I think its more semantics than anything. It sounds 'better' than clunking things up with "a slave which you wish to marry" or "slave-bride, or slave-groom". It makes many presumptions about the example character being male in that particular line thus the gender of the slave he marries is defined. I do not think its a statement against women and is merely giving an example. Are we all REALLY going to start tip-toeing around?

I mean no disrespect, but I am a *** guy and can you see the absolute horror that the game assumes that the character can only be straight! I don't want a slave-bride, I would want a slave-groom.

Sarcasm aside...I think people are making smoke where there is no fire.

Well in regards to the OPs 'outrage' I always find it highly questionable when an avatar that is created at the same time as threads like this are posted. It's either option 1. A troll, or option 2. One of the chicken sh*t twerps that post here regularly and doesn't have the balls of their own convictions to post under their regular name.

You are not aware that many people simply lurk for a while until they come across something they suddenly feel strongly enough about to create an account? Pretty common, if you ask me. And really, posting under your real name is required for validity now, is it? Tell me, are you related to the Kansas 2P51's at all?

Sorry, not buying it. Too coincidental.

What, that someone has a negative reaction when they suddenly notice slave-brides as a suggested motivation for PCs and this prompts them to want to express their disgust? That's not feasible to you?

They're not just expressing their disgust though if you read the OP in entirety. They're expressing their disgust and demanding a piece of text be removed from a piece of creative writing, which is literature. If you also read what I posted in response in entirety I am agreeing it is probably an immoral shocking piece of text. I at no time deny anyone their right to be shocked or outraged. I deny them the tyrannical notion that is acceptable to act on it and censor someone else's piece of literature.

Well, we are playing (or GMing) a group of smugglers, con-artists, pirates, robbers and thieves, so not really nice people.
The PCs may use the money for something good, but for me it still has blood on it. The creators do their best not to show us all the ugly things going hand in hand with that, but as a cop-kid i got to read a lot about (organized) crime, and i still pick up some literatur about that to give my game a more authentic feel.

That may not be every players kind of game, and the game allows for all kinds of play.

So if you do not want to dive into deep into the seedy underbelly of the galaxy don't.

But please don't pretend it is not there or that we should not play with it.

PS: 'Funily' enough the Jedis gave a rats ass about slaves during the PT. They sure had a lot of money, enough for a whole army and fleet But none to say help Anakin buy his mother free. What a group of ......

I don't disagree that sexism is a terrible terrible thing Greg. My problem is people reading too much into something innocent (or not so innocent in the case of the sordid context, but you get what I mean).

I doubt the intention of the author was to backhand any woman reading said book and promote misogyny, merely offering an example of the sordid things the characters or their associates could do.

My own problem in the world is that too many people are willing to jump down peoples throats in regards to someone saying something that was not meant to offend and merely offered as a statement.

If you do think that this is the case then I plead that the plight of homosexuals in the world is just as important as the anti-misogynist movement.

I think its more semantics than anything. It sounds 'better' than clunking things up with "a slave which you wish to marry" or "slave-bride, or slave-groom". It makes many presumptions about the example character being male in that particular line thus the gender of the slave he marries is defined. I do not think its a statement against women and is merely giving an example. Are we all REALLY going to start tip-toeing around?

I mean no disrespect, but I am a *** guy and can you see the absolute horror that the game assumes that the character can only be straight! I don't want a slave-bride, I would want a slave-groom.

Sarcasm aside...I think people are making smoke where there is no fire.

Well in regards to the OPs 'outrage' I always find it highly questionable when an avatar that is created at the same time as threads like this are posted. It's either option 1. A troll, or option 2. One of the chicken sh*t twerps that post here regularly and doesn't have the balls of their own convictions to post under their regular name.

You are not aware that many people simply lurk for a while until they come across something they suddenly feel strongly enough about to create an account? Pretty common, if you ask me. And really, posting under your real name is required for validity now, is it? Tell me, are you related to the Kansas 2P51's at all?

Sorry, not buying it. Too coincidental.

What, that someone has a negative reaction when they suddenly notice slave-brides as a suggested motivation for PCs and this prompts them to want to express their disgust? That's not feasible to you?

They're not just expressing their disgust though if you read the OP in entirety. They're expressing their disgust and demanding a piece of text be removed from a piece of creative writing, which is literature. If you also read what I posted in response in entirety I am agreeing it is probably an immoral shocking piece of text. I at no time deny anyone their right to be shocked or outraged. I deny them the tyrannical notion that is acceptable to act on it and censor someone else's piece of literature.

