D&D General Why a PETITION: Stop Hasbro's hurtful content is a Bad Idea

[Shiroiken]

Wait, is Harper Collins not a business?

They're a different kind of publisher, not an integral part of the original product. They can provide a single book at cost without suffering significant problems, since they provide thousands of other books for profit. The books we're talking about are part of one of the principle IP of WotC (D&D). As for not providing it, presumably the product actually has some value outside of the problem sections. To use Disney again, the Aladdin cartoon is still a great piece of work, despite some of the inappropriate representations within.

I mean, I feel like this is more of a layup than that stuff. Plus if we want them to improve, they have to start somewhere, right? This is basically a game of Tee Ball in that respect.

I'd agree that WotC could take some fairly easy actions to improve their image, but given the recent OGL fiasco I honestly don't believe they care much about PR.

 

[Reynard]

This is sort of off topic, but I often wonder why we care so much about these controversial topics. Look at the replies numbers on anything about orcs or alignment or the OGL or -isms and they are far and away the most "popular" threads. But threads actually about the game, about playing or GMing or world building, most often end up with tiny engagement and fading away.

 

[Voadam]

Initially I read it this way, but I have since come around to the following (though I don't think it was well-articulated in the original post there).

Premises:
"I think WotC put objectionable, racist content in GAZ10"
"I think it's important to do SOMETHING about it."

Question for Discussion:
"What should I do about it? Here's a nine-point list I've come up with to start the discussion."

You may not agree with the premises, but that's the point of a "+" thread - to set a common "starting point" from which a rational discussion may advance. This is particularly needed when the premises may be subjective so that the thread can stay on-topic. Arguing over whether or not it's worth doing something about, or whether the content is objectionable isn't what the poster is looking to discuss. (Disclosure: I had no idea what a + thread was until this whole thing came up.)

Instead, it's figuring out the "what should I do about it?" piece. Discussing why the various points on the list are good/bad ideas (and why they are), whether it's worth dropping or adding points are all fine - they contribute to the discussion of "what should I do about it?" I imagine if eventually the ideas are shown to be "bad ideas" the discussion doesn't have to stop at "nothing" - instead the discussion could turn from "none of the original ideas you posted are good ones" to "let's find some new ideas that are good."

I suppose that is something of an echo chamber, but if you've already hashed out the subjective questions ("is this content bad" and "is it bad enough I think I should do something about it") there is something to be said to wanting to start threads where these don't have to be relitigated every time.

I am sort of the opposite, I started off thinking I would positively engage and answer his questions (No I would not sign the petition) and provide some reasoning and try to constructively engage on the different points but as I read more, in particular the specific mod warnings, I came to conclude it would be considered not on board with the thread premise and so only posted a minor neutral structural suggestion about his point 4.

I think Orcs of Thar has several objectionable aspects.

I think he already did a useful thing in his older thread of identifying certain issues so that more people can be aware in considering whether to buy it or avoid it and/or be prepared for its issues if they buy it.

It is unfortunate that the original back cover product description and the cover give a different impression of the product (Conan the Barbarian style orcs) than the distasteful humor that is actually a bunch of it (cultural references with stupidity caricatures). I bought it shrink wrapped in the game store in the TSR era based on those cover misleading premises. It is unfortunate that the blurb and cover are verbatim the ad blurb for the PDF.

It should have had an indication about the style of humor on both the back blurb and the cover, Jim Holloway did a number of covers and he could have conveyed the tone that is carried out throughout it.

It is also unfortunate that the expanded history and commentary description they had done for drivethru characterized it as controversial because it included humor and made no mention of anything distasteful.

The fact that it was using humor was not the big problem for me. I like a lot of 40K Ork humor and I could see that working well for a D&D Orc Badlands sourcebook. I am a huge fan of a lot of Jim Holloway's straight humanoid D&D art and I like a lot of his humor D&D art, but I am not a fan of his cross-eyed stupidity caricatures. I found his orc queen short fat black woman savage with big lips and a bone depiction actively distasteful then and now. It was quite the standout piece.

