I agree with the OP that some sort of anti-bigotry clause should be in OGL 1.0, but I think it's kind of a lost cause at this point. Perhaps better to hope for something along the lines for 1DD.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Feels to me that the solution for D&D to protect their brand would simply to ask the 3rd party creator to add a disclaimer on the cover or first page saying that it is content coming from a 3rd party, it is D&D compatible but may or may not represent the vision of D&D.
Why not go for more? Because of the grey areas.
Remember that for most 3rd party creator, they will publish their work somewhere (like DMsguild, Youtube...etc) and they will have to follow their rules.
1) Never assume that a corporation has your "best interests at heart"; corporations are amoral money engines, that is what they are, that's their remit, no more, no less. That's good for making us new varieties of frivolities, not so much for enforcing ethics. Our cup runneth over with examples of corporations doing wildly unethical things in the name of making a few more dollars.
2) When a corporation pretends to care about your issue in particular; it does not "actually care"; it has determined that your issue is somehow profitable for it. Do not make the mistake of assuming that, just because a corporation pays lip-service to your concern that the peole there actually agree with you. Corporations are not, and will enver be "your friendly buddies".
3) And this is the most important one when discussing a long-term binding code: even IF, for some reason, the frist two points don't ring true, and you are in fact convinced that the people of this corporate entity do agree with you... Why, on Darwin's blue death marble, would you ever assume that the people in charge WILL ALWAYS continue to agree with you? Corporatiosn are not contiguous beings; they are comprised of people that move in and out like the parts of the ship of Theseus.
---
Allow me to illustrate the final point with a hypothetical. Imagine, for a moment, we live in a world in which some... Saudi prince-ling decides he really loves Critical Role; and Hasbro happens to be wanting to offload WOTC after oh say; some massive PR nightmare, who could see that coming. He decides that he's going to dig in his couch and buy WOTC; and suddenly, he's the one in charge of the enforcing of the "we can ban anything we don't like" clause... And he's going to enforce morality according to his ideology instead of yours.
Will you be okay with this? Are you ACTUALLY okay with this? Or are you only okay with the morality clause idea because you think yours is the morality taht will be enforced? Because that's the power you are proposing be handed over. You are proposing to surrender the power of censor to strangers unknown, with beliefs unknown, in the future, instead of taking responsibility for yoru own mental well being.
Please; think more than one step ahead. The very morality codes that you envision "protecting" people can just as easily; and often historically were (The Hays code in film, the Comics Code Authority, etc.); be used to target people instead.
Does anyone have any kind of list of racist, bigoted and/or hateful 5e modules that have been published to date please - even if just one or two concrete examples?
Obviously part of the titles can be asterisked if they themselves are hateful.
I'm trying to see real 5e examples of what poison is out there that must be excised and what the 'crimes' of those modules are (e.g. outright cross-burning genocide? or criticisms that rely on more delicate intersectional nuances?).
If someone can just list the hateful/bigoted titles currently out there published with 5e compatibility maybe it would be easier to persuade people non-hypothetically what sort of content is really out there, and people might be more easily swayed to pay the cost/risk of supporting WoTC taking more controls.
I've carefully read pages of this stuff now, but am yet to see anyone point to any modules/adventures/sourcebooks at all so I've gotten to the point of outright asking.
I'm specifically hoping for a list - rather than more hypothetical on what someone could do in theory - as we've had threads and threads of that.
I'm sure if provided, it would help the OP in their persuading purpose of this thread, that "The Open Game License Needs An Anti-Hate Clause".
Given we have seen a groundswell of community influence - why not establish an open "Safe" label - whereby content is voluntarily reviewed for hateful content - and if found to pass the bar, it can carry a logo to identify it as such?
This would enable the members of the community that feels passionately about this could engage, and similarly also vote with their wallets by only accepting content validated/checked by an independent group.
This isn't all that uncommon - we see it in many places for products on your supermarket shelf in terms of sustainability, fair wages etc.
It wold not place the burden of arbitration on a company, but rather an open body, and at the same time create a mechanism to demonstrate if this is what the community really wants. I am sure that 3rd party content creators would pass content through such as process if engaged users show a strong preference for safe and vetted content.
Bottom line, wotc has sued to stop production of material they believe is damaging to the brand. The system is working as designed, and nothing else needs to be added.
Will 6e have some kind of morality clause that will keep you happy? Probably. IT won't change anything, other than let wotc to attack anyone they want with the statement "we find this content hateful, and are shutting down the producer without any legal recourse". The difference between that and today? Producers have legal recourse today. The 6e OGL morality clause will be used to attack competitors, regardless of the veracity of "hatefulness".
