Talk:Dungeons & Dragons controversies

Split from main article

I really have no interest in developing this article at this time, I hope someone else does. The reason I have created it is preople keeps insisting on expanding this section in the main Dungeons and Dragons article, and the only way I can see to get the D&D article down below the 32 KB Wikkipedia recommendation is to spin this section off into it's own article and drastically reduce the section in D&D. - Waza 03:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Right, ill take over from here then, when I have the time. Piuro 21:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Israeli Army section -- I've made a minor change to the section on the Israeli army, so it no longer indicates that all soldiers play D&D. 216.196.140.138 19:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Overhaul

I didn't intend to overhaul the article, but it seems I have. Here's what I did:

• Added a section for Pulling, summarizing her and BADD's activities in short, based on her article
• Grouped all psychological controversy into its own section
• Re-worded intro for clarity and per WP:MoS
• Linked some terms like "media" that really needed context
• other minor edits where I spotted a need

Work that still needs to be done:

• Find (perhaps from what we already have) cites for the intro
• Cover some of the other essays that have been written. I love the Britannica quote from Confessions of a Dungeons & Dragons™ Addict], and would like to incorporate it reasonably here, as it happens to apply equally to Wikipedia.
• Reduce some of the redundancy between the lead blurb in the religious section and the sub-sections without losing any context.
• Research other suits brought against or by TSR/Wizards surrounding D&D. Incorporate info as needed and relevant to the overall topic, here.

That's all I can think of for now. Enjoy! -Harmil 18:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

kudos for the 21-strong list of linked topics that D&D will, according to BADD, introduce your kids to - the repetition does a great job of highlighting the hyperbole of the statement. - matt lohkamp 10:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Importance

I wish I could edit my edit summaries... sigh. I called this importance "High" based on the policy which says that articles which contribute substantial knowledge to a topic but aren't quite essential for a print encyclopedia should be in that category. My edit summary set Mid. Doh. -Harmil 21:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Overlap with History of role-playing games

There seems to be a fair overlap between this article and History_of_role-playing_games#Controversy. Someone should carefully check that material is in the correct article and sections are cross linked where appropriate. - Waza 05:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if we shouldn't merge this article and History_of_role-playing_games#Controversy into a new article called Controversies in Role-playing Games or similar, with a section on the D&D-specific stuff. Two cross-linked articles can cover neither topic well - or at least not elegantly. BreathingMeat 01:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thats sounds like a good approach to me, if anyone has the time and inclination please do it - Waza 03:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I took a stab at merging the two articles today. Let me know what you think. History of role-playing games edit Dungeons & Dragons controversies edit -Harmil 19:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Starving children

• Here's a new one I read about just now that may get blamed on D&D. Hill of Beans 16:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

That's because people are going to gravitate around it until we have a Pulling-esque firestorm. Schnee, why did they HAVE to mention D&D?! -Jéské ^{(v^_^v)} 21:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's the conclusion to this case. Again, the article makes a point to mention Dungeons & Dragons. Evan1975 04:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't focus on it, however. It just focuses on the sentencing, and notes that it is a D&D CRPG. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 04:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Hobgoblin

The plot summary provided for the novel contains significant inaccuracies. While it's been some time since I read it, I don't believe the name provided for the protagonist is correct, and I know he wasn't "responsible for the killings." It's possible that the person who added this section has Hobgoblin confused with another novel; I will attempt to locate my copy of the book in order to correct the inaccuracies. --71.186.206.98 (talk) 17:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the Hobgoblin section merely provides a short summary of the novel rather than provide any relevance to the rest of the article. Sjrct (talk) 00:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Israeli Army Controversy

I will look for sources on this, since this is a bit old, but the Israeli RPG scene, which has an inordinate amount of intelligence officers, looked into the matter, and it seems like it is, for lack of a better term, a bunch of hooey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tundranocaps (talk • contribs) 21:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

'an acceptable D&D character' in 'The Schnoebelen articles'

One comment that jumps out at me is the 'Hitler' example - it implies that Hitler would not be 'an acceptable D&D character', when in fact he most certainly would be. In fact, a meglamaniacal racist totalitarian dictator would make an excellent character to roleplay, as evidenced by the book's inclusion of him as an example in the first place. Obligatory 'not that I'm a hitler fan or anything' statement - but the irony of wikipedia mis-representing another author's mis-representation of the content of a dungeons and dragons manual isn't worth leaving. I realize that the point is clarified a few sentences later, but this sentence in particular: "the book never suggests that Hitler is ... a model of an acceptable D&D character" is misleading at best. - matt lohkamp 10:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

False. Sounds like you are parroting someones accusations rather than the actual printed material. I have that particular edition of the Dungeon Masters Guide and the reference is all of once under the Charisma entry in the book page 15. It lists Hitler as one of three historical examples, along with Caesar and Napoleon. Showing that Charisma is not tied to physical beauty or lack thereof. It is in no way examples for players to follow. Merely examples for the GM on how to view each ability in action. Rasputin is given as example of a historical individual with the equivalent of high Constitution. Omega2064 (talk) 02:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Amy Bishop

The latest piece of hysteria is that Biology professor and accused shooter Amy Bishop was a D&D devotee.[1][2][3]—RJH (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Playing D&D does make me want to kill people in real life, so I get where she is coming from. ;) BOZ (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The Schnoebelen articles section is not NPOV

The writer of this section clearly disagrees with Schnoebelen's views, and argues against them in the article. Schnoebelen's arguments may indeed be false, or misrepresentations, but this isn't the place to argue them or defeat them, just present them as they are. As already noted, the writer also incorrectly asserts that Hitler would be a bad character, which is unverifiable. This section needs a re-write. I'm taking a stab at it, but I don't know the facts of the matter. I'll just leave what's there now, stripped of the one-sided original research argument against it. Someone else can clean it up further.--Atkinson (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It's cool! 24.148.0.83 (talk) 12:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Still in the process of editing. Removed this reference because it wasn't necessary where it was in the article, but I thought it shouldn't be lost altogether, in case it's ever useful, so I'm leaving it here: --Atkinson (talk) 13:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

And now I'm done. This was just drive-by editing, so don't feel any need to collaborate with me or anything. I'm not even watching this page. --Atkinson (talk) 13:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point of the page, and the article. It's about a controversy that is over. Therefore, it is relevant to discuss the course of the dialogue that occurred. In this case, Schnoebelen came forward with some bogus claims and society at large rejected them based on XYZ common sense reasons. A dispelled and concluded controversy is misrepresented if not fleshed out as such. Not only is it misrepresenting the subject, but terribly misleading anyone actually interested in the subject by suggesting there is a considerable contingent of reasonable people still willing to argue Schnoebelen's side. Perhaps it should have been presented like 'society then decided over time that this dude was wrong for X reason' and not like 'this dude is wrong for x reason' but it's good, relevant stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.33.81 (talk) 02:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

References

Removal of disputed neutrality

This section should be pulled from the page. The statements made by those who attacked D&D are in no way, shape or form existant in any medium outside the person's head. I don't think that pointing out the feverd imaginings of the opponents of D&D can be anything BUT neutral. Even acknowleding that there could be an issue goes against every fact now known. I see no good reason to put things in this article that are as far from real as possible; best was the claim that TSR came for magical realism. Thats so astoundingly disconnected, and its not even a proper sentence.

I believe the issue of neutrality has been resolved, over a decade ago: A roleplaying game using elements from human legends was blamed, by upset and scared parents, of being in some way magic or evil, when none of the opponents likely ever saw even the Dungeon Master's Guide, let alone sat down and watched or participated in a game. It was the same sensationalism about the fake satanic-child molesting groups and lawsuits that turned out to be utter bunk.

