I felt this was an important enough topic that discussion of it should not be ... hampered by the rules of + threads. I hope @Dungeonosophy takes the time to come participate in this thread. Otherwise they will not be exposed to the full breadth of the discussion on an important topic that they began.
I would like to point out that in the original + thread, @Dungeonosophyengaged with others who had dissenting opinions. It did not appear that they were stifling debate or intending to stifle debate. What Dungeonosophy did call out as contrary to the + were unhelpful negative comments which indicated that concerns about the Orcs PDF were insignificant and that the thread was annoying.
Why drop into a thread to announce that it's annoying? Nothing good comes of that.
In anything almost 50 years old, you're going to have both good and bad, so obviously D&D isn't going to be an exception to this. As a business, WotC would be stupid to avoid selling a product people might want (especially in a digital or print-on-demand format that requires zero upfront cost). Putting the warning about how things were different at the time of printing shows that WotC understands that these older products had issues. Trying to avoid the bad (rewrites or bans) only goes to prevent people learning from history's mistakes.
The only thing I could theoretically see would be them adding custom warnings for each book like this. They could detail out exactly what's wrong with each section, but this has a lot of pitfalls. They might accidentally overlooks something. They might misunderstand or poorly present the problem. Societal norms might change, causing even more of the book to no longer be acceptable. In each of these cases, WotC would end up worse off than they are now, so leaving it as a simple warning should be the logical course of action.
Does anyone actually read this thing or buy it? Like what are it's current sales like?
This could lead to more folks buying it out of spite then actually sign your petition, I've seen that often enough, including very rescently, not every battle is as united as the fight over the OGL.
I am guessing it’s dozens of copies sold. Would love to know.
People like me that are a little creeped out won’t buy it. Some few I am guessing are completionists and want to collect it. They will get it legally if possible or otherwise if not. A very very few just want info on orcs from old sources. Cannot believe it’s many.
I would have no idea unless it’s listed as a golden seller or something.
I would like to point out that in the original + thread, @Dungeonosophyengaged with others who had dissenting opinions. It did not appear that they were stifling debate or intending to stifle debate. What Dungeonosophy did call out as contrary to the + were unhelpful negative comments which indicated that concerns about the Orcs PDF were insignificant and that the thread was annoying.
Why drop into a thread to announce that it's annoying? Nothing good comes of that.
Yes, Dungeonosophy did, and I compliment him for that. BUT, the moderators made it clear, repeatedly that they had started to monitor that thread and has kicked several users from that thread. (Not that I disagree with their moderation, I applaud it.) But, there is zero doubt in my mind that by it being a + thread and the moderators doing their job that discussion in that thread is stifled beyond the normal standard that we accept on ENWorld (again, not arguing with the moderation).
Why do I think discussion in that thread was stifled? Because it stifled me
Besides, are you arguing with the moderators? Because they are the ones that suggested a new thread be started!
Does anyone actually read this thing or buy it? Like what are it's current sales like?
This could lead to more folks buying it out of spite then actually sign your petition, I've seen that often enough, including very rescently, not every battle is as united as the fight over the OGL.
It was described as awful, so obviously I just had to buy it.
I have not read the whole thing yet, but it seems to me to be a parody.
I mean it features historic orcs named Akkila-Khan and Chief Sitting Drool.
The point is, numerous works that are racist, bigoted or otherwise objectionable are published for profit. Many without any warnings or boilerplate at all.
I mean, I don't really think most do, particularly for stuff this racist. I mean, like @Irlo mentioned, Harper Collins sells Mein Kampf and gives the proceeds to charity. This is not a historical important piece of work, this is just some racist fantasy stuff a game company sold in the 1980's.
Except Censored 11 has no where near the social understanding of what it is. It might be a more technical/accurate example, but it is not a familiar one, so people, like me, just have no idea what that reference is about, why it might be an example, or even what it is an example of. And most examples are not very useful if one has to go research it before they can understand the relevance of the example.
The Censored 11 are pretty well-known for their niche industry and even outside; heck, I knew about them. I think cartoons in particular are way more important in this regard because many don't have the massive cultural weight and significance of a Birth of the Nation or a Mein Kampf. The Censored 11 aren't available, though other cartoons that have racist elements are, often with explicit warnings. Some have been modified. I think that's a way better place to start a conversation than trying to compare them to incredibly significant racist works that have volumes of analysis written on them compared to badly written racist caricatures. The value of the work itself should be included in this conversation because it's important in dictating how it is preserved.
