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]

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).

Sorry, but, "I saw one person bring this up" is hardly presenting evidence is it?

 

[Hussar]

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.

Sigh, I can see I need to bookmark certain posts where the evidence gets posted so I can just link back. You'd think that someone who has been through all these threads would be able to recognize the presentations of evidence, but, apparently not.

Evidence has been REPEATEDLY presented. I'm sick and tired of doing other people's research for them. Don't believe me? Start hunting back through the threads. Or just wait, I'm sure enough people will waffle on about there not being evidence that @Doug McCrae will post it again.

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.

Yes, they are. No one is complaining about giants or beholders or a million other things that people keep dragging out. Or, if they are, LET'S SEE THE COMPLAINTS. We've shown you the evidence for our complaints. If you see an issue with something, let's see the evidence. Otherwise, it's just more fabricated smoke and mirrors.

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.

I honestly missed the posts about goblins. Didn't see that discussion. Things are pretty fast moving lately, so, I missed it. What was the evidence presented that goblins are anti-semitic? However, being mistaken on a single example doesn't really negate my point.

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.

Yup, totally agree. Fabricating endless "whatabouts" without a single shred of evidence or sign that anyone is actually complaining is definitely ignoring principles.

In other words, stick to the real issues and leave the hand wringing hypotheticals out of it.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Evidence has been REPEATEDLY presented. I'm sick and tired of doing other people's research for them. Don't believe me? Start hunting back through the threads.


I honestly missed the posts about goblins. Didn't see that discussion. Things are pretty fast moving lately, so, I missed it. What was the evidence presented that goblins are anti-semitic? However, being mistaken on a single example doesn't really negate my point.

...

In other words, stick to the real issues and leave the hand wringing hypotheticals out of it.

So, when I just pointed out that, after telling everyone else that they lying liars and to shut up ... and that you were wrong (and uncivil).

You respond by saying:

1. I'm the one that needs to go back and look for evidence?
2. I'm the one that needs to justify why you were wrong and uncivil?

Okay. Not a great look. The point being, that you did not acknowledge, is that when you are telling people to "shut up" and stop "fabricating" impossibilities, it's not great when there was a lengthy debate about the very topic you insist people are lying about. Just now.

Which probably means your thesis has a few issues with it.

 

[Hussar]

Yup. That's the trick. Ignore the issues and go after the poster.

Shame on me for asking, well, telling people to stick to the issues at hand. I should know better.

After all, if we stick to the issues at hand, we resolve the issues in about three posts.

I mean, looking at the orc thing - everyone agrees that the language should be changed and we can move on.

Disclaimers? Yep, pretty much everyone is on board with that. Some pointing towards demonetizing the books too. But, largely everyone agrees.

Umm, oh, right, Drow. Yeah, everyone is pretty much on board with some minor changes to Drow to get rid of the more problematic elements.

See, that's what happens when people stop inventing a bunch of "whatabouts" and actually deal with the issues at hand. But hey, feel free to derail the thread further. After all, we must absolutely spend fifteen pages discussing the breeding methods of beholders.

 

[Bedrockgames]

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".

We already had a big thread on this a year or so ago. I have no desire to re-enact that longrwinding argument, but I think a lot of people are acting as if this is settled when it isn't. People made this argument for sure and they did supply evidence to support their position, but others weighed in with rebuttals, and I don't think it was nearly as cut and dry as folks are making it out to be. A lot of us do not find the "Orcs are racist" a compelling argument at all.

 

[Aldarc]

Sure in the same way that flat earthers insist that it’s not a clear cut case and cite the mere existence of pages of debate as evidence that the case of a “round earth” is far from conclusive or compelling at all.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Sure in the same way that flat earthers insist that it’s not a clear cut case and cite the mere existence of pages of debate as evidence that the case of a “round earth” is far from conclusive or compelling at all.

We can keep going back and forth on this, but I promise you this isn't as settled as the matter of the shape of the earth. It is an ongoing debate. I am sure you genuinely believe that you are right, and that the evidence supports you are right. But I participated in those threads, saw the evidence people presented and didn't find it persuasive (and both sides were bringing evidence to support their position). Again, it is another topic, it isn't one I am particularly interested in revisiting, I am just saying something because people every so often bring it up like it is a settled matter and it is the furthest thing from settled.

 

[Cadence]

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".

We can keep going back and forth on this, but I promise you this isn't as settled as the matter of the shape of the earth. It is an ongoing debate. I am sure you genuinely believe that you are right, and that the evidence supports you are right.

@Bedrockgames

I assume you are not denying that there are quotes describing orcs that are almost identical to the ones used by racists and eugenicists to justify real life repression and killing?

In that case are you saying that players in the real life groups that were described that way by racists and eugenicists shouldn't find it cringe-worthy when they see humanoid races that can be PCs, breed with humans, and have been shown to have a variety of alignments in different products, are described using that same language?

 

[dalisprime]

Sorry, but, "I saw one person bring this up" is hardly presenting evidence is it?

The devil thing had rallied significant support on twitter. The sexism thing was more isolated, but just because I ran into only one case of that sentiment, doesn't mean it's not more widespread.
At which point do we acknowledge that a problem is a problem?

 

[Raunalyn]

Yup. That's the trick. Ignore the issues and go after the poster.

Well, you know all about that, I suppose.