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

[Irlo]

• The petition is calling for censorship or at least Bowdlerizing the original work.

No, it's not.

 

[Oofta]

... [quotes suggestion to apologize, rewrite, etc. ] ...
Like, to people have any actual specific objections to anything here?

Specific objections to trying to cleanse all old materials is exactly the issue. I. And others specifically object to.

First, it's just not going to happen. This specific publication is just one obscure example out of hundreds (thousands?) of things published over the past half century.

Second, do you really think there's a reason to stop here? Evil elves in blackface where men are subjugated by overly well endowed dominatrix women is just peachy? Or even the description of half orcs in the 5E PHB?

Third, it's simply never going to happen. If this petition gained steam the only result would be to shut down sales of all older materials. There's simply no business case for it.

Even implementing the suggestions for just this one publication likely would not have a positive return on investment.

EDIT: I brought up Huckleberry Finn being banned because of why it's being banned. It's being banned not because of Tom's relationship with Jim which is quite positive for the time. It's banned because it uses the "n" word to describe Jim at a time when that is simply the term that would have been used. I object to censorship based on modern sensibilities, especially when looking at the entirety of the publication and the context in which it was published. This book was breaking ground at the time it was published. It could have been better, but should be considered in light of the gaming culture at the time. Even if that reflects some negative things.

So yes people have real, specific, objections that you are choosing to ignore.

 

[Hussar]

@Oofta - I'd also point out that Huckleberry Finn isn't actually banned in most school districts, even in America. In Canada, it's not banned at all. It might not be as good of an example as you seem to think. But, since I've also been on the receiving end of people arguing the example and not the point, I will say that I largely agree with what you are saying. There's no real reason to rewrite this material, nor is there a good reason to remove it from the catalogue.

Or, if we are going to remove it from the catalogue, there are a shopping list of other works that also need to go.

 

[Oofta]

@Oofta - I'd also point out that Huckleberry Finn isn't actually banned in most school districts, even in America. In Canada, it's not banned at all. It might not be as good of an example as you seem to think. But, since I've also been on the receiving end of people arguing the example and not the point, I will say that I largely agree with what you are saying. There's no real reason to rewrite this material, nor is there a good reason to remove it from the catalogue.

Or, if we are going to remove it from the catalogue, there are a shopping list of other works that also need to go.

It is banned in many places for the reason I listed, even if it is not universally banned. It's just an example of a knee jerk reaction to something that was not objectionable at the time and doesn't take into consideration the broader context.

I just think it's a better example than Mein Kampf, which has always been objectionable.

 

[Clint_L]

Yeah, there are plenty of books that get challenged we can talk about without Godwinning the thread. How about The Catcher in the Rye. That one is perennial. To Kill a Mockingbird.

When we choose curriculum for the next year, these are conversations that we have, and while we don't ban books we do strongly consider what values we wish to teach. Mockingbird is an example of a book that used to be an absolute standard but has become problematic over time, while a text like Lullabies for Little Criminals is becoming more common yet would not have been touched with a ten foot pole not that long ago. I recently had a parent rant at me for half an hour because we teach Persepolis (entirely because they do not think a comic book should be taught in school).

 

[Justice and Rule]

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.

That's not specific, though, and @The Sigil 's list don't seem like incredible deal-breakers. Like, again, I think people should individually address the list because most of these objections make no sense to what is actually being proposed.

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.)

This has been a project for @Dungeonosophy for a while, so that feels like a bad read on the actual situation. And in general, these sorts of things have always been getting energy because people want to see Wizards doing better because they are such a big part of the industry.

I figure a 35-year-old, unpopular-at-the-time book for an out-of-print edition and an out-of-print setting is essentially irrelevant. If GAZ10 sales are 1/10000th of D&D sales, I‘d be surprised it’s that lucrative.

And that’s the danger I see. WotC has no reason to defend this book, OR ANY out-of-print book.

WotC has their disclaimer on all “old“ works, and I assume it’s not worth an interns time to read it all to look for offensive stuff, much less inclusion experts with significant hourly rates to thoroughly review and write content specific disclaimers - which, not for nothing, would admit WotC “knew” whatever was in it, but allowed it be downloaded, bringing them more trouble.

I fear the logical conclusion for Hasbro is to just stop selling pre OneD&D stuff. Though it seems almost everyone here favors 5e (I do not) and overlooked it, one of elements of the new OGL that I particularly hated was that it banned everything from the original OGL & SRD’s - potentially banning OSR & PF1.

Last weekend, I was looking at 2e Of Ships and the Sea, and downloaded 3e Stormwrack - similar books for different editions. I’m a 3.5e DM who “sources” in an edition neutral way - I even bought Harn’s Pilots Almanac and I’ll use 5e’s Ghost of Saltmarsh too.

I don’t want a situation where prior content is banned, selectively or en masse. The disclaimer seems like a good compromise.

If GAZ10 specifically gets canceled, yeah OK. But if a second old book gets canceled, gotta draw a line before the obvious corporate answer is pull everything from the Dark Ages prior to 2023, since it’s just not worth it.

It's not getting cancelled, the original poster just wanted more effort and explanation put into explaining and educating people on why this is wrong. I find the whole "stop selling pre OneD&D stuff" to be looking for a reason to fear actually looking at their back catalog. Has Wizards been quick to remove old content like this before? Given that no one is asking for removal, why would that be the solution now? I feel like people are looking for reasons not to entertain this rather than engage with what is actually being asked.

Ooh, if “heists” become controversial, even 2023 stuff will need to go!