The Open Game License may (mostly) be "working as designed" for now, but that doesn't mean that it will continue like this forever. As I stated repeatedly in my original post - which you seem to not have read - Wizards of the Coast has clearly and loudly announced that the License has a loophole that protects bigotry. Some of the people who would seek to exploit the License may not have noticed their legal shield before, but now that they know they are protected, things will almost certainly by much, much worse.
Also, I explicitly said that an anti-bigotry clause didn't have to involve a morality one. It appears that a number of people in this thread have not actually read the original post, despite the fact that it is literally what the whole conversation is about. It's understandable to not want to read 14 paragraphs, but it would be nice to at least read the TL;DR before you argue against points that I intentionally avoided making.
Okay, so what would a realistic, useful method look like for protecting the community, the brand, and content creators look like? If we're going to argue that sort of clause is required, then we should at least try to come up with some useful ideas.
I think at a minimum there should/could be a set of guidelines for any content creator to follow.
As I said earlier, no one person is going to be able to make this system on their own. That being said, I think Wizards of the Coast should talk to sensitivity experts and cultural consultants, and make FAQs and Guides to what counts as hateful content. Admittedly, there would be types of problematic content that aren't listed, but they could still count as removal and hateful content because it is impossible to list everything that is extremely harmful.
Next, I think that Wizards should give the power to judge what is and is not hateful to another legal entity or corporation, though a group of different organizations that make the decisions together would be best.
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.
Bottom line, wotc has sued to stop production of material they believe is damaging to the brand. The system is working as designed, and nothing else needs to be added.
Will 6e have some kind of morality clause that will keep you happy? Probably. IT won't change anything, other than let wotc to attack anyone they want with the statement "we find this content hateful, and are shutting down the producer without any legal recourse". The difference between that and today? Producers have legal recourse today. The 6e OGL morality clause will be used to attack competitors, regardless of the veracity of "hatefulness".
The Open Game License may (mostly) be "working as designed" for now, but that doesn't mean that it will continue like this forever. As I stated repeatedly in my original post - which you seem to not have read - Wizards of the Coast has clearly and loudly announced that the License has a loophole that protects bigotry. Some of the people who would seek to exploit the License may not have noticed their legal shield before, but now that they know they are protected, things will almost certainly by much, much worse.
Also, I explicitly said that an anti-bigotry clause didn't have to involve a morality one. It appears that a number of people in this thread have not actually read the original post, despite the fact that it is literally what the whole conversation is about. It's understandable to not want to read 14 paragraphs, but it would be nice to at least read the TL;DR before you argue against points that I intentionally avoided making.
Okay, so what would a realistic, useful method look like for protecting the community, the brand, and content creators look like? If we're going to argue that sort of clause is required, then we should at least try to come up with some useful ideas.
I think at a minimum there should/could be a set of guidelines for any content creator to follow.
As I said earlier, no one person is going to be able to make this system on their own. That being said, I think Wizards of the Coast should talk to sensitivity experts and cultural consultants, and make FAQs and Guides to what counts as hateful content. Admittedly, there would be types of problematic content that aren't listed, but they could still count as removal and hateful content because it is impossible to list everything that is extremely harmful.
Next, I think that Wizards should give the power to judge what is and is not hateful to another legal entity or corporation, though a group of different organizations that make the decisions together would be best.
Your suggestion doesn't seem to allow for the nuances of some ideas if the panel is only made of sensitivity and cultural experts. My fear is that such a panel will decree "X" to be racist even though that thing might not be racist, or the application of it in story can be justified.
We disagree fundamentally on some of these definitions of what constitutes racist, hated, or bigotry. There seems to be an assumption in these threads that there is a consensus on these things and there's not, or that one group has a consensus and assume they are right.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
If all we care about is Hasbro’s brand, I would support an extra level of vetting for an “approved by Hasbro” stamp.
I doubt that Hasbro would pay the extra costs for an extra level of vetting, though, because rainbow capitalism only cares about marginalized people as long as its profitable.
More than likely, Hasbro would pass the extra costs to the third party publishers who apply for an “approved by Hasbro” stamp.
Third party publishers would have to decide if association with Hasbro’s brand is worth the extra costs, of course, but we could all rest easily knowing that Hasbro’s brand is safe and sound.
And, more importantly, marginalized third party creators could continue to create content without surrendering even more of their agency, their autonomy, and their content to a billion dollar company (unless they choose to be “vetted”) that, like all billion dollar companies, only performs allyship for profit.
Or are you only okay with the morality clause idea because you think yours is the morality taht will be enforced?
SNIP
⬆
Whatever side of this disagreement one stands on, we all know what the answer to that question is
It is also an irrelevant question promulgated by folks who want to “protect free speech” without understanding what free speech actually is. It’s one of those arguments folks use because it is a pretty little distraction, promulgated initially by racists because they know the masses will think it sounds nice and cause folks to unwittingly join he cause of furthering racism. That’s not to say anyone specifically here is a racist - though I think we all know there are some racists on these here forums - just that it is an argument heavily pushed by racists and disseminated by those who have fallen for it.
