This is not "cancel culture." People throw this around like its a new thing that young progressives invented. It's only the term that's new. In the 90's it was called political correctness or "PC." I'm sure it's had other names over the centuries, but all it really means is that actions have consequences.
Owning up to those consequences and making an effort to do better in the future is normal, healthy human behavior that we learn in kindergarden. The idea that it's some kind of radical political movement was put forward by people who never had to face the consequences of their actions and take great offense in the idea that they might have to.
Agreed. Removing racist and hurtful content is not bad. What is bad is allowing your books to be a place where harmful content has a home. So, tying this all back in to the original discussion topic; I'm glad that there will be a more thorough review process of future books to ensure that we do not have any repeats of what happened in Spelljammer.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
Let's keep things on topic please. This thread was started to discuss the recent article from Wizards of the Coasts about their improved sensitivity process. The article makes no mention of mechanical design of the game, be it in Spelljammer or any other product. If you wish to discuss such things, please make a new thread in an appropriate area of the forum
Thank you
All do respect for whatever line from which you feel this thread is deviating, this declaration misreads the OP:
Christopher Perkins posted a blog today to talk about moving forward from the Spelljammer incident. It also includes errata for Spelljammer. An interesting result of that errata is that all Backgrounds officially grant the Magic Initiate, Tough, or Skilled Feat if they don't already grant a Feat.
I think it's easy to recognize from reading the OP that discussion of Perkins iteration of "we will do better" is but one part of this thread. Most of the word count actually involves feats, which for some reason you're admonishing people not to discuss. It's possible to have a thread to discuss WotC's effort to repair a product that was broken on a number of levels, including the apology for the insensitivities of the initial release.
Let's keep things on topic please. This thread was started to discuss the recent article from Wizards of the Coasts about their improved sensitivity process. The article makes no mention of mechanical design of the game, be it in Spelljammer or any other product. If you wish to discuss such things, please make a new thread in an appropriate area of the forum
Thank you
All do respect for whatever line from which you feel this thread is deviating, this declaration misreads the OP:
Christopher Perkins posted a blog today to talk about moving forward from the Spelljammer incident. It also includes errata for Spelljammer. An interesting result of that errata is that all Backgrounds officially grant the Magic Initiate, Tough, or Skilled Feat if they don't already grant a Feat.
I think it's easy to recognize from reading the OP that discussion of Perkins iteration of "we will do better" is but one part of this thread. Most of the word count actually involves feats, which for some reason you're admonishing people not to discuss. It's possible to have a thread to discuss WotC's effort to repair a product that was broken on a number of levels, including the apology for the insensitivities of the initial release.
Valid point, and I rescind my instruction. Although I would recommend that users start a second thread for the errata; these are two very different topics and it would aid clarity of discussion
Let's keep things on topic please. This thread was started to discuss the recent article from Wizards of the Coasts about their improved sensitivity process. The article makes no mention of mechanical design of the game, be it in Spelljammer or any other product. If you wish to discuss such things, please make a new thread in an appropriate area of the forum
Thank you
All do respect for whatever line from which you feel this thread is deviating, this declaration misreads the OP:
Christopher Perkins posted a blog today to talk about moving forward from the Spelljammer incident. It also includes errata for Spelljammer. An interesting result of that errata is that all Backgrounds officially grant the Magic Initiate, Tough, or Skilled Feat if they don't already grant a Feat.
I think it's easy to recognize from reading the OP that discussion of Perkins iteration of "we will do better" is but one part of this thread. Most of the word count actually involves feats, which for some reason you're admonishing people not to discuss. It's possible to have a thread to discuss WotC's effort to repair a product that was broken on a number of levels, including the apology for the insensitivities of the initial release.
Valid point, and I rescind my instruction. Although I would recommend that users start a second thread for the errata; these are two very different topics and it would aid clarity of discussion
If the errata is not the topic of this thread, then what is the topic of this thread?
Let's keep things on topic please. This thread was started to discuss the recent article from Wizards of the Coasts about their improved sensitivity process. The article makes no mention of mechanical design of the game, be it in Spelljammer or any other product. If you wish to discuss such things, please make a new thread in an appropriate area of the forum
Thank you
All do respect for whatever line from which you feel this thread is deviating, this declaration misreads the OP:
Christopher Perkins posted a blog today to talk about moving forward from the Spelljammer incident. It also includes errata for Spelljammer. An interesting result of that errata is that all Backgrounds officially grant the Magic Initiate, Tough, or Skilled Feat if they don't already grant a Feat.