Do we really, really think that's the same as this? Like, really?

it got stifled by the mods quite aggressively though, because of being tagged as a + thread, so clearly that was the OP’s intent

I think the OP wanted to have actual discussion on the topic, not just a bunch of people reactively posting without reading what they actually suggested. For example, there are a bunch of people claiming that they want to reedit or censor the work, which is flatly false. However, you wouldn't know it from the discussion because many of these people just post and don't correct themselves or get corrected. It's a very frustrating way to have a discussion, I suspect.

• The petition is calling for censorship or at least Bowdlerizing the original work.

The petition literally calls for none of that, please actually read it.

Specific objections to trying to cleanse all old materials is exactly the issue. I. And others specifically object to.

This is not a specific objection, it is literally a general objection. Not only that, there's literally no call for "cleansing" anything, so this is just a gigantic strawman.

Again, read the list. Explain where you see anything trying to "cleanse all old materials", because it literally does not exist. This is all just a kneejerk response to someone wanting to change something.

First, it's just not going to happen. This specific publication is just one obscure example out of hundreds (thousands?) of things published over the past half century.

It won't happen if you don't try. People wanted to give up on the OGL fight, too, and how bad did that look? This is just circular and self-defeating. Also if it's just "one obscure example", then why do you seemingly care so much?

Second, do you really think there's a reason to stop here? Evil elves in blackface where men are subjugated by overly well endowed dominatrix women is just peachy? Or even the description of half orcs in the 5E PHB?

I thought we weren't doing slippery slopes, but hey, here we are just sliding all the way down. We've had this argument over and over and over ad infinitum. Where do you stop? Who knows, because who knows anything of the future. We're constantly judging and reevaluating things. This is not an objection to what is actually being done, but an objection to doing literally anything on the topic.

Third, it's simply never going to happen. If this petition gained steam the only result would be to shut down sales of all older materials. There's simply no business case for it.

This was your first one. Is there proof that it's going to suddenly shut down all old sales? Do we know that, or are you just scaremongering?

Even implementing the suggestions for just this one publication likely would not have a positive return on investment.

Given how little the investment returns in the first place, they could probably get more significant good-will than continuing to collect a small amount of profits on a racist book.

EDIT: I brought up Huckleberry Finn being banned because of why it's being banned. It's being banned not because of Tom's relationship with Jim which is quite positive for the time. It's banned because it uses the "n" word to describe Jim at a time when that is simply the term that would have been used. I object to censorship based on modern sensibilities, especially when looking at the entirety of the publication and the context in which it was published. This book was breaking ground at the time it was published. It could have been better, but should be considered in light of the gaming culture at the time. Even if that reflects some negative things.

I didn't say that's why they were banning it, I was pointing to the context of its usage in the actual fiction. There is a difference in what is being said, in the same way Huck Finn is different than a minstrel show. You are focused on the people behind the banning while I'm looking at the actual work.

In this case, this is not some kind of contextual piece for the time. It's literally a piece that is using racial stereotypes for bad comedy. That is not the same, nor should it be treated as such.

So yes people have real, specific, objections that you are choosing to ignore.

And yet you still can't directly address the actual listed stuff and have to make up stuff about "cleansing". Most of your list is not specific objections, but literally broad proclamations, two of which are just declaring that this can't work and the other asking where they would stop. None of that is specific. Look at the list proposed: with those specific suggestions, what is the problem?

Yeah, there are plenty of books that get challenged we can talk about without Godwinning the thread. How about The Catcher in the Rye. That one is perennial. To Kill a Mockingbird.

Are either of those openly racist for comedy reasons? I don't remember, but am I getting older...

When we choose curriculum for the next year, these are conversations that we have, and while we don't ban books we do strongly consider what values we wish to teach. Mockingbird is an example of a book that used to be an absolute standard but has become problematic over time, while a text like Lullabies for Little Criminals is becoming more common yet would not have been touched with a ten foot pole not that long ago. I recently had a parent rant at me for half an hour because we teach Persepolis (entirely because they do not think a comic book should be taught in school).

The problematic nature of Mockingbird is largely in language, less so in subject. That is not the case here, where the subject itself are racial stereotypes put on to fantasy races for the purposes of comedy. When you look at why a book is offensive, you have to look at what it is doing and why it is doing it.

But even still, no one wants to ban/edit/cleanse this book anyways, so are we objecting to a more specific warning piece and Wizards actually attempting to examine their back catalog? Because it feels like that's something they should do. You can put a general disclaimer about racism, but there are books out there that are less obvious where people won't understand what is offensive or why it might be offensive (I feel like Oriental Adventures is a good example). Explaining more specifically what is wrong with these books helps to educate people going forwards and help people not fall into those traps.

 

[Clint_L]

The problematic nature of Mockingbird is largely in language, less so in subject.

No, it's also in subject. Reducing the civil rights movement to backstory for the coming of age of a privileged white girl is not a theme that has aged super well.

 

[Justice and Rule]

No, it's also in subject. Reducing the civil rights movement to backstory for the coming of age of a privileged white girl is not a theme that has aged super well.

I've not seen it banned for that, though.

 

[Clint_L]

That's true, though I think it has recently been challenged for Atticus being soft on the KKK. Books are usually banned for naughty words or content that makes groups of folks uncomfortable, such as Perks of Being a Wallflower for being too gay, etc. Depends on cultural context, for the most part. Persepolis has been challenged for being alternately too pro-Iranian or too anti-Iranian, for example.

In this case, I question why WotC wants to republish this material, but not their right to do so.

 

[Justice and Rule]

That's true. Books are usually banned for naughty words or content that makes groups of folks uncomfortable, such as Perks of Being a Wallflower for being too gay, etc. Depends on cultural context, for the most part.

The latter reasoning is definitely becoming more widespread, sadly, but that's a topic for another thread...or board, really.