It is nothing more than flavour text, gendered or not. Something which is considered fact within the context of the setting. It would be tantamount to a game set in early America referencing black slaves being bought and sold or some such information and then someone calling racism.

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.

So if an author had submitted written work to FFG for a book, and FFG didn't like it and either heavily changed it or decided not to print it, would you call that censorship?

It is nothing more than flavour text, gendered or not. Something which is considered fact within the context of the setting. It would be tantamount to a game set in early America referencing black slaves being bought and sold or some such information and then someone calling racism.

Except that EotE etc. a contemporary fiction and the writers have a choice as to what is put into it. There is no justification for the remark in question, either in the setting or in a product that has as far as I have seen has avoided sexism and racism elsewhere. It's out of place and in poor taste in our modern society. Asking for a correction is justified. Demanding one would not be but asking for one is .

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.

So if an author had submitted written work to FFG for a book, and FFG didn't like it and either heavily changed it or decided not to print it, would you call that censorship?

Potentially, however, within the context of FFG being able to pick and choose what they print within their own product it is ultimately their business. If they do sanitize out something in a piece of artistic expression they are in fact engaging in a level of censorship, however, that can be done for a variety of reasons. Some can be motivated by bowing to a sense of political correctness, or it may be in response to the philosophical beliefs of a company. There is also the notion of age appropriate.

We censor what our children are exposed to, and when, as an acknowledgement of the fact certain issues require a level of maturity and cognitive abilities such as time reference or abstract thinking in order to fully grasp them.

If FFG were to come out and respond to the OP, they'll probably say that something along the lines of this:

"We at FFG do not condone sexism or the ownership of slave-brides or the ownership of slaves in general. In retrospect, the line indicated on Edge of the Empire Core Rulebook page 149 does have connotations of inherent sexism. We sincerely apologize for any offense we may have given to Players, GMs, etc that may have been disgusted or outraged by the indicated line. In the future we will attempt to minimize questionable phrasing if such questionable phrasing can be minimized without impacting the overall content being developed."

And in regards to changing or erasing the line I can see them saying this:

"Given that so many copies of the EotE Core Rulebook have been distributed, changing or erasing the line's existence may prove difficult. However, we will evaluate editing or removing the indicated line when planning future reprints."

If FFG truly feel that the line is worthy of removal or editing, they most likely will as the change is fairly minor. Even if consumers "demand" that a change be made, it is still a "request" that FFG or any other company/business could and can ignore. People can also vote with their pocketbooks (by not buying the book) if they truly feel that the line is offensive enough to do so.

I will also add that if you are truly offended and outraged by the line, simply take a Sharpie and edit it to what you like. The line is not related to the rules, just roleplaying motivations. Feel free to change to suit your sensibilities.

Disclaimer: I am not affiliated with FFG or any other entity related to FFG nor am I affiliated with any entity similar to FFG. This is simply my opinion as what FFG could say if they ever make a statement regarding this topic.

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.

Also, the Republic may already have been on shaky financial ground by that point. It's a very subtle detail but if you watch TCW there are at least two instances (possibly more) where Obi Wan tries to pay someone in Republic Credits and gets a negative reaction. I recall Hondo being almost comically firm in his response about Republic Credits not being acceptable to him. That's set about a twelve years later than TPM so it likely wasn't nearly as bad at that point, but it must the financial underpinnings of the Republic must have been pretty shaky by then. It's always impressed me how spot on TCW was in many ways. Not a few wars end not through defeat, but because one warring country just can't afford to wage it anymore.

If FFG were to come out and respond to the OP, they'll probably say that something along the lines of this:

"We at FFG do not condone sexism or the ownership of slave-brides or the ownership of slaves in general. In retrospect, the line indicated on Edge of the Empire Core Rulebook page 149 does have connotations of inherent sexism. We sincerely apologize for any offense we may have given to Players, GMs, etc that may have been disgusted or outraged by the indicated line. In the future we will attempt to minimize questionable phrasing if such questionable phrasing can be minimized without impacting the overall content being developed."

And in regards to changing or erasing the line I can see them saying this:

"Given that so many copies of the EotE Core Rulebook have been distributed, changing or erasing the line's existence may prove difficult. However, we will evaluate editing or removing the indicated line when planning future reprints."

If FFG truly feel that the line is worthy of removal or editing, they most likely will as the change is fairly minor. Even if consumers "demand" that a change be made, it is still a "request" that FFG or any other company/business could and can ignore. People can also vote with their pocketbooks (by not buying the book) if they truly feel that the line is offensive enough to do so.

I will also add that if you are truly offended and outraged by the line, simply take a Sharpie and edit it to what you like. The line is not related to the rules, just roleplaying motivations. Feel free to change to suit your sensibilities.

Disclaimer: I am not affiliated with FFG or any other entity related to FFG nor am I affiliated with any entity similar to FFG. This is simply my opinion as what FFG could say if they ever make a statement regarding this topic.

I think both your hypothetical responses from FFG are more than reasonable and I think your advice to those who've purchased it to just ignore it for the sake of a great RPG is also good. I never even noticed the line, myself - I just can totally understand how someone would be upset by it as a suggestion for PC motivations.

