Racially discriminatory content is an unavoidable part of D&D lore. Orcs are evil. Elves and dwarves dislike and distrust each other. Is this racist? Technically, yes. It's also a catalyst for good roleplay. Racially discriminatory content is part of the history and lore of D&D.
is there any actual harm of this sort caused by any current D&D product? No, there isn't. Is it WotC's job to police such things? No, it isn't, but they've taken it upon themselves to do so anyway. "This is deeply important to us," they said in the post. This position is silly. Also, it's contradictory to the D&D universe they bought, of which they are supposedly stewards. They are too woke for their own good and probably can't be talked out of it. In the meantime, it leaves them a backdoor to railroad any D&D creator they wish.
Those discriminatory contents are being changed and many tables haven't incorporated them for decades. I've played many an orc and not one has been evil. Just because something is a part of history doesn't mean it has to be repeated.
There is actual harm from discriminatory content in D&D products. When discriminatory content in D&D is coded to reflect real world racism it perpetuates said real world racism and often excludes people from D&D. It's not about it being someone's job to police, it's about bettering our community and society. BTW it's entirely possible to include discriminatory characters in a campaign to be reflective of how life can be and present obstacles for players, but that doesn't have to be baked into the game itself.
Honestly my first read of your take is that of a troll or someone upset they aren't allowed to be racist, but I'm going to give you the benefit of doubt and hope you are well intentioned.
You're certainly free to think whatever you want.
Back to something you said... In what way does dwarf-elf rivalry, or other in-game racial discrimination (such as orcs being untrusted or presumed as evil) exclude people in real life from D&D?
Given that Orcs and other races were originally intentionally coded to represent racist caricatures real world tribal nations, many who experience that racism in the real world are not comfortable seeing those representations in the game. And it wasn't as simple as you make it out to be that they were just seen in that way. It was literally coded into the game. You know that on at least some level. And yes, that excludes them. Take the recent concerns over the rerelease of the Hadozee. Members of the communities whose culture was intentionally misrepresented in a racist way when the Hadozee were created were understandably upset when that wasn't changed at first. And many said it was what kept them from the game in the past.
You might think they can just get over it, but if you were the target of the racism or discrimination I doubt you'd carry the same opinion.
You are wrong about orcs: Their presence in Northern European folk tales and fairy tales did not arise from engagement with "real world tribal nations" or unpalatable attitudes towards them. And if you read Shippey or any other Tolkien scholar you will also discover Tolkien's depiction of them was never intended to be analogous with any real world ethnic group.
There has been pushback against certain rhetoric surrounding orcs, suggesting such rhetoric is in and of itself racist and rooted in people's own projections: In the racism of those who see such similarities.
Tolkien orcs are not D&D orcs are not Warcraft orcs are not Northern European folk tale orcs, so references to one to defend another aren't relevant. Even if they share some origins it is one being not racist is not dispositive on whether the other is racist because each author had their own intentions and misgivings. One thing to note, just because something may be race coded doesn't mean the author was racist. It's also possible they were only basing their characters on racist ideas they were taught to be true and only later learned were incorrect. That's what we are seeing with updates to D&D.
As for the rhetoric argument it's a bit of a chicken/egg argument isn't it? As you describe it, someone who has racist views wouldn't be able to see racist similarities if they weren't there would they? Then we could just go back and forth in circles making the same arguments to each other.
I base my opinion on them being coded as racist from those who suffered said racism. If they tell me it's racist coded I take them at their word unless there is good evidence to believe otherwise.
Orcs only made it into D&D due to their presence in the literature. If over the years they've somehow come to take on characteristics that seem to be rendering them a dehumanizing depiction of others, then that is unfortunate, and maybe Wizards need to be held accountable.
It isn't a chicken-egg situation at all. Racism is complex. Different cultures with different faiths and different traditions have different ideas about what is racist. I know. I am an ethnically complex individual who has been living and working abroad for twelve years. Different scholars whose work revolves around race have different ideas about what is racist, as well. And frankly, as someone who is ethnically complex, I tend to pay attention to my own instincts and to what certain scholars are saying. Not to people who imagine racism is so simple and so black-and-white.
Who are "they"? Are you really going to suggest that an entire ethnicity is an ideological monolith? That they all think and act the same? Because that would be ...
There is no real question that early orcs were intended to be racist caricatures, specifically trying to depict all tribal societies as violent, primitive, unintelligent, and a threat to the Western-styled "civilized" people of the world. We know this because Gary Gygax was once asked "yeah, but shouldn't you only kill the bad orcs, it's not like you should go murder the women and children--those who are completely innocent?" and he responded by literally quoting word-for-word a military officer ordering the genocide of tribal people. We know because the early words used to describe orcs were explicitly dehumanizing, painting a picture of tribal societies that looked like something out of the 19th century. We know because Ernest Gygax--Gary's son and another founder of the game--specifically has made comments about how he and his dad intended for certain races to be inferior, including saying things such as "just like in the real world".