No, censorship is where the state or other outside body prevents someone from saying or printing something. Calling on the writers to remove something is not censorship. Nor "tyranny". And suggesting that buying a slave-bride is a disgusting motivation for a hero of the story that the player will be, is not, in my humble opinion, something you should be elevating to suppression of Literature. And before you pick up on it, "hero" is FFG's word from the paragraph where they suggest the motivation.

I would have no problem, however, elevating your post to the term "melodrama", given your calling them a "chicken **** twerp", having no balls and saying they should "post under their real name". All because they object to buying a "slave-bride" being suggested for PCs in a Star Wars game. "Hyperbolic" might be another good term. Why are you so primed for attack / on such a hair trigger?

PS: 'Funily' enough the Jedis gave a rats ass about slaves during the PT. They sure had a lot of money, enough for a whole army and fleet But none to say help Anakin buy his mother free. What a group of ......

First of all, you're talking about slavery in a part of the galaxy the Republic had no control over. Even if Qui-gon enlisted help from Obi-wan and the Queen's bodyguards, trying to free the slaves would have been suicide and would most likely cost many slaves their own lives (via the explosive chip) trying to fight with them.

Secondly, the money Qui-gon had would have been a huge windfall for anybody, within the Republic. On Tattoine and most likely the rest of Hutt controlled territory and planets, that currency was not accepted.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

Nothing in there about government having to be the only source. So your definition is incorrect.

The suppression of a thought or an expression in a piece of literature is censorship. It is tyrannical. You can roll that turd in sugar all day long but it's just a sweet turd at the end of the day not a donut imo.

Well, we are playing (or GMing) a group of smugglers, con-artists, pirates, robbers and thieves, so not really nice people.
The PCs may use the money for something good, but for me it still has blood on it. The creators do their best not to show us all the ugly things going hand in hand with that, but as a cop-kid i got to read a lot about (organized) crime, and i still pick up some literatur about that to give my game a more authentic feel.

That may not be every players kind of game, and the game allows for all kinds of play.

So if you do not want to dive into deep into the seedy underbelly of the galaxy don't.

But please don't pretend it is not there or that we should not play with it.

PS: 'Funily' enough the Jedis gave a rats ass about slaves during the PT. They sure had a lot of money, enough for a whole army and fleet But none to say help Anakin buy his mother free. What a group of ......

This really isn't about the slavery in general, that is part of the setting and is described as an evil in this context. The point I'm making is the reference to female sex-slavery specifically as being unnecessary as simple slavery is sufficient. The writers do not need to write something that is gender specific.

I actually had three characters own slaves over time.

One was because the slave's player asked me to have my character enslave her so I basically had my character have a nightmare he thought was a Force vision that showed her plans leading to her being executed by the New Republic She was a Sith spy planning to defect but my character didn't trust the New Republic to forgive her for her role in the New Sith Empire's recent invasion which had basically knocked the NR back to a new Rebel Alliance. The campaign was set around 200 ABY and my character's family was still widely hated because one of his ancestors, my character in a previous AU Rise of the Empire and Clone Wars series of campaigns that was a prequel to this campaign,was the first commanding admiral of the Imperial Starfleet. At the time my character thought his father had basically been sent on a suicide mission by the Republic, presumably as vengeance for what their ancestor had done from my character's perspective. Turned out his father's official death was a cover for a secret mission which I never finished investigating.

The second had been so conditioned by her time as a slave that as soon as a mutual friend of ours set her free she marched back to a slaver to be sold again so he thought the best way to keep her safe was to buy her himself.

And the third he set free as soon as he bought her and they eventually became lovers.

I don't disagree that sexism is a terrible terrible thing Greg. My problem is people reading too much into something innocent (or not so innocent in the case of the sordid context, but you get what I mean).

I doubt the intention of the author was to backhand any woman reading said book and promote misogyny, merely offering an example of the sordid things the characters or their associates could do.

My own problem in the world is that too many people are willing to jump down peoples throats in regards to someone saying something that was not meant to offend and merely offered as a statement.

If you do think that this is the case then I plead that the plight of homosexuals in the world is just as important as the anti-misogynist movement.

Sexism isn't just about the blatant, it's the subtle things that cause the thousand cuts. Intentions aside pointing it out isn't a bad thing as it gives those that may not have intended or even noticed that something they've said or done is sexist an opportunity to change it.

If they choose not to that's fine, well fine in a philosophical sense, but now they know.

And to 2P51, I would like to hear your opinion on the several responses I've given you.

PS: 'Funily' enough the Jedis gave a rats ass about slaves during the PT. They sure had a lot of money, enough for a whole army and fleet But none to say help Anakin buy his mother free. What a group of ......

