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)

 

[Hussar]

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.

Hrrrm, let's compare shall we?

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

So, at least one person has flat out stated that he doesn't care if other people are made to feel uncomfortable and that, in a public space, they don't even have the right to express that discomfort.

Why aren't you taking that to task @Mercurius? I mean, you're pretty quick to jump on @Umbran here for a "back handed comment" but, when someone straight up says that they don't care if they offend someone in a public place, that's allowed to pass without comment?

There was a poster booted for linking to a site filled with bile and epithets, and yet, that passes without comment as well.

At what point do we get to point out a rather strong correlation between those who don't care about others and those who oppose this disclaimer?

 

[Hussar]

Is it even possible to create a fictional group in a setting that someone can't correlate to a real life group?

Probably not. But, then again, that's not the problem. The problem is creating a fictional group that correlates to the real world denigration of a real world group and makes members of that group uncomfortable.

 

[VelvetViolet]

Probably not. But, then again, that's not the problem. The problem is creating a fictional group that correlates to the real world denigration of a real world group and makes members of that group uncomfortable.

Right. I don’t understand how people keep missing this.

I keep seeing youtuber after youtuber saying “you think orcs are black people? You’re the real racist!”

 

[DnD Warlord]

I'm not calling them that, and I haven't done so. I'm saying I'd be within my rights to regard them as such. I'm not going to go around haranguing them, am I? Come on.

Further, acting like BoVD is just a normal book is being disingenuous. It's a book designed to troll. That is the purpose of BoVD, just like BoEF. They're designed to troll, to create pointless controversy, and to get people talking about a deeply mediocre product. It's a game company being edgy for the sake of being edgy. It's definitely super-lame.

Both books have great things in them
...I have used vashareen, vile damage, liquade pain, kiss of life, grope, and fertility spells not just in that edition, but in the two since... dont yuk on others yum

 

[Umbran]

So, at least one person has flat out stated that he doesn't care if other people are made to feel uncomfortable and that, in a public space, they don't even have the right to express that discomfort.

The latter, of course, is hogwash. They have as much right to express their discomfort as the original speaker had to speak.

Ultimately, there's a point that usually gets missed when we talk about rights. To quote someone wiser than us, "Our privileges can be no greater than our obligations. The protection of our rights can endure no longer than the performance of our responsibilities."

A large amount of the wrangling here seems to be over how some folks are focused on the right, while others are questioning whether the responsibilities are being fulfilled.

 

[DnD Warlord]

Hrrrm, let's compare shall we?



So, at least one person has flat out stated that he doesn't care if other people are made to feel uncomfortable and that, in a public space, they don't even have the right to express that discomfort.

Why aren't you taking that to task @Mercurius? I mean, you're pretty quick to jump on @Umbran here for a "back handed comment" but, when someone straight up says that they don't care if they offend someone in a public place, that's allowed to pass without comment?

There was a poster booted for linking to a site filled with bile and epithets, and yet, that passes without comment as well.

At what point do we get to point out a rather strong correlation between those who don't care about others and those who oppose this disclaimer?

I care about others.
I don't care what labels are put on what.
Up thread I was very serious about all art getting a warning about even when you try your best it is a product of time.

I also praised books like BoVD (both 3e and 4 copies) and BoEF. I was called a loser for this.

Could you rewrite and re edit both books to be better...yes, but that is true of everything. I would pay good money for a 5e update on both. The irony being that Book of Erotic Fantasy is better at showing sex positive and LGBt representation then most.

 

[MGibster]

Probably not. But, then again, that's not the problem. The problem is creating a fictional group that correlates to the real world denigration of a real world group and makes members of that group uncomfortable.

And I don't think it's possible to avoid that at all times. No matter what fictional group is created, there's a good chance someone will read into it and be uncomfortable. And trying not to offend anyone is a fool's errand.

 

[DnD Warlord]

The latter, of course, is hogwash. They have as much right to express their discomfort as the original speaker had to speak.

Ultimately, there's a point that usually gets missed when we talk about rights. To quote someone wiser than us, "Our privileges can be no greater than our obligations. The protection of our rights can endure no longer than the performance of our responsibilities."

A large amount of the wrangling here seems to be over how some folks are focused on the right, while others are questioning whether the responsibilities are being fulfilled.

Very well stated. How do you come down on disrespecting players and DMs who take the good parts of supplements that are often called out as problematic?

Can I take the sex positive and LGBT rep presentation from BoEF without being called a loser in enworld?

 

[ccooke]

Very well stated. How do you come down on disrespecting players and DMs who take the good parts of supplements that are often called out as problematic?

Can I take the sex positive and LGBT rep presentation from BoEF without being called a loser in enworld?

I believe that direct attacks against the person would be against the rules already.

 

[VelvetViolet]

The irony being that Book of Erotic Fantasy is better at showing sex positive and LGBt representation then most.

Don’t forget The Netbook of Unlawful Carnal Knowledge.