It's not a "somehow took on characteristics"--Gary Gygax took Tolkien's orcs (which have very different connotations and are firmly Western in origin--specifically the corrupted youth forced into dehumanization of the First World War) and combined them with his racism. Wizards has spent a long time excising that racism from the game--which is exactly why they don't want racists to try and add that back in, all while proudly stamping Wizards' trademark on their racist books.
There is no real question that early orcs were intended to be racist caricatures, specifically trying to depict all tribal societies as violent, primitive, unintelligent, and a threat to the Western-styled "civilized" people of the world. We know this because Gary Gygax was once asked "yeah, but shouldn't you only kill the bad orcs, it's not like you should go murder the women and children--those who are completely innocent?" and he responded by literally quoting word-for-word a military officer ordering the genocide of tribal people.
Keep on the Borderlands has counts of women, juveniles, and children for all the humanoids in the caves of chaos (the keep, however, has none) and tells you what, if any, combat stats they have, so presumably you're expected to kill them.
There is no real question that early orcs were intended to be racist caricatures, specifically trying to depict all tribal societies as violent, primitive, unintelligent, and a threat to the Western-styled "civilized" people of the world. We know this because Gary Gygax was once asked "yeah, but shouldn't you only kill the bad orcs, it's not like you should go murder the women and children--those who are completely innocent?" and he responded by literally quoting word-for-word a military officer ordering the genocide of tribal people. We know because the early words used to describe orcs were explicitly dehumanizing, painting a picture of tribal societies that looked like something out of the 19th century. We know because Ernest Gygax--Gary's son and another founder of the game--specifically has made comments about how he and his dad intended for certain races to be inferior, including saying things such as "just like in the real world".
It's not a "somehow took on characteristics"--Gary Gygax took Tolkien's orcs (which have very different connotations and are firmly Western in origin--specifically the corrupted youth forced into dehumanization of the First World War) and combined them with his racism. Wizards has spent a long time excising that racism from the game--which is exactly why they don't want racists to try and add that back in, all while proudly stamping Wizards' trademark on their racist books.
I am not so sure I would say your assessment of Gary Gygax is fair or reasonable. Of his son? Definitely. But to say Gary Gygax must have been a racist by virtue of his having quoted some military officer who assuredly was is a bit of a stretch. People make allusions to all manner of historical atrocities and often even in jest. It doesn't mean they support these. It doesn't automatically make them racists. Just how sheltered a life have you lived? What you're saying about Gary Gygax makes you sound like old church ladies when it comes to heavy metal lyrics and horror films.
First off, you don't quote someone ordering genocide as a joke--especially not a genocide against the very people it looks very much like you were creating a harmful stereotype of. Second, and this is my fault, I forgot to mention he was also outspoken about his belief in "biological determinism"--the 1970s way of saying "eugenics" after the 40s kind of made the term "eugenics" pretty darn problematic (also, in addition to problematic statements about race, this is a guy who said "girls are biologically incapable of enjoying D&D"--really not a good person). Third, his own son has been very clear that the racism he spews is in line with how his dad wanted the game to look.
That's just the reality that Wizards faces--they know one of their game has a genocide-quoting, eugenics-promoting founder who very clearly infected the game with his racism. They know that racism still is so engrained in the game that they sometimes take it for granted, leading to two fairly egregious situations in 5e resultant from the systemic blindness that comes from being acclimated to certain problems.
Acknowledging that reality--rather than flagrantly trying to apologize for someone the overwhelming facts show was not the saint folks want him to be--is not being an "old church lady". It is merely acknowledging a history that must be acknowledged--a history that gives Wizards really good reason to want to try and defend their efforts to move away from the racism of its past, without being undermined by third parties trying to include that racism while using Wizards' intellectual property as the basic foundation upon which their racist books were built.
It's honestly like a sitcom short at this point. I can see it now.
Husband and Wife are in marriage counseling. Husband insists adamantly that he is listening, that he understands, that he is going to do better!
Wife reluctantly agrees to give him a chance to fix the issues.
Montage of the husband doing a bunch of entirely unrelated things that he finds fun, like fly fising, gambling, going to a strip club, while his wife stands in classic annoyed-wife-pose off to the side.
Cut back to them in divorce court with the husband saying "I don't get it your honor, she's crazy! I listened to everything she said, did everything she asked of me! none of it's my fault!"
like the joke is that he's so obtuse that he can't see his very obviously bad actions for what they are, just like how Wizards is doing right now! They're listening so good guys!
