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)

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

Female monsters are hot and sexy by the rule of cool and fanservie. Some fanboys love the monster-girls. An "artistic licence" to sell more.

 

[Hussar]

Which pretty much proves my point - something that wasn't problematic before is now problematic because it gained popularity. The only way to prevent this is to depict monsters in ways that keep them from becoming popular but I'm at a loss as to how that can be done because tastes differ

Or, I dunno, take the objectionable parts out of the description and move forward? I know that's an incredibly obscure point that no one would ever think of, but, hey

 

[Mercurius]

Imagine being someone of a particular ethnicity seeing their identity stereotyped in a piece of work (that encourages people to act out that stereotype, mind you) and complaining about it, only to be told by someone from the majority that the offensive thing isn't really a racial stereotype.

The gall...

Is that really happening with OA, though? Is anyone saying that it doesn't involve racial stereotypes? Maybe a spare few, but I don't think many of them are posting here.

I think what is actually happening is that the majority of folks recognize that there are stereotypes, but there are differences in A) to what degree it is a problem, and B) what to do about it.

I think OA does include outdated racial stereotypes. But I also think D&D, by its very nature, includes all kinds of stereotypes. And further, and more importantly, I don't think removing it from print does anything but win crusader points for those that want it removed.

 

[Mercurius]

It seems to me.

When one holds nonhuman races as actually not human then all these problems go away. So why insist on the interpretation that hurts when there is a different interpretation that doesn't?

This. This is the crucial assumption that, if removed, takes away the problem. For whatever reason, those who insist upon this linkage completely refuse to entertain this direction.

I'm reminded of the game "Six Degrees to Kevin Bacon" where you name a random actor and try to link them to Kevin Bacon through six films or less. The person who does it in the fewest linkages wins the round. To take one random example: Humphrey Bogart. He was in Sabrina with William Holden, who was in Network with Robert Duvall, who was in Jane Mansfield's Car with...Kevin Bacon! So it only took three films to link Bogart, one of the biggest stars of the WWII era, with KB.

The point being, if you want to link two things you can probably find a way. The problem is when any such linkages are seen to be close linkages. If we apply that process broadly enough, just about everything in D&D could be seen as "problematic."

Now obviously the closer the linkage, the more problematic it becomes. But I think part of this debate is around how close the linkage needs to be for it to be problematic, and what the resulting course of action should be. All sorts of secondary issues arise as red herrings and ad hominems.

 

[Hussar]

The problem with that is, you're basically telling people who are offended by the material, "sorry, your offense doesn't quite meet my standard for being offended, so, too bad."

And, again, trivializing it by playing Seven Degrees of Kevin Bacon hardly strengthen's your point.

It's been demonstrated, multiple times, that the language that people are complaining about is practically word for word identical to the racist language used in the early 20th century to denigrate various minorities. We're not talking about finding a connection three steps later. We're talking about direct quotations that are word for word identical.

So, no, it's not that "those who insist upon this linkage completely refuse to entertain this direction", it's that you, for whatever reason, completely refuse to accept the evidence, regardless of the amount of evidence provided. Could we ignore it? Sure, but, why should we? We've demonstrated, clearly, direct contextual evidence of the claims - that the language mirrors.

It's up to you now, if you want to counter that, to provide counter evidence. Which, through all these threads, not a single person has managed to do. Because, well, frankly, you can't because when the claim is that two things are virtually word for word identical, and you hold them up and, yup, they are virtually word for word identical, there really isn't any counter to that argument.

But, hey, trivializing the issue is the only counter argument left isn't it? Folks aren't really trying to change things for the better, but, rather are trying to score crusader points. ((Your exact words @Mercurius)) Folks are just inventing things to be upset about.

So, as a challenge, @FrogReaver and @Mercurius, can you demonstrate how the language that has been identified as problematic, doesn't directly mirror racist screeds of the early 20th century? Because, frankly, until you can do that, you don't have a leg to stand on. All the naughty word and bafflegab attempting to confuse the issue aside, it comes down to one basic fact - the language mirrors almost word for word.

 

[thatparanoidguy]

An update on the disclaimer. It's been taken down from covering all of the catalogue and now placed only on specific products.

So when you search DMsguild by older editions the disclaimer will not appear at the top of the page but when you click on the OA book it'll be at the top of the books description page.

So they're no longer blanketing the entire catalogue with a potential mark of shame for older editions.

Edit: Nevermind apparently they've put the disclaimer on all the older editions and on individual book pages? Seems like overkill but okay.

As for people saying that use of these books should be looked down upon in actually games I'm going to have to disagree with that. You can cut out the good materials and leave behind the bad or better yet update them in your own games.

If some one is using the more sensitive materials to be edgy then sure I get not wanting to play with them.

Again your tables your rules but I'd hope people would at least talk to each other first before judging them.

 

[Mercurius]

The problem with that is, you're basically telling people who are offended by the material, "sorry, your offense doesn't quite meet my standard for being offended, so, too bad."

And, again, trivializing it by playing Seven Degrees of Kevin Bacon hardly strengthen's your point.

It's been demonstrated, multiple times, that the language that people are complaining about is practically word for word identical to the racist language used in the early 20th century to denigrate various minorities. We're not talking about finding a connection three steps later. We're talking about direct quotations that are word for word identical.

