D&D General "Red Orc" American Indians and "Yellow Orc" Mongolians in D&D

[Snarf Zagyg]

No he is not a prophet, however we have seen entire episodes pulled from certain Netflix series instead of just posting a disclaimer.

South Park (Depictions of Mohammed, other episodes)
Community (Drow)
The Mighty Boosh (completely pulled from Netflix)
30 Rock (multiple episodes pulled from Hulu and Amazon)
Little Britain (all episodes pulled from Netflix- also Come Fly With Me, but who care about that one)
Golden Girls (single episode)

That's just off the top of my head. There are SO MANY at this point, I can't keep track.

And @Ruin Explorer - that's not fully correct. If it is Netflix (for example), they often will just pull the whole show. If it's the IP owner, they will usually selectively get rid of certain shows. If it's a really big money maker, then they might go the extra mile and bring it back with context (Gone With The Wind).

The point being that it's about money. And the long tail catalog that WoTC acquired from TSR in general, and Mystara Gazetteer products specifically, aren't big money makers. They only survive because it's almost costless to have them available to customers because of .pdf.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

And @Ruin Explorer - that's not fully correct. If it is Netflix (for example), they often will just pull the whole show. If it's the IP owner, they will usually selectively get rid of certain shows. If it's a really big money maker, then they might go the extra mile and bring it back with context (Gone With The Wind).

I disagree that this is correct.

Whilst US Netflix may have pulled or failed to renew those two BBC shows (I dunno if they were ever on UK Netflix), but The Mighty Boosh is available for streaming in full from the IP owner - the BBC and on Sky. No episodes have been pulled. Here's the BBC's disclaimer:

"The Mighty Boosh is a classic comedy which reflects the broadcast standards, language and attitudes of its time. Some viewers may find this content offensive."

Little Britain doesn't seem to be available anywhere right now on streaming (in the UK), which honestly? I'm kind of happy about. I really didn't like that show, and it was definitely racist - straight up blackface for mocking non-white people (among many other gross bits). Like it should not have been on TV in the 21st century. I imagine it'll come back on some nostalgia channel eventually.

So I maintain that the IP owner typically eventually brings stuff back with a disclaimer on their streaming service if they have one. The shows it really sucks for are ones like Community (NBC don't seem to have a "proper" streaming service of their own and they're cheapskates at the best of times). Community was one of the few you listed which was doing it to attack/criticise blackface, rather than just doing blackface. If they're not back already I fully expect the 30 Rock episodes to come back with a disclaimer eventually on Peacock or w/e it's called. Though maybe not whilst Alec Baldwin is insisting on shooting so many people.

I don't think any of the Always Sunny episodes with Blackface got pulled, I note, so context apparently matters. NBC shouldn't have pulled the Community ones for similar reasons.

Also re: South Park, I'm unclear that it's the IP owner cutting the episodes. Does HBO Max own South Park or is it just renting it? Wikipedia did not clear this up.

There are SO MANY at this point, I can't keep track.

Are there though?

I had a look to see if I could find any other examples than the ones you listed that were banned for like, racism/sexism/blackface.

I could not. Can you?

I did find this and these are kind of hilarious:

17 Controversial TV Episodes And Movies That Literally Got Banned From Airing

So that's why I don't remember the <i>Tiny Toons Adventures</i> episode where everyone died.

www.buzzfeed.com

Ghostwatch came back many years later. It was totally incredible btw, one of the best TV experiences of my life and because of the way it worked, basically impossible to repeat so it's not like it really could quite be "banned". Obviously I watched it live at the time. Because the BBC overreacted so much it became a goddamn legend for years. You could talk to almost kid about the same age as me about it in the UK and they'd remember.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I disagree that this is correct.

Whilst US Netflix may have pulled or failed to renew those two BBC shows (I dunno if they were ever on UK Netflix), but The Mighty Boosh is available for streaming in full from the IP owner - the BBC and on Sky. No episodes have been pulled. Here's the BBC's disclaimer:

"The Mighty Boosh is a classic comedy which reflects the broadcast standards, language and attitudes of its time. Some viewers may find this content offensive."

That's great. If you're in the UK. Some of us aren't.

Little Britain doesn't seem to be available anywhere right now on streaming (in the UK), which honestly? I'm kind of happy about. I really didn't like that show, and it was definitely racist - straight up blackface for mocking non-white people (among many other gross bits). Like it should not have been on TV in the 21st century. I imagine it'll come back on some nostalgia channel eventually.