As such, I am removing the "disputed neutrality" banner. Religious Zealots and distraught parents who dont have the first clue about what it is they are attacking, does not warrant mention, and is not a reliable source. It is without any ambiguity the product solely of their imaginations and the scared suburban echo chamber, with no real source, and no acknowledgements of being wrong despite not a shred of evidence in their favor ever emerging. Their failure to acknowledge legal rulings and factual disputes, instead just continuing on as if it didnt happen, renders their arguments utterly meaningless and in no way representative of anything, aside from exposing the religious zealotry of those who attack a game because another religious zealot chained lies to them. 74.128.56.194 (talk) 20:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

"Demons" and "Devils"

I believe TSR did, in fact, bring back these terms in the last years of AD&D 2nd Edition's run (late 1990's), and not in 3rd Editions, as the article states. --Nikoz78 (talk) 01:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

IIRC, they were mentioned in an almost tongue-in-cheek kind of way, such as calling a baatezu "devilish" and that sort of thing. 3E made the connection official. 108.69.80.43 (talk) 01:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

That looks about right. Did a search through PDFs of a compilation of all non-setting books, and the word "devil" is used in an artistic manner instead of a (for lack of a better word) "scientific" one. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I know that when WotC bought out TSR they made it a point to bring back these terms. Remember that 2nd Edition ran from 1989-2000, with TSR losing the company in 1997. In fact, WotC even released A Guide to Hell for 2nd Edition. It mentions Devils over and over and over ("Devils in Combat" on page 59. for example). This wiki page needs to brought in line with reality. --Nikoz78 (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dungeons & Dragons controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thewashingtondailynews.com/2007/05/26/pritchard-to-be-paroled/
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130616145105/http://www.dmfiat.com/interviews/interview-with-uri-kurlianchik to http://www.dmfiat.com/interviews/interview-with-uri-kurlianchik

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Pat Robertson

I remember around 1985 or 1986 Pat Robertson went on a tirade on The 700 Club in which he was babbling about D&D being satanic and other such bullshit. My father subsequently ordered me to throw-away all my D&D stuff. I of course did not, continued playing behind his back for the rest of my teenage years, and didn't end-up a Satanist or murderer. If you google 'Pat Robertson" "Dungeons and Dragons"' you'll find plenty of material on this. Eric Cable  !  Talk  13:42, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

You could probably find a lot of stuff like that! 8.37.179.254 (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Racism

new section added to the article based on current events. Doesnt fit under "religious" per say, but it seems the page or TOC are a bit off and need fixing since all the controversies are not religious related. this section may need to be moved to a better article for it, but it is causing a large controversy online, and more infomration and better sources need to be collected from whatever passes for "reliable" sources now, of which i do not have a clue on anymore. shadzar-talk 08:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you shadzar, could you add more details to that little section? It does not really explain much as-is. 2601:249:8B80:4050:15E1:68CB:6A3E:39EE (talk) 12:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I wish i could, but the only source right now until details of these changes to be made are made public, the only source is the one listed, and every news article references that source, or another source that is also owned by the makers of D&D D&D Beyond. All i currently know is it revolves aroudn the stigma recently appearing as it has in the pst that "orcs are racist" from Tolkien's time and works. shadzar-talk 13:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

shadzar - I hope you can fill this new section out more because as is it is essentially a "nothing statement" that should be deleted. Not only does it have nothing to do with "religeon", as you note, it isn't a controversy - its WOTC reaction to current racial discussions and is simply the company updating their literature to match the PC culture of today. Looking at the article, it reads like something that belongs 10 yrs ago when many companies made PC edits such as these to literature or the company as a whole. Honestly I wonder if WOTC would even be considering this if the Drow were pale skinned rather than black-skinned - would we care that a people were "inherently evil" then? In reality, a race that lives underground should have been pale faced, but I digress. I'm not sure why the Orcs are even included in this - we are discriminating against pig-faced brutes? Ckruschke (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Ckruschke

Here is one possibility: [4] 2601:240:10B:F962:717C:911F:6355:6B4C (talk) 08:10, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Already been reverted by another author and I agree with his reasoning. Kind of immaterial at this point. Ckruschke (talk) 19:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Ckruschke

Sadly this does not fix the problem with the [page that the TOC is broken as many of the things under the main headin have nothing to do with religion,a nd thus why i waited to edit it in any form since it makes no sense as it is already with the sub-headings of that section being unrelated. The majority of controversies arent even religious related, but due to the TOC being broken for some time now, this articl is a mess. shadzar-talk 11:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

If there is anything more you can add to make it worth including, that would be a good idea. I know that there is some material on this at Wizards of the Coast#2020–present and maybe one other article that I can't remember. 2601:249:8B80:4050:938:9FBE:8161:F3A4 (talk) 12:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

shadzar - If you are concerned about the page layout, I would suggest adding a section title such as "Other Objections" and cutting/pasting in the the couple controversies that don't fit the "Religious" title into that new heading - there aren't that many. The "racism" subject is a non-issue. Ckruschke (talk) 14:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)Ckruschke

shadzar Ckruschke I think a section titled "Other objections" would be a good start. I disagree that racism in D&D is a non-issue. I've been updating the WoTC article & here are some of the sources I've used: . On racism in D&D, we could copy & paste the relevant paragraphs from the Wizards of the Coast section with a light copy edit. Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

In terms of older sources, most of what is coming up in Google Scholar is dissertations. However, these 3 journal articles look promising if someone can access them & report back (I only have access to JSTOR & these articles aren't in that database). There's also this book (Dungeons and Dragons and Philosophy: Raiding the Temple of Wisdom) which says on page 98: "Within The Forgotten Realm, there are not only drow, but also dark elves. And, only the former are inherently evil. Dark elves are the drow's slightly lighter counterparts that spent a bit of time as drow until Eilistraee sacrificed her life to free them from this curse of being darker skinned drow. This division between dark elves and drow doesn't make things better, but only much, much worse. [...] An acceptable lighter skinned dark race side by side with only the most rare exceptions in the darker race, which is thought to be inherently evil, mirrors American history in a very uncomfortable fashion". Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree that as this topic has been getting more and more attention from other media sources, it definitely ought to be covered here. BOZ (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Probably right. Ckruschke (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)Ckruschke

I got started on this (first with campaign settings, & info from the WoTC page). Next up is info on orcs & drow. If anyone could review it or add additional sources, that would be great. Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Taking a break. I plan on adding a bit more to the 5th edition section (details on how game design has changed from Curse of Strahd, Tomb of Annihilation, Volos to Eberron and Wildemount) - unless someone else wants to tackle it. Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Sadly it has been too many years for me to remember how to code in wiki-syntax, ergo why I let others do the majority of the work so I don't break pages when trying to add things to them. Glad someone was able to come along and fix many of the problems with this page while adding the new content/section. shadzar-talk 10:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

References

How is this a controversy?

I'm reading the entire 3rd paragraph under "Cultural Representations" and I'm wondering why its here. Maztica was well researched a historically accurate. The entire paragraph is positive up to the Greenwood sentence where he says these inclusions were a "mistake in style". Well #1 - why do I care this is what he thinks - its one guy and he's protecting his legacy as the creator of earlier content and #2 the whole sentence that was cherry picked says "Greenwood disagrees with the results, saying that "the too-close-to-our-real-world additions like Maztica, the Hordelands, and Kara-Tur were a mistake in style". He thought that they "[pulled] gamers out of roleplaying into disputes about historical details, for one thing". So the "mistake in style" isn't that these add ons denigrated these cultures, Greenwood thinks they are too historically accurate. Because of this, I deleted the entire paragraph.

