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]

K, so is the drunk and stubborn stereotype of dwarves problematic?

Yes.

 

[Morrus]

K, so is the drunk and stubborn stereotype of dwarves problematic?

It's not a problem for me; I'm not Scottish. If Asian people say that something bothers them, I believe them. If a Scot told me something was problematic to them, I'd believe them. I suggest you find somebody Scottish and ask them. They might say no. I have no insight into what they might say.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I'm Scottish and I'm not offended by stereotyped portrayals of Scottish people. The reason I'm not offended is that Scottish people don't suffer discrimination so stereotyped portrayals don't cause harm. People that do suffer discrimination are harmed by stereotyped portrayals.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I’m asking you.

I’m not a Scotsman, nor do I know any personally. I have no idea what stereotypes they find offensive, nor if drunk & stubborn are among them.

For me to presume to tell you what they find insulting would involve me talking out of my sporran. (And I don’t own a sporran.)

 

[Umbran]

I’m asking you.

As noted - there are people who review language use professionally. You seem to be seeking definitive answers on very particular bits from folks who aren't experts, which isn't a great way to get the job done.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

You seem to be seeking definitive answers on very particular bits from folks who aren't experts, which isn't a great way to get the job done.

It’s actually a great way to repeat or compound errors.

 

[Doug McCrae]

My impression is that in the US if anything Scottish people are treated a little too positively. I think there may be a certain romanticisation going on, connected with the TV show Outlander and similar media. I think I might end up disappointing Americans if they find out I'm not like the characters in the show!

However if I'm right about this, it is absolutely nothing like the experience of being black, Hispanic, or Native American in the US.

 

[MGibster]

My impression is that in the US if anything Scottish people are treated a little too positively. I get the impression there may be a certain romanticisation going on, connected with the TV show Outlander and similar media. I think I might end up disappointing Americans if they find out I'm not like the characters in the show!

Scottish people used to have a reputation for being particularly frugal (cheap), but I don't think most of associate parsimony with them these days. But it's why we have Scotch tape instead of Quaker tape or something. These days I think the stereotype is that Scottish people are difficult to understand. You see that in some television shows, including some from Scotland, and there was that one character from Brave. But I tell you, there was a Scotsman who was part of our gaming club here in Arkansas and a lot of us had a hard time understanding him. I frequently had to ask him to slow down and repeat what he had just said. One day he confessed that someone asked him what his first language was. (In the interest of fairness, I've found some native Arkansas with such thick accents I could scarcely understand them.)

Here's the lyrics to a song we sung when I was in 5th grade back in 1986. I don't remember the full song but I remember some of the lyrics. Well, as much as I can remember lyrics from 34 years ago.

A bugler named McDougall
Found an ingenious way to be frugal
He learned how to sneeze in various keys
thus saving the price of a bugle

Play the bugle, oh, Doug McDougall
Play the bugle today, today

 

[Voadam]

Not only would the aforementioned translucent skinned not correspond to any RW bigotry and thus pass muster, but so would colors on the obvious non-human spectrum- crimson or scarlet reds, canary yellows, violet, turquoise, etc.

Crimson or Scarlet Red - Indians
Canary Yellow - Asians

Making a Crimson orc you can get associations of Chief Wahoo.

Goblins have existing criticism for their yellow skin as coding for Asians and Yellow Peril. Making it cartoonishly more so does not make the problem go away.

Violet and dark blue drow are still pretty much black-skinned drow, particularly when those are the colors used in comics to show black. Everquest dark elves are still visually the drow and share their associations visually.

 

[arjomanes]

This whole conversation is difficult.

I've seen comments about orcs, drow, hobgoblins, goblins, duergar, dwarves, and gnomes. There may be others that are perceived as problematic as well. Giants, trolls, oni, ogres, goliaths, genies, aasimar, devils, demons, tieflings, there seems to be a lot of room for humanoid monsters that could share some descriptions with racist, xenophobic, or bigoted themes and descriptions.

"Like all gith, Githyanki were tall and slender humanoids with rough, leathery yellow skin and bright black eyes that were sunken deep in their orbits. They had long and angular skulls, with small and highly placed flat noses, and ears that were pointed and serrated in the back side. They typically grew either red or black hair, which they styled in topknots. Their teeth were pointed."

Are the Githyanki considered problematic? Is it a problem that they are a violent psionic race with martial tendencies and yellow skin and top knots?

"The chonmage is a form of Japanese traditional topknot haircut worn by men. It is most commonly associated with the Edo period and samurai, and in recent times with sumo wrestlers. It was originally a method of using hair to hold a samurai helmet steady atop the head in battle, and became a status symbol among Japanese society."


Or is it only problematic if they are perceived as innately violent? Is it the evilness of the group in question that is problematic, or is it that they could be compared to a real-world culture in some way? I wonder if it's possible to future-proof any fantasy milieu.

Is it even possible to allow "monstrous" humanoid characters in a game? Isn't the very fact of their monstrous nature a dehumanizing feature? I'd be hard-pressed to name a single monstrous or goblinoid humanoid without there being a compelling case for similarities with real-world racist terms applied to a group. Whether it's pigment, society, features, mannerisms, bestial metaphors, I feel there is going to be something that could be seen as offensive.

Is the demon-worshipping savage hyena-man ok? Gnoll

I truly don't know what is ok or not, and what will be a problem in 5 years or 10. There are some things like the Magic cards that are blatantly a problem, and I understand removing them. But I feel like orcs and drow are such a gray area that is occupied by so many other main building blocks of the game.

Violence against "monstrous" cultures, and civilization vs barbarism on the frontier are such basic tropes of medieval fantasy that I don't know a way to use those tropes without potential problems, and if they are removed is it even fantasy? Is Lord of the Rings problematic? Cthulhu mythos? Conan the Barbarian? The Forgotten Realms? Eberron? Beowulf? Game of Thrones? Avatar?

What ISN'T problematic?