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

[Umbran]

What has shifted is that works, such as this one, are increasingly being challenged from the political left. In Canada and America, most challenges have always come from the conservative right, particularly the Christian conservative right. Freedom of expression used to be a pillar of liberal ideology, but that is less so these days. As educators, we now get a lot of pressure from both sides. We feel like we are walking on eggshells. I empathize with WotC's predicament.

Mod Note:
Apparently, we need a reminder that real-world politics are not fair game for commentary around here.

 

[Raiztt]

I don't know if it's a "bad idea" any more than I don't know if it would be a "good idea" - 'it' being the petition. Might just be a personal thing, but I just don't see the point of telling other people what they can and cannot do/should or should not do. If a product is objectionable, just don't buy it or interface with it. Simple as.

 

[M_Natas]

Well clearly that's not true.

The Bavaria state sued to get that Version taken down. Since 2016 (70 years after authors death) the copyright ran out they have to fight to keep it down.
In Germany you can't sell those.

 

[LordEntrails]

You know, for all the people talking about "discussion", a lot of people really don't want to actually discuss what is being talked about. Let me repost it for those who apparently missed my previous quote of it.

Yes I did. Thanks for reposting it. I will gladly state specific views on each point.

1. Apologize for the hateful and hurtful depictions and racial slurs found in its GAZ10 PDF product.

Already been done. Does not need to be done again. Doing so in this "special case" is a stupid business decision that opens the company up for risk and any such change to the default disclaimer will be argued as being wrong by at least a minority of vocal people. Just like the current disclaimer keeps be argued about.

1. Donate all of the past proceeds of this PDF—dating all the way back to July 29th, 2014, when the PDF was first offered for sale—to one or more appropriate cultural charities, such as the Lakota Waldorf School.

Maybe. I don't necessarily agree with that specific charity choice, and not sure any charity would be satisfactory to everyone. So who gets to decide? May or may not be a good business decision to attempt to find an ideal solution.

1. From henceforth, make the PDF "pay what you will," with all proceeds going to such charities, in perpetuity.

The Sigil has explained why in detail. Increasing the distribution of this product is not helpful or beneficial.

1. Note: let it be known to all that I have never called for 'censorship.' Rather than divide the community by yanking and hiding this title in a vault (in the manner of Disney's Song of the South), I call on Hasbro to humbly unite the community in this way:
2. Hire one or more external cultural consultants with real academic credentials, to comb through the book and make a report of the exact nature of its wrongs. Hasbro's own boilerplate disclaimer claims that Hasbro "teaches that diversity is a strength, and we strive to make our D&D products as welcoming and inclusive as possible. This part of our work will never end." So, if Hasbro is here to "teach" us, then let's have the "teaching" done by real teachers with real credentials.

No. Any such report would be argued about more than just a change in the disclaimer. As Dungeonosophy has already done a great deal of this work, it does not need to be done again. All this would do is to draw attention to a product that does not deserve such attention, even as a lesson of the past.

1. Henceforth, bundle this new scholarly report with the GAZ10 PDF, as an educational "teaching."

No, this report should not be created in the first place, and would again only cause the product to gain distribution.

1. Also make amends from an "in-world" (fictional) perspective: by hiring one or more culturally informed designers (who are either themselves experts in the World of Mystara, or in collaboration with aficionados of that world) to write at least a short re-imagining of the Broken Lands of Thar, whereby the racist crudities found in GAZ10 are revealed to be totally false propaganda by enemies of the peoples of Thar. There are any number of ways in which all of the problematic facets can be completely amended, while creatively preserving and enhancing the existence of the peoples of Thar within the fictional Known World of Mystara.

No. There is not a good cost-benefit to doing this. Those resources would much better be used to create an all new setting. Mystara might be the favorite of the author and others, but it not a major setting that makes sense to re-invision. Dark Sun or Greyhawk would be a much more intelligent candidate to invest such resources in.

1. Note: GAZ10 is also advertised as being compatible with the Forgotten Realms and the World of Greyhawk, with a suggested placement in Faerûn's "region of Thar," and/or a magical portal to there, and also to the "WORLD OF GREYHAWK Goblins of the Pomarj, or to Iuz." And so these amendatory actions apply not only to the World of Mystara, but also secondarily to those two worlds as well.

Irrelevant. GAZ10 is so troublesome it's not worth being revisited in whole even if ported to another setting. Those few aspects that are valuable are simple ideas that could be incorporated in a totally new product.

1. Henceforth bundle this amended re-envisioning of the Land of Thar with the GAZ10 PDF, along with the academic/educational report.

No. This report should not be created by WotC, this product should not be enhanced and sales of it should not be encouraged.

What risk? They are already selling an incredibly racist product for $20. What's the further risk here? This feels like an excuse to do nothing.

Simple, updating any D&D product will draw tens of thousand or hundreds of thousands of eyes to it. It will spread this horrible product, not letting is die in obscurity like it should.

 

[LordEntrails]

The Bavaria state sued to get that Version taken down. Since 2016 (70 years after authors death) the copyright ran out they have to fight to keep it down.

But they lost, and apparently are not "keeping it down".

In Germany you can't sell those.

Understood. But doesn't mean you can't get it in other parts of the world.