I think it's easy to recognize from reading the OP that discussion of Perkins iteration of "we will do better" is but one part of this thread. Most of the word count actually involves feats, which for some reason you're admonishing people not to discuss. It's possible to have a thread to discuss WotC's effort to repair a product that was broken on a number of levels, including the apology for the insensitivities of the initial release.
Valid point, and I rescind my instruction. Although I would recommend that users start a second thread for the errata; these are two very different topics and it would aid clarity of discussion
If the errata is not the topic of this thread, then what is the topic of this thread?
I don't believe he's saying it's not the topic of the thread but rather that the thread as 2 topics that are both rather, um, weighted and probably better to have this thread primarily be about one and make another thread about the other if it's going to get too involved with either. Otherwise it's gonna get confusing to read through.
The suggestion seems to be either keep it light (focusing on the overall direction of moving forward with these changes) or if going to delve into the nitty gritty of the topics (the hadozee incident, the background feats) then maybe it is best to separate.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
I agree with Cyb3rM1nd and Davyd. One of the topics at hand is the removal of harmful and offensive content. The other is about a random mechanic in a game. I think these are very separate topics and one has much more weight than the other. It would be confusing to discuss them in the same thread.
We've now spent 7 of the 28 posts, so 25% of the thread discussing what is appropriate for the thread. Just thought that was worth mentioning.
Anyways. I'm glad they got rid of things, but... I can't help but notice that they only mentioned removing content and not replacing it. Perhaps it's just misworded, but I honestly hope that they provide (appropriate) content to replace what was removed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I for one am glad that we are going to have Twitter level of content moderation going for WotC. It's been needed for a very long time. I can't wait to see what they do to the content, its going to be grand. There is a number of Twitter D&D writers that WotC could outsource who'd love to review WotC for them and improve the game so much.
I thought it was gonna be an apology for the lack of ship battle content in the book, but I'll take what I can get.
I learned a very valuable lesson on WotC content from that content, do not pre-order. Go down to the hobby shop and at least read the table of contents first before you buy. If the book can't be read, pass. A lot of the issues is because we fell for the marketing and high hopes for the product. Never pre-order.
I thought it was gonna be an apology for the lack of ship battle content in the book, but I'll take what I can get.
I learned a very valuable lesson on WotC content from that content, do not pre-order. Go down to the hobby shop and at least read the table of contents first before you buy. If the book can't be read, pass. A lot of the issues is because we fell for the marketing and high hopes for the product. Never pre-order.
Honestly, it wasn't marketing. They were upfront that this was a 192 page product, I even remember bringing that up multiple times on the forums when it was announced...and got shouted down because it was going so amazeballs that it didn't matter. One guy told me that it was the first book he'd even considered buying for 5e because it was that good. He suddenly developed amnesia and said the exact same thing about Planescape (I think it was Planescape) after Spelljammer came out. It's just that the community got itself super hyped over it. The only way WotC fed into it was the special format it was released in...but otherwise the community did it to itself.
Anyways, this is going off topic again, we're meant to be discussing the new diversity policy.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Spelljammer hasn't been a thing outside of janky homebrew since the nineties. Over twenty years of no miniature giant space hamsters. People were understandably excited to see it make a return. The fact that it was underdeveloped sucks all the harder for the hype, but that doesn't mean people were bad for wanting Spelljammer. It mostly just means DMs have to do more work if they want to run a Spelljammer game. Especially since there's conflicting needs and goals involved - the people who wanted Spelljammer as a means of traveling between settings, and the people who wanted Spelljammer as a setting. See, the former aren't in the market for High-Flying Space Adventure, or at least that's not their primary goal, and I'm not sure "a Spelljammer game" is even what you'd call a Setting Road Trip where your characters flit between a dozen different deeply divergent settings. Meanwhile you have a sizeable contingent of gamers for whom Wildspace itself is the place they want to play. They couldn't care less about going from Faerun to Krynn to Exandria to wherever-else-the-DM-pulls-out-her-hindus; they want to have awesome adventures in Wildspace, aboard their badass flying starship.
The former group got everything they could ever need to make occasional brief Spelljamming interludes between splendid adventures on terra firma, which was technically sortakinna-ish what Wizards promised; the latter group got most righteously shafted. They feel some kinda way about that, and are going to for quite some time.