That's kind of the problem, isn't it? Whether you are, or are not, happy shouldn't be the standard. You (or anyone) shouldn't be the individual gatekeeper to all media. What if, for example, someone wanted to do an undergraduate thesis on comedy, and they no longer had access to this material? Your imaginings that it might come back, somewhere, eventually, doesn't really help.

So I maintain that the IP owner typically eventually brings stuff back with a disclaimer on their streaming service if they have one.

That's what I said. But they usually remove specific episodes. That was entirely what I wrote. Because it's a profit incentive. If you are a company like Netflix (that just has licensing rights) you will usually just remove the whole thing. If you still believe that the money is worth the hassle, you will usually remove specific episodes or otherwise try to rehabilitate it.

I had a look to see if I could find any other examples than the ones you listed that were banned for like, racism/sexism/blackface.

Google is your friend. If you can't find any others than the ones I quickly listed off the top of my head, then you aren't trying very hard. Heck, people are complaining about the Michael Jackson episode missing from the Simpsons ... again, the IP HOLDER is removing a specific episode. But there are a metric TON of them. Whether it's scenes cut, or whole episodes, or entire shows- feel free to research. The more you know!

And all of this is orthogonal to the issues raised by the thread and the OP. I will again reiterate- I agree with the OP's original analysis, and I think it is important to critique the past. I think it's awful that the OP got pushback on the issue, but I am unfortunately unsurprised. I recall that when I mentioned a similar issue - the obvious misogyny in the 1e DMG, for example, the town entries has two possible encounters with women- one is a harlot, and one is a goodwife; the goodwife might know gossip, but she might also falsely accuse the adventurers of crimes such as rape. Yep. Of course, acknowledging that this is problematic at best tends to raise the hackles of people.

That said, I strongly disagree with the OP's push for specific remedies, and the OP's labeling anyone who disagrees with him as "fearmongering." It's not. DriveThruRPG does not list specific sales numbers, but we know that B/X and BECMI aren't widely played now in general from overall market numbers, and I would be shocked if a specific issue of the Gazetteer sells more than 10 copies a month. This barely qualifies as peanuts. More importantly, the OP doesn't specify what the specific issue is that he has with the product - no, I'm not being facetious here. I understand the analysis and I agree with it.

But is the issue that this legacy product is still available, and people can still be exposed to it? Or that it ever existed and caused harm? The second is, IMO, generally without a remedy- after all, the past is the past, and there will be problems everywhere. If it's the first, then I assume that people who seek it out understand that it's a legacy product and a product of its times, in the same way that if I watch Cheers (for example), I am probably going to be more attuned to the abusive dynamic between Sam and Diane that was accompanied by a laughtrack.

That's what I am getting to- it is entirely possible to agree with the OP's analysis, and still, in good faith, disagree that action must be done to rectify this.

Quite frankly, action should be done regarding current products, and current people, and current actions. This extrapolation of current beliefs on to the past, while great for sharpening our critical thinking and helping us appreciate where we are now, does little good. The past should remain a mirror that we hold up to help us realize where we are today- not a place we keep returning to so that we can improve it.

 

[LongTimeLurker]

So, i read the OP preparing to disagree with the premise and maybe even get a little mad. But what i read disgusted me; that this kind of drivel was printed in 1988 is swear word, swear word, swear word shameful. That this product exists justifies the WoTC disclaimer in every conceivable way.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

That's kind of the problem, isn't it? Whether you are, or are not, happy shouldn't be the standard. You (or anyone) shouldn't be the individual gatekeeper to all media. What if, for example, someone wanted to do an undergraduate thesis on comedy, and they no longer had access to this material? Your imaginings that it might come back, somewhere, eventually, doesn't really help.

Are you kidding? I ask because this is a really weird argument to try to use.

They'd get them on DVD from a research library, like anyone else!

They're still on DVD mate. They don't magically get deleted. How is it you think people normally do undergraduate theses about radio and TV shows which are long off the air and out of syndication? Do you think they just can't? You have to find recordings. There are whole specialist libraries for this. That's how it works. That's how it's always worked. It doesn't actually matter if stuff gets pulled "because it's offensive", or "because no-one watches it anymore". Pulled is pulled when it comes to watching it. In fact, the latter is kind of worse, because it's less likely it'll be perfectly preserved.