Here is the simple reality: Hasbro should have the rights to ensure their speech is used how they want it. It is, after all, their speech—and they should be able to ensure that, when other folks use it, they’re only putting forth Hasbro’s speech in a way that Hasbro wants its speech to be used.
That right should exist in both directions - Hasbro should have a content neutral right to dictate how their property is used. Just as players have a right to boycott Hasbro’s property if they, say, turned on a heel and said “we are banning every single LGBT+ third party content.” (It should be noted that, unlike those whining about “but they’re removing racism and I don’t like it,” those who boycott over a pivot toward Hasbro being depressive of minorities would have actual facts and data showing why the decision was morally bankrupt).
But, of course, the “I don’t want a morality clause” folks don’t actually care about Hasbro’s free speech rights. They don’t care that morality language does not actually prohibit ANY speech—it only prohibits the use of Hasbro’s speech.
And, of course, a lot of them are abjectly terrified because, deep down, they know a simple fact: A large corporation like Hasbro is going to follow the morality of their largest market share.
That is what scares the bigots the most - and why they are fighting so hard against this language (not just with Hasbro, but across all markets, where this kind of language is pretty common). They are absolutely terrified that companies will remind them “hey, your bigotry? You’re such a small and insignificant group that we’re not going to care if we have to write you off. You all are nothing, and we’d rather lose you as customers than cater to your whims any longer.”
the problem I have is who is able to judge what is awful and wrong in a increasingly fluid world. Things that 5 years ago were considered wrong are now right and normal. If you go around the world right now, how do you make a single standard? Different things are different levels of ok in the same country. Just look at the USA.
Whose right is right? And when could it be ok? Could a book exploring defeating a clearly racist or bigoted character be ok? Are characters who have these things as flaws be ok? What if they are clearly shown to be bad people? How about a book that is about freedom from oppression where you explore themes and rise above them, and make it better?
The problem I have is there isn’t a set of guidelines we could give and no one arbitrator will be able to cover this.
which is why I feel like these things should be left for the public to decide whether they are ok or not. Reviews can highlight problems easily. I know we keep mentioning the gygax case. But if he produced that book and it was just racist then I am pretty confident it would fail as a product.
but if a book finds a way to explore a narrative that touches on these themes in a way that is respectful, and clearly labelled then I am ok with that. There is clearly a line but I think we are never going to codify this in a way that works. I think the only thing that follows the times and changing morals of the world is to leave it to players and purchasers to judge if a product is of good taste or not, and warn others to avoid if it is not.
a bad book that has all the worst stuff is that. A bad book made by specific people. Those who play the game know it isn’t made by wizards the same way an awful fanfic that makes the cast of a film racist or sexist isn’t the same. It may carry the title, or names of characters. But it isn’t a reflection on that. (Yes I know fanfic is free).
“but they’re removing racism and I don’t like it,”
Some people keep making this accusation. Can you provide us an example of someone on here who made this complaint, and what it was they were complaining was being removed?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
Or are you only okay with the morality clause idea because you think yours is the morality taht will be enforced?
SNIP
⬆
Whatever side of this disagreement one stands on, we all know what the answer to that question is
It is also an irrelevant question promulgated by folks who want to “protect free speech” without understanding what free speech actually is. It’s one of those arguments folks use because it is a pretty little distraction, promulgated initially by racists because they know the masses will think it sounds nice and cause folks to unwittingly join he cause of furthering racism. That’s not to say anyone specifically here is a racist - though I think we all know there are some racists on these here forums - just that it is an argument heavily pushed by racists and disseminated by those who have fallen for it.
Here is the simple reality: Hasbro should have the rights to ensure their speech is used how they want it. It is, after all, their speech—and they should be able to ensure that, when other folks use it, they’re only putting forth Hasbro’s speech in a way that Hasbro wants its speech to be used.
That right should exist in both directions - Hasbro should have a content neutral right to dictate how their property is used. Just as players have a right to boycott Hasbro’s property if they, say, turned on a heel and said “we are banning every single LGBT+ third party content.” (It should be noted that, unlike those whining about “but they’re removing racism and I don’t like it,” those who boycott over a pivot toward Hasbro being depressive of minorities would have actual facts and data showing why the decision was morally bankrupt).
But, of course, the “I don’t want a morality clause” folks don’t actually care about Hasbro’s free speech rights. They don’t care that morality language does not actually prohibit ANY speech—it only prohibits the use of Hasbro’s speech.