I disagree with deleting the paragraph. It shows that some supplements were well researched. If we want to be accurate, we shouldn't just highlight the most negative aspects. Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

We can also use other Ed Greenwood quotes. I went with the ones from the product histories but here is an excerpt from a longer 2019 Twitter thread that we can work with (we'd have to trim because even what I've pulled is a bit long for a quote): Every time a designer went too close to real-world history or Hollywood history (one egregious example: putting the Dalai Lama into the published Realms) I warned of the consequences. It's tiresome, as the decades pass, having to field queries or opinions from gamers about my getting the historical dating of stirrups wrong or using anachronistic terms or battlefield maneuvers when I have personally always avoided real-world analogues, but when real-world terms and concepts appeared in print, this is the boat we're stuck with bailing. [...] I deliberately invented Realms words and cultural customs to AVOID real-world copies. Other cooks in the kitchen did not, and the result is what it is, but I did NOT set out to copy, slight, "improve upon," or answer real-world elements. [...] So if I'd been controlling the publication of the Realms, all the social issues and power struggles would have dominated wordcount in the products, rather than stats (and, gods help us, GOD and avatar stats!). Divine coverage would instead have focused on daily devout life (what do clerics DO?) and what priesthoods are up to in the Realms (like cornering the trade in bat guano or monk-made liqueurs). And all of the racial and gender-role baggage of the real world just wouldn't have been there, because we'd have the REALMS cultures instead, which game designers and fiction writers could use satirically to comment on real-world issues, but not HAVE real-world issues in the Realms. So, it's very much a 'road not taken' thing, from my viewpoint. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:17, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

It might be worthwhile to include some of the removed content on the various pages for those settings/subsettings, as it would improve those articles. BOZ (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Good idea. Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Here's an update to the paragraph that was removed. On the official D&D podcast, they talk with a critic who mentions Maztica and then he later goes more into the issues of Maztica on his website. I moved the Greenwood quote up to the the bottom of the previous paragraph so it now acts as a lead into the Maztica paragraph:

Greenwood has gone on record with his dislike of additions such as Kara-Tur, the Hordelands, and Maztica to the Forgotten Realms for being too close to real-world cultures. In 2019, Greenwood said "I deliberately invented Realms words and cultural customs to AVOID real-world copies. Other cooks in the kitchen did not" and highlighted that if he had publication control of the Forgotten Realms, then "all of the racial and gender-role baggage of the real world just wouldn't have been there, because we'd have the REALMS cultures instead, which game designers and fiction writers could use satirically to comment on real-world issues, but not HAVE real-world issues in the Realms".

Maztica Campaign Set (1991) and Al-Qadim: Arabian Adventures (1992) featured cultures inspired by Mesoamerica and the Middle East, respectively. The new continent name Maztica "is a portmanteau of two Mesoamerican peoples: the Maya and the Aztec". One of the Maztica Campaign Set authors, Douglas Niles, said it is "thoroughly researched and historically accurate". Niles' research included tours of "numerous archaeological sites such as the Pyramids of the Sun and the Moon, Tchitchin Itza, and Uxmal" and "multiple trips to Mexico's National Museum of Archaeology". It was important to Niles to include crusaders from Faerûn as a fictional version of conquistadors – Niles said "I'd always thought the conquistadors were the closest-thing to a real-life D&D story. I just wanted to give the story a better ending". In a 2017 interview on Dragon Talk, Graeme Barber of POCGamer highlighted that minority groups tend "to be more historical recreations than fantasy creations" and don't tend to have fantastical fantasy elements as seen on the Sword Coast or Cormyr. On Maztica, Barber said the box set "pretty much word for word recreated the Spanish Conquest of the Americas. And there’s sort of no thought to what would an Aztec based culture be like if it was in a world where magic existed and where the gods were a real thing". Barber, in a 2018 review of Maztica on his website, wrote that "the whole thing was executed as a celebration of colonialism, in all of its worst parts and aspects". Barber highlighted that the Faerûn conquerors "set up a slave state, complete with plantations" with no local resistance, that the Forgotten Realms factions that typically oppose slavery (such as the Harpers) are missing, and many of the conquerors are of a true neutral alignment instead of an evil alignment – for example, the conquerors are "canonically described as killing Maztican servants (read: slaves) and feeding them to their dogs for minor transgressions".

Thoughts? I'm sure there were reviews of Maztica when it came out but I'm not great at tracking down older print reviews. Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Per Maztica Campaign Set, there's a review in White Wolf #30. If someone has access to that, we could maybe compare how it was received historically versus how it is viewed now. Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I know that User:Airborne84 has access to some issues of White Wolf. BOZ (talk) 04:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

There is a short review in White Wolf No. 30. by Keith H. Eisenbeis who notes that "The Maztica Campaign Set follows in the wake of the Maztica trilogy of books: Ironhelm, Viperhand, and Feathered Dragon. The books and the boxed set which is based on them creates a campaign setting loosely based on the Aztec and Mayan cultures of ancient Central America. In fact, the word Maztica is a reference to another name for the Aztec people." Eisenbeis has more to say, but as I understand it, you're looking for connections to historically accurate game aspects, which Eisenbeis does not address in the remainder. His statement above about the historical connection is matter-of-fact and his remaining opinion-based statements about the game are about the Maztica-based aspects with no reference to historical accuracy. Airborne84 (talk) 14:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks User:Airborne84! I was more looking to contrast how the game was viewed at time of publication vs now. So did the review describe the Faerun conquers positively or highlight any specific parts of the adventure? We could then compare contemporary views of the supplement to the critic from 2017 who calls out those aspects as representing the worst bits of colonialism. Ideally, we could show how views have changed over time (basically the supplement was not controversial when published but now has a sensitivity disclaimer twice in its product listing). On a different note, do you think you could add general review details from the White Wolf article to Maztica Campaign Set? The review section is empty. Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

That gets into NPOV and SYNTH territory. We can't use the White Wolf review to say something about a controversy that the source doesn't mention at all. We also can't use that one review in 1992 along with recent reviews to say something about how views have changed. We might be able to use current sources to say that, but we also have to be careful about accurately representing their claims: is this the source's own viewpoint or are they suggesting a critical consensus or even a cultural shift, and are they in a position to do that? Woodroar (talk) 17:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

The White Wolf #30 review does provide some opinions on the game. E.g., Eisenbeis states that

The gods, their priests and their effects on the common people are well described for the DM and the players, while maintaining the essential flavor of the Maztican world. Each priesthood is fully explained with proficiencies, role, and practices described. Also of note is the section on the afterlife of the Maztican people. This section is very well done and shows how the Maztican view of the afterlife fits in with other previously published sources.

He noted a problem in that a group of relatively weak adventurers imported from another area of the Forgotten Realms "could easily wreak havoc on a Maztican campaign". His conclusion was that "the Maztica boxed set score[d] high for the roleplayer, moderately well for the problem solver and action seeker, and poorly for the power seekers". Having said all that, I concur with Woodroar's concerns about being cautious of WP:SYNTH issues.

I can add some of the material to Maztica Campaign Set. Might take a day or two. Airborne84 (talk) 01:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I am confused what is being looked for, but would Dragon Magazine be a credible source? I have the program with all 250 issues in PDF format that i could scour for, IF I knew what I was looking for to provide context or something as a reference. shadzar-talk 10:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Religious objections

Responding to Ckruschke here rather than on my talk page because I don't think this should be a siloed conversation. When I re-organized the article a few weeks ago, I re-framed the original "religious objections" section as a "moral panic" section since that is the term most often used for the series of events in the 1980s and then moved the three sub-sections specfically on religious writings to a "religious objections" section. When I reverted Ckruschke's deletion of the Hickman papers, I do so because I think it adds context to the contemporary discussions that occurred in religious communities (ie. not all religious people were against D&D & some spoke out in defense during the moral panic era). I then added a sentence of context relating the impact of Hickman's papers during the moral panic (tldr well received until someone else died). When I added that sentence, I did leave a note in the edit summary asking for opinions on moving the Hickman papers into the moral panic section instead of leaving it in the religious objection section. So I'll ask here for thoughts on next steps: we could move the Hickman papers into the chronological spot in the moral panic section, we could move all of the religious papers back into their respective chronological spots in the moral panic section, we could leave the Hickman papers in the religious objections section, we could rename the section to "religious views", we could delete the Hickman papers, or perhaps something else entirely that I haven't thought of. Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of whether that is kept in this article, I think that is an example of something we should also use elsewhere; maybe in Hickman's own article? BOZ (talk) 21:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you put this here since I reached out to you on your page, but it appears you haven't been editing on Wiki long. Word of advice - be careful to never fall in love with your own material (My Precious!). IMO, changing the section to "Religious views" does not work as the whole page is about "controversies" and a positive religeous view is not this.