Honestly, looking at the most recent ORC announcement, WotC is sitting in an empty building. From what I can tell, every major publisher except one and every middling publisher has jumped ship.Basically, WotC can put anything they want into the OGL 1.2, because apparently nobody will be using it.
This is a claim that gets thrown around a lot. It also is pure speculation based on statements by companies trying to increase their own reputation and business’ profitability while the major competitor stumbled.
But present taking advantage of a rival’s PR failings is not necessarily indicative of the future. The simple reality is that D&D is far and away the largest game in the TTRPG sphere—it is not even close. D&D is the only game in the TTRPG sphere with actual name recognition outside of the sphere - you can ask random people on the street if they have heard of D&D, and you’ll get upwards of 90% to respond with a yes—Pathfinder, the next biggest game, is not going to come anywhere close to that.
D&D is a wedding cake; the next closest competitor is a petite four.
That makes OGL 1.2 incredibly valuable to third party producers—the ability to put a Wizards of the Coast, official D&D trademark (the Creator Product badge) on your book immediately and clearly signifies “this is part of the game you actually know and the overwhelming majority of you play.” That ability, to cut off a piece of the D&D cake, is all but certainly going to be far more lucrative than anything that ORC can come up with—no matter what they include, they’ll never be able to put the D&D ampersand on the product under ORC.
Time will only tell what will happen, but, I suspect that, once some of this dust settles and creators realise 1.2 is a really good deal, they’ll realise a slice of cake is far better than a crumb of petite four.
Ahem! Random stranger have you heard of Cyberpunk? "Why yes I have." Other random stranger have you heard of Star Trek? " Why yes I have!" Star Wars? "Yeah that too!" DnD isn't the only brand with name recognition, and the recognition that it does have is largely just "isn't that some kinda nerd stuff" for most of the population. Critical Role starts playing Cyberpunk Red, guess what book game stores can't keep on the shelves? Here's another hint, DnD is about one Sheldon or "Stranger Things" away from losing it's monopoly to whatever the latest Star Trek or Star Wars RPG is (Yes I know the Big Bang Theory ended, this was a simile). How about that new Vox Machina game? Yeah, that's a possible kick in the pants too. I suspect that once the dust settles, we are going to have 4th Edition all over again, only it's gonna have the half-assed sales of 3.5, because "It's basically the same" on top. And then, eventually, once the WotC leadership is replaced a new game will come out and the ORC-compliant DnD 6e will actually be worth checking out.
The current draft for OGL even says you cannot challenge their decision about this matter in court. So their decision is final. If you can challenge that provision in the court, and it shows that their clause in OGL was so bad that it was illegal to begin with that don't make it a good clause. It would make their clause a very bad, abusive and highly illegal clause.
I'm not defending the clause as written. As I said I haven't formed an opinion on 1.2 yet cause I haven't had the opportunity to give it a full read. I'm simply addressing what a lot of people are throwing around as legal conclusions that basically equate to the sky is falling we are f*****. There is a lot of fear mongering going on and it's clearly from people that have no desire to have an actual conversation about this. They already have their pitch forks and torches out. I'm not saying you are a member of that group, but even in your response you are using language that shouldn't be thrown around so easily such as abusive and highly illegal. If you are stating your opinion that's fine, but a lot of people in this thread and others are asserting it as hardline legal fact.
If it is drafted in such a manner as to be unenforceable determined by a court, then that is a problem for WotC as much as it is for anyone. A contract clause being unenforceable is not necessarily the same as illegal. It can be, one of the ways a provision in a contract or even an entire contract can be deemed unenforceable is because it is illegal. It could also be deemed as such because it is against public policy or the general conscience of society. It could also be unenforceable because the court determines the parties mistakenly thought they agreed when they actually didn't. The term illegal is largely specific to criminal codes not civil codes that govern contract law. In any of these events WotC is the losing party because they are the ones seeking to enforce that provision. Would it suck to have to fight it and get that win? Sure, but there is never a true guarantee of avoiding litigation in any scenario.
The current draft for OGL even says you cannot challenge their decision about this matter in court. So their decision is final. If you can challenge that provision in the court, and it shows that their clause in OGL was so bad that it was illegal to begin with that don't make it a good clause. It would make their clause a very bad, abusive and highly illegal clause.