And, of course, a lot of them are abjectly terrified because, deep down, they know a simple fact: A large corporation like Hasbro is going to follow the morality of their largest market share.
That is what scares the bigots the most - and why they are fighting so hard against this language (not just with Hasbro, but across all markets, where this kind of language is pretty common). They are absolutely terrified that companies will remind them “hey, your bigotry? You’re such a small and insignificant group that we’re not going to care if we have to write you off. You all are nothing, and we’d rather lose you as customers than cater to your whims any longer.”
I said nothing about free speech. And you seriously need to stop with all the frankly childish framing of everything. You jump to conclusions about others here being "bigots" simply because they believe there ought to be room for nuance, that such decisions should be impartial, as if your doing this alone isn't evidence enough of your bigotry.
Just how eager would you be to demand and to defend such a clause were someone you consider an ally to succumb to something so vague and open to interpretation?
That question isn't meant to "defend bigotry." No matter how much you claim to be a mind-reader.
It is meant to make you think about the complexities of something you just want to dumb down so you can point your finger at people and call them racists for no reason.
I already answered your question. As aforestated, I firmly believe that Hasbro should be able to control how their own content is used, regardless of what side they come down on. Would I think it was morally repugnant for them to come down on the side that leads to statistically higher rates of suicide, depression, and alienation of minorities? Yes. But it would be morally repugnant because their actions, in and of themselves, are morally repugnant. The morality clause itself would not be the problem, for the clause is only a control on their ability to effectuate their free speech rights in a content neutral way.
As for me calling folks bigots - you’ll note I specifically mentioned that I was not specifically calling anyone a bigot. I was, however, acknowledging that D&D does have a bigotry problem, and that the same tactics employed in numerous economic sectors are being employed in D&D as well. That’s not conjecture—that’s a reality which unfortunately exists in our game and in our world generally.
Edit: To your follow up point about it not being lawyerly? Defending someone’s right to free speech, regardless of content, is exactly what being “lawyerly” means - it is noting that a content creator should have the right to control how their content is going to be used. It is also acknowledging that they are not actually controlling anything or putting anyone out of business - those third parties just need to pivot to not using Hasbro’s content and can make compatible things without any Hasbro speech included.
the problem I have is who is able to judge what is awful and wrong in a increasingly fluid world. Things that 5 years ago were considered wrong are now right and normal. If you go around the world right now, how do you make a single standard? Different things are different levels of ok in the same country. Just look at the USA.
Whose right is right? And when could it be ok? Could a book exploring defeating a clearly racist or bigoted character be ok? Are characters who have these things as flaws be ok? What if they are clearly shown to be bad people? How about a book that is about freedom from oppression where you explore themes and rise above them, and make it better?
The problem I have is there isn’t a set of guidelines we could give and no one arbitrator will be able to cover this.
which is why I feel like these things should be left for the public to decide whether they are ok or not. Reviews can highlight problems easily. I know we keep mentioning the gygax case. But if he produced that book and it was just racist then I am pretty confident it would fail as a product.
but if a book finds a way to explore a narrative that touches on these themes in a way that is respectful, and clearly labelled then I am ok with that. There is clearly a line but I think we are never going to codify this in a way that works. I think the only thing that follows the times and changing morals of the world is to leave it to players and purchasers to judge if a product is of good taste or not, and warn others to avoid if it is not.
a bad book that has all the worst stuff is that. A bad book made by specific people. Those who play the game know it isn’t made by wizards the same way an awful fanfic that makes the cast of a film racist or sexist isn’t the same. It may carry the title, or names of characters. But it isn’t a reflection on that. (Yes I know fanfic is free).
Whenever I see this sort of thing, I have to wonder if anybody is actually paying attention to the conversation. It's so depressingly common. "Are books allowed to have themes of defeating and rising above hate, exclusionism, and evil or is it exclusionist to even mention those things?"
No. No it is not, and it never has been. Hate is normalizing or glorifying those sorts of actions, attitudes, or behaviors, or through negligence holding those actions, attitudes or behaviors up as an expected part of worldbuilding. Hate is making your hero NPC's intolerance and bigotry their Ideal and holding it up as a source of strength. Hate is presenting the enslaved people in your module as deserving of their treatment and holding up "obediently serving their betters" as an ideal to aspire to. Hate is presenting it as normal, expected, and no big deal that certain peoples in your work are discriminated against and trying to convince the players they should join in because that's just how the world is supposed to be.
Hate is a mindset, an intention. People keep asking for a fixed, objective definition of hate, an exhaustive list of what is and is not hateful. No such list can ever exist because hate isn't objective. It fundamentally cannot be objective. Hate is an active choice made by one person at the expense of another person. Hate is negligence so gross and thorough it becomes no different than malice. This constant hand-wringing about what does and does not qualify as hate is ridiculous and serves only as a distraction against the idea that hate should not be tolerated in our game. It's nitpickery and nonsensical prevarication that does nothing but maliciously muddle the issue, and I for one am increasingly tired of seeing it.