In the interest of finding a middle ground, I would suggest having the material as a counterpoint to the preceding section ("This person thought X, but Hickman thinks Y") rather than be its own section - since as I've said, setting it up as its own section essentially implies that Hickman is bashing D&D which isn't true. There is a similar counterpoint, using Tolkien's words, in the section about racism. My 2 cents. Ckruschke (talk) 11:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC)Ckruschke

That seems fair. BOZ (talk) 12:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I didn't add (or find the original sources for) the parts on religious objections to this article - I moved them into their own section when I reorganized the article. Adding more RS throughout is a good idea. And, as I've said above & on my talk page, I didn't think the conversation should be between just two editors. Better to talk about an article's issues on the article's talk page where you can get help from multiple editors. Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I doubt this will be a popular opinion but I'll say it anyways: I think the whole section should be removed or drastically pruned back to what reliable, third-party sources say. It's virtually all built on primary and self-published sources (Chick tracts, Hickman, Weese) with a few third-party sources sprinkled in. Sure, we can fill in some details with SPS and questionable sources per WP:ABOUTSELF, but the article's outline and most of its content needs to be based on RS. Woodroar (talk) 12:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I think you're right that we should find more RS and based on that figure out what should remain (and perhaps be folded back back into the moral panic section). Based on a book review, it appears that Satanic Panic: Pop-Cultural Paranoia in the 1980s has at least two essays that directly address the D&D connection with William Schnoebelen & Jack T. Chick. The Google Books preview is limited but I think the book is probably a good source:

• On "Early Skrimishes": One of the first incidents in which Christian parents mobilized against role-playing games occurred in April 1980 in Heber City, Utah [...]. These claims of witchcraft and demonic presence were distinct from earlier psychological claims made about role-playing. Eventually, groups such as BADD would merge these two threats [...]. By 1981, some evangelicals regarded opposition to D&D as a powerful symbol of Christian identity. [...] The quintessential cultural artifact of the panic was a comic book entitled Dark Dungeons, published in 1984 by Chick Publications. (page 107-109)
• The essay on pages 217-218 (preview shows 2 pages in the middle) seems to be breaking down the religious argument made by Schnoebelen & Chick and then it goes onto a "more nuanced Christian critique of D&D". If someone has access to the whole essay, it might be useful to figuring out what is a "religious objection" vs what is "events during the moral panic".
• On Ex-Satanist Narratives: Some antigaming crusaders discovered the easiest way to "prove" the existence of an evil conspiracy was to simply claim to be a former leader of the conspiracy. While BADD struggled to produce evidence that D&D contained "real" occultism, self-proclaimed ex-Satanists could claim they had firsthand experience using D&D to spread teenage Satanism. In his 1993 book Lucifer Dethroned, William Schnoebelen claimed [...] that he had personally used D&D to recruit college students into Satanic worship (page 255)

Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Chult misinformation.

I dont know who is fact checking things now, but someone needs to go through and edit lots of pages. "Chult, a pan-Africa campaign setting in the Forgotten Realms, was introduced in a 1993 Dragon Magazine issue"

Chult was first mentioned in 1987 Dragon Magazine issue 125 page 14. Then again 1990 in issue 161 page 89 where it asks if Chult is African, to which the response is "No. Chult is more akin to Conan Doyle’s Lost World, complete with dinosaurs, lost tribes, etc."

One of the editors in issue 176 from 1991 misattributed Chult to being "pseudo-African" in response to someone writing in asking why there was no African settings in D&D, on page 5.

with all the misinformation being spread causing controversies, it is best to not have Wikipedia be a source of that misinformation or pushing agendas, and should be provable information provided, so someone better able to edit it these days, should go in and fix that section of this article, as well review other sections to make sure they are truthful information provided within the article. shadzar-talk 12:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this. 2601:249:8B80:4050:5885:5DF1:81B8:9E2E (talk) 14:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Shadzar: I've updated the Chult origins to be more focused on James Lowder (who wrote a novel using the setting and then the first sourcebook) and removed an origin date for the setting. I haven't had a chance yet to track down the individual Dragon articles you mentioned but I'll try to verify the origin date. You also said One of the editors in issue 176 from 1991 misattributed Chult to being "pseudo-African" in response to someone writing in asking why there was no African settings in D&D, on page 5. — what is your source that this primary source misattributed Chult to being African influenced? I've found 3 secondary sources (reviews in Paste and Kotaku & Shannon Appelcline's product history for The Jungles of Chult) that all mention Chult being influenced by Africa or leaning into stereotypes of Africa. Lowder himself listed Allan Quartermain (the main setting of that story is in Africa) as one of his pulp inspirations. Both Kotaku and Appelcline highlight that The Jungles of Chult pulled from the 1993 Dragon issue which had several articles on creating an African influenced D&D game. The Kotaku article is the source that goes the most in-depth about the development of Chult before reviewing the latest iteration (Tomb of Annihilation). Do you have any secondary sources (reviews, etc) of the older iterations of Chult? Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sariel XiloWhy is this section focused on Lowder when he did not create Chult, as has already been discussed, and the criticism of the material in the Realms does not specifically cite his work? Indeed, he wrote only part of the Jungles of Chult supplement, as detailed in the Appelcline product history you mention, with the Jean Rabe-authored adventure the source for the majority of mentions of slavery; 35 of the 40 or so references are in the adventure, with the few in the Lowder sourcebook section focused on Ras Nsi's enslaved undead army of anything that dies in his area of control, not human slaves. And mentioning some lost world narratives as sources, or even the Dragon article, does not mean the objectionable content carried through, beyond the general Lost World Tropes, if they are adopted wholesale and uncritically. It's possible to look at sources and recast them. You're connecting content and criticism to one author here in ways that are incendiary and based on leaps of logic. 2603:6000:CA40:60E:6912:81F7:6B04:9221 (talk) 06:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that ping for Sariel Xilo worked. Also, I will leave this edit alone in good faith, but they may want to review that as well. BOZ (talk) 12:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, BOZ.

A few additional points:

• The setting as rendered in Ring of Winter or Jungles of Chult was not intended to be simply pan-Africa, as Doyle's Lost World, cited by Lowder as an influence in addition to Haggard, is not an African story. So the answer given in Dragon Magazine issue 161 (September 1990) about Chult being akin to Doyle's "lost world" is really the starting point, not a claim that Chult is pan-Africa. To be sure, "lost world" stories carry their own problematic tropes and issues on race and cultural representation, so mentioning their presence as general inspiration for this part of the Realms is on point for this article. But you likely do not want to overstate the one-to-one Chult is pan-Africa conclusion.
• If specific content, especially objectionable content, is being attributed to specific writers, much more care should be given that the attribution or even suggested connection is accurate. The cited Kotaku article, for example, does not mention Lowder at all, while the frame for the revision stated in December 2020 singles him out. The Kotaku piece mentions the rough count for the word slavery in Jungles of Chult, but as noted above almost all the mentions of human slaves occur in the Rabe-penned adventure, not in the sourcebook sections, which contains five mentions mostly of Ras Nsi enslaved undead, which include dead humans, but also goblins, dwarves, and ptera-men (Jungles, p.9). The Kotaku article talks about the third edition material on Chult and the destruction of the city of Mezro in fourth edition, neither of which included Lowder as a designer. His role on Tomb was limited to consulting on a few specific elements he created in his novel, such as Mezro and the use of Artus Cimber. So care needs to be taken to separate origins from specific criticism of content.
• Care should similarly be taken when drawing conclusions about the connections between works or versions of the Chult material between D&D editions. Designers at TSR and Wizards regularly recast material from earlier works, which Chris Perkins discusses directly about Chult in Tomb in the cited Paste article, so something appearing in one incarnation should not be assumed to be drawn from earlier works, which may or may not have taken a very different approach. In the Jungles of Chult sourcebook material by Lowder, the city of Mezro is described in terms that make it clear it is anything but backward or savage: "The great city of Mezro rivals some of the most “'civilized”' population centers in Faerun. While not equal in size to vast trading cities like Waterdeep, Mezro has built over its 4,000-year history a vast collection of knowledge and technology." (p.11) That depiction may or may not have been carried on in later versions, or even actively undone, as in the fourth edition reduction of Mezro to ruins. So care should be taken to connect specific criticisms to the specific incarnations of the material and the credited creators of those versions, if creators are named.
• Finally, as this section is covering the topic of cultural representation as controversy with Chult, is it within the bounds of the section to note that other designers, including people of color, have found inspiration in the Chult material and created their own published material derived from it? Designer Rich Lescouflair (https://rpggeek.com/geeklist/summary/person/91496) specifically talks about Jungles of Chult as a positive inspiration for his campaign in the introduction to the well-reviewed Lost City of Mezro, which was published through the Adventurer's League. (https://www.dmsguild.com/product/258780/lost-city-of-mezro) ("I still have memories of purchasing the Jungles of Chult supplement, eager to incorporate the material into my Forgotten Realms campaign. More than just a setting, Chult's ancient history, its duality with the powers of life and death, and the connections to many other aspects of the Realms was presented in a way to where there was always a new story that can be told and new secrets to uncover." [Lescoflair, Introduction, p.2]) This work focuses on the return of the city of Mezro, in its version from Jungles and Ring of Winter, from the demiplane retcon mentioned in Tomb. 2603:6000:CA40:60E:6912:81F7:6B04:9221 (talk) 21:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Origins of Chult

Going off of the discussion above, I'm creating a list of campaign books & Dragon/Dungeon articles where Chult is mentioned before the publication of The Jungles of Chult in 1993. Ideally, I'd liked to find the first detailed description so we can include an origin date for the setting. Please add to the following list if you find something. Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

• Dragon Magazine issue 22 (February 1979) - in the adventure "The Leopard Men" on page 13: "The adventure may be set in the Amedio Jungle or Hepmonaland in the WORLD OF GREYHAWK setting, Chult in the FORGOTTEN REALMS setting, or any jungle near a large trading post. This adventure may also be used as a sequel to 'The Elephants' Graveyard' (DUNGEON issue #15)". Note: the earlier adventure does not mention Chult as a potential setting.
• Forgotten Realms Campaign Set (August 1987) - on page 5: "Two of the maps are drawn to provide a general overview of the Realms, running from the Moonshae Isles in the west to the land of Thay in the east, and from the Spine of The World Mountains in the North to the Jungles of Chult in the south". No description of Chult.
• Dragon Magazine issue 125 (September 1987) - in the article "Woodlands of the Realms": "Cork and rubber trees are found only in particular areas in the far South and are disappearing quickly due to heavy harvests. (Many recent explorations of the lands of Chult have been undertaken simply to find new supplies of these woods.) [...] Zalantar is a wood of the South; it is seldom seen in northern lands. These trees grow in profusion in Chult and along the southern coasts of Faerun".
• The Forgotten Realms Atlas (August 1990) - References the Jungles of Chult as a map boundary and states on page 3: "Four hundred miles closer to the equator than the Calim Desert and almost encircled by water, Chult was covered by jungles". No additional details.
• Dragon Magazine issue 161 (September 1990) - In the Sage Advice column by Skip Williams: "Would it be accurate to assume Chult is an African setting? No. Chult is more akin to Conan Doyle's Lost World, complete with dinosaurs, lost tribes, etc". No additional details.
• Dragon Magazine issue 176 (December 1991) - In the Letters page on a question about where are the African influenced parts of D&D, the response in part states: "DUNGEON® Adventures has featured two adventures based in pseudo-African settings: 'The Elephants’ Graveyard,' in issue #15, and 'The Leopard Men,' from issue #22. These are suggested for use in the WORLD OF GREYHAWK® setting in the Amedio Jungle or Hepmonaland, or Chult in the FORGOTTEN REALMS® setting. These areas are not particularly civilized".
• The Jungles of Chult (June 1993) - In the introduction on page 2, Jim Lowder wrote: "From almost any adventure story you've ever read or seen on the late show, you know that trekking through jungles can be quite profitable, but it's never easy. The locals inevitably have a taste for explorer stew, the flora and fauna try to eat your guide at every other turn, and if you're in a fantasy frame of mind the dinosaurs react badly to your intrusion upon their turf.... In developing Chult for my Harpers novel, The Ring of Winter, I kept these adventure stories in mind. So, while detail-oriented research has gone into this product to make the Tabaxi society historically sound and the Chultan jungle ecologically logical, I spent more time trying to capture the feel of the Allan Quatermain tales of H. Rider Haggard and the Professor Challenger stories by Arthur Conan Doyle. After all, this is a fantasy campaign guide. A number of people contributed to the making of this product, directly and indirectly. Michael J. Varhola and David Howery published fine articles in DRAGON® magazine (issue #189, Jan. 1993) at the same time I was writing this guide; their work on African campaign settings and weapons proved too good to pass up".

Wow, thanks for finding all that! 2601:249:8B80:4050:DD50:EB04:4574:A2C0 (talk) 05:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

It just seemed odd to me that the first mention of Chult would be in an article about tree types in Faerun and then I went down a rabbit hole trying to find the first actual description... Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

LOL, amazing! 2601:249:8B80:4050:DD50:EB04:4574:A2C0 (talk) 20:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

References

The Leopard Men, by David Howery.

AD&D adventure for 5 to 7 player characters each with 8 to 10 levels of experience.

You're source is incorrect, it is Dungeon Magazine issue 22 March and April edition 1990, edited by Barbara G. Young. It was not written in the 1970s.

However, I have a bunch of old TSR stuff from the 70s, and Ed Greenwood campaign Abeir-toril certainly is from 1970s it was the house campaign world that was initiated after the board game Divine Right, and the pantheon and sundry was written in Dragon Magazine in the 1970s.

I'll come back at a later date and add the correct information.

Signed - Drizzt Daermon N'a'shezbaernon (level 5 ranger, level 1 barbarian memelord) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.185.137.168 (talk) 07:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Cultural representationsnot written in English?

"were coded as" this isn't English. there is no cypher in original D&D books, so no "code", and it isnt a programming language. Someone needs to fix that first part like was done to the Chult section so it reads in English on the English side of Wikipedia. it has many quotes, but the article itself rads like this is undeniable fact, instead of a particular persons opinion or quote. There seems to be a LOT of places on Wikipedia where English is no longer used, or proper writing styles, and things presented as facts when they are something that came form a singular source as one person's opinion.