 

[Alzrius]

The Bavaria state sued to get that Version taken down. Since 2016 (70 years after authors death) the copyright ran out they have to fight to keep it down.
In Germany you can't sell those.

I'm pretty sure in Germany they can sell those, since after the copyright expired (as you noted) it immediately became a bestseller in that country:

Germany’s Controversial New Version of ‘Mein Kampf’ Is Now a Bestseller

Once kept under lock and key, the book is now available in a critical edition

www.smithsonianmag.com

 

[haakon1]

Typo. Richer schools.

Thanks for explaining.

 

[M_Natas]

æ

I'm pretty sure in Germany they can sell those, since after the copyright expired (as you noted) it immediately became a bestseller in that country:

Germany’s Controversial New Version of ‘Mein Kampf’ Is Now a Bestseller

Once kept under lock and key, the book is now available in a critical edition

www.smithsonianmag.com

I stand corrected.
But only an academic version with more annotations than original Text. And only after the copyright ran out.
If you print and sell the unaltered uncommented original you commit a crime in Germany.

 

[haakon1]

One of the great virtues of D&D is that it teaches exactly the skills that lead to greater appreciation of the value of diverse perspectives, by encouraging players to inhabit different personae and points of view.

I agree. It also teaches that every member of the team is needed, with different skills and perspectives all needed, and you need to pull together to survive.

In a society that worships individualism, and credits individuals with team actions (”Steve Jobs made the iPhone, Biden passed X law, the QB won the big game”), it’s a different and important narrative balance.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Yes I did. Thanks for reposting it. I will gladly state specific views on each point.

Already been done. Does not need to be done again. Doing so in this "special case" is a stupid business decision that opens the company up for risk and any such change to the default disclaimer will be argued as being wrong by at least a minority of vocal people. Just like the current disclaimer keeps be argued about.

I mean, if this is the case why did they put on a disclaimer to begin with if it was only going to be argued about? I feel like these sorts of arguments break down because they can be used to discount all actions, which they kind of are meant to do.

Maybe. I don't necessarily agree with that specific charity choice, and not sure any charity would be satisfactory to everyone. So who gets to decide? May or may not be a good business decision to attempt to find an ideal solution.

Ah yes, the "Who knows if deciding which charity will be a good business decision" conundrum. Again, this sort of thought of "Anything could hurt the business, so best to do nothing" is just kind of ridiculous on its face. You can make anything into a bad business decision, but that doesn't actually mean it always will be.

The Sigil has explained why in detail. Increasing the distribution of this product is not helpful or beneficial.

Increasing distribution as an educational tool, though, would be more better, which is part of the suggestion. I believe that is part of the point of lowering the price: to get people to buy it as an educational piece.

No. Any such report would be argued about more than just a change in the disclaimer. As Dungeonosophy has already done a great deal of this work, it does not need to be done again. All this would do is to draw attention to a product that does not deserve such attention, even as a lesson of the past.

I thought it was good to observe our history and make sure we don't erase it? I like the idea that @Dungeonosophy has done enough but also we don't want anyone to see it... but also it's cool to make $10-$20 a pop on individual downloads of it.

Like, if we don't want to draw attention to it, it can just be quietly taken off the market. Instead, @Dungeonosophy wants to make it a teaching tool to avoid these sorts of racist pitfalls. Given that we've seen these sorts of pitfalls still be made, I think it's actually a smart thing.

No, this report should not be created in the first place, and would again only cause the product to gain distribution.

Again, the point is to draw attention to its historical value, why it's bad, and how to avoid such pitfalls. And again, if you want the product not to gain distribution, you would just take it down. Instead Wizards is making money on it.

No. There is not a good cost-benefit to doing this. Those resources would much better be used to create an all new setting. Mystara might be the favorite of the author and others, but it not a major setting that makes sense to re-invision. Dark Sun or Greyhawk would be a much more intelligent candidate to invest such resources in.

I do not think Dark Sun is more major than Mystara, nor do I think it could survive a reinvisioning that would please the people who want it. On Greyhawk, I'd be interested but it seems unlikely at this point given the age of the setting itself. Investing in a whole new setting would be awesome, but the sheer cost of that without having an in-built fanbase while having to build everything from scratch would be the worst choice of any of these. But I find the whole "cost-benefit" analysis of this to be highly subjective.

Irrelevant. GAZ10 is so troublesome it's not worth being revisited in whole even if ported to another setting. Those few aspects that are valuable are simple ideas that could be incorporated in a totally new product.

Apparently it's relevant enough to be put in the same breath as Birth of a Nation, Huckleberry Finn, and To Kill a Mockingbird. But being somewhat irrelevant kind of makes it easier to use since there will be less outrage over fixing it outside of people who get really outraged at recognizing and fixing these sorts of things.

No. This report should not be created by WotC, this product should not be enhanced and sales of it should not be encouraged.

Again, if you turn it into a teaching tool about how to avoid this sort of racism, why wouldn't you want more people to see it? That seems to be the point of things.

Simple, updating any D&D product will draw tens of thousand or hundreds of thousands of eyes to it. It will spread this horrible product, not letting is die in obscurity like it should.

Cool! If you are putting it alongside something that talks about its flaws and such, the history of that sort of thing in D&D, that would be interesting and valuable.