Do you think there's a duty to make literally every show in history available on streaming? Yes/no? If not, what are you complaining about here with your student example? That you want offensive shows, specifically, to be forced to be made available? But it's okay if a show is just not being shown anywhere (like, say, MTV's Fear, which I tried to find somewhere I could watch recently - bootlegs on YouTube were the only option).

Pulled is pulled, it doesn't matter why, the results are the same. You can't complain about this getting pulled on the basis you're using unless you complain about pretty much everything.

That's great. If you're in the UK. Some of us aren't.

Again, this is not the winning argument you think it is.

There are tons of shows I just cannot watch on streaming in the UK because no-one picked it up here and/or a US network just isn't letting it be shown.

That's not any different in real terms. My wife and I really enjoyed The Amazing Race (yeah yeah), when a few seasons were on UK Amazon Prime for a while. It's not available on any streaming service here, for any price, and extremely hard to even get on DVD. That's "more banned" de facto here than Little Britain is (where the DVDs are still pretty easy to get).

Google is your friend. If you can't find any others than the ones I quickly listed off the top of my head, then you aren't trying very hard. Heck, people are complaining about the Michael Jackson episode missing from the Simpsons ... again, the IP HOLDER is removing a specific episode. But there are a metric TON of them. Whether it's scenes cut, or whole episodes, or entire shows- feel free to research. The more you know!

Sorry Snarf, but you are being unfair and you are wrong.

I did Google - I looked through multiple pages.

I can't find any evidence that there are tons of shows which have been pulled in recent years for racism/blackface/sexism/homophobia. You're saying there's this "general" problem, but I'm not seeing evidence of it beyond the shows you listed.

This is why I asked you. Telling me to Google after I already did is just proving my point!

That's what I said. But they usually remove specific episodes. That was entirely what I wrote. Because it's a profit incentive. If you are a company like Netflix (that just has licensing rights) you will usually just remove the whole thing. If you still believe that the money is worth the hassle, you will usually remove specific episodes or otherwise try to rehabilitate it.

Literally your only example here re: entire shows is Netflix pulling two shows that they were renting, and we don't actually know if they pulled them or they just stopped paying for them, do we? They often stop paying for shows I'd like to see. But you're saying the problem is larger than that, that other networks have pulled entire shows off streaming for being offensive? Like what? This is what I'm asking. You're saying the problem is generalized, but I can only find the two specific examples, one of which was is still available in full on the main network, the other of which was so offensive it's currently pulled from everywhere (but is available on DVD etc).

As for the Simpsons episode, that's exactly my point, there are two things here:

1) Shows have always through all of history, pulled some episodes. This never hasn't happened. There's nothing new about it.

Category:Television episodes pulled from general rotation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

As you can see from that Wiki page, the vast majority have little to do with racism/blackface/sexism etc., but more specific reasons like "a celebrity turned out to suck".

2) A bunch of shows, all around 2020 or later, where certain episodes were pulled, or where Netflix stopped carrying them. The only show which actually vanished was Little Britain.

I'm asking if there are more shows in category 2, which you appeared to indicate there were loads more of. I couldn't find any. I could only find the same old same old of single episodes of all sorts of shows being pulled/banned.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

So, i read the OP preparing to disagree with the premise and maybe even get a little mad. But what i read disgusted me; that this kind of drivel was printed in 1988 is swear word, swear word, swear word shameful. That this product exists justifies the WoTC disclaimer in every conceivable way.

As a general rule, the products of the 70s and 80s (especially) and the 90s (to a lesser extent) will all have multiple issues.

That said, it is my experience that the problems with RPG materials that have a "joke-y" tone are so much worse.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

That said, it is my experience that the problems with RPG materials that have a "joke-y" tone are so much worse.

Yeah agree on that at least.

It's pretty weird. Like sure, an adventure might be a tad genocidal or might code some enemies in a slightly dubious way, or there might be a rather excessive number of naked human ladies about to be sacrificed or whatever, but when RPGs start trying to be "funny" about this stuff, that's when the really wild and undeniable racism and sexism tends to come out of the closet like a rampaging Umber Hulk out of a tunnel.

 

[Krachek]

Hi Krachek, as I stated earlier: I proposed a suite of remedies, not just one thing.