Ok, let's say I wrote a book series called, say, Parry Hotter that went very popular. Since I really like my fandom (and the increased publicity and therefore income it would generate for my products), I work a deal that would allow them to legally, and without concern that I'd sue them, create Fanfiction and even make their own products.
Should I be able to say to someone "no, I don't want you to be able to hijack the work, the love and passion input into it, in order to propagate Nazism, antisemitism and holocaust denial, that stands contrary to the ideals I wrote Parry Hotter for, so you can't"?
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.
“but they’re removing racism and I don’t like it,”
Some people keep making this accusation. Can you provide us an example of someone on here who made this complaint, and what it was they were complaining was being removed?
You have been around on the forums long enough to know (a) that it does exist (or you are being wilfully blind to it), (b) that anything overt was deleted by mods long ago, and (c) folks rarely wear their racism openly - that’s a good way to get ignored rather than effectuate the spread of racism.
But feel free to look around. Even if the worst of things got shut down, there’s plenty that meets the Queen Gertrude standard of “the lady doth protest too much, methinks.”
Does anyone have any kind of list of racist, bigoted and/or hateful 5e modules that have been published to date please - even if just one or two concrete examples?
Obviously part of the titles can be asterisked if they themselves are hateful.
I'm trying to see real 5e examples of what poison is out there that must be excised and what the 'crimes' of those modules are (e.g. outright cross-burning genocide? or criticisms that rely on more delicate intersectional nuances?).
If someone can just list the hateful/bigoted titles currently out there published with 5e compatibility maybe it would be easier to persuade people non-hypothetically what sort of content is really out there, and people might be more easily swayed to pay the cost/risk of supporting WoTC taking more controls.
I've carefully read pages of this stuff now, but am yet to see anyone point to any modules/adventures/sourcebooks at all so I've gotten to the point of outright asking.
I'm specifically hoping for a list - rather than more hypothetical on what someone could do in theory - as we've had threads and threads of that.
I'm sure if provided, it would help the OP in their persuading purpose of this thread, that "The Open Game License Needs An Anti-Hate Clause".
EDIT: Grammar & clarifying.
Since a lot of people are way too busy painting others in a broad brush to answer your question, I will. I can do you one better. Here's some content published on the DM's Guild that actually was pulled down by Wizards. And it was, drum roll please, sexualized art involving a vampire evoking homosexuality.
We’ve covered modles published by Clegg before, they tend to be full of tongue-in-cheek humor, and this one looks little different. What makes this release notable is that the DM’s Guild deactivated it, according to the statement above. According to an email shared by Clegg, the DM’s Guild team asked him to censor two pieces of artwork, which can be seen below. ...
But as you can see in the linked threads, these aren’t the only sexually suggestive images on the DM’s Guild by a long shot. In the above Twitter posts you can find examples of artwork shared with creators, explicitly approved by WotC for publication in adventures published on the DM’s Guild...
To be fair to Wizards, a ton of the stuff on DM's Guild the authors dug up was quite permissive but just goes to show you what could happen in the future. The author of the banned work has pointed out in the article that despite being taken down for being too risque, his artwork was explicitly homosexual with a cismale character while other art in the same ballpark was clearly marketed to heterosexual tastes though I'm sure people can come up with their own opinion on this.
People keep asking for a morality clause, and no one seems able to present a cogent explanation for how one would realistically work.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
“but they’re removing racism and I don’t like it,”
Some people keep making this accusation. Can you provide us an example of someone on here who made this complaint, and what it was they were complaining was being removed?
You have been around on the forums long enough to know (a) that it does exist (or you are being wilfully blind to it), (b) that anything overt was deleted by mods long ago, and (c) folks rarely wear their racism openly - that’s a good way to get ignored rather than effectuate the spread of racism.
But feel free to look around. Even if the worst of things got shut down, there’s plenty that meets the Queen Gertrude standard of “the lady doth protest too much, methinks.”
So you get to make an assertion but won't back it up with evidence. Instead it's my job to go search for the evidence for your claim.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I agree with the OP that some sort of anti-bigotry clause should be in OGL 1.0, but I think it's kind of a lost cause at this point. Perhaps better to hope for something along the lines for 1DD.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Feels to me that the solution for D&D to protect their brand would simply to ask the 3rd party creator to add a disclaimer on the cover or first page saying that it is content coming from a 3rd party, it is D&D compatible but may or may not represent the vision of D&D.
Why not go for more? Because of the grey areas.
Remember that for most 3rd party creator, they will publish their work somewhere (like DMsguild, Youtube...etc) and they will have to follow their rules.