Is that saying "D&D was designed as medieval Europe"? If so, then yes, it says so right on the original D&D white box set. That would probably be a better choice of wording than whatever hamfisted quote is presented from that citation. Wikipedia is not "critical race theory" propaganda/pamphlets, but an encyclopedia of facts, and should be written as such. Either it needs to be rewritten to inform that it is the opinion of "..." whoever made the quote, and that is why it is mentioned in the cultural representation section, or it needs to be written from a WP:NPOV NEUTRAL point of view as opposed to the hostile way it is written currently. shadzar-talk 11:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that we're using quotations poorly. We should be summarizing sources instead, which is an issue with much of the article. As for your NPOV concerns, there are dozens of sources in that section from a variety of backgrounds: academic and peer-reviewed, mainstream news media, fan/specialist media, pop culture, etc. They're all saying the same thing, just covering different aspects of it, and I can't find any that were published as opinion pieces. As far as I can tell, it's the mainstream viewpoint, which suggests we should cover this in Wikipedia's voice without minimizing our sources as opinions. It's exactly what NPOV says to do. Also, "coded" is perfectly acceptable English. See Merriam-Webster, definition 3c or Macmillan, definition 2 or Collins, definition 2 for some examples. Woodroar (talk) 16:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I can point also to academics, governments, etc that point this "critial race theory" is propoganda being spread BY mainstream media. so how is that going to work out when the two sides of academia and governments are opposed? Wikipedia just picks the one it thinks correct, rather than being neutral? This is all ongoing urrent events and cannot be considered a "victor" on either side, while the argument over it continues, so Wikipedia should strive to be neutral and not declaring any victors or be used as arbitor of which opinion is correct. It should present verifiable facts. The facts is it is a "controversy" thus why it is presented, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia should be saying who is right or wrong as that discussion is LONG from over in current events. shadzar-talk 03:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I've just reduced a few quotes but this also isn't my strongest suit. Thoughts on adding a request for review from the Guild of Copy Editors? They would most definitely keep to NPOV & probably would be best at tackling the quote rephrasing. The average wait time is about 20 days. Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

if they can write it better than i can then anyone should do fine. I am so out of practice on WP it isnt even funny, so someone the wait time i dont think is a problem so long as it gets. done due to the nature of this article it needs to read correctly, and i am too fr out of practice for even formal writing. shadzar-talk 06:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Submitted the request, so keep an eye out for an update from this project towards the end of January/beginning of February. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors

Before copyedit: [5] After copyedit: []

Hello all. I found your page via the Guild of Copy Editors Requests page. I'll be your copyeditor. This will be my first formal copy edit with the guild. I have a couple thousand edits on Wikipedia, and I copy edit other articles casually all the time. One of my specialties is re-writing leads.

I sat down to copyedit the prose of this article, and I ended up focusing a lot of my attention on headings and the article's structure. I felt like that should come first, just because that was jumping out at me once I got immersed. If you want, I'll do a second pass later and focus more on prose.

I made several edits to the article. Feel free to edit/revert.

Here are some other things I noticed as I was reviewing the article. Not sure if you care about this stuff or not, this is more like a peer review/good article review, but figured I'd mention it.

•  Done Consider expanding the lead. A good lead is usually 4 paragraphs. This is a big article, so there should be plenty to talk about.
•  Done In the moral panic section, each sub-seciton's first paragraph should clearly state what that section's controversy is and how it's connected to D&D.
• Over-quoting is not ideal. It can lead to unclear articles, and to copyvio issues. It is usually better to paraphrase. Else you end up with stuff like this.
• The following sections are bigger than I expected, and may have WP:UNDUE weight issues. You may want to trim their size by about half. This will fix the weight issues, and hopefully increase clarity.

•  Done Mazes and Monsters
•  Done Wizards of the Coast relaxes restrictions
• Schnoebelen articles - fringe author
• Blume brothers

• In the "Cultural representations and racism" section, most of the sub-sections are "topics", and the odd one out is "5th Edition Dungeons & Dragons", which is more like a time period. Consider merging "5th Edition Dungeons & Dragons" into the other topic sections.

• Also consider trimming and copyediting the "5th Edition Dungeons & Dragons" section. It is quite dense, detailed, quote heavy, and may have WP:UNDUE weight.

• I agree with EricCable's suggestion above about mentioning Pat Robertson.
•  Done Article could use more images. Currently has 1.

Sorry, this ended up being a pretty heavy edit. I hope you find the changes helpful. I'll pause now and wait for feedback. Let's make sure you guys like my heavy editing, and give some editors familiar with the topic a chance to help with trimming, before proceeding further. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on this Novem Linguae! The "moral panic" section I think is the oldest part of this article & predates me. I tried to add sources to the section & add the context that by the late 90s/early 2000s moral panic was essentially over but had left an impact (such as the bowdlerized names for fiends). I don't have a lot of time right now to trim it but I'll tag some other editors who might have thoughts. I added the "5th Edition Dungeons & Dragons" section as a separate subsection because a lot of the sources used in the other subsections of "Cultural representations and racism" are about 5th edition compared to older editions. All of the changes to the game are occurring in 5th edition. We could probably trim criticism of individual 5th edition sourcebooks & fold that info into the articles on the individual books as needed. I also couldn't find contemporary criticism on the portrayal of ethnicities or fictional races for the older editions. To editors Shadzar, Ckruschke, BOZ, Airborne84 and Woodroar: Pinging editors who have participated on the talk page in the past few months who might have some insight on all of this. Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

What? I know someone was coming in to clean up a mess, but i have no idea what i am needed for now? shadzar-talk 01:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not the one to add to content any racial context section as my knowledge/interest in D&D stopped with 2nd edition back when people didn't think about Drow or Orcs being racist archetypes. Ckruschke (talk) 19:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC)Ckruschke

Hey Sariel Xilo. I worked on this article quite a bit last week. Do you like the changes? Do you feel that I've addressed the original reasons that you requested a copy edit? Anything specific you'd like me to work on before we wrap this up? Thanks for your feedback. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Novem_Linguae Thanks again for your help on this article! I adjusted one title (technically, drow & orcs are classified as humanoids in the game) but otherwise I think the clarification you did is great. Sariel Xilo (talk) 01:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Sariel Xilo. Awesome, thanks for the feedback. I think I'll close this request for copy edit then. Feel free to ping me if you run across anything else. See you around. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Novem_Linguae There is some discussion below about adding a section on sexism in the game - since you did a bunch of structural edits to the article, where would you recommend adding this section & with what heading? I would assume somewhere in the "Cultural representations and racism" section. Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Sariel Xilo, good question. I'd give it its own level 1 heading called "Sexism", and I'd place it before "Objections by groups". To me, it doesn't really seem to fit in the racism section, and I think it'd be a stretch to rename the section to "Cultural representations, racism, and sexism", since the entire rest of the section is about racism. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Sexism/Misogyny

The representation of women in D&D seems to be yet another controversy, which is not yet represented in the article. Just in case someone is interested in working on that, secondary sources would be:

• The Ludic Bestiary: Misogynistic Tropes of Female Monstrosity in Dungeons & Dragons
• Dungeons & Discourse: Intersectional Identities in Dungeons & Dragons (e.g. pages 95-97; also contains how the things have change for the better in 5th edition, also regarding the inclusion of nonbinary gender identities)
• And a very small bit in There and Back Again: Tolkien, Gamers, and the Remediation of Exclusion through Fantasy Media
  

Daranios (talk) 08:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Dungeons & Dragons Has Caught Up with Third-Wave Feminism this online article also has something to say on the topic, with positive recent development. I found this in Feminist War Games?..., which probably has some more but I can see very little in the preview. Daranios (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is a controversy or simply an example of authors writing about issues that they don't understand (or want to take advantage of current societal focus). Reading the abstracts of your copied articles, it is very clear that the authors at best do not understand that essentially all the monsters that are in the 1st Edition Monster Manual (which has since been changed and expanded upon by later editions) are straight from folk lore and mythology. At worst, they are using anecdotal examples to form learned opinions. So what if there are female monsters like hags, succubus, sirens, medusa, etc? There are also incubus, golems (which are almost exclusively shown as male), griffen (male lion), and etc. This isn't a sexist trope foisted on unsuspecting gamers by evil TSR - its the use and expansion upon classical/historical mythology. If you want to say that classical mythology is sexist, that certainly isn't a D&D issue. Sure most of these female "monsters" are shown bare chested in the books (or at best lightly screened), which is both a turn off and a turn on to players depending on their own opinion/sex/ethos, but again these figures are depicted as such in mythology. Ckruschke (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)Ckruschke

@Ckruschke: Hmm, I think as Wikipedia editors we primarily depend on but don't correct secondary sources. But - good point - of course we don't want to give undue weight in case this is indeed a view proposed only by some authors. So maybe this is a good place to collect sources, and add the topic to the article only if there are more, to show that this really is a topic.