I'm not defending the clause as written. As I said I haven't formed an opinion on 1.2 yet cause I haven't had the opportunity to give it a full read. I'm simply addressing what a lot of people are throwing around as legal conclusions that basically equate to the sky is falling we are f*****. There is a lot of fear mongering going on and it's clearly from people that have no desire to have an actual conversation about this. They already have their pitch forks and torches out. I'm not saying you are a member of that group, but even in your response you are using language that shouldn't be thrown around so easily such as abusive and highly illegal. If you are stating your opinion that's fine, but a lot of people in this thread and others are asserting it as hardline legal fact.
If it is drafted in such a manner as to be unenforceable determined by a court, then that is a problem for WotC as much as it is for anyone. A contract clause being unenforceable is not necessarily the same as illegal. It can be, one of the ways a provision in a contract or even an entire contract can be deemed unenforceable is because it is illegal. It could also be deemed as such because it is against public policy or the general conscience of society. It could also be unenforceable because the court determines the parties mistakenly thought they agreed when they actually didn't. The term illegal is largely specific to criminal codes not civil codes that govern contract law. In any of these events WotC is the losing party because they are the ones seeking to enforce that provision. Would it suck to have to fight it and get that win? Sure, but there is never a true guarantee of avoiding litigation in any scenario.
Also, building on this, different judges treat unenforceable terms differently--some might strike the unenforceable portions provision (such as the language denying someone legal recourse to challenge a decision which is the most problematic part of that term) while leaving the rest of the term intact, others might strike the entire term. That should terrify Wizards--they don't want people to challenge their decisions (since racists tend to be super litigious), but they certainly don't want a judge to say "this entire term is unenforceable--you now lose all these enumerated powers to prevent racist content from being in your books).
I would not be surprised if this term changes some after the public review panel.
Sadly, you haven't read the clause as written, and you certainly had no reasons to understand why people claim it as not only unenforceable, but unethical, unacceptable, immoral and something that crosses a final redline. Here we only see your assumptions and prejudice about how you think people are unreasonable, etc. The problem is, if fanboys like you keep defending it, it is implemented, and it is as bad as many people (even legal commentary folks, lawyers) see for many reasons, you will be morally responsible for supporting something bad.
Where exactly did I support it? I have stated multiple times WotC dropped the ball on this whole ordeal. I'm not making prejudiced assumptions about anyone either, I'm saying the language they are using and the way they are using it do not match, much the way I have called out WotC for the way it used the term draft. I happen to be one of those legal commentary folk lawyers. My point has been to say lets not call something illegal when we don't know if it is or not, that is determined by courts. Even if we have existing case law saying something is illegal, you don't know for sure until the specific case is ruled on, because the law is often fact specific.
Notice how your language changed between your last two posts after I pointed out unenforceable doesn't equal illegal per se. I have no problem with you calling it immoral, unethical, or unacceptable. There are a lot of people saying that it is as bad as you claim, some of them lawyers, and there are people saying it isn't as bad as you claim, some of them lawyers.
To be clear being a lawyer is not the end all be all authority either. Lawyers are human too and get things wrong sometimes. Every lawsuit has at least one lawyer making a losing argument.
No Hateful Content or Conduct. You will not include content in Your Licensed Works that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing, or engage in conduct that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing. We have the sole right to decide what conduct or content is hateful, and you covenant that you will not contest any such determination via any suit or other legal action.
My problem is with the 2nd sentence. As it conflict with:
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
The 2nd quote comes from Declaration of Universal Human Rights, Article 10
And there is a 3rd quote:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
If you wonder where it comes from... Declaration of Universal Human Rights, Article 12
So just 2 articles of Declaration of Universal Human Rights are ignored, violated, etc.
Potential consequences if it is used against some hobbyist creators who publish their games, and who are otherwise weak, can have devastating consequences, and it can target young creators (kids) and I see no excuse for knowingly violating universal human rights of innocent and unsuspecting kids who can be manipulated by both Wizards / Hasbro, and their supporters among the fanbase to believe it is harmless. If your arguments you made without knowing the clause or understanding the problem influences someone into accepting these terms and some of the potential horrible consequences surface, that would be a huge moral responsibility for you. You still want to defend Wizards blindly?
There is an old lawyer joke: When you have the facts, you pound the facts. When you have the law, you pound the law. When you have nothing, you pound the table.
This post is doing the third option. You are citing completely irrelevant legal doctrines--something about criminal law in a decidedly civil law issue and something that protects against "attacks" which this decidedly does not rise to the standard of (this might surprise you, but the UN General Assembly wasn't super concerned with "license says 'don't be racist when using our stuff'" kind of issues. You then add in some bad slippery slope hypotheticals that assume Wizards is going to go up against "unsuspecting kids", while ignoring you have to publish content under the license to even have these terms apply.
And you capstone your entire post by saying that Derksmash is defending Wizards--they are not; they are stating general legal principals in a neutral manner--and imputing their morality.