Anyways. I'm glad they got rid of things, but... I can't help but notice that they only mentioned removing content and not replacing it. Perhaps it's just misworded, but I honestly hope that they provide (appropriate) content to replace what was removed.
Not exactly sure how you reached this conclusion - while the first paragraph talks about removing content, the entire article is about how they are going to replace the old, offensive Spelljammer content with the errata linked in the very same article and how they will work to avoid generating problematic content moving forward.
If you mean that you are concerned the content review teams will “remove content”, that is very clearly not what the article says they will do. It says they will review potential content (you can’t really remove content if the subject is not even content yet), develop a plan for making the proposed content more neutral, then work with Wizards to implement the plan. These kinds of reviews are not “cut this part, cut that part”, but rather “this part is problematic for these reasons, why don’t you review and make changes - here are some suggested changes we have.”
It probably is going to look a little like what happened with Spelljammer - they came up with an errata sheet based on this content moderation program and made those changes to the books. Except, unlike Spelljammer, where the “first draft” was a publicly published document, that “first draft” would never have seen the light of day, and we would only ever know about the version with the errata.
Anyways. I'm glad they got rid of things, but... I can't help but notice that they only mentioned removing content and not replacing it. Perhaps it's just misworded, but I honestly hope that they provide (appropriate) content to replace what was removed.
Not exactly sure how you reached this conclusion - while the first paragraph talks about removing content, the entire article is about how they are going to replace the old, offensive Spelljammer content with the errata linked in the very same article and how they will work to avoid generating problematic content moving forward.
If you mean that you are concerned the content review teams will “remove content”, that is very clearly not what the article says they will do. It says they will review potential content (you can’t really remove content if the subject is not even content yet), develop a plan for making the proposed content more neutral, then work with Wizards to implement the plan. These kinds of reviews are not “cut this part, cut that part”, but rather “this part is problematic for these reasons, why don’t you review and make changes - here are some suggested changes we have.”
It probably is going to look a little like what happened with Spelljammer - they came up with an errata sheet based on this content moderation program and made those changes to the books. Except, unlike Spelljammer, where the “first draft” was a publicly published document, that “first draft” would never have seen the light of day, and we would only ever know about the version with the errata.
He probably reached that conclusion based on how WotC has treated the topic at hand so far, which is by simply removing things. If it looks like Spelljammer, we can indeed expect insensitive lore to be replaced by absolutely nothing, no suggested changes at all. The article doesn't really inspire much confidence there - the best you get is a line saying "IF we have to create content to replace what we delete, we'll review that too".
Anyways. I'm glad they got rid of things, but... I can't help but notice that they only mentioned removing content and not replacing it. Perhaps it's just misworded, but I honestly hope that they provide (appropriate) content to replace what was removed.
Not exactly sure how you reached this conclusion - while the first paragraph talks about removing content, the entire article is about how they are going to replace the old, offensive Spelljammer content with the errata linked in the very same article and how they will work to avoid generating problematic content moving forward.
If you mean that you are concerned the content review teams will “remove content”, that is very clearly not what the article says they will do. It says they will review potential content (you can’t really remove content if the subject is not even content yet), develop a plan for making the proposed content more neutral, then work with Wizards to implement the plan. These kinds of reviews are not “cut this part, cut that part”, but rather “this part is problematic for these reasons, why don’t you review and make changes - here are some suggested changes we have.”
It probably is going to look a little like what happened with Spelljammer - they came up with an errata sheet based on this content moderation program and made those changes to the books. Except, unlike Spelljammer, where the “first draft” was a publicly published document, that “first draft” would never have seen the light of day, and we would only ever know about the version with the errata.
He probably reached that conclusion based on how WotC has treated the topic at hand so far, which is by simply removing things. If it looks like Spelljammer, we can indeed expect insensitive lore to be replaced by absolutely nothing, no suggested changes at all. The article doesn't really inspire much confidence there - the best you get is a line saying "IF we have to create content to replace what we delete, we'll review that too".
You mean like they did in the errata document that is full of replacement text for Spelljammer? The one that was linked in the article this thread is discussing? You are welcome to compare the old to the new - you’ll find that the errata document does, in fact replace the old text with “absolutely something”. Now, yes, it took them a while to get there, and maybe your post would have merit if you posted it a week or so ago - it’s a lot harder to argue you do not have faith with Wizards adding replacement in a thread about Wizards having added replacement text.