Contentwise I partially agree with you: I think the hags and succubi are misogynistic tropes from folklore/mythology. D&D did not create them, the game's only "fault" is incorporating them. Then again, the drow (and a few less-well-known creatures in a similar vein) to my knowledge are an original creation of D&D. (Interestingly, Dungeons & Discourse discusses the presentation of the matriarchal drow society as problematic, but also that it could be read as a criticism of patriarchal society by juxtaposition.)

Aside from that, female D&D players have been, and to my knowledge still are, significantly in the minority, and one has to wonder if there are reasons for that within the game. E.g. the chainmail bikini is a trope not exclusive to D&D, but still prominent and controversial enough that (I think) conscious efforts have been made in newer editions to get away from that stereotype. Daranios (talk) 16:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree to a point. Secondary sources are great unless they espouse completely incorrect ideas. As anyone who has perused the list of research papers that are done on an annual basis, we know that "proof" for any fool theory can be readily found if you look hard enough. We might know more about the papers in question, and their veracity, if we had more to go on than just their abstracts.

Let's also be conscious to not conflate the topics here in Talk. The possible racist origins of the Drow has nothing to do with sexism in D&D. Threads get confusing when we discuss more than one issue.

As far as the minority status of women, that's of course anecdotally true and there are probably a myriad of reasons for it including: the imagery used in modules (and I'm always surprised when I thumb through a module the amount of barely dressed women there are to save), that women are less interested in "war" topics than men, that women are less interested in RPG's as a whole than men (as anyone can attest who has played an MMORPG), the universal stigma that D&D is only for dorky/nerdy teens, only played in smelly basements by heavy breathers, and etc. Its a similar discussion as to why we don't have more women in STEM careers and is a discussion could go on for years with no resolution. Ckruschke (talk) 16:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Ckruschke

About the drow: I was not so much thinking about the racism issue, but about them having an "evil" society with (due to?) women in power and under the guidance of an evil female deity. Sorry I didn't make that clear.

The first two linked source are available online in full. Daranios (talk) 19:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

One more passage I found particularly noteworthy in Dungeons & Discourse: Intersectional Identities in Dungeons & Dragons (p. 185): While that work clearly holds the view that there is sexism in D&D (based on interviewing a number of players, so I am not so convinced the author falls under "writing about issues that they don't understand"), it concludes: "Racism and sexism both exist in D&D because they exist in real life." Daranios (talk)

Demographics

@Daranios and Ckruschke: Women now make up about 40% of the D&D playerbase (an increase from 10% in 1980 & 20–25% in 2012). At some point, I started to keep a list of sources on the demographics of D&D & the portrayal of women in my sandbox so I'll list some below & pull some quotes:

• Waskul, Dennis, and Matt Lust. “Role-Playing and Playing Roles: The Person, Player, and Persona in Fantasy Role-Playing.” Symbolic Interaction, vol. 27, no. 3, 2004, pp. 333–356. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/si.2004.27.3.333. Accessed 27 Apr. 2020.
• Ploeg, Scott D. Vander, and Kenneth Phillips. “Playing With Power: The Science of Magic in Interactive Fantasy.” Journal of the Fantastic in the Arts, vol. 9, no. 2 (34), 1998, pp. 142–156. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/43308337. Accessed 27 Apr. 2020.
• Antero Garcia (2017) Privilege, Power, and Dungeons & Dragons: How Systems Shape Racial and Gender Identities in Tabletop Role-Playing Games, Mind, Culture, and Activity, 24:3, 232-246, DOI: 10.1080/10749039.2017.1293691 https://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2017.1293691
• "Dungeons & Dragons has come a long way since 1977, when your horny geek friends could consult the 'Harlot Table,' [...] But gradually, and sometimes awkwardly, Dungeons & Dragons has become exponentially more female-friendly. [...] Coming from a franchise whose art director wrote a piece (apparently since removed) justifying hyper-sexualized female bodies in fantasy art, this is noteworthy. And these illustrations are just the face of deeper changes made to entice more women to play. More strikingly, the new Player's Handbook explicitly talks about the gender binary and gender fluidity. [...] [Crawford's] point is underscored by the fact that the newest version of the game credits women as contributors to its design more than any previous one: About 26 percent are female, as opposed to 20 percent in the last version and 12 percent in the one before that. It's also telling that three-quarters of D&D's branding and marketing team is now female". (Vice, 2014)
• "The countless histories documenting Dungeons & Dragons’ 40-year ascent to the cultural mainstream tend to gloss over the women who made the fantasy role-playing game what it is today. [...] From the earliest days of D&D, women were shaping its look, its narrative, its affect and its fandom. This may come as a surprise since, in those nascent years, most women around D&D were tolerant wives and mothers. That’s not because D&D didn’t appeal to women; it had simply inherited the deeply masculine culture of its predecessor—wargaming. [...] In the July 1980 issue of Dragon magazine, TSR’s official D&D publication, Jean Wells and her colleague Kim Mohan penned the editorial, 'Women Want Equality. And Why Not?' Women from across the country had written in about the 'unfair and degrading treatment of women players,' who comprised, they wrote, about 10 percent of D&D’s fanbase." (Kotaku, 2017)
• "Women now make up close to 40% of the D&D community. While the goal is still for that number to fully reflect the wider population, it’s a huge leap from 2012, when women made up 20–25% of players. A big reason for that jump in female players goes back to the popularity of streaming, and the visibility of other women playing. [...] But it’s not like this sort of inclusion is something the D&D team just stumbled into. The company is dedicated to making sure that it starts from within. That statistic of women making up about 40% of players is similar to the makeup of the team behind the game. Women are everywhere behind the scenes in D&D, from artists to designers, and it shows in the game. [...] In addition to that writing, the artwork gives an immediate, clear indication of the respect this team has for its characters and its players. Gone are the days of heavily sexualized and objectified female characters in D&D art. Kate Irwin, D&D’s Senior Art Director, came in during the 4th edition, and she says that the representation of women was a major focus". (The Mary Sue, 2018)
• "And legions are into it, including an unprecedented number of adult and female players, attracted by a popular recent revamp and new online playing options. It’s the ultimate sign that nerd culture is now mainstream. [...] The company also made it more inclusive. Gone is the rule mandating female characters’ strength be less than males’. Gone is the sexist artwork — no more armored bikinis, no more monsters with breasts, no more topless ladies [...]. Women, in particular, love the new edition. D&D was originally a nerdy guy thing, emphasis on guy. Yet the number of female players is at 38 percent and climbing, according to Wizards of the Coast". (The Washington Post, 2019)
• "One point Wizards of the Coast is especially eager to make is that 39% of their player base identifies as female, a number which they insist is growing. It's unfortunate to see such social stigmas still impacting the game; in the time it was introduced, such "nerdy" activities as Dungeons & Dragons were seen as unfit for women. This was a very harmful stereotype and it's understandable that the makers of the game would be so intent on breaking out of it". (ScreenRant, 2020)
• "Earlier this month, Wizards of the Coast released several statistics about the Dungeons & Dragons playerbase, revealing that its core player group was much younger than expected. According to the demographics released by Wizards of the Coast to European retailers last week, 40% of players are 25 years or younger. By comparison, only 11% of players are 40 years or older. Unsurprisingly, the game has experienced massive growth over the last few years, with an estimated 40 million players, 39% identify as female". (Comicbook.com, 2020)

