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)

 

[dalisprime]

Hobgoblins weren’t. They’ve literally been red-skinned and evil for a few decades, and NOBODY has accused them of being a Native American stereotype, because they share precisely ZERO attributes with ...

That's because they are pretty consistently presented as wearing samurai armour, adhering to some kind of honor code (the racial ability is saving face!) so no, Native Americans aren't protesting them but I've seen at least one post indicating them as problematic to East Asians.

The skin colour in most cases is a red herring. The parallels are drawn on cultural facsimiles - orcs aren't associated with NA because of skin colour - it's because of their nomadic nature.

Few of you mentioned sensitivity experts. I can name at least one case where i feel they've gone too far with that approach: the drunk guard in CoS. Raise your hands if you've never used or entertained the drunk guard trope in your game.
One drunk guard doesn't project the image that the entire group of people is prone to alcoholism, when all other mentions of alcoholism in said group were removed and everyone else is depicted as sober (and just so I'm perfectly clear, i have no issue with that adjustment, being Polish i know all too well how annoying the drunk Pole stereotype is).
If he was the only vistani the PCs encountered, sure yeah that's a problem. He's not, and it came across as taking a sledge hammer to get a frame hook attached to the wall.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Teiflings exist as red skinned characters that have devilblood and are typically outcasts and not trusted by society. No one has made the Native American association till now. You may have singlehandedly managed to ruin the tiefling race!

They are also blue, purple, violet, maroon, and a whole host of other shades.

Also, they have zero connections to the native american stereotypes beyond that.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

It's been almost six years since 5th edition D&D was released, 2nd edition hasn't been produced in 20 years, and 1st edition in about 31 years. In all honesty, how many 10-15 year old kids do you think are interested in picking up books that haven't been made for AD&D since their parents were young children? I'm going to out on a limb and guess that Oriental Adventures, Al-Qadim, and the Menzoberranzan boxed set aren't high on the list of things tween gamers are interested in.

I’m assuming that the people who protest the content in OA and similar products would also prefer that the errors of the past not be duplicated in future products of a similar nature.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

That's because they are pretty consistently presented as wearing samurai armour, adhering to some kind of honor code (the racial ability is saving face!) so no, Native Americans aren't protesting them but I've seen at least one post indicating them as problematic to East Asians.

The assertion was that using “red skin“ and “evil” for a race would be expected to draw complaints from Native Americans in particular, regardless of shade of red used. I provided a very simple proof that this was not the case.

Now, if you want to discuss asian cultural iconography and tropes as problematic for an always evil race, that’s a different facet of the same issue. I’d have to agree that’s not right- nobody RW culture should be copypasted onto an always evil group, be it species or nation or whatever.

 

[dalisprime]

The assertion was that using “red skin“ and “evil” for a race would be expected to draw complaints from Native Americans in particular, regardless of shade of red used. I provided a very simple proof that this was not the case.

Now, if you want to discuss asian cultural iconography and tropes as problematic for an always evil race, that’s a different facet of the same issue. I’d have to agree that’s not right- nobody RW culture should be copypasted onto an always evil group, be it species or nation or whatever.

Devoid of all the peripheral imagery, I'm certain Hobgoblins would be flagged as offensive to NA (who were described as people of honour as well in texts relaying the early interactions with them). The peripheral imagery does however shift the focus to the other ethnic group. This is one of the cases where skin colour becomes a red herring.

 

[Hussar]

And so these conversations go around and around and around.

Look, it's pretty clear. Orcs are an issue because of the language used to describe orcs mirrors the language used by racists to describe real life people. That's a clear cut case. And, frankly, that's what people are arguing should be removed from the game. Cases where you can hold up ACTUAL evidence and say, "Yup, that's pretty racist".

Instead, we get all sorts of slippery slope "Well what about this?" type posts endlessly trying to win Internet points by showing how this or that isn't a problem.

It's simple. Does X have a real world analogue? Can you pick up X from the game, hold it up to some real world racism and see the points of comparison? Yes? Then let's talk about that. No? Then all you're doing is trying to cloud the issue and turn it into something it's not.