I wish there were a better description on the product page that conveyed more accurately the product, but the most that I think should be done is on that level, communicating what it is.

I think the constructive thing here is to describe the product and its issues.

There are parts of it I like, and parts that could be useful, but there is a lot that is not to my taste. It is too bad, it could have been great.

I would still recommend it for people wanting an OSR humanoid race class sourcebook, though I would give them the caveats about the art and the cultural stupidity caricatures.

I've also seen people really into some of the setting aspects like the city magically preserved floating in the active volcano.

 

[LordEntrails]

Like, to people have any actual specific objections to anything here?

Yes. Pretty much everything except the possible direction of proceeds going to some sort of inclusivity in gaming project. But The Sigil says it much better than I do.

This is sort of off topic, but I often wonder why we care so much about these controversial topics. Look at the replies numbers on anything about orcs or alignment or the OGL or -isms and they are far and away the most "popular" threads. But threads actually about the game, about playing or GMing or world building, most often end up with tiny engagement and fading away.

I think people are "activated" and now with the OGL controversy winding people like the feeling of being active and are looking for more 'projects' to direct their energy towards. It's pretty common and is often a factor in why you will find some people who live their whole lives as activists, they enjoy the engagement and feeling of empowerment. (Not that that is wrong, it's just one factor that helps motivate some.)

 

[Faolyn]

Like, I know there are Mystara fans out there, but is this an incredibly significant release? There are people here who said they were embarrassed upon seeing it. Its portrayal of Orcs is certainly racist, but is it actually significant? Like, did it contribute to what came after it in a notable way? And in what way if so? Like, I got into D&D in the mid-90s as a kid and it wasn't until @Dungeonosophy did his thread that I had even heard of this book.

This is the important thing, I think. Is there anything in Gaz10 that's actually useful or important enough to be repurposed for a modern, bigotry-free game? Based on the thread about it posted a while ago here, I don't really think so--at most, you could take the barest scraps of ideas and flesh them out in a different way.

 

[Mistwell]

Your basic premise is "It's easy to not slide down until it isn't" and then you posted a couple of hyperbolic examples which set the tone of your post and provide a basis for everything else that follows. Even when you acknowledge they're hyperbolic you state that they illustrate the point.

Yes. Hyperbole can illustrate a point. It's in fact the only legitimate use of hyperbole. If it's acknowledged as such, and made clear you're not attempting to draw a comparison between the impact of the events just the phenomenon (in which case how easy it is for one even to escalate from another and then another etc, very quickly) it's a useful and honest tool. It's one reason we study history and literature and psychology and sociology and a host of other topics - to examine how humans behave, which sometimes results in rapidly escalating beliefs and behaviors in ways which isn't always expected.

I am questioning why you're trying to paint what I said as me claiming the impact of those events is what should be compared despite my making it clear that was not in any way how I was attempting to use it. It sort of edges on a personal attack to keep suggesting that accusation when it was so utterly clearly not what was happening.

And no. People haven't "Fallen" down slippery slopes throughout history. People walked perfectly flat paths toward their goals. Stated or not, history is full of people seeking to do great and terrible harm to those they disagree with. Again, I don't want to get into politics, but read up on Nationalism and Authoritarianism as inciting causes of both the issues you brought up. There was no slippery slope involved.

I've read extensively on both topics, which is why I brought them up. And yes, it was a slippery slope and unquestionably not the intended consequences of the dictatorial actors. I mean, are you suggesting Mao's plan all along was for the Struggle Sessions to happen and that his mass movement of his staunchest youth followers to rural areas was not his emergency reaction to that unexpected result? If you are, I'd say it might be you who could use a refresher on the topic. I've never seen a single historian suggest this was in any way a "flat path towards their goals."

You then chose to go into the more "Reasonable" angle of people intentionally baiting posters and manipulating moderators to stifle dissent. Which is just such a fantastically insulting direction to go with it, intentional or not. The immediate assumption that even the EXISTENCE of (+) threads is a tool that will result in people trying to get people banned for wrongthink. Like. C'mon, Man.