Several of these sources directly highlight the sexist art in the earlier editions & that the change in art style was part of a push to be more inclusive resulting in an increase of female players. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Sariel Xilo, that's very interesting! Also good to hear that the demographics have shifted a lot towards more gender equality. I'll leave it to you and others to decide if and how the (earlier) controversy should be included in this article. Thanks also for all the good work you've done on diverse D&D articles! Daranios (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Daranios: I originally started to pull together sources on demographics because I wanted to expand on the playerbase in the main Dungeons & Dragons article (probably in the development history section). I don't think the fact that the demographics have changed (more women, younger players, etc) is controversial. I do think sexism in the game is controversial (fur bikini armor, female characters with different base stats in older editions, treatment of female players at stores/events etc) and, at this point, a section on sexism is probably warranted in this article since we have multiple academic sources, mainstream news sources & niche game industry news sources. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Wow, 40% - that is impressive! :) BOZ (talk) 20:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

No, far-left propaganda should not be included in the article. The belief that there is sexism and misogyny in Dungeons & Dragons is an extreme, fringe view. There is literally zero evidence provided for any sexism or misogyny in any official TSR/Wizards of the Coast material. intersectional/critical race theory propaganda is widely considered to be racist and anti-Semitic pseudoscience and thus has no place in this article per WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. A handful of people on Twitter getting upset for no apparent reason is not a controversy. The topic of this article is Dungeons & Dragons controversies; it is not an article meant to house scattered and sundry criticisms from random and non-influential critical race theorists you find via Google Search. — 185.215.147.125 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 16:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC) (UTC).

Thank you for your input. BOZ (talk) 23:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

"Several of these sources directly highlight the sexist art in the earlier editions" I am going to have to call all of them nonfactual and emotional responses rather than facts then for those claiming the art was sexist, because you have to remember Palace of the Silver Princess was originally written by Jean Wells, a woman, who included far more demeaning art to women in her S&M scene that had to be removed and reprinted with new content and new art. I wouldnt consider her sexist anymore than i would consider a woman that looks at scantily clad women in art today as being sexist. We can't present only a single sided view on WP, but must present facts. Unless WP is calling all women that like scantily clad female art as sexist then we can't hold to the statements of anyone that just makes blanket claims that "all scantily clad female art is sexist" lest we are becoming the next Jack Chick and trying to present opinions as facts. So we either cannot make the claim "such is sexist" unless we wish to also support "D&D is Satanic". Maybe the Jean Wells issue also needs to be added to a section on "sexism in D&D" to show that there is conflicting schools of thought on the matter. There was clear knowledge of all the women who created products for D&D as well the woman who ran TSR for over 15 years that saying all of them were sexist would be stretch of the truth to say the least. Margaret Weis is still producing Dragonlance for D&D with a new trilogy out soon, and she began in 1983 as an editor at TSR working on D&D. shadzar-talk 13:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Games Workshop "Blood Bath at Orc's Drift"

Games Workshop uses the trope of the Battle of Rorke's Drift 1879, (also known as the Defence of Rorke's Drift, was an engagement in the Anglo-Zulu War. The successful British defence of the mission station of Rorke's Drift, under the command of Lieutenants John Chard of the Royal Engineers and Gonville Bromhead, 24th Regiment of Foot began when a large contingent of Zulu warriors broke off from their main force during the final hour of the British defeat at the day-long Battle of Isandlwana on 22 January 1879, diverting 6 miles to attack Rorke's Drift later that day and continuing into the following day.) for their 1985 campaign supplement for the Games Workshop Warhammer Fantasy Battle (2nd edition) game "Blood Bath at Orc's Drift", which pitted a small force of High Elves, Dwarfs, and Humans against an attacking army of Orcs. In 1997, Games Workshop again drew inspiration from Zulu for the Massacre at Big Toof River. In this event Praetorian Guards, a faction based directly on late-19th century colonial English forces, faced off against Orc attackers, filling the role of the Zulus.

As you can see, the Orcs are stand-ins for the Zulu forces, and the British Colonial are depicted as "High Elfs".

I believe it is your duty to stand in solidarity with Mork and Gork against oppressive and racist colonial stereotypes. And I'm going to leave you with an inspiring contemporary quote.

Impi! O nans'impi iyeza, Uban'obengathint'amabhubesi? 49.185.137.168 (talk) 06:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

OK, but what does that have to do with Dungeons & Dragons? BOZ (talk) 12:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

did somebody already add something about the pinkertons stuff

Coast hired the pinkertons recently to go after a youtuber that got Magic: The Gathering cards 2 weeks early 2603:7081:1C46:4000:97F:2FEF:7626:DE4B (talk) 10:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

This article is about D&D and not Magic. But an editor did add a sentence to Hasbro#Criticism and controversy. Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I could swear I saw it added somewhere else as well, but I can't think of where. 8.37.179.254 (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Christopher who?

Can somebody explain to me the point of this paragraph?

• In 2022, academic Christopher Ferguson conducted a survey study of 308 adults (38.2% non-White, and 17% Dungeons and Dragons players) and found that the game "was not associated with greater ethnocentrism (one facet of racism) attitudes". Ferguson concluded that Wizards of the Coast may be responding to a moral panic like that surrounding Satanism in the 1980s.

It's complete non sequitur with no leadup and no followup, that doesn't fit into anything and only seems to exist because somebody felt the need to shove in a dissenting opinion, without any care of actually integrating it into the article. Also, a study conducted on 308 people, of which only 17% actually play the game (at least that's what I'm descyphering from the terrible phrasing) is shoddy science, and that's being generous. To say nothing about the fact that framing DnD's history of problematic portrayal of race and the criticism it got from the playerbase as a "moral panic" is simply asinine. Not to mention it's one poorly cited and questionable study against dozens of reliable sources that are far more relevant. The inclusion of this is WP:UNDUE. This feels like an attempt to shoehorn in the POV of a certain notorious group of tourists who in between harrassing Star Wars actors and going on long tirades about why there should be no women in Warhammer, have decided to also be DnD fans who want to lecture us on why the whiteness of their hobby is sacrosanct. We don't need this. 46.97.170.46 (talk) 12:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Might have been added by @Sariel Xilo, who may wish to comment. 2601:240:E200:3B60:E0FD:4466:64:7446 (talk) 13:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, someone else added it here & in a few other D&D articles but I added the clarification (survey size, etc). I'm on mobile right now & don't have time to find the diffs for when it was added. I'm fine with removing it. Sariel Xilo (talk) 13:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I assume that this is this Christopher Ferguson (psychologist). Are there quantitatively better studies on the topic? Daranios (talk) 15:04, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Hardly relevant since the controversy is about DnD's outdated and tonedeaf treatment of races and cultures through problematic tropes, stemming from Gygax's own... ahem, "biological essentialist" views, not this bizarre idea that the game somehow turns players racist, which is the absurd strawman that Ferguson's scientifically questionable study was trying to debunk. There is no moral panic. DnD players just want their favorite hobby to keep up with the times and correct past mistakes. 46.97.170.46 (talk) 13:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Where was someone suggesting that the game turns people into racists? 8.37.179.254 (talk) 21:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Precisely my point. Nobody made that claim. The controversy is about the game's own treatment of race, and Gygax's history. There's has been an ongoing backlash to WotC becoming more inclusive and improving in terms of representation and diversity, from an insignificantly sized but very vocal minority (most of whom don't even play the game), and it seems they're trying to dishonestly frame the discourse as "yet another moral panic but from the opposite extreme of the political spectrum". 46.97.170.46 (talk) 11:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I think I see what you mean now. 8.37.179.254 (talk) 21:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)