Is anyone complaining about Dragons? No? Then, well, let's not talk about dragons. Is anyone talking about Goblins? No? Then shut up about goblins. Ogres? Trolls? Giants? Demons? Devils? Aberrations? No? Then shut up. Stop bringing up fabricated issues. Talk about the stuff that's ACTUALLY a problem, and let's resolve that.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Devoid of all the peripheral imagery, I'm certain Hobgoblins would be flagged as offensive to NA (who were described as people of honour as well in texts relaying the early interactions with them). The peripheral imagery does however shift the focus to the other ethnic group. This is one of the cases where skin colour becomes a red herring.

Which is why a constant refrain through ALL of these threads is context matters. Going out one a limb, I’m going to assert most minority gamers aren’t stupid- mere skin color isn’t enough to draw a negative conclusion. A claim of racism being encoded into a nonhuman species based merely on skin tone is a weak inference I haven’t seen suggested outside of assorted strawmen.

Using a RW stereotype or slur, OTOH, is much stronger evidence than that.*

Casting an entire RW culture as always evil is much stronger evidence than that.**





* if you’re using those, about the only way to avoid a backlash is to either subvert the stereotype or as part of a more historical setting in which that would be appropriate as a negative attribute/part of a redemption story arc. Using them uncritically as a positive attribute gets you tossed in with RaHoWa pretty quickly.

** Before anyone suggests it, I don’t remember which anti-bigotry in gaming thread it was originally posted, but I have already said its perfectly fine to have an irredeemably evil race in your game as long as it’s not based on RW stereotypes, slurs, or cultures, easy peasy.

 

[dalisprime]

At least one devil was brought up as being a harmful depiction of trans people (the person went so far as to suggest this was done intentionally, though i didn't see any direct evidence backing that particular claim), so devils are on that list and i did bring up the poster claiming sexism is present in the MM because monstrous males are put side by side with attractive females (which, again, only happens with demons and devils).
You don't see a problem - doesn't mean someone else doesn't. That's my point here - there will always be that someone else, even if you don't act out of malice and try not to be offensive.
Sensitivity advisors help, but can skew things in the opposite direction which isn't helpful either. For an example of this: couple years ago the Polish government introduced a law that banned the term Polish Concentration Camp because they viewed it as harmful and offensive to Polish people (who after all weren't complicit in the atrocities that happened therein) which caused a backlash from the Jewish community saying that it stifles conversation about other war atrocities some Poles were guilty of. This move by my government made people use the slippery slope "fallacy" of 'if Poland are allowed to do this, what's stopping other (more complicit) countries from doing the same?' - guess what, a more complicit country did just that (hence quotations around fallacy).

 

[Aldarc]

I tend to resonate with Ursula K Le Guin's view on fantasy,

...that it should be less racist and misogynistic?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Is anyone complaining about Dragons? No? Then, well, let's not talk about dragons. Is anyone talking about Goblins? No? Then shut up about goblins. Ogres? Trolls? Giants? Demons? Devils? Aberrations? No? Then shut up. Stop bringing up fabricated issues. Talk about the stuff that's ACTUALLY a problem, and let's resolve that.

1. Please stop telling people to shut up.

2. Continued use of "actually" and "clearly" does not make things true to other people; more often than not, these verbal tics indicate that things are not ... obvious.

3. People are not making up fabricated issues; you might not agree with them, but they aren't fabricated. Telling people that they are liars, and to shut up, never persuades anyone.

4. Finally, looking at your examples is kind of funny. I could do each one in turn, but we just went through a major, mutli-post debate with people claiming that Goblins are anti-semitic. I could tell you that your post is, therefore, fabricated and you should shut up ... but that would be uncivil.* Instead, I will observe that people do complain about the specific things that you believe cannot be complained about.

Finally, I would add that this type of approach conveniently allows people to ignore principles. A principle is something you do even when an individual situation might counsel against it, because you are looking at the overall principle.

*Although I am unclear on this on this forum, given that a moderator "liked" your post.