What are you talking about? I didn't say plus threads. Read what I said again. I was not talking about plus threads - I even said I prefer the method we use here at ENWorld, which is to use plus threads.

The concept of a Plus Thread IS NOT THE SAME as the concept of an A-Game thread. Definitely distinct things. We don't have A-Game threads here. A-Game threads are the concept I was talking about. And everything I described is very real for them in many places.

I will never understand why people think taking any kind of progressive approach to social issues in gaming (or literally any other aspect of life) is going to instantly leap to the end-game of "No one is allowed to say anything!" in a perfect "Slippery Slope" every freaking time.

This isn't about progressiveness, and I don't appreciate you trying to play the victim here and starawman my arguments like you just did. You declared slippers slope as easy to avoid - it's not. Things absolutely can escalate quickly and in unintended ways and I've gone to quite the lengths to give you examples and be honest about those examples. If other people have made some unreasonable arguments to you about the topic that's on them, not me. Don't lump me in with some other group. It's you and I talking here, not you against some easy box you an fit me into and then dismiss.

 

[The Sigil]

Like, I know there are Mystara fans out there, but is this an incredibly significant release? There are people here who said they were embarrassed upon seeing it. Its portrayal of Orcs is certainly racist, but is it actually significant? Like, did it contribute to what came after it in a notable way? And in what way if so? Like, I got into D&D in the mid-90s as a kid and it wasn't until @Dungeonosophy did his thread that I had even heard of this book.

I can't provide DATA but I can provide one ANECDOTE, if it helps.

I'll kind of be revealing my age here, but I got into D&D in early elementary school - in the early 80's. I started with a copy of the Expert rule set (plus the Isle of Dread), the (1e) AD&D DM's Guide, but by the time I was out of elementary school was quite firmly enjoying the entire BECMI collection of Boxed Sets and Mystara (while mixing in some stuff from AD&D).

I got my hands on a copy of the Orcs of Thar some time around late 1990. At the time, our group had kind of gotten bored with BECMI and was exploring other games - Rifts, Cyberpunk 2020, and Marvel Superheroes. We had pretty much explored and mostly burned ourselves out on all of the human/elf/dwarf/halfling options BECMI had to offer in the previous 8 years (when you play D&D every day, three sessions per day - once at recess, once at lunch, and one after school and again all day on Saturdays you get a LOT of playing done).

I know folks lament that the back cover doesn't seem to match the interior content, and perhaps it doesn't do it well, but when Orcs of Thar came before our group (now in high school), the option for playing monsters was... REVELATORY. I'd been inside the heads of a lot of "enemies" since I was almost always the DM, but for the players? This was uncharted territory for most of them. We spent a couple of months playing a mixed party of orcs, goblins, and even an ogre and loved it - the "scrap armor" rules, a setting where we were sneaking around the edges of civilization trying to scavenge from much-better armored human garrisons and dodging their scary adventure parties with overpowered spells and magic weapons that could cut through us like a hot knife through butter. We had always been the "plucky group of heroes" out of BECMI... now we were the "even pluckier group of anti-heroes" where the stakes were not "save the village" but "can we find dinner tonight?"

Now, others have pointed out that the book's use of humor made it more distasteful. Looking back, I think that this book's use of humor was actually incredibly valuable in helping make some of the more serious themes it was trying to get across palatable. Had the first "you can play the monsters" supplement come out and been preachy serious about how humans could be perceived as "monsters" by making sure the "subhuman monsters" were kept out of desirable lands and had to eke out a living in the wastelands nobody else wanted, the obvious morality parallels with the way humans treat other groups of humans in the real world would have been pretty uncomfortable. Maybe this is a statement on where we were in our own lives at the time in terms of maturity, but I have to think it's also somewhat reflective of where the hobby was at the time - still close to its wargame roots where you weren't really concerned about the "other guy" except in terms of understanding how to defeat him - this was still largely the "kill the monsters, take their stuff" era.