First of all, you're talking about slavery in a part of the galaxy the Republic had no control over. Even if Qui-gon enlisted help from Obi-wan and the Queen's bodyguards, trying to free the slaves would have been suicide and would most likely cost many slaves their own lives (via the explosive chip) trying to fight with them.

Secondly, the money Qui-gon had would have been a huge windfall for anybody, within the Republic. On Tattoine and most likely the rest of Hutt controlled territory and planets, that currency was not accepted.

Even if the Jedi had no jurisdiction in that part of space, as Episode 2 proves there is free travel and commerce. That in my interpretation means it is possible to exchange Republic credits for Hutt currency.

So simply helping one of their padawans and doing a morally right choice seems possible. Yet it is not done due to lack of interest from the Jedi.

As a long-term solution the Republic could have done a whole lot more. But they didn't, and then came the war. I do remember the Episodes in Season 4 about Zygerria.

And again my opinion, you don't have to like it:

I fail to see the difference between the various jobs a slave has to do or endure, he/she is denied freedom, choice and (for lack of words) pursue of his/her own happiness. So they are all screwed. No pun intended. To say one has it worse than the other sounds to me that the others have it easier than that category of slaves. And in my eyes they don't.

They all should be freed.

Who gets to decide when a piece of creative writing is sexist? Racist? Insert whatever 'ist' you like. I simply hold you cannot. You inevitably run into shades of gray, and since you encounter those situations in some cases it's wrong to bother imposing them at all in any. I don't ever agree with the notion that one person, or group of persons, gets to tell someone else what to think or write. I do support people's rights to debate, express outrage, picket, boycott, etc. I am simply stating I will never support anyone being able to tell anyone else how they should think or express themselves, particularly in a piece of art.

Who gets to decide when a piece of creative writing is sexist? Racist? Insert whatever 'ist' you like. I simply hold you cannot. You inevitably run into shades of gray, and since you encounter those situations in some cases it's wrong to bother imposing them at all in any. I don't ever agree with the notion that one person, or group of persons, gets to tell someone else what to think or write. I do support people's rights to debate, express outrage, picket, boycott, etc. I am simply stating I will never support anyone being able to tell anyone else how they should think or express themselves, particularly in a piece of art.

This is an evasion 2P51. We aren't arguing if something is sexist (or whatever) but what to do when something is and whether or not it's acceptable to point it out and ask for a change from an author.

However to answer if this particular example is sexist or not we need only look at the sentience in question:

"But even most scoundrels without financial obligations are looking for a payout. Some are interested in raw credits and the easy life that they think wealth will bring them. Others have their shifty eyes on a faster ship, a hidden base on a fringe world, or perhaps even a dowry for an expensive slave-bride."

The remarks begin in the nuder, the scoundrels can be of either sex, but and for no apparent reason end with the slave being female. As if this was the natural way of things. Now substitute Slave-Bride for Slave-Husband and see if it change how the remark is perceived.

Now substitute Slave-Bride for Slave. What has been lost? The sexism.

What has been lost? The sexism

The writer's freedom.

The justification is commonly referred to as freedom.

This is such nonsense. FFG is not the government. The OP is not the government. Yes, that matters when you're throwing around charged terms like you are. If the OP contacts FFG and they ultimately remove the line, it's not chilling speech. Nobody's freedoms are being infringed on. The writer does not have a right for his writing to not be edited by the company that employs him. Jesus christ.

What has been lost? The sexism

The writer's freedom.

Again an evasion. What is wrong with pointing out to a writer that what they have written is sexist and asking them to change it?

The justification is commonly referred to as freedom.

This is such nonsense. FFG is not the government. The OP is not the government. If the OP contacts FFG and they ultimately remove the line, it's not chilling speech. Nobody's freedoms are being infringed on.

Clearly I disagree.

The justification is commonly referred to as freedom.

This is such nonsense. FFG is not the government. The OP is not the government. If the OP contacts FFG and they ultimately remove the line, it's not chilling speech. Nobody's freedoms are being infringed on.

Clearly I disagree.

Clearly. Not that I have the power to stop you from expressing your opinion, or would exercise it even if I did.

PS: 'Funily' enough the Jedis gave a rats ass about slaves during the PT. They sure had a lot of money, enough for a whole army and fleet But none to say help Anakin buy his mother free. What a group of ......

First of all, you're talking about slavery in a part of the galaxy the Republic had no control over. Even if Qui-gon enlisted help from Obi-wan and the Queen's bodyguards, trying to free the slaves would have been suicide and would most likely cost many slaves their own lives (via the explosive chip) trying to fight with them.

