9 ms·
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
by 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 agoAgain, 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.