WotC Older D&D Books on DMs Guild Now Have A Disclaimer

If you go to any of the older WotC products on the Dungeon Master's Guild, they now have a new disclaimer very similar to that currently found at the start of Looney Tunes cartoons.

We recognize that some of the legacy content available on this website, does not reflect the values of the Dungeon & Dragons franchise today. Some older content may reflect ethnic, racial and gender prejudice that were commonplace in American society at that time. These depictions were wrong then and are wrong today. This content is presented as it was originally created, because to do otherwise would be the same as claiming these prejudices never existed. Dungeons & Dragons teaches that diversity is a strength, and we strive to make our D&D products as welcoming and inclusive as possible. This part of our work will never end.

The wording is very similar to that found at the start of Looney Tunes cartoons.

Edit: Wizards has put out a statement on Twitter (click through to the full thread)

 

[VelvetViolet]

Look, you made a claim that goblins were caricatures of Jewish people. You haven't been able to back that up and keep shifting the goalposts and cherry picking. It was an false claim to make; just own it.

Okay, there seems to be a miscommunication here. I was never trying to argue that all depictions of goblins draw from antisemitic caricature. I should have made that clear and I apologize for failing to do so.

I intended to point out that some goblins fit into multiple criteria for antisemitic caricature. These criteria include (according to Rayne Weinstein and co):

• Money-hungry
• Power-hungry
• Small
• Miserly, with dark, ugly features
• Large-eared and HUGE-nosed
• Corrosive and subversive

I am under the impression that this particular depiction is so common as to be considered typical.

Which is it? Seems like you keep changing your criteria. You said goblins were caricatures of Jews, and now also say they are caricatures of Asians. Can't have it both ways.

Again, miscommunication. I was not trying to argue that all goblins are antisemitic caricature. I recommend the article by James Mendez Hodes for information on Tolkien's goblins/orcs in particular.

Talking about that and equating the two isn't normalizing or trivializing Nazi atrocities. It's literally comparing similarities of actual events.

Fair enough. Casual comparisons to nazis are a huge pet peeve of mine. I apologize for becoming incensed.

Please don't use nazis as your go-to example when trying to compare D&D's humanoids to real life. Please. It's like the fantasy equivalent of Godwin's law.

OK, that's false, since some do. The goal is to wipe out the other side/culture completely in many of them.

I can show you several threads just in the past couple weeks of people upset about how Orcs, Roma, and others are depicted. if the outrage is the same, then surely you can provide me of equal frequency and dated outrage about how the European and British tribes are portrayed in many of these games.

My google-fu is throwing up a ton of unrelated pages so I can't actually confirm what you're saying. If it is indeed a problem, then that is a problem. I encourage you to write a blog or something to raise awareness of this issue. Genocide is genocide, regardless of whether the targets are historical or fictional.

If I had to hazard a guess as to why, then it's probably because those cultures are long dead, their surviving descendants don't have a vested interest in depictions of them, and players don't assume that the wargames are actively endorsing genocide. All of which probably has its root in white privilege, as despite their vast differences these cultures are considered white by modern (racist) standards.

 

[VelvetViolet]

How does everyone feel about McDonald’s putting a label on their coffee saying it’s hot because 1 person?

What parallels can be drawn from that to this discussion?

That is a really bad example.

 

[FrogReaver]

That is a really bad example.

Not for most people that haven't dug into the story. While the truth is interesting I don't think it matters so much as the typical person's perception for this comparison.

 

[Staffan]

How does everyone feel about McDonald’s putting a label on their coffee saying it’s hot because 1 person?

What parallels can be drawn from that to this discussion?

That some people like to twist the facts in cases to make things fit their pre-conceived narratives and push various agendas.

 

[FrogReaver]

That some people like to twist the facts in cases to make things fit their pre-conceived narratives and push various agendas.