Secondly, the money Qui-gon had would have been a huge windfall for anybody, within the Republic. On Tattoine and most likely the rest of Hutt controlled territory and planets, that currency was not accepted.

Even if the Jedi had no jurisdiction in that part of space, as Episode 2 proves there is free travel and commerce. That in my interpretation means it is possible to exchange Republic credits for Hutt currency.

So simply helping one of their padawans and doing a morally right choice seems possible. Yet it is not done due to lack of interest from the Jedi.

As a long-term solution the Republic could have done a whole lot more. But they didn't, and then came the war. I do remember the Episodes in Season 4 about Zygerria.

The Zygerrian conflict took place at a unspecified time and most likely, the Jedi intervened at the behest of the Senate. It has been implied multiple times throughout the Prequel Trilogy that Jedi Order cannot exceed the mandate given to them by the Senate. For example: Qui-gon could protect Padme but could not go off fighting the Trade Federation on his own. Second example: When Anakin promises Padme that he and Obi-wan would track down the assassin, Obi-wan chides him that they are not to exceed their mandate of protecting Padme.

I do agree with you that the Republic should have done a lot more but the later years of the Republic before the Fall was rife with corruption. But I disagree that the Jedi had a lack of interest in the situation, as evidenced by Qui-gon attempting to bargain for both Anakin and his mother. They simply could not act without say so from the Senate.

Regarding the currency, I agree that there is probably a way to exchange Republic Credits for Hutt currency but it did not work at Watto's shop and it is implied that it was not possible in Tattoine either. As he said, "Republic credits? Republic credits don't work out here..."

We all know slavery exists in Star Wars - it was depicted in the movies and a good chunk of the EU, particularly in Hutt Space, with Twi'leks, and in the Outer Rim. Oh, and droids - I have had so many issues with playing a droid just because of the offhand comments other players have made about casually mind-wiping me.

I do think that "slave-bride" is pretty pointedly gendered, and for no particular reason or value. And yes, it does cut close to IRL issues of human trafficking and child brides. Which is not something that most players will have experience with, but...still, what's the point of gendering it? What value does it add over simply "slave?" I can't see any.

What has been lost? The sexism

The writer's freedom.

Again an evasion. What is wrong with pointing out to a writer that what they have written is sexist and asking them to change it?

Hate answering a question with a question, but why is it ok for you to make the request but not for them to write what they like? Where does your freedom begin and their's ends?

What has been lost? The sexism

The writer's freedom.

Again an evasion. What is wrong with pointing out to a writer that what they have written is sexist and asking them to change it?

Hate answering a question with a question, but why is it ok for you to make the request but not for them to write what they like? Where does your freedom begin and their's ends?

Because you keep avoiding the real question.

I have already answered that asking a writer to change something does not impinge on their freedom because it is only a request.

What has been lost? The sexism

The writer's freedom.

Again an evasion. What is wrong with pointing out to a writer that what they have written is sexist and asking them to change it?

Hate answering a question with a question, but why is it ok for you to make the request but not for them to write what they like? Where does your freedom begin and their's ends?

Because you keep avoiding the real question.

I have already answered that asking a writer to change something does not impinge on their freedom because it is only a request.

I'm not avoiding anything, I've answered this many times. I think it is wrong to tell other people how to express themselves in a piece of literature/creative writing/art. I really don't understand what you don't understand.

I'm not avoiding anything, I've answered this many times. I think it is wrong to tell other people how to express themselves in a piece of literature/creative writing/art. I really don't understand what you don't understand.

But you justify this position by saying it is censorship, so my question has been how is pointing out to someone that something is, in this example, sexist and asking them to justify it or change it censorship? Or for that matter wrong at all?

I'm not avoiding anything, I've answered this many times. I think it is wrong to tell other people how to express themselves in a piece of literature/creative writing/art. I really don't understand what you don't understand.

But you justify this position by saying it is censorship, so my question has been how is pointing out to someone that something is, in this example, sexist and asking them to justify it or change it censorship? Or for that matter wrong at all?

I posted definition links for censorship. Censorship is not just a government telling people what to write, it includes groups of people telling an individual they should change what they wrote. This absolutely is censorship when you tell an artist they should change how the expressed themselves to conform to what you find as acceptable.

I'm interested in hearing the justification that it should be "Slave- Bride " rather than just "Slave" in the context of the Star Wars setting.

The justification is commonly referred to as freedom.

Freedom to do what? And how does removing an unjustifiable sexist remark hinder your freedom in this context?

Freedom to express yourself however you see fit.