Here's why you DON'T want a "morality clause"...
1) Never assume that a corporation has your "best interests at heart"; corporations are amoral money engines, that is what they are, that's their remit, no more, no less. That's good for making us new varieties of frivolities, not so much for enforcing ethics. Our cup runneth over with examples of corporations doing wildly unethical things in the name of making a few more dollars.
2) When a corporation pretends to care about your issue in particular; it does not "actually care"; it has determined that your issue is somehow profitable for it. Do not make the mistake of assuming that, just because a corporation pays lip-service to your concern that the peole there actually agree with you. Corporations are not, and will enver be "your friendly buddies".
3) And this is the most important one when discussing a long-term binding code: even IF, for some reason, the frist two points don't ring true, and you are in fact convinced that the people of this corporate entity do agree with you... Why, on Darwin's blue death marble, would you ever assume that the people in charge WILL ALWAYS continue to agree with you? Corporatiosn are not contiguous beings; they are comprised of people that move in and out like the parts of the ship of Theseus.
---
Allow me to illustrate the final point with a hypothetical. Imagine, for a moment, we live in a world in which some... Saudi prince-ling decides he really loves Critical Role; and Hasbro happens to be wanting to offload WOTC after oh say; some massive PR nightmare, who could see that coming. He decides that he's going to dig in his couch and buy WOTC; and suddenly, he's the one in charge of the enforcing of the "we can ban anything we don't like" clause... And he's going to enforce morality according to his ideology instead of yours.
Will you be okay with this? Are you ACTUALLY okay with this? Or are you only okay with the morality clause idea because you think yours is the morality taht will be enforced? Because that's the power you are proposing be handed over. You are proposing to surrender the power of censor to strangers unknown, with beliefs unknown, in the future, instead of taking responsibility for yoru own mental well being.
Please; think more than one step ahead. The very morality codes that you envision "protecting" people can just as easily; and often historically were (The Hays code in film, the Comics Code Authority, etc.); be used to target people instead.
Does anyone have any kind of list of racist, bigoted and/or hateful 5e modules that have been published to date please - even if just one or two concrete examples?
Obviously part of the titles can be asterisked if they themselves are hateful.
I'm trying to see real 5e examples of what poison is out there that must be excised and what the 'crimes' of those modules are (e.g. outright cross-burning genocide? or criticisms that rely on more delicate intersectional nuances?).
If someone can just list the hateful/bigoted titles currently out there published with 5e compatibility maybe it would be easier to persuade people non-hypothetically what sort of content is really out there, and people might be more easily swayed to pay the cost/risk of supporting WoTC taking more controls.
I've carefully read pages of this stuff now, but am yet to see anyone point to any modules/adventures/sourcebooks at all so I've gotten to the point of outright asking.
I'm specifically hoping for a list - rather than more hypothetical on what someone could do in theory - as we've had threads and threads of that.
I'm sure if provided, it would help the OP in their persuading purpose of this thread, that "The Open Game License Needs An Anti-Hate Clause".
EDIT: Grammar & clarifying.
Given we have seen a groundswell of community influence - why not establish an open "Safe" label - whereby content is voluntarily reviewed for hateful content - and if found to pass the bar, it can carry a logo to identify it as such?
This would enable the members of the community that feels passionately about this could engage, and similarly also vote with their wallets by only accepting content validated/checked by an independent group.
This isn't all that uncommon - we see it in many places for products on your supermarket shelf in terms of sustainability, fair wages etc.
It wold not place the burden of arbitration on a company, but rather an open body, and at the same time create a mechanism to demonstrate if this is what the community really wants. I am sure that 3rd party content creators would pass content through such as process if engaged users show a strong preference for safe and vetted content.
Just a suggestion.
The Open Game License may (mostly) be "working as designed" for now, but that doesn't mean that it will continue like this forever. As I stated repeatedly in my original post - which you seem to not have read - Wizards of the Coast has clearly and loudly announced that the License has a loophole that protects bigotry. Some of the people who would seek to exploit the License may not have noticed their legal shield before, but now that they know they are protected, things will almost certainly by much, much worse.
Also, I explicitly said that an anti-bigotry clause didn't have to involve a morality one. It appears that a number of people in this thread have not actually read the original post, despite the fact that it is literally what the whole conversation is about. It's understandable to not want to read 14 paragraphs, but it would be nice to at least read the TL;DR before you argue against points that I intentionally avoided making.
As I said earlier, no one person is going to be able to make this system on their own. That being said, I think Wizards of the Coast should talk to sensitivity experts and cultural consultants, and make FAQs and Guides to what counts as hateful content. Admittedly, there would be types of problematic content that aren't listed, but they could still count as removal and hateful content because it is impossible to list everything that is extremely harmful.
