3 ms·

> One bit of context here to keep in mind is that there have been tabletop releases that have been incredibly clearly on the far side of that line, What is "in

> One bit of context here to keep in mind is that there have been tabletop releases that have been incredibly clearly on the far side of that line, What is "incredibly clear" to you is not necessarily clear to others. I know for a fact that some people consider games having a "dark elf" race to make the game itself racist, and consider much that was normal in fantasy media in the 80s and 90s to be deeply problematic today. Including much of D&D. The game even having racial classes with different characteristics is offensive to some people. Normally this is simply a point of low-stakes debate between players, but when you add such a clause to a license the subjectivity of the matter becomes a liability to anybody that would make commercial use of the licensed material.

crooked-v 4y ago
The "incredibly clear" cases I'm talking are games like RaHoWa, where the objective of the game is to play white people and kill all minorities, who oppose you with abilities based on offensive racial stereotypes.
- LarryMullins 4y ago
  There is no assurance that enforcement of such "no evil" clauses will be limited to such incredibly clear cases. Given the general anti-competitive behavior of WoTC, there is good reason to think it wouldn't be.
  - tptacek 4y ago
    Again, I think at this point everybody is clear that there is no reason whatsoever to believe that the owners of the 1.1-encumbered WOTC IP are going to be magnanimous, open-minded, or tolerant in any way. What's weird is that we're stuck on this side-show of an issue. 1.1 probably doesn't even need the morality clause; it probably gives Hasbro enough power to revoke any specific relier's license for any reason or no reason at all even without the morality clause. If that's the case, all WOTC is doing with the morality clause is being nice enough to warn you about something that was true either way. In reality, the morality clause is probably a response to some high-profile tabletop RPG stories involving Nazis; in other words, it's a marketing move, not a legal one.

crooked-v 4y ago

The "incredibly clear" cases I'm talking are games like RaHoWa, where the objective of the game is to play white people and kill all minorities, who oppose you with abilities based on offensive racial stereotypes.

LarryMullins 4y ago
There is no assurance that enforcement of such "no evil" clauses will be limited to such incredibly clear cases. Given the general anti-competitive behavior of WoTC, there is good reason to think it wouldn't be.
- tptacek 4y ago
  Again, I think at this point everybody is clear that there is no reason whatsoever to believe that the owners of the 1.1-encumbered WOTC IP are going to be magnanimous, open-minded, or tolerant in any way. What's weird is that we're stuck on this side-show of an issue. 1.1 probably doesn't even need the morality clause; it probably gives Hasbro enough power to revoke any specific relier's license for any reason or no reason at all even without the morality clause. If that's the case, all WOTC is doing with the morality clause is being nice enough to warn you about something that was true either way. In reality, the morality clause is probably a response to some high-profile tabletop RPG stories involving Nazis; in other words, it's a marketing move, not a legal one.