1) A cultural amends team studies the product, and gathers the specific instances of "ethnic, racial, and gender prejudice."
2) That report is boiled down to a DRAGON+ amends article.
3) Ideally, in the DRAGON+ article, the original author or other living member of the original design team is tapped to voice some beautiful words of amends, like R.A. Salvatore did recently with the drow.
4) The DriveThruRPG product page is updated with a permanent link to the DRAGON+ amends article, so that future generations of D&D players may be "educated" by the D&D principle that "diversity is strength."
5) A significant portion of the sales of that product is perpetually donated to an array of appropriate charities which specifically relate to the problematic facets of the product (i.e. specific ethnonational, racial, and gender communities).

Maybe you just saw the part about donating a portion of the proceeds, but didn't notice the other facets of my proposal.

I have read your proposal. I tickle on the recurring founding because I evaluate that you place your noble cause in a position of weakness by doing so.
IMO if I was in charge of a Waldorf school, I would politely discard an offer of funding base on products that promote mockery and racism. The tie with educational article won’t change the nature of gaz10 product. And knowing human nature, even with your proposals add in, Gaz10 may become a crush for the wrong reasons. So for educational purpose I would rather seek for a DnD setting to promote Native American culture and history.

Amends is a step, it may never come, so better keep moving on, the goal is to have a meaningful and satisfying life.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Are you kidding? I ask because this is a really weird argument to try to use.

They'd get them on DVD from a research library, like anyone else!

I'm cutting the rest because it's not relevant to this thread. If you didn't look it up in the first post and posited that no other examples existed, and just googled it now in order to argue, I'm not interested in a conversation. I don't converse with people that only do research to argue what they already know to be true.

I will just say that your whole, "Let them eat cake," approach does not work for me, especially extrapolating to the issue we are discussing. Everyone has access to DVDs from research libraries? You're trying to sell that to me? If that's your standard, then who cares, right? Everyone can just go to their local research library which has full and complete copies on physical media of all programs released on DVD and use that!

So, we can just pull all the legacy product from DriveThruRPG, and people can find a hard copy at a research library. Sounds good.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

If you didn't look it up in the first post and posited that no other examples existed, and just googled it now in order to argue, I'm not interested in a conversation.

Arrrgh Snarf I absolutely did look it up before that - look I'll quote myself:

Are there though?

I had a look to see if I could find any other examples than the ones you listed that were banned for like, racism/sexism/blackface.

This is from the post before that post.

I'm sorry I didn't say specifically say "Googled it", but I did, in fact I assumed you were correct, and I'd find some some random shows or loads of episodes had been pulled that I didn't know about. For some reason Happy Days came to mind in fact lol.

So I was surprised when I couldn't find any. Hence me asking you.

Wait... is "I had a look to see" maybe a weird Anglicism I'm using?

Do Americans not say "I had a look"? Now I'm wondering if this is "two nations divided by a common language". Just to be clear - "I had a look to see" means "I attempted to find out" or "I went looking for" or similar. I think of this because I remember an argument decades ago on RPG.net, where multiple people got suspended, because a mod insisted on repeatedly using a weird Americanism than even some Americans didn't understand, and that didn't make sense in context, and he just banned or suspended anyone who didn't get it lol. I'm hoping I'm not "that guy" lol. I'm struggling to think of an American saying "I had a look to see" I admit.

Everyone has access to DVDs from research libraries?

Your specific example was an undergraduate thesis.

And yes, I am saying that you have access to research libraries if you are a student. I thought it was a weird example to pick because of that. I did a bit of film studies stuff myself in one of my many unfinished degrees, and I had to use a research library to get hold of some stuff, because it just wasn't available elsewhere (or not practicably).

I will just say that your whole, "Let them eat cake," approach does not work for me

What I'm pointing out is this is an extremely weak argument.

Pulled is pulled. Unavailable is unavailable. It doesn't actually matter why.

I'm not seeing how it's "let them eat cake" for me to point out that I can't watch my show (The Amazing Race) any more than you can't watch your show (The Mighty Boosh). If anything, it's "let us eat bread together". We're both in the same situation. "Let them eat cake" implies I don't care if you get it, but if you don't care I can't watch The Amazing Race, that's equally "let them eat cake" of you!

Why can't we be bread-brothers, moaning together that we don't get to watch everything we want on streaming, and some things always have to be sourced more elaborately?