Next, I think that Wizards should give the power to judge what is and is not hateful to another legal entity or corporation, though a group of different organizations that make the decisions together would be best.
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.Your suggestion doesn't seem to allow for the nuances of some ideas if the panel is only made of sensitivity and cultural experts. My fear is that such a panel will decree "X" to be racist even though that thing might not be racist, or the application of it in story can be justified.
We disagree fundamentally on some of these definitions of what constitutes racist, hated, or bigotry. There seems to be an assumption in these threads that there is a consensus on these things and there's not, or that one group has a consensus and assume they are right.
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing)
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
If all we care about is Hasbro’s brand, I would support an extra level of vetting for an “approved by Hasbro” stamp.
I doubt that Hasbro would pay the extra costs for an extra level of vetting, though, because rainbow capitalism only cares about marginalized people as long as its profitable.
More than likely, Hasbro would pass the extra costs to the third party publishers who apply for an “approved by Hasbro” stamp.
Third party publishers would have to decide if association with Hasbro’s brand is worth the extra costs, of course, but we could all rest easily knowing that Hasbro’s brand is safe and sound.
And, more importantly, marginalized third party creators could continue to create content without surrendering even more of their agency, their autonomy, and their content to a billion dollar company (unless they choose to be “vetted”) that, like all billion dollar companies, only performs allyship for profit.
Please actually read the thread you are posting to. I've said several times that a morality clause is not the only type of anti-bigotry clause.
I literally proposed an alternate system to a morality clause two posts above your response.
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.It is also an irrelevant question promulgated by folks who want to “protect free speech” without understanding what free speech actually is. It’s one of those arguments folks use because it is a pretty little distraction, promulgated initially by racists because they know the masses will think it sounds nice and cause folks to unwittingly join he cause of furthering racism. That’s not to say anyone specifically here is a racist - though I think we all know there are some racists on these here forums - just that it is an argument heavily pushed by racists and disseminated by those who have fallen for it.
Here is the simple reality: Hasbro should have the rights to ensure their speech is used how they want it. It is, after all, their speech—and they should be able to ensure that, when other folks use it, they’re only putting forth Hasbro’s speech in a way that Hasbro wants its speech to be used.
That right should exist in both directions - Hasbro should have a content neutral right to dictate how their property is used. Just as players have a right to boycott Hasbro’s property if they, say, turned on a heel and said “we are banning every single LGBT+ third party content.” (It should be noted that, unlike those whining about “but they’re removing racism and I don’t like it,” those who boycott over a pivot toward Hasbro being depressive of minorities would have actual facts and data showing why the decision was morally bankrupt).
But, of course, the “I don’t want a morality clause” folks don’t actually care about Hasbro’s free speech rights. They don’t care that morality language does not actually prohibit ANY speech—it only prohibits the use of Hasbro’s speech.
And, of course, a lot of them are abjectly terrified because, deep down, they know a simple fact: A large corporation like Hasbro is going to follow the morality of their largest market share.
That is what scares the bigots the most - and why they are fighting so hard against this language (not just with Hasbro, but across all markets, where this kind of language is pretty common). They are absolutely terrified that companies will remind them “hey, your bigotry? You’re such a small and insignificant group that we’re not going to care if we have to write you off. You all are nothing, and we’d rather lose you as customers than cater to your whims any longer.”
In theory I would agree with this. In theory.
the problem I have is who is able to judge what is awful and wrong in a increasingly fluid world. Things that 5 years ago were considered wrong are now right and normal. If you go around the world right now, how do you make a single standard? Different things are different levels of ok in the same country. Just look at the USA.
Whose right is right? And when could it be ok? Could a book exploring defeating a clearly racist or bigoted character be ok? Are characters who have these things as flaws be ok? What if they are clearly shown to be bad people? How about a book that is about freedom from oppression where you explore themes and rise above them, and make it better?
The problem I have is there isn’t a set of guidelines we could give and no one arbitrator will be able to cover this.
which is why I feel like these things should be left for the public to decide whether they are ok or not. Reviews can highlight problems easily. I know we keep mentioning the gygax case. But if he produced that book and it was just racist then I am pretty confident it would fail as a product.
but if a book finds a way to explore a narrative that touches on these themes in a way that is respectful, and clearly labelled then I am ok with that. There is clearly a line but I think we are never going to codify this in a way that works. I think the only thing that follows the times and changing morals of the world is to leave it to players and purchasers to judge if a product is of good taste or not, and warn others to avoid if it is not.
a bad book that has all the worst stuff is that. A bad book made by specific people. Those who play the game know it isn’t made by wizards the same way an awful fanfic that makes the cast of a film racist or sexist isn’t the same. It may carry the title, or names of characters. But it isn’t a reflection on that. (Yes I know fanfic is free).