In anything almost 50 years old, you're going to have both good and bad, so obviously D&D isn't going to be an exception to this. As a business, WotC would be stupid to avoid selling a product people might want (especially in a digital or print-on-demand format that requires zero upfront cost). Putting the warning about how things were different at the time of printing shows that WotC understands that these older products had issues. Trying to avoid the bad (rewrites or bans) only goes to prevent people learning from history's mistakes.
I mean, they could donate the money to an appropriate charity, like Harper Collins does with Mein Kampf. That would honestly help a bit with the skeeviness. But also just because people might want it is not exactly the best reason to keep producing a racist work.
The only thing I could theoretically see would be them adding custom warnings for each book like this. They could detail out exactly what's wrong with each section, but this has a lot of pitfalls. They might accidentally overlooks something. They might misunderstand or poorly present the problem. Societal norms might change, causing even more of the book to no longer be acceptable. In each of these cases, WotC would end up worse off than they are now, so leaving it as a simple warning should be the logical course of action.
I feel like by that logic, the best course of action would be to put nothing on it in the first place, because you could completely undersell how much racist it is anyways. Best to let people decide for themselves, right?
If Wizards can't understand and identify the problems with the book, they have much greater problems. Like really, I would trust that Wizards could get someone competent enough to nail most of what is there, and the educational value of putting these warnings and being specific would help people miss the subtle stuff they might not catch amongst the bluntness of the in-your-face stuff.
Yes, Dungeonosophy did, and I compliment him for that. BUT, the moderators made it clear, repeatedly that they had started to monitor that thread and has kicked several users from that thread. (Not that I disagree with their moderation, I applaud it.) But, there is zero doubt in my mind that by it being a + thread and the moderators doing their job that discussion in that thread is stifled beyond the normal standard that we accept on ENWorld (again, not arguing with the moderation).
Why do I think discussion in that thread was stifled? Because it stifled me
Besides, are you arguing with the moderators? Because they are the ones that suggested a new thread be started!
"To avoid threadcrapping I will create a separate thread entirely devoted to posting negatively about the positive thread." is an interesting direction to go.
I mean, there are plenty of ways and reasons to dissent with the premise of that thread without siding with racism. I agree with some of those who dissented in that thread prior to the moderation happening.
There's a huge gray area that is difficult to discuss. First, we tend to run into the Planet of Hats - TV Tropes with D&D because the books, in general, only supply one default culture for both "civilized" races and "monsters". Personally, I don't think physical form should matter, this issue affects elves as much as dragons.
How do we figure out who "we" is? How do "we" decide what to review and how to rewrite? I admit I'm not familiar with this particular publication, but I don't see that it matters. It doesn't take much to find several examples of material many people would find objectionable.
My poster child for this would be pretty much any book relating to Drow. Even if they were inspired by Norse mythology, a matriarchy of evil elves in black face is not a good look.
So what do we do with them? This depiction is everywhere in older materials. I have changes, but they're specific to my campaign.
Drow are not native to the prime material, they live in Svartleheim where they are controlled my Lollth's influence. That influence gives them dark gray skin, it's kind of a supernatural sunburn. If they escape (any individual that does not follow Lollth's teachings will eventually be revealed) they lose much of the coloration and become gray elves. Gray elves tend to live ascetic lives based on logic and reason (typically LN). In other words, they become Vulcans.
The publication listed in the other thread may be an extreme example, but D&D is littered with this stuff. I don't see much of a slippery slope* here, I see authors that did the best they could to come up with unique monsters. These authors were also products of their time and didn't consider how stuff they did could be offensive.
On the other hand, it seems to be virtually impossible to have any species where the default has anything that can be construed in a negative fashion without accusations of racism. So I simply don't see an easy way to fix this.
Much like the Huckleberry Finn books are banned because they use the "n" word because it was the language of the time even though Jim was a friend and ally of Huck's. But rather than explain how language changes over time, the book is often banned.
I think it would be better to have conversations.
*I think the argument of the slippery slope trope is often overused to shut down discussion. Yes, a trajectory taken to the extreme can be illogical. But in many cases, where you draw the line can be incredibly fuzzy and should be part of the conversation.