I am so sick of complaints about them pulling problematic content from Spelljammer and replacing it with "nothing at all!"
GOOD. They promptly and alacritously got on top of a mistake they never should have made, and they didn't compound the error by slapping in a bunch of new unchecked unverified swill to replace it and maybe make the whole thing worse.
This is Spelljammer, where you can easily call a six-armed bug monster, a sentient ooze, a robot, an entirely different kind of robot, and a miniature giant space hamster shipmates. Spelljammer is the ULTIMATE in "it doesn't matter where you came from, only where you're going and who you choose to go there with."
Bloody STOP IT with the "but muh lore!" nonsense. It was two paragraphs of bad lame poorly written lore that is NOT worth the amount of lamentation it's gotten. Write your own lore instead. Or hell, I'll do it for you when I'm not stuck on my phone at work. It's not remotely this difficult.
You mean like they did in the errata document that is full of replacement text for Spelljammer? The one that was linked in the article this thread is discussing? You are welcome to compare the old to the new - you’ll find that the errata document does, in fact replace the old text with “absolutely something”. Now, yes, it took them a while to get there, and maybe your post would have merit if you posted it a week or so ago - it’s a lot harder to argue you do not have faith with Wizards adding replacement in a thread about Wizards having added replacement text.
Yup, the new lore goes as follows:
Hadozees’ progenitors were mammals no bigger than house cats. Hunted by larger natural predators, they took to the trees and evolved wing-like flaps that enabled them to glide from branch to branch. Today, hadozees are sapient, bipedal beings eager to leave behind the fearsome predators of their home world and explore other worlds. In addition to being natural climbers, hadozees have feet that are as dexterous as their hands, even to the extent of having opposable thumbs. Membranes of skin hang loosely from their arms and legs. When stretched taut, these membranes enable hadozees to glide. Hadozees wrap these wings around themselves to keep warm.
Also, rushing out new content to replace the old, racist "lore" is not a good idea. WotC needed to take time to learn from their mistakes and what they did wrong in publishing the original racist content so that they can avoid making the same harmful mistake again. No lore is better than offensive lore, and rushing out new content is a good way to mess up and just make more offensive content.
To add onto what BoringBard wrote above, it was not just the Hadozee who saw some new lore added. The Dohwar (penguin non-playable race) also received a lore update. It would appear that, on review, the sensitivity folks noticed it was a bit problematic that the species with a long beak (which could be interpreted as a long nose) were unscrupulous merchants who would do anything to turn a profit. The new version keeps all their preference for secrecy, but cuts out the part about then being unscrupulous merchants. It also adds information about their Feywild origins and migrations.
This is a great example of substitution - removing something that could be construed as antisemitic that also did not add anything to their depiction (I don’t need to be told that those who operate in secrecy might not always deal in legal goods), and replaces it with information about where they come from. That has far more interest to a potential DM than something easy to derive from other text—there is a lot of lore associated with the Feywild, so even a simple sentence saying that they are migratory birds travelling between Wildspace and the Feywild adds a whole bunch to what you can do with them.
You mean like they did in the errata document that is full of replacement text for Spelljammer? The one that was linked in the article this thread is discussing? You are welcome to compare the old to the new - you’ll find that the errata document does, in fact replace the old text with “absolutely something”. Now, yes, it took them a while to get there, and maybe your post would have merit if you posted it a week or so ago - it’s a lot harder to argue you do not have faith with Wizards adding replacement in a thread about Wizards having added replacement text.
Yup, the new lore goes as follows:
Hadozees’ progenitors were mammals no bigger than house cats. Hunted by larger natural predators, they took to the trees and evolved wing-like flaps that enabled them to glide from branch to branch. Today, hadozees are sapient, bipedal beings eager to leave behind the fearsome predators of their home world and explore other worlds. In addition to being natural climbers, hadozees have feet that are as dexterous as their hands, even to the extent of having opposable thumbs. Membranes of skin hang loosely from their arms and legs. When stretched taut, these membranes enable hadozees to glide. Hadozees wrap these wings around themselves to keep war
Also, rushing out new content to replace the old, racist "lore" is not a good idea. WotC needed to take time to learn from their mistakes and what they did wrong in publishing the original racist content so that they can avoid making the same harmful mistake again. No lore is better than offensive lore, and rushing out new content is a good way to mess up and just make more offensive content.
