D&D General PETITION: Acknowledge Hasbro's hurtful content (Black orcs, Asian yellow orcs, Native American red orcs)—through an Amendatory Bundle [+ thread]

[LordEntrails]

So? They're still making money off it, which opens them up to legitimate critique.

That's a bit ... aggressive response to a simple factual post I made isn't it? I never said or implied any type of judgement.

 

[Justice and Rule]

That's a bit ... aggressive response to a simple factual post I made isn't it? I never said or implied any type of judgement.

Apologies if it came off that way, but it feels like it is being posted to make a point: that this is not something that is particularly important, hence we shouldn't be focusing on it. Hence my unintentionally curt response.

 

[John Lloyd1]

Good question.
To back it up even further: is there anything worth saving about the Broken Lands of Thar?
I'd answer: Yes.
The Broken Lands first appeared eight years prior to GAZ10, as a one-paragraph write-up in Tom Moldvay's and David "Zeb" Cook's X1: The Isle of Dread:

After that, there were sparse and weird references to the Broken Lands in a few random modules.

Only in 1988, with GAZ10, were the Broken Lands filled out--and filled out in this problematic way. Furthermore, the weird and cool references to them in earlier modules were not really synthesized and included in GAZ10. Where were the "outcasts" mentioned in X1? GAZ10 could have gone in a different direction.

But, if you overlook the real-world racial/cultural ugliness, game-wise GAZ10 was innovative in providing advancement levels for goblinoid/humanoid PCs. It was the template for the Creature Crucible line which came out a year later and which likewise gave advancement levels for all sorts of monstrous PCs (fey, aerial, underwater, and lycanthrope PCs); and, in this regard, GAZ10 was also the predecessor of such products as 2E's Complete Book of Humanoids, and 3E's Savage [sic] Species, where Level Adjustment was introduced, which was kind of a "thing" in 3.5e.

If GAZ10 didn't contain such ugly real-world-based racial slurs, there would be no petition. The issue of general fantasy biological determinism (e.g. orcs are inherently dim-witted and evil) is a separate issue. If that's all that was the matter with GAZ10, then likewise, there would be no petition.

Thanks for the explanation.

I think where I come down is:

1. I support a disclaimer that is specific for this product. The other old D&D products I have seen are problematic in spots (for example, GAZ1), rather than as broadly as this.
2. I appreciate it may be a conceptual ground breaker for play-able monster races. Even if the execution was terrible.
3. If anyone wants to revive a modern version of Thar, they should do it themselves and publish it on Pandius.
4. I'm open to the idea that the proceeds go to a charity, but not particularly upset if it doesn't.

 

[Zardnaar]

Here's how punching up/down works here.

Basically it's OK to kick any nation that's bigger than you that has a similar culture. That basically translates as Australia, Canada, USA,UK and Australia.

1. Saying mean things to an Australian is perfectly OK as long as they're in on it and and giving it back. They start at sheep jokes goes down hill from there. We start at F and C bombs and goes down hill from there. If either side hits rock bottom blasting caps and pick axes will be deployed.

2. If anyone else gets involved in part 1 them it's team ANZAC all the way especially if they're from the USA or UK. They're volunteering to be double teamed.

3. No one else gets the benefits of 1 only the Australians.

4. We like Canada they get a free pass from to much mockery. Except the word "about".

5. Due the the erm uniqueness of some USA type things mocking them is a bit to easy. It's all self inflicted they may as well have tee shirts with bullseyes on them. UK is moving into this category.

6. Germans. Don't mention the war (translation innuendo is fine).

7. I'd you get bored of mocking the American and British puck another large country in Europe for mockery. Bonjour!! You don't really get sick of mocking Australia. Or France. Or Germany or Australia.

Kinda how it works here. Not sure if the Australian thingbus cultural or genetic.

 

[Horwath]

Will you sign the petition?

No.

As this is a "+ thread", this is the only reply that I can make, obviously.

 

[Remathilis]

On a side note: bad timing to start your petition. The recent news concerning Roald Dahl's work has been rather poorly received.

I wondered if anyone was going to bring this up.

If you want to put a disclaimer on a piece of media, I'm ok with that. Stating a piece of media has offensive content that was part of the culture of the time is fair enough warning.

If you want to limit access to a piece of media, that's your prerogative as the media owner. I'm less happy with the "Song of the South forever in the vault" method, but it's Disney's right on what they want to sell or stream.

I'm absolutely against the notion of rewriting or editing media to make it conform to modern sensibility. Unless the author of the original piece wants to amend it in a new edition (and clearly state it is an updated version) I am against media owners or heirs editing the author's original vision, especially if the author is no longer able to provide said input.

I am against what was done with Dahl's work. I was against the changing of Gammell's art on the Scary Stories trilogy. I'd be against rewriting Orcs of Thar.

 

[Voadam]

Good question.
GAZ10 has as "Mithril Seller" badge, which means it's sold betwen 2000 to 4999 copies since 2014.
The product price ranges between $9.99 (for just the PDF) to $29.98 (the undiscounted softcover POD + PDF).
So, over the past 9 years, Hasbro has made roughly between:
$19,980 (if they sold only 2000 PDFs) and $149,870.02 (if they sold 4999 copies of the undiscounted POD + PDF).

There was also a special bundle at one point for the entire Gazetteer line really cheap ($25 for all 13? $20?). I know I picked that up.

 

[Immeril]

I wondered if anyone was going to bring this up.

If you want to put a disclaimer on a piece of media, I'm ok with that. Stating a piece of media has offensive content that was part of the culture of the time is fair enough warning.

If you want to limit access to a piece of media, that's your prerogative as the media owner. I'm less happy with the "Song of the South forever in the vault" method, but it's Disney's right on what they want to sell or stream.

I'm absolutely against the notion of rewriting or editing media to make it conform to modern sensibility. Unless the author of the original piece wants to amend it in a new edition (and clearly state it is an updated version) I am against media owners or heirs editing the author's original vision, especially if the author is no longer able to provide said input.

I am against what was done with Dahl's work. I was against the changing of Gammell's art on the Scary Stories trilogy. I'd be against rewriting Orcs of Thar.

IMHO, people gloss over the ramifications of changing a written work because of its nature. We are used to books being translated, and we're all familiar with the term 'lost in translation'.
But would those same people suggest we edit visual art? One example that comes to mind is Les Comédiens italiens (circa 1720) by the French painter Antoine Watteau. It has been argued that one of the depicted characters is wearing blackface. Are we going to remove the character or change the skin tone?

 

[Cadence]

IMHO, people gloss over the ramifications of changing a written work because of its nature. We are used to books being translated, and we're all familiar with the term 'lost in translation'.
But would those same people suggest we edit visual art? One example that comes to mind is Les Comédiens italiens (circa 1720) by the French painter Antoine Watteau. It has been argued that one of the depicted characters is wearing blackface. Are we going to remove the character or change the skin tone?

The issue of original works and staging - blackface, etc... - has come up a lot in opera lately (iirc the BBC has some podcasts on it).

Is staging Shakespeare in a different setting (modern, whatever) bad. Is the Magnificent 7 bad (vs. 7 Samurai?). Are big changes more acceptable than small ones? Or is it that the original is still out there? Is the original still out there (say in the Opera case) if no one is producing it?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I think amending GAZ 10 would be great, but failing that, at the very least WotC/DM's Guild should have a proper health warning/summary of it. I love Shannon Applecline's historical work on TTRPGs but his coverage of GAZ 10 is not remotely up to scratch.