There are legitimate arguments to raise about how the language is drafted--it has flaws that could very easily undermine the (important and necessary) intent of the terms. Your post is not those arguments.
and I see no excuse for knowingly violating universal human rights of innocent and unsuspecting kids who can be manipulated by both Wizards / Hasbro
You mean the company that literally created the whole loot box gambling scheme, targeted kids with it, and then patented it, with the very idea of TCGs (Magic the Gathering)?
I mean, I actually agree with you man, but look at who you are talking to.
On what planet does WotC think it has the right to baby-sit my own personal conduct?
Absolutely NO WAY in Hades am I ever going to use this OGL or support WotC D&D in any form whatsoever after this fiasco.
Dear Wizards of the Coast,
I have reviewed your harmful conduct. I have the sole right to decide what conduct or content is harmful, and therefore, I have decided to terminate your license to sell me your junk.
Sincerely,
John D. Customer
No one gives a balor's loincloth about your "personal conduct." WotC cares about what you publish out in the open using their license.
No Hateful Content or Conduct. You will not include content in Your Licensed Works that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing, or engage in conduct that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing. We have the sole right to decide what conduct or content is hateful, and you covenant that you will not contest any such determination via any suit or other legal action.
My problem is with the 2nd sentence. As it conflict with:
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
The 2nd quote comes from Declaration of Universal Human Rights, Article 10
And there is a 3rd quote:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
If you wonder where it comes from... Declaration of Universal Human Rights, Article 12
So just 2 articles of Declaration of Universal Human Rights are ignored, violated, etc.
Potential consequences if it is used against some hobbyist creators who publish their games, and who are otherwise weak, can have devastating consequences, and it can target young creators (kids) and I see no excuse for knowingly violating universal human rights of innocent and unsuspecting kids who can be manipulated by both Wizards / Hasbro, and their supporters among the fanbase to believe it is harmless. If your arguments you made without knowing the clause or understanding the problem influences someone into accepting these terms and some of the potential horrible consequences surface, that would be a huge moral responsibility for you. You still want to defend Wizards blindly?
Based solely on the quotation you provide, I agree with you on the second sentence and I don't think they should leave it in.
As for it conflicting with the the Declaration of Human Rights, there is no legal argument to be had. The DHR is not binding on WotC. It is also about criminal charges which is not relevant to this discussion. This is not the criminal arena. Just in the same way WotC is not bound by the U.S. Constitution. That's what I'm getting at. People are throwing around legal terms and conclusions when they don't understand them fully. I take no issue with calling it immoral or referencing the DHR as a reason you think it is immoral, but it isn't an authority in this matter. But invoking human rights isn't it my dude. That is about governmental oppression not corporations.
Yes it could be abused by WotC. Any entity can abuse anything if they so desire. No language would stop that if they so chose to act. I'm not trying to influence anyone into accepting the terms as provided. You don't seem to be actually reading my posts if that is what you think. AGAIN I AM NOT DEFENDING WOTC AND I AM UPSET AT THE WAY THEY WENT ABOUT THIS. But this current iteration is one for comment, and you and others should submit your comments and criticism when the opportunity is available in the coming days.
There is an old lawyer joke: When you have the facts, you pound the facts. When you have the law, you pound the law. When you have nothing, you pound the table.
We use a similar version of this in our office, but this is better and I'm stealing it. Sue me!
With regard to your last sentence, perhaps. However, the way it is intentionally written, they can take your content and use it. The only recourse you have is to sue for some money. It does not prevent them from continuing to use it. If they didn't want the option to use anyone's content, they would have included wording to prevent it from happening.
No Hateful Content or Conduct. You will not include content in Your Licensed Works that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing, or engage in conduct that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing. We have the sole right to decide what conduct or content is hateful, and you covenant that you will not contest any such determination via any suit or other legal action.
My problem is with the 2nd sentence. As it conflict with:
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
The 2nd quote comes from Declaration of Universal Human Rights, Article 10
And there is a 3rd quote:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
If you wonder where it comes from... Declaration of Universal Human Rights, Article 12
So just 2 articles of Declaration of Universal Human Rights are ignored, violated, etc.
Potential consequences if it is used against some hobbyist creators who publish their games, and who are otherwise weak, can have devastating consequences, and it can target young creators (kids) and I see no excuse for knowingly violating universal human rights of innocent and unsuspecting kids who can be manipulated by both Wizards / Hasbro, and their supporters among the fanbase to believe it is harmless. If your arguments you made without knowing the clause or understanding the problem influences someone into accepting these terms and some of the potential horrible consequences surface, that would be a huge moral responsibility for you. You still want to defend Wizards blindly?