I don't have the physical pre-errata book at hand right now, so correct me if I am wrong, but the text from the errata you're quoting is the same as in the pre-errata version of the book, only with the problematic paragraph missing. The text in the errata isn't new. The missing paragraph haven't been replaced by a new lore.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Agreed. Removing racist and hurtful content is not bad. What is bad is allowing your books to be a place where harmful content has a home. So, tying this all back in to the original discussion topic; I'm glad that there will be a more thorough review process of future books to ensure that we do not have any repeats of what happened in Spelljammer.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.I thought it was gonna be an apology for the lack of ship battle content in the book, but I'll take what I can get.
All do respect for whatever line from which you feel this thread is deviating, this declaration misreads the OP:
I think it's easy to recognize from reading the OP that discussion of Perkins iteration of "we will do better" is but one part of this thread. Most of the word count actually involves feats, which for some reason you're admonishing people not to discuss. It's possible to have a thread to discuss WotC's effort to repair a product that was broken on a number of levels, including the apology for the insensitivities of the initial release.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Valid point, and I rescind my instruction. Although I would recommend that users start a second thread for the errata; these are two very different topics and it would aid clarity of discussion
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
If the errata is not the topic of this thread, then what is the topic of this thread?
I don't believe he's saying it's not the topic of the thread but rather that the thread as 2 topics that are both rather, um, weighted and probably better to have this thread primarily be about one and make another thread about the other if it's going to get too involved with either. Otherwise it's gonna get confusing to read through.
The suggestion seems to be either keep it light (focusing on the overall direction of moving forward with these changes) or if going to delve into the nitty gritty of the topics (the hadozee incident, the background feats) then maybe it is best to separate.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
You may discuss the article itself but not the content of the article. :)
I agree with Cyb3rM1nd and Davyd. One of the topics at hand is the removal of harmful and offensive content. The other is about a random mechanic in a game. I think these are very separate topics and one has much more weight than the other. It would be confusing to discuss them in the same thread.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.We've now spent 7 of the 28 posts, so 25% of the thread discussing what is appropriate for the thread. Just thought that was worth mentioning.
Anyways. I'm glad they got rid of things, but... I can't help but notice that they only mentioned removing content and not replacing it. Perhaps it's just misworded, but I honestly hope that they provide (appropriate) content to replace what was removed.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I for one am glad that we are going to have Twitter level of content moderation going for WotC. It's been needed for a very long time. I can't wait to see what they do to the content, its going to be grand. There is a number of Twitter D&D writers that WotC could outsource who'd love to review WotC for them and improve the game so much.
I learned a very valuable lesson on WotC content from that content, do not pre-order. Go down to the hobby shop and at least read the table of contents first before you buy. If the book can't be read, pass. A lot of the issues is because we fell for the marketing and high hopes for the product. Never pre-order.
Honestly, it wasn't marketing. They were upfront that this was a 192 page product, I even remember bringing that up multiple times on the forums when it was announced...and got shouted down because it was going so amazeballs that it didn't matter. One guy told me that it was the first book he'd even considered buying for 5e because it was that good. He suddenly developed amnesia and said the exact same thing about Planescape (I think it was Planescape) after Spelljammer came out. It's just that the community got itself super hyped over it. The only way WotC fed into it was the special format it was released in...but otherwise the community did it to itself.
Anyways, this is going off topic again, we're meant to be discussing the new diversity policy.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Spelljammer hasn't been a thing outside of janky homebrew since the nineties. Over twenty years of no miniature giant space hamsters. People were understandably excited to see it make a return. The fact that it was underdeveloped sucks all the harder for the hype, but that doesn't mean people were bad for wanting Spelljammer. It mostly just means DMs have to do more work if they want to run a Spelljammer game. Especially since there's conflicting needs and goals involved - the people who wanted Spelljammer as a means of traveling between settings, and the people who wanted Spelljammer as a setting. See, the former aren't in the market for High-Flying Space Adventure, or at least that's not their primary goal, and I'm not sure "a Spelljammer game" is even what you'd call a Setting Road Trip where your characters flit between a dozen different deeply divergent settings. Meanwhile you have a sizeable contingent of gamers for whom Wildspace itself is the place they want to play. They couldn't care less about going from Faerun to Krynn to Exandria to wherever-else-the-DM-pulls-out-her-hindus; they want to have awesome adventures in Wildspace, aboard their badass flying starship.