Now, there's no way this could have been pre-planned, but what was going on in the world two years after the release of this book that was dominating our American high-school age thoughts as we played humanoids? The 1990-1991 Gulf War. Especially given the wasteland setting of the Broken Lands, it didn't take us too long to start drawing some parallels between the orc forces in the Broken Lands were going through and what regular civilians in Iraq might be going through.

Yes, racist tropes exist in the product, but this product also allowed our group to walk a mile in the shoes of the "nameless other" for the first time and start developing empathy towards them - and by extension, their real-world counterparts. I'm not sure it could have done that nearly as effectively without the sugar-coating of humor (tasteless as the humor might have been in some places) to get D&D players away from the "kill the monsters, take their stuff" mentality. Maybe this was just my group and where we were at in our lives, though. I'm not going to pretend it's data, but for my part, I saw Orcs of Thar provide relatively privileged high school students with some real capacity for empathy towards groups comprised of "other."

Did it contribute to what came after in a notable way? Actually, I would say yes - for all its flaws, its status as "the first D&D book that gives official options for PCs to play monsters" is in my opinion historically significant. Given product lead times, it's likely the Creature Crucible series of products (which provided rules for playing fey, near-human creatures like centaurs or sphynxes, vampires and werewolves or underwater characters) and the original Spelljammer and later 2e Monster Mythology and Complete Book of Humanoids releases that followed in 1989 through 1993 were already in production so I don't know if its relative success or failure it made direct "contributions" to them but I would think internally greenlighting the first product that let you play monstrous races opened the space for approving additional products that would otherwise have been closed (I suppose one could argue half-orc is a monstrous race that has been there all along, but in 1e they seemed to be more "human with some orc qualities" than the other way around).

 

[Mistwell]

Wait, is Harper Collins not a business?

I mean, they way they run it these days one could argue the issue

 

[Echohawk]

I have mixed feelings about lobbying WotC to do more to remedy the problems with GAZ10. It is a deeply flawed product, but far from the only one from the era with serious problems. I'm regularly taken aback by casual sexism and racism in the middle of otherwise innocuous TSR-era products. The Known World line is particularly questionable, so I'd like to see Mystara opened up on the DMs Guild so that fans can produce an updated version of GAZ10 which eliminates the problem content. The excellent Campaign Guide: Zakhara demonstrates that this approach can work.

While we're on the topic of disclaimers though, what I'd really like to see is a disclaimer on WG7: Castle Greyhawk to the effort of "This is a parody product. Do not buy it expecting an actual Greyhawk sourcebook." I'm not even particularly a Greyhawk fan, but that book makes my hackles rise every time I see it.

 

[Clint_L]

I'm hesitant to throw my 2 cents in. Not that the internet isn't a place for nuanced discussion of sensitive issues.

In general, I'm not a fan of cancelling art that makes us uncomfortable, particularly art from earlier eras, and I don't generally support limiting people's freedom of choice when it comes to what they enjoy. I understand that there are exceptions, such as public art that acts as a statement of collective values (e.g. monuments), art that is specifically intended to incite hatred, or art that is otherwise criminal. I don't think the text in question is any of those things.

And I'm not a fan of petitions to pressure distributors to cancel certain artists or works of art, even art or artists that I detest. I think artists and distributors should be free to make their choices and bear the consequences of those choices. If a distributor chooses to sell material that tarnishes their reputation, well that's on them. They should have the freedom to make poor choices. I have the freedom to not buy from them, and to express my opinion publicly.

I support engaging critically with art, including publicly criticizing art that you find problematic. I also think that it is one of the main duties of art to sometimes be problematic, and to make us uncomfortable.

In this case, Hasbro is choosing to still sell art that I personally find problematic in any number of ways. I support them having the right to do so, just as I support booksellers selling books from the past and present that deeply offend me, and record companies selling music that I sometimes find vile. I think that as freedom loving people, it is our responsibility to accept art that we don't like. The answer isn't to shut it down, it's to confront it, consider it and, if we think it necessary, to counter it with our own viewpoint.