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.

Are you talking to me? I presume so. Here's what I actually wrote:

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.

Nothing in there about government being the only possible source of censorship. I've just gone back and had a look. I also said that if the government stepped in and stopped FFG that would be censorship. Again, nothing about it not being possible for another third party to censor. You've moved on to actually straw-manning my posts now! All that is really clear to me, is that asking a publisher to change something as a customer is NOT censorship. Which was the term you used. Along with "tyranny".

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.

The OP is a group, now? Others have joined in but you addressed them from the start. Anyway, it's still not "censorship". It doesn't matter how many people are asking for something to be changed, it only becomes censorship when someone prevents the author from saying what they want or from communicating it.

So if an author had submitted written work to FFG for a book, and FFG didn't like it and either heavily changed it or decided not to print it, would you call that censorship?

Potentially, however, within the context of FFG being able to pick and choose what they print within their own product it is ultimately their business. If they do sanitize out something in a piece of artistic expression they are in fact engaging in a level of censorship

No, they are not. Quit making up your own personal definitions. A publisher asking a commissioned writer to work to constraints is not censorship because for it to be censorship they would have to be stopping the writer from distributing their own words elsewhere. A publisher is under no obligation to distribute something they don't wish to and not wishing to does not make it censorship. You are trivializing a very serious thing and watering down terms to suit you when it's not appropriate.

I am quite shocked and horrified by this passage on page 149 of the Edge of the Empire core rulebook:

"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."

Now clearly this refers to a sex slave, a woman that you buy for the purpose of repeatedly ****** her. I understand that the game portrays outlaw characters who do things like steal, smuggle and possibly sell drugs, but I think we have to draw the line at slavery and ****. Suggesting that characters buy slaves is sickening. Suggesting that they commit **** is even more sickening.

I hope that Fantasy Flight will remove that phrase from future editions of the rulebook, as it is completely unacceptable.

You cannot defend this passage by using the "it's just a game" defence. This goes too far.

A slave-bride is not the same as a slave or a sex slave.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_slavery#Forced_marriage

We don't have to defend the existence of the passage. Slavery has clearly been shown to exist in Star Wars, so why wouldn't a game about living on the Edge mention the existence of such. And yes, some people might be looking for a groom/bride and find that buying him/her might be the only way to get one. Hell, that happens even here in the US. Just look at all the sites about Russian or Asian women looking to get married to an American if he's able to afford the fees to buy her.

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.

So if an author had submitted written work to FFG for a book, and FFG didn't like it and either heavily changed it or decided not to print it, would you call that censorship?

Potentially, however, within the context of FFG being able to pick and choose what they print within their own product it is ultimately their business. If they do sanitize out something in a piece of artistic expression they are in fact engaging in a level of censorship, however, that can be done for a variety of reasons. Some can be motivated by bowing to a sense of political correctness, or it may be in response to the philosophical beliefs of a company. There is also the notion of age appropriate.

We censor what our children are exposed to, and when, as an acknowledgement of the fact certain issues require a level of maturity and cognitive abilities such as time reference or abstract thinking in order to fully grasp them.

The OP (reminder, since we changed topic long ago) reminded me of the idiocy of editing Episode IV to make Greedo shoot first.

Some scoundrels might be slave traders. Other scoundrels were even drug runners and killers and yet it didn't prevent one of them from turning over a new leaf and helping save the Galaxy from tyranny. Is the next re-release of Episode IV going to have Han running stuffed Ewok bears instead of "spice"?

It's a game. We use it to escape from reality that includes such things as over-zealous political correctness. Leave that crap at the door please.

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.

So if an author had submitted written work to FFG for a book, and FFG didn't like it and either heavily changed it or decided not to print it, would you call that censorship?

Potentially, however, within the context of FFG being able to pick and choose what they print within their own product it is ultimately their business. If they do sanitize out something in a piece of artistic expression they are in fact engaging in a level of censorship, however, that can be done for a variety of reasons. Some can be motivated by bowing to a sense of political correctness, or it may be in response to the philosophical beliefs of a company. There is also the notion of age appropriate.

We censor what our children are exposed to, and when, as an acknowledgement of the fact certain issues require a level of maturity and cognitive abilities such as time reference or abstract thinking in order to fully grasp them.

Is this the same 2P51 that stated "sexual behaviour" had no place in Star Wars only because a writer decided to add an LGBT character to the world? Glad to see you had such a change of heart... I guess sexual slavery / forced marriage deserved more defending than homosexuality? Good to see you stand up for the "written word" all of a sudden.

There's a difference between sexual behavior and marriage. I define sexual behavior as the act of intercourse. There can be sexual behavior in a marriage, but it is not all a marriage is comprised of. In regards to the previous thread I said I didn't think sexual behaviour belonged in Star Wars, hetero, homo, or otherwise, really had nothing to do with any side of a social issue and more to do with the fact that Star Wars reaches out to a pretty young crowd potentially and it should be kept age appropriate

In the other thread I also defended the LGBT right of marriage. I argued over people using social issues as justification for bad behavior and that the negative behavior does nothing to advance social issues and in fact hurts them. I called it out because the behavior has nothing to do with supporting the issue, and was just about people using a social issue to hide their poor manners in a cloak of acceptance afforded by professing to support the issue. Really was about people's egos and not them being champions of any social agenda, just a reason to get away with being dickheads.

