns predictable and reliable.

But if you can remove things they say are wrong...does that just not make it pointless to even have the moral group.

People can never agree on such sensitive things, so how could you get a process?

And what countries laws do they follow for the illegal part?

 

[Henadic Theologian]

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...

Make it an indepentdant 3rd party none publicly traded business that specializes in binding arbitration, with a reputation for fairness and neutrality, not a panel of folks appointed by WotC (I mean who gets to pick the panel's allegedly offended panelists, WotC would, it's stacking the deck against the accused).

 

[Lyandelill]

.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I don't mind the idea of a content/ morality clause.
DriveThruRPG has content guidelines and the ability to report violations, and has removed content for violating its guidelines in the past.
Paizo also has rules for it's Community Content policy, which allows you to use its IP.

Monte Cook's Cypher System Open License has the same rider. So there is examples of this there too.

I can't believe how many people think it is abnormal.

Most gamers are good, decent people.

that is my experience. Unlike comics or scifi I have found a large amount of TTRPG players are on average pretty empathic.

The vast majority. But there are A-holes in the world.

people in general suck... like on average if I grab 100 people off the street I will get a handful of REALLY good people and at least 1 or two COMPLETE garbage people... but th vast majority will be at least slightly A holes

FOr the record I am NOT one of those really good people... but I pride myself on most likely being on the better side of the 'slightly A hole' scale.

If even 0.1% of gamers is a racist monster, heck let's go with 0.01% of gamers... with tens of millions of D&D players out there that's thousands of bad apples.

As much as I agree that there is a small number of bad people... I can't believe that it is less then 2% overall... and like you said at .01% it's thousands.

The more popular D&D gets, the more likely someone will make a flagrantly racist or offensive 3rd Party product.

correct.

As much as I said the majority of people are good, I have examples of flagrantly racist people that had to be booted from games and stores... but WAY more likely and numerus was Creepy and/or Sexist ones.

As resent as late last year (aka only a few months) had a person tell me they don't let women (he said females) play full warrior classes (fighter, ranger, paladin) and they have str cap of 17... BUT they give them all +2 cha (up to the normal max of 20) because "it's basic biology"

 

[Dustin_00]

People are going to write offensive things.

Instead of trying to legally stop them, just make it clear to DriveThruRPG, KickStarter, Amazon, Ebay, Visa, MasterCard, PayPal, etc, that content like that should be banned from their platforms.

You can create something as awful as SFNG or F.A.T.A.L., but your only sales should be through your personal web site with bitcoin.