The former group got everything they could ever need to make occasional brief Spelljamming interludes between splendid adventures on terra firma, which was technically sortakinna-ish what Wizards promised; the latter group got most righteously shafted. They feel some kinda way about that, and are going to for quite some time.
Please do not contact or message me.
Not exactly sure how you reached this conclusion - while the first paragraph talks about removing content, the entire article is about how they are going to replace the old, offensive Spelljammer content with the errata linked in the very same article and how they will work to avoid generating problematic content moving forward.
If you mean that you are concerned the content review teams will “remove content”, that is very clearly not what the article says they will do. It says they will review potential content (you can’t really remove content if the subject is not even content yet), develop a plan for making the proposed content more neutral, then work with Wizards to implement the plan. These kinds of reviews are not “cut this part, cut that part”, but rather “this part is problematic for these reasons, why don’t you review and make changes - here are some suggested changes we have.”
It probably is going to look a little like what happened with Spelljammer - they came up with an errata sheet based on this content moderation program and made those changes to the books. Except, unlike Spelljammer, where the “first draft” was a publicly published document, that “first draft” would never have seen the light of day, and we would only ever know about the version with the errata.
He probably reached that conclusion based on how WotC has treated the topic at hand so far, which is by simply removing things. If it looks like Spelljammer, we can indeed expect insensitive lore to be replaced by absolutely nothing, no suggested changes at all. The article doesn't really inspire much confidence there - the best you get is a line saying "IF we have to create content to replace what we delete, we'll review that too".
You mean like they did in the errata document that is full of replacement text for Spelljammer? The one that was linked in the article this thread is discussing? You are welcome to compare the old to the new - you’ll find that the errata document does, in fact replace the old text with “absolutely something”. Now, yes, it took them a while to get there, and maybe your post would have merit if you posted it a week or so ago - it’s a lot harder to argue you do not have faith with Wizards adding replacement in a thread about Wizards having added replacement text.
I am so sick of complaints about them pulling problematic content from Spelljammer and replacing it with "nothing at all!"
GOOD. They promptly and alacritously got on top of a mistake they never should have made, and they didn't compound the error by slapping in a bunch of new unchecked unverified swill to replace it and maybe make the whole thing worse.
This is Spelljammer, where you can easily call a six-armed bug monster, a sentient ooze, a robot, an entirely different kind of robot, and a miniature giant space hamster shipmates. Spelljammer is the ULTIMATE in "it doesn't matter where you came from, only where you're going and who you choose to go there with."
Bloody STOP IT with the "but muh lore!" nonsense. It was two paragraphs of bad lame poorly written lore that is NOT worth the amount of lamentation it's gotten. Write your own lore instead. Or hell, I'll do it for you when I'm not stuck on my phone at work. It's not remotely this difficult.
Please do not contact or message me.
Yup, the new lore goes as follows:
Also, rushing out new content to replace the old, racist "lore" is not a good idea. WotC needed to take time to learn from their mistakes and what they did wrong in publishing the original racist content so that they can avoid making the same harmful mistake again. No lore is better than offensive lore, and rushing out new content is a good way to mess up and just make more offensive content.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.To add onto what BoringBard wrote above, it was not just the Hadozee who saw some new lore added. The Dohwar (penguin non-playable race) also received a lore update. It would appear that, on review, the sensitivity folks noticed it was a bit problematic that the species with a long beak (which could be interpreted as a long nose) were unscrupulous merchants who would do anything to turn a profit. The new version keeps all their preference for secrecy, but cuts out the part about then being unscrupulous merchants. It also adds information about their Feywild origins and migrations.
This is a great example of substitution - removing something that could be construed as antisemitic that also did not add anything to their depiction (I don’t need to be told that those who operate in secrecy might not always deal in legal goods), and replaces it with information about where they come from. That has far more interest to a potential DM than something easy to derive from other text—there is a lot of lore associated with the Feywild, so even a simple sentence saying that they are migratory birds travelling between Wildspace and the Feywild adds a whole bunch to what you can do with them.
I don't have the physical pre-errata book at hand right now, so correct me if I am wrong, but the text from the errata you're quoting is the same as in the pre-errata version of the book, only with the problematic paragraph missing. The text in the errata isn't new. The missing paragraph haven't been replaced by a new lore.