You mean the same kids who are too young to legally sign contracts on thier own? Those kids?
And WotC is using a version of your 3rd quote. They are defending thier own honor & reputation against those they deem offensive (while ruining it themselves, but that's thier call to make).
Lastly, and unfortunately, I'm pretty sure that the Declaration of Universal Human Rights isn't actual law. It is solely a non-binding UN document, followed by governments when, and to the degree, that they find convenient in the moment.
It isn't only about criminal concerns, as determination of rights and obligations is a civil matter.
Gonna have to disagree with you there. an individuals rights is a matter of governance. In the U.S. we have the right to free speech. That only protects us from the government restricting our free speech. It does not apply for instance to a dndbeyond mod removing a post for violation of a forum rule. Violations of human rights in the U.S. are filed as civil actions, but can only be filed against the government or individuals in their official governmental capacities. There can then be criminal charges for criminal violations as well, but those require specific criminal codes to be enforced. Even the quote you gave says it applies to criminal charges dude.
Further the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as I stated before, is not binding or enforceable against individuals. It was signed by the member nations of the U.N. and in many ways it isn't even enforceable against them because all the U.N. can do is fine the member nation or kick them out, but it has no means of effectively enforcing such punishments. It's more of a shame them into compliance situation which doesn't always work out. You need look no further than the preamble of the document to understand all of this.
You mean the company that literally created the whole loot box gambling scheme, targeted kids with it, and then patented it, with the very idea of TCGs (Magic the Gathering)?
They pretty clearly stole the idea (for how it's marketed; the patent is on game play) from baseball trading cards.
"NOTICE OF DEAUTHORIZATION OF OGL 1.0a. The Open Game License 1.0a is no longer an authorized license. This means that you may not use that version of the OGL, or any prior version, to publish SRD content after (effective date). It does not mean that any content previously published under that version needs to update to this license. Any previously published content remains licensed under whichever version of the OGL was in effect when you published that content."
Everything else in 1.2 doesn't matter to me. As long as they insist on that, for me it will be a no. It's my red line.
Basically because that's the problem with all this OGL stuff. It doesn't matter how many turns they give to try to mess us up. Big words like inclusivity don't matter. The problem is that they want to deauthorize the OGL1.0a
There is no real question that early orcs were intended to be racist caricatures, specifically trying to depict all tribal societies as violent, primitive, unintelligent, and a threat to the Western-styled "civilized" people of the world. We know this because Gary Gygax was once asked "yeah, but shouldn't you only kill the bad orcs, it's not like you should go murder the women and children--those who are completely innocent?" and he responded by literally quoting word-for-word a military officer ordering the genocide of tribal people. We know because the early words used to describe orcs were explicitly dehumanizing, painting a picture of tribal societies that looked like something out of the 19th century. We know because Ernest Gygax--Gary's son and another founder of the game--specifically has made comments about how he and his dad intended for certain races to be inferior, including saying things such as "just like in the real world".
It's not a "somehow took on characteristics"--Gary Gygax took Tolkien's orcs (which have very different connotations and are firmly Western in origin--specifically the corrupted youth forced into dehumanization of the First World War) and combined them with his racism. Wizards has spent a long time excising that racism from the game--which is exactly why they don't want racists to try and add that back in, all while proudly stamping Wizards' trademark on their racist books.
Keep on the Borderlands has counts of women, juveniles, and children for all the humanoids in the caves of chaos (the keep, however, has none) and tells you what, if any, combat stats they have, so presumably you're expected to kill them.
First off, you don't quote someone ordering genocide as a joke--especially not a genocide against the very people it looks very much like you were creating a harmful stereotype of. Second, and this is my fault, I forgot to mention he was also outspoken about his belief in "biological determinism"--the 1970s way of saying "eugenics" after the 40s kind of made the term "eugenics" pretty darn problematic (also, in addition to problematic statements about race, this is a guy who said "girls are biologically incapable of enjoying D&D"--really not a good person). Third, his own son has been very clear that the racism he spews is in line with how his dad wanted the game to look.
That's just the reality that Wizards faces--they know one of their game has a genocide-quoting, eugenics-promoting founder who very clearly infected the game with his racism. They know that racism still is so engrained in the game that they sometimes take it for granted, leading to two fairly egregious situations in 5e resultant from the systemic blindness that comes from being acclimated to certain problems.
Acknowledging that reality--rather than flagrantly trying to apologize for someone the overwhelming facts show was not the saint folks want him to be--is not being an "old church lady". It is merely acknowledging a history that must be acknowledged--a history that gives Wizards really good reason to want to try and defend their efforts to move away from the racism of its past, without being undermined by third parties trying to include that racism while using Wizards' intellectual property as the basic foundation upon which their racist books were built.