The general reaction to the high dollar Mcdonalds coffee lawsuit for years has been something between disbelief and outrage. A few actually paid attention to the facts there but most did not. The story most people believe about that incident makes for a very good comparison here IMO.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

Hiya!



In short, yes.
Yes it does.

Public is public...not private. In public you have no "right to not be offended by others". Period. How someone can think otherwise is baffling to me.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

Unless you are playing at a site that is government-owned, like a school or library, then you are playing on private property, and the property owners have the right to set their rules in any way they want, so long as they do not violate anti-discrimination laws. So if you and your friends are sitting there at a table and roleplaying out something that is disgusting or vile to other people there, then the owner of the property or the person in charge of the event, has every right to ask your table to stop. And if you do not stop, to kick your group out of the premises. I have helped organize sci-fi and gaming conventions off and on for over 25 years now and I now what rights the convention organizers have over what content is allowed in open spaces where just anyone walking by could observe or listen in.

 

[Windjammer]

Unless you are playing at a site that is government-owned, like a school or library, then you are playing on private property, and the property owners have the right to set their rules in any way they want, so long as they do not violate anti-discrimination laws.

Actually, private parties are not subject to most anti-discrimination laws on their own private land. The right to exclude is pretty foundational to American property law. Things get different fast if you act in a governmental capacity or (as you point out) on public lands, or if you begin to act as a vendor to third parties (such as a convention venue host or owner).

Anyway, I have a petition to get WotC to remove their legacy content disclaimer. Feel free to sign (by commenting on my blog post) the petition if you're also disgusted by what's going on:

We believe [the disclaimer's] removal will remind everyone of the truth - that D&D is not, and has never been, prejudiced in regards to race, ethnicity, or gender. Furthermore, America is not systemically racist, and does not need to apologize or make excuses for its existence.
The values of self-reliance, self-determination, and personal responsibility are worth infinitely more than the feelings of social justice warriors, virtue signalers, woke-scolds, and those desperately clinging to their intersectional victim-hood.

What's particularly refreshing is how diplomatic and evenhandedly this is put.

 

[Morrus]

Late to the party as usual... however, I've been concerned about all of this ever since my friend and co-host of the Inappropriate Characters talk-show, RPG Pundit, made me aware of the problem's depth years ago.

Anyway, I have a petition to get WotC to remove their legacy content disclaimer. Feel free to sign (by commenting on my blog post) the petition if you're also disgusted by what's going on: WoTC Disclaimer - Sign The Petition

Thanks,

VS

You're linking to something which talks about "social justice warriors, virtue signalers, woke-scolds, and those desperately clinging to their intersectional victim-hood." Honestly, without the infantile namecalling, I'd have ignored this. As it is, don't post in this thread again.

 

[SkidAce]

George R.R. Martin, a white American, has appropriated numerous Native American, European, Asian, and African cultures while creating A Song of Ice and Fire. Should he be discouraged from writing any fantasy other than that which concerns white American culture like baseball and apple pie?

Whoa whao whao, there partner!

Are you implying that a certain racial/cultural group actually likes baseball? (liking pie is okay..!)

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

Actually, private parties are not subject to most anti-discrimination laws on their own private land. The right to exclude is pretty foundational to American property law. Things get different fast if you act in a governmental capacity or (as you point out) on public lands, or if you begin to act as a vendor to third parties (such as a convention venue host or owner).

Even though this is a UK-based site with an international audience, I try to not automatically assume I do not have to specify US law in posts, but sometimes I forget that. In the US, you just try to hold an event and tell the black person or the female or the disabled person they cannot come in because they are black or female or disabled. Or any of the other categories that are covered by anti-discrimination laws. The conventions I helped with had to specifically make sure there was room in all aisles of the dealers room or the hallways that met ADA guidelines for any attendees in wheelchairs. And even though there was always a general "no pets" policy, we had to make sure we did not violate the laws about allowing service animals. And there is plenty more beyond that to comply with as a private convention at a private site (hotel) that is open to anyone who buys a pass to enter.