WoTC's use of Religious factions

[Mythtify]

In light of the new quality standards set by Wizards, I found this portion of an interview intersting. The interview is about the d20 modren Mence Manual. I know that any WotC product is not bound by the quality standards. Even so, WotC's products can be seen as a benchmark.
Heres the part of the interview:

Wizards: The question you knew you'd be asked: Al-Jambiya, one of the factions described in chapter three, is defined as "a terrorist organization modeled roughly on Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network, though considerably smaller, and with a more aggressive agenda. It is the intent of al-Jambiya's leaders to torture and murder one U.S. citizen for every Muslim killed or injured by the actions of the United States." Roleplaying games are often cutting edge, so this organization may come as no particular shock to players. But did you have any trepidation in preparing the background and statistics of this particular faction?​

JD: In a word, yes. There's so much anti-Muslim hysteria in the United States these days that I knew I was walking a fine line -- which should actually be a very broad line -- between condemning terrorism and stereotyping Muslims. Writing up this group was not easy; I tried several different angles, but eventually I realized that the only way to present this group was as decidedly nontypical Muslims, just as religion-fixated serial killers in the West are decidedly not typical of Christians. The members of al-Jambiya aren't really Muslims at all; they're vicious killers using Islam as an excuse to indulge themselves in their sick crimes.​

The thing that really made writing this difficult was knowing that there are some people out there who can't see a difference between the fictional bloodthirsty psychotics in this book and the average Muslim. And, worse yet, that there are people out there who will decide that my assertion that there is a difference makes me "pro-terrorism."​

the entire interview is here:​

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20modern/article/20030909a​

If WotC is going to associate such contriversal subject matter with a real world religion, does this free other to push the envelope in reguards to the quality standards?​

 

[spacecrime.com]

If WotC is going to associate such contriversal subject matter with a real world religion, does this free other to push the envelope in reguards to the quality standards?

Oddly enough, no. Even if you don't accept JD (Wiker?)'s thoughts on the subject, which I think are quite reasonable, what Wizards does and what they allow licensees to do does not have to be the same thing.

Wizards owns D&D. They can do what they like with it. The rest of us have to ask permission and follow the rules they set, even if Wizards doesn't follow those rules. It's really that simple.

 

[Umbran]

If WotC is going to associate such contriversal subject matter with a real world religion, does this free other to push the envelope in reguards to the quality standards?[/left]

Nope. The logic is very simple - WotC owns the trademark. They may choose what theychoose to associate with that mark, and when and how they will do so. That does not allow anyone else to choose what to associate with the mark without WotC's permission.

If you're polite, reasonable, smart, and ask before you print, might WotC allow you to press the envelope? Yes.

 

[Humanophile]

If WotC is going to associate such contriversal subject matter with a real world religion, does this free other to push the envelope in reguards to the quality standards?

Morally, I'd say yes, but if WOTC is trying to be tactful about it, all they're doing to themselves is morally obligating themselves to allow tactful envelope-pushing in D20 products. That doesn't legally obligate them in any way, nor does it obligate them to allow anything that could be called "pushing the envelope".

And this may be naive of me, but I'd like to think that products that slightly push the envelope (as opposed to trying to push it by their very nature) could probably make the cut if their publishers actually tried sitting down with WOTC people and had a case to bring with them, so it evens out.

 

[Ranger REG]

It's a case of "do as I say, not as I do." Yes, Wizards owns the trademarks (D&D, d20 System, and d20 Modern). So they can pretty much do anything with it as we do our own physical property (e.g., car). For the third-party publishers, they're given the PRIVILEGE of using their trademarks but there are ground rules to follow, ground rules that the owner does not have to abide (e.g., I can do "donut turns" on my car, but if you're behind the wheel of my car, you don't even get to "burn rubber.")

As for the moral standpoint, Wizards must take full responsibility for the products they make that they labelled d20. IOW, if it is a mistake, at least it is their mistake to make, no one else.

Of course, I disagree with the content policing. The QS is way too vague to determine the boundaries, but then again so are the Community Standards of Decency, unless we research and find which is the most strictest community standards on this planet.

Besides, I personally don't equate D&D and d20 logos on the same level of entertainment as Walt Disney or the Children's Television Workshop, or Barney for that matter.

 

[The Blue Elf]

I don't know what to agree on, or what to say, but I remember there was a product that was released a year back that based on the war on terrorism in Pakistan under D20. Truthfully, I don't know what it was called, I never did hear any such outrage from people saying that product was evil, not even one person bother to say this product was against Muslims, people just buy the product. JD must of found out the product.

 

[Kichwas]

Maybe you're thinking d20 Afganistan (Not Pakistan)?

A year ago we didn't have this new license situation, which is causing everyone to second guess WotC and see the hypocracy in their actions.

 

[Umbran]

It isn't hypocracy. There's a difference between choosing to do a thing that may be a mistake with your own property, and allowing other people to make similar mistakes with your property, but without your input.

If you have a valuable piece of property (be it a house, a car, a rare comic book, a trademark, or whatever), when you lend it out, you want and expect people to treat it well. You expect them to be on their best behavior when borrowing your stuff, even though on occasion you are not on your own best behavior with that same stuff. It's not hypocracy to want a little control over what others do with your stuff when you lend it out.

The d20 license was kind of like leaving your car keys out on the hood of the vehicle, so that anyone could come along and take the car and do whatever they wanted. Now, if you drive like a maniac and risk damaging the car, they bring you back in and take the keys from you. And, if they occasionally take a coerner too fast, well, that's their own lookout.

 

[Psion]

It isn't hypocracy. There's a difference between choosing to do a thing that may be a mistake with your own property, and allowing other people to make similar mistakes with your property, but without your input.

Or to put it another way, to allow someone who relies on you for a paycheck to make a decision that could impact your trademark, or allowing someone who has no motivation not to damage your company to make a decision that could impact your trademark.

 

[The Blue Elf]

Or to put it another way, to allow someone who relies on you for a paycheck to make a decision that could impact your trademark, or allowing someone who has no motivation not to damage your company to make a decision that could impact your trademark.

I agree, the people who own the trademark the should of taken responsible caution to prevent this kind of thing from happening, but its already too late the damage been done, because they ignore the fact someone would releaseing these types of games. JD didn't bother to question any of them for doing so a year back?