Some people keep making this accusation. Can you provide us an example of someone on here who made this complaint, and what it was they were complaining was being removed?
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing)
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
I already answered your question. As aforestated, I firmly believe that Hasbro should be able to control how their own content is used, regardless of what side they come down on. Would I think it was morally repugnant for them to come down on the side that leads to statistically higher rates of suicide, depression, and alienation of minorities? Yes. But it would be morally repugnant because their actions, in and of themselves, are morally repugnant. The morality clause itself would not be the problem, for the clause is only a control on their ability to effectuate their free speech rights in a content neutral way.
As for me calling folks bigots - you’ll note I specifically mentioned that I was not specifically calling anyone a bigot. I was, however, acknowledging that D&D does have a bigotry problem, and that the same tactics employed in numerous economic sectors are being employed in D&D as well. That’s not conjecture—that’s a reality which unfortunately exists in our game and in our world generally.
Edit: To your follow up point about it not being lawyerly? Defending someone’s right to free speech, regardless of content, is exactly what being “lawyerly” means - it is noting that a content creator should have the right to control how their content is going to be used. It is also acknowledging that they are not actually controlling anything or putting anyone out of business - those third parties just need to pivot to not using Hasbro’s content and can make compatible things without any Hasbro speech included.
Whenever I see this sort of thing, I have to wonder if anybody is actually paying attention to the conversation. It's so depressingly common. "Are books allowed to have themes of defeating and rising above hate, exclusionism, and evil or is it exclusionist to even mention those things?"
No. No it is not, and it never has been. Hate is normalizing or glorifying those sorts of actions, attitudes, or behaviors, or through negligence holding those actions, attitudes or behaviors up as an expected part of worldbuilding. Hate is making your hero NPC's intolerance and bigotry their Ideal and holding it up as a source of strength. Hate is presenting the enslaved people in your module as deserving of their treatment and holding up "obediently serving their betters" as an ideal to aspire to. Hate is presenting it as normal, expected, and no big deal that certain peoples in your work are discriminated against and trying to convince the players they should join in because that's just how the world is supposed to be.
Hate is a mindset, an intention. People keep asking for a fixed, objective definition of hate, an exhaustive list of what is and is not hateful. No such list can ever exist because hate isn't objective. It fundamentally cannot be objective. Hate is an active choice made by one person at the expense of another person. Hate is negligence so gross and thorough it becomes no different than malice. This constant hand-wringing about what does and does not qualify as hate is ridiculous and serves only as a distraction against the idea that hate should not be tolerated in our game. It's nitpickery and nonsensical prevarication that does nothing but maliciously muddle the issue, and I for one am increasingly tired of seeing it.
Please do not contact or message me.
Ok, let's say I wrote a book series called, say, Parry Hotter that went very popular. Since I really like my fandom (and the increased publicity and therefore income it would generate for my products), I work a deal that would allow them to legally, and without concern that I'd sue them, create Fanfiction and even make their own products.
Should I be able to say to someone "no, I don't want you to be able to hijack the work, the love and passion input into it, in order to propagate Nazism, antisemitism and holocaust denial, that stands contrary to the ideals I wrote Parry Hotter for, so you can't"?
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.
There are definitely two camps (at least) against an “anti-hate” clause:
- Those who legitimately care about how an “anti-hate” clause could be weaponized against marginalized people
- Those who pretend to care because pretending to care lets them continue to be obtuse about what constitutes “hate”
You have been around on the forums long enough to know (a) that it does exist (or you are being wilfully blind to it), (b) that anything overt was deleted by mods long ago, and (c) folks rarely wear their racism openly - that’s a good way to get ignored rather than effectuate the spread of racism.
But feel free to look around. Even if the worst of things got shut down, there’s plenty that meets the Queen Gertrude standard of “the lady doth protest too much, methinks.”
Since a lot of people are way too busy painting others in a broad brush to answer your question, I will. I can do you one better. Here's some content published on the DM's Guild that actually was pulled down by Wizards. And it was, drum roll please, sexualized art involving a vampire evoking homosexuality.
To be fair to Wizards, a ton of the stuff on DM's Guild the authors dug up was quite permissive but just goes to show you what could happen in the future. The author of the banned work has pointed out in the article that despite being taken down for being too risque, his artwork was explicitly homosexual with a cismale character while other art in the same ballpark was clearly marketed to heterosexual tastes though I'm sure people can come up with their own opinion on this.
People keep asking for a morality clause, and no one seems able to present a cogent explanation for how one would realistically work.
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing)
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
So you get to make an assertion but won't back it up with evidence. Instead it's my job to go search for the evidence for your claim.
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing)
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?