Not arguing in this thread for the validity of forced bridal slavery, arguing for the rights of an artist to express themselves as they see fit.

Also, just for fun, the people who think this passage is somehow sexist and not in support of a heroic group. The scenario is your group has discovered that a bride slave in a market is actually very Force sensitive. You can't blast your way in as it would likely result in your deaths, the slave's death, and also draw Imperial attention to the individual. So a plan of posing as slavers is decided on and funds are going to be required to purchase her as a way of obtaining freedom and not simultaneously drawing unwanted attention to the group's plan and the slave's Force sensitivity.

For anyone interested in what really transpired in the other thread look it up.

For anyone interested in what really transpired in the other thread look it up.

I wholeheartedly agree, because you're cherry picking and misrepresenting what I wrote there in your post here and my posts speak for themselves there, and are exactly how I characterize them here.

I argued over people using social issues as justification for bad behavior and that the negative behavior does nothing to advance social issues and in fact hurts them.

This is actually factually proven incorrect tho. Civil rights weren't won (and as far as I know, have never been won) by people being nice and respectful to their oppressors.

This is pretty easily solved.

Some players roll for the characters motivations. And then, when seeing what they rolled all said and done, they create their concept.

Some of us like playing a character that is so counter to who we really are that it forces us to really think about how this character would react to different circumstances, and the choices they would make. Some of us enjoy playing characters that are twisted evil ****s.

I have one such example of this kind of character.
One such is from a clan that believes in cannibalism. They won't kill you or your crew, nor do you often see it happen. But, occasionally, one of their own turns up missing and suddenly there is a feast.
It isn't until much later, after traveling with someone from the clan, that you find out what is happening.

Their dying wish is to be returned to the clan. Upon returning, you find that the clan believes that by eating their fallen, they take in their spirit, strength, and all that they were and would have been. That by eating the strong, the clan becomes strong. Same with the intelligent or strong willed.

They do not kill each other for this, only doing so when that notable has fallen.

The biggest thing to keep in mind here is that we can all agree that cannibalism is morally reprehensible. (If you do not agree with that, please do not bother inviting me over for dinner.) But, in this instance, can you really say that it is EVIL?

A smuggler trying to save up for that slave-bride dowry may not be looking for a sex slave. He may be trying to buy the slave of a Hutt crime-lord; someone he knows or came to know. He knows he cannot break her free, but is trying to buy her freedom. This is such a concern because she is extremely desirable to someone else. But he has made a deal with the Hutt. He will work for him, if he promises not to sell her to anyone but him.

Of course, Hutt's can never really be trusted, so he is working as hard and fast as he can to get those credits together.

This works just as easily for a woman trying to save a man. Perhaps they are siblings, or were slaves together once. Maybe they really are in love.

Don't just take it at face value. Try to find the story behind it.

Of course, maybe your character just straight shoots it and really does just want them as their *** slave. Nothing wrong with playing evil now and then. It adds a lot of depth to your party.

Actually I do no such thing. I have neither "cherry picked" nor "misrepresented" what you wrote there. My post here was pretty small and condensed and it apparently hit a bit too close to home.

Here you are acting like the champion of the written word, there you were defending people speaking out against it. If you don't see the hypocrisy in that then I can't help you.

Actually I do no such thing. I have neither "cherry picked" nor "misrepresented" what you wrote there. My post here was pretty small and condensed and it apparently hit a bit too close to home.

Here you are acting like the champion of the written word, there you were defending people speaking out against it. If you don't see the hypocrisy in that then I can't help you.

You said here I didn't support homo sexual behavior in Star Wars. I clarified I didn't support any sexual behavior in Star Wars. That's misrepresenting and cherry picking. Anyone can read the previous thread and see I am correct.

I argued over people using social issues as justification for bad behavior and that the negative behavior does nothing to advance social issues and in fact hurts them.

This is actually factually proven incorrect tho. Civil rights weren't won (and as far as I know, have never been won) by people being nice and respectful to their oppressors.

I guess that depends on your definition of nice and respectful. I don't think there is anything rude or disrespectful about organizing politically, marching and picketing peacefully. Woman's right to vote in America was obtained in that fashion, and given women represent essentially 50% of the population it strikes me as the single biggest civil rights victory in history of the republic.

A slave-bride is not the same as a slave or a sex slave.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_slavery#Forced_marriage

We don't have to defend the existence of the passage. Slavery has clearly been shown to exist in Star Wars, so why wouldn't a game about living on the Edge mention the existence of such. And yes, some people might be looking for a groom/bride and find that buying him/her might be the only way to get one. Hell, that happens even here in the US. Just look at all the sites about Russian or Asian women looking to get married to an American if he's able to afford the fees to buy her.

The argument has evolved a bit. One of the points is FFG's use of the feminine for the slave when there was no need to do so since