So, no, it's not that "those who insist upon this linkage completely refuse to entertain this direction", it's that you, for whatever reason, completely refuse to accept the evidence, regardless of the amount of evidence provided. Could we ignore it? Sure, but, why should we? We've demonstrated, clearly, direct contextual evidence of the claims - that the language mirrors.

It's up to you now, if you want to counter that, to provide counter evidence. Which, through all these threads, not a single person has managed to do. Because, well, frankly, you can't because when the claim is that two things are virtually word for word identical, and you hold them up and, yup, they are virtually word for word identical, there really isn't any counter to that argument.

But, hey, trivializing the issue is the only counter argument left isn't it? Folks aren't really trying to change things for the better, but, rather are trying to score crusader points. ((Your exact words @Mercurius)) Folks are just inventing things to be upset about.

So, as a challenge, @FrogReaver and @Mercurius, can you demonstrate how the language that has been identified as problematic, doesn't directly mirror racist screeds of the early 20th century? Because, frankly, until you can do that, you don't have a leg to stand on. All the naughty word and bafflegab attempting to confuse the issue aside, it comes down to one basic fact - the language mirrors almost word for word.

I'm not sure why you're going on about this, when you know that I've already said that I'm OK with the disclaimer and making some changes going forward, such as broadening the depictions of orcs. I'm amenable to the change not because I find orcs particularly problematic as currently presented--I don't-- but because some people feel that way and I think there are ways to make changes that most folks will be fine with, that don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. Inclusivity. Are you offended that I haven't changed my view and continue to express it?

But to reply to your challenge, my first objection is that you're creating the framing for what constitutes whether or not various D&D depictions are problematic (racist), which I don't agree with. Even if I played that game, you'd have to actually provide quotes. Which current descriptions are "word-for-word identical to the racist language used in the 20th century?" And which racist screeds are you talking about?

Your argument is basically: "D&D trope X (usually orcs) are racist because the description mirrors racist depictions from the 19th-20th century." Yes? Again, I don't agree with that conclusion - for reasons I've explained over the last several weeks.

Do we really need to go through all of this again? If you insist, I can oblige, but I'm not sure why you think anything new will emerge from it. We've already agreed on some basic changes. I don't think we're going to alter each other's interpretations and conclusions.

 

[dalisprime]

Or, I dunno, take the objectionable parts out of the description and move forward? I know that's an incredibly obscure point that no one would ever think of, but, hey

You can't predict which monster someone attempts to identify with so your option is to remove negative connotations from every single monster manual entry in case someone finds it offensive. How exactly do you imagine writing up demons and devils without negative connotations when at their core, they are beings of evil.

 

[Hussar]

I'm not sure why you're going on about this, when you know that I've already said that I'm OK with the disclaimer and making some changes going forward, such as broadening the depictions of orcs. I'm amenable to the change not because I find orcs particularly problematic as currently presented--I don't-- but because some people feel that way and I think there are ways to make changes that most folks will be fine with, that don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. Inclusivity. Are you offended that I haven't changed my view and continue to express it?

But to reply to your challenge, my first objection is that you're creating the framing for what constitutes whether or not various D&D depictions are problematic (racist), which I don't agree with. Even if I played that game, you'd have to actually provide quotes. Which current descriptions are "word-for-word identical to the racist language used in the 20th century?" And which racist screeds are you talking about?

Your argument is basically: "D&D trope X (usually orcs) are racist because the description mirrors racist depictions from the 19th-20th century." Yes? Again, I don't agree with that conclusion - for reasons I've explained over the last several weeks.

Do we really need to go through all of this again? If you insist, I can oblige, but I'm not sure why you think anything new will emerge from it. We've already agreed on some basic changes. I don't think we're going to alter each other's interpretations and conclusions.

No, I totally agree with you that you will reject any and all evidence. It's been presented repeatedly, and I know you've seen it. But, hey, you can lead a horse to water. Although, looking at this, I would amend your comment slightly:

"Some writing in D&D mirrors racist screeds used in the 20th century to dehumanize various minorities. That writing needs to be changed". See, to be honest, the whole "is it racist" or "is it racist enough" thing just isn't all that interesting. Does it mirror? Can I find quotes and hold them up side by side? Yuppers, I sure can, have done, and others have as well. You folks are the ones broadening it to encompass entire concepts like "orcs". Got zero problem with orc. Heck, don't even mind evil orcs. But, the whole racist baggage that comes with the writing? Yeah, that's not needed and can be excised pretty painlessly to the point where no one would even notice that it was gone.

 

[Hussar]

You can't predict which monster someone attempts to identify with so your option is to remove negative connotations from every single monster manual entry in case someone finds it offensive. How exactly do you imagine writing up demons and devils without negative connotations when at their core, they are beings of evil.

Well, again, negative is fine. Evil is fine. Negative that word for word mirrors KKK fanfic? Not so fine.

So, yeah, don't rely on quotes from Lovecraft when talking about demons or other otherworldly baddies. Don't use language that mirrors real world bigotry.

Guess what? 99% of the Monster Manual is perfectly fine. No one is complaining about it. Heck, most of the game is perfectly fine. No one is complaining about it.

Look beyond the slippery slope arguments that keep getting trotted out and look at what people ACTUALLY want and you'll find that a couple of pretty minor changes will go a long way. Pretty much the same way that including LGBTQA elements could be accommodated with a minimum of fuss or chainmail bikinis could be relegated to the dustbin of history without any real problem.