It's honestly like a sitcom short at this point. I can see it now.
Husband and Wife are in marriage counseling. Husband insists adamantly that he is listening, that he understands, that he is going to do better!
Wife reluctantly agrees to give him a chance to fix the issues.
Montage of the husband doing a bunch of entirely unrelated things that he finds fun, like fly fising, gambling, going to a strip club, while his wife stands in classic annoyed-wife-pose off to the side.
Cut back to them in divorce court with the husband saying "I don't get it your honor, she's crazy! I listened to everything she said, did everything she asked of me! none of it's my fault!"
like the joke is that he's so obtuse that he can't see his very obviously bad actions for what they are, just like how Wizards is doing right now! They're listening so good guys!
Ahem! Random stranger have you heard of Cyberpunk? "Why yes I have."
Other random stranger have you heard of Star Trek? " Why yes I have!" Star Wars? "Yeah that too!"
DnD isn't the only brand with name recognition, and the recognition that it does have is largely just "isn't that some kinda nerd stuff" for most of the population.
Critical Role starts playing Cyberpunk Red, guess what book game stores can't keep on the shelves?
Here's another hint, DnD is about one Sheldon or "Stranger Things" away from losing it's monopoly to whatever the latest Star Trek or Star Wars RPG is (Yes I know the Big Bang Theory ended, this was a simile).
How about that new Vox Machina game? Yeah, that's a possible kick in the pants too.
I suspect that once the dust settles, we are going to have 4th Edition all over again, only it's gonna have the half-assed sales of 3.5, because "It's basically the same" on top. And then, eventually, once the WotC leadership is replaced a new game will come out and the ORC-compliant DnD 6e will actually be worth checking out.
I'm not defending the clause as written. As I said I haven't formed an opinion on 1.2 yet cause I haven't had the opportunity to give it a full read. I'm simply addressing what a lot of people are throwing around as legal conclusions that basically equate to the sky is falling we are f*****. There is a lot of fear mongering going on and it's clearly from people that have no desire to have an actual conversation about this. They already have their pitch forks and torches out. I'm not saying you are a member of that group, but even in your response you are using language that shouldn't be thrown around so easily such as abusive and highly illegal. If you are stating your opinion that's fine, but a lot of people in this thread and others are asserting it as hardline legal fact.
If it is drafted in such a manner as to be unenforceable determined by a court, then that is a problem for WotC as much as it is for anyone. A contract clause being unenforceable is not necessarily the same as illegal. It can be, one of the ways a provision in a contract or even an entire contract can be deemed unenforceable is because it is illegal. It could also be deemed as such because it is against public policy or the general conscience of society. It could also be unenforceable because the court determines the parties mistakenly thought they agreed when they actually didn't. The term illegal is largely specific to criminal codes not civil codes that govern contract law. In any of these events WotC is the losing party because they are the ones seeking to enforce that provision. Would it suck to have to fight it and get that win? Sure, but there is never a true guarantee of avoiding litigation in any scenario.
Also, building on this, different judges treat unenforceable terms differently--some might strike the unenforceable portions provision (such as the language denying someone legal recourse to challenge a decision which is the most problematic part of that term) while leaving the rest of the term intact, others might strike the entire term. That should terrify Wizards--they don't want people to challenge their decisions (since racists tend to be super litigious), but they certainly don't want a judge to say "this entire term is unenforceable--you now lose all these enumerated powers to prevent racist content from being in your books).
I would not be surprised if this term changes some after the public review panel.
Where exactly did I support it? I have stated multiple times WotC dropped the ball on this whole ordeal. I'm not making prejudiced assumptions about anyone either, I'm saying the language they are using and the way they are using it do not match, much the way I have called out WotC for the way it used the term draft. I happen to be one of those legal commentary folk lawyers. My point has been to say lets not call something illegal when we don't know if it is or not, that is determined by courts. Even if we have existing case law saying something is illegal, you don't know for sure until the specific case is ruled on, because the law is often fact specific.
Notice how your language changed between your last two posts after I pointed out unenforceable doesn't equal illegal per se. I have no problem with you calling it immoral, unethical, or unacceptable. There are a lot of people saying that it is as bad as you claim, some of them lawyers, and there are people saying it isn't as bad as you claim, some of them lawyers.
To be clear being a lawyer is not the end all be all authority either. Lawyers are human too and get things wrong sometimes. Every lawsuit has at least one lawyer making a losing argument.
There is an old lawyer joke: When you have the facts, you pound the facts. When you have the law, you pound the law. When you have nothing, you pound the table.
