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)

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

i think you missed my point.

I think you missed the point that your claim that this is just like the public perception of the "MacDonalds hot-coffee-lawsuit woman" is similar to the current situation is incorrect because of this:

So, basically, when that one person in the lawsuit was proven to merely be a signifier for hundreds before her who had also been injured, with the company doing nothing?

@FrogReaver you were claiming that this was similar to that because one person is making a lot of noise over one topic, or something similar to that, right? How do you know that there haven't been a lot of complaints about this? I doubt WotC would be pressured to change if it was just one person complaining about this.

Even if it wasn't a ton of people, this disclaimer doesn't do anything to harm anyone, so one thing in your analogy is accurate, it is an attempt to make an overall positive change. The lawsuit made them have to lower the temperature of their hot drinks, so if we have to "lower the temperature" of these metaphorical "hot drinks" to make D&D more open by adding a disclaimer on older products or changing wording in books that may be offensive, I'm all for it.

 

[Raduin711]

Yes, interesting to consider the parallels....

The entire reason that people believe that it was frivolous was because of a massive... disinformation campaign? Propaganda campaign? That painted her as an example of this new, swelling trend of frivolous lawsuits. If memory serves, it was shortly after that when people started taking advantage of this new anxiety and everyone's threatening "I'll sue!" in public whenever things don't go their way.

 

[jayoungr]

The entire reason that people believe that it was frivolous was because of a massive... disinformation campaign? Propaganda campaign? That painted her as an example of this new, swelling trend of frivolous lawsuits.

Yeah, ever since I learned the facts of that case, it just makes me mad when people bring it up as an example of a frivolous lawsuit.

 

[Mercurius]

Well, there's the rub...

Yeah. I chose the phrase purposefully.

Why is this sort of rhetorical tactic bordering on ad hominen acceptable, let alone by a moderator?

The implication is clear: if you don't unquestioningly agree with offended people, you don't care about the pain of other people. You either agree or you're part of the problem.

It ignores the possibility that, some of us at least, do care about other people, but either think some of the assumptions that lead to being offended are erroneous and based on one-sided interpretation, and/or don't think that the suggested course of action will lead to a positive result.

In other words, why must there be this insinuation--even if subtle or back-handed--that the disagreement people have is based upon some kind of character flaw or lack of compassion?

I'm not saying that I am perfect in this regard. I have a psychology background so it is difficult for me to abstain from entirely ignoring a psychological reading, especially when I see such elements at work--and they're always part of the picture, especially when we're talking about something like taking offense. I'm suggesting that we do better, and that this sort of back-handed insinuation is not conducive to real discussion (or the forum rules, as I understand them).

 

[reelo]

It ignores the possibility that, some of us at least, do care about other people, but either think some of the assumptions that lead to being offended are erroneous and based on one-sided interpretation, and/or don't think that the suggested course of action will lead to a positive result.

This. Thank you.

 

[Aldarc]

The implication is clear: if you don't unquestioningly agree with offended people, you don't care about the pain of other people. You either agree or you're part of the problem.

It ignores the possibility that, some of us at least, do care about other people, but either think some of the assumptions that lead to being offended are erroneous and based on one-sided interpretation, and/or don't think that the suggested course of action will lead to a positive result.

If you repeatedly keep accidentally dance on a stranger's feet at a party and they tell you to stop, how many times can you claim it's a mistake and that there has been a misunderstanding before it becomes callous negligence? At what point do you become the problem?

 

[Mercurius]

If you repeatedly keep accidentally dance on a stranger's feet at a party and they tell you to stop, how many times can you claim it's a mistake and that there has been a misunderstanding before it becomes callous negligence? At what point do you become the problem?

I'm trying to think of an element of the current situation for this analogy works, and I'm failing.

 

[Jharet]

Why is this sort of rhetorical tactic bordering on ad hominen acceptable, let alone by a moderator?

The implication is clear: if you don't unquestioningly agree with offended people, you don't care about the pain of other people. You either agree or you're part of the problem.

It ignores the possibility that, some of us at least, do care about other people, but either think some of the assumptions that lead to being offended are erroneous and based on one-sided interpretation, and/or don't think that the suggested course of action will lead to a positive result.

In other words, why must there be this insinuation--even if subtle or back-handed--that the disagreement people have is based upon some kind of character flaw or lack of compassion?

I'm not saying that I am perfect in this regard. I have a psychology background so it is difficult for me to abstain from entirely ignoring a psychological reading, especially when I see such elements at work--and they're always part of the picture, especially when we're talking about something like taking offense. I'm suggesting that we do better, and that this sort of back-handed insinuation is not conducive to real discussion (or the forum rules, as I understand them).

Because it's the worst mod on the site. ^_^

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

If you repeatedly keep accidentally dance on a stranger's feet at a party and they tell you to stop, how many times can you claim it's a mistake and that there has been a misunderstanding before it becomes callous negligence? At what point do you become the problem?

We are talking now about a "wrong" dance in a party what was celebrated years ago. Why complains now and not then?

 

[Eric V]

We are talking now about a "wrong" dance in a party what was celebrated years ago. Why complains now and not then?

Are you for real?

Because a lot more people (though, not enough, apparently) know better now. We can see how something written in '85 is problematic now. No offense, but that's not such a hard concept to understand, right? That societies evolve in understanding?