This post is doing the third option. You are citing completely irrelevant legal doctrines--something about criminal law in a decidedly civil law issue and something that protects against "attacks" which this decidedly does not rise to the standard of (this might surprise you, but the UN General Assembly wasn't super concerned with "license says 'don't be racist when using our stuff'" kind of issues. You then add in some bad slippery slope hypotheticals that assume Wizards is going to go up against "unsuspecting kids", while ignoring you have to publish content under the license to even have these terms apply.
And you capstone your entire post by saying that Derksmash is defending Wizards--they are not; they are stating general legal principals in a neutral manner--and imputing their morality.
There are legitimate arguments to raise about how the language is drafted--it has flaws that could very easily undermine the (important and necessary) intent of the terms. Your post is not those arguments.
You mean the company that literally created the whole loot box gambling scheme, targeted kids with it, and then patented it, with the very idea of TCGs (Magic the Gathering)?
I mean, I actually agree with you man, but look at who you are talking to.
PS: Screenshot.
that ship has long since sailed bub
No one gives a balor's loincloth about your "personal conduct." WotC cares about what you publish out in the open using their license.
They wouldn't, they only have to pay you money if they lost in court.
Based solely on the quotation you provide, I agree with you on the second sentence and I don't think they should leave it in.
As for it conflicting with the the Declaration of Human Rights, there is no legal argument to be had. The DHR is not binding on WotC. It is also about criminal charges which is not relevant to this discussion. This is not the criminal arena. Just in the same way WotC is not bound by the U.S. Constitution. That's what I'm getting at. People are throwing around legal terms and conclusions when they don't understand them fully. I take no issue with calling it immoral or referencing the DHR as a reason you think it is immoral, but it isn't an authority in this matter. But invoking human rights isn't it my dude. That is about governmental oppression not corporations.
Yes it could be abused by WotC. Any entity can abuse anything if they so desire. No language would stop that if they so chose to act. I'm not trying to influence anyone into accepting the terms as provided. You don't seem to be actually reading my posts if that is what you think. AGAIN I AM NOT DEFENDING WOTC AND I AM UPSET AT THE WAY THEY WENT ABOUT THIS. But this current iteration is one for comment, and you and others should submit your comments and criticism when the opportunity is available in the coming days.
That’s my major objection to this draft. They should have to give Authorship credit too.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
We use a similar version of this in our office, but this is better and I'm stealing it. Sue me!
With regard to your last sentence, perhaps. However, the way it is intentionally written, they can take your content and use it. The only recourse you have is to sue for some money. It does not prevent them from continuing to use it. If they didn't want the option to use anyone's content, they would have included wording to prevent it from happening.
You mean the same kids who are too young to legally sign contracts on thier own? Those kids?
And WotC is using a version of your 3rd quote. They are defending thier own honor & reputation against those they deem offensive (while ruining it themselves, but that's thier call to make).
Lastly, and unfortunately, I'm pretty sure that the Declaration of Universal Human Rights isn't actual law. It is solely a non-binding UN document, followed by governments when, and to the degree, that they find convenient in the moment.
Gonna have to disagree with you there. an individuals rights is a matter of governance. In the U.S. we have the right to free speech. That only protects us from the government restricting our free speech. It does not apply for instance to a dndbeyond mod removing a post for violation of a forum rule. Violations of human rights in the U.S. are filed as civil actions, but can only be filed against the government or individuals in their official governmental capacities. There can then be criminal charges for criminal violations as well, but those require specific criminal codes to be enforced. Even the quote you gave says it applies to criminal charges dude.
Further the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as I stated before, is not binding or enforceable against individuals. It was signed by the member nations of the U.N. and in many ways it isn't even enforceable against them because all the U.N. can do is fine the member nation or kick them out, but it has no means of effectively enforcing such punishments. It's more of a shame them into compliance situation which doesn't always work out. You need look no further than the preamble of the document to understand all of this.
They pretty clearly stole the idea (for how it's marketed; the patent is on game play) from baseball trading cards.
"NOTICE OF DEAUTHORIZATION OF OGL 1.0a. The Open Game License 1.0a is no longer an authorized license. This means that you may not use that version of the OGL, or any prior version, to publish SRD content after (effective date). It does not mean that any content previously published under that version needs to update to this license. Any previously published content remains licensed under whichever version of the OGL was in effect when you published that content."
Everything else in 1.2 doesn't matter to me. As long as they insist on that, for me it will be a no. It's my red line.
Basically because that's the problem with all this OGL stuff. It doesn't matter how many turns they give to try to mess us up. Big words like inclusivity don't matter. The problem is that they want to deauthorize the OGL1.0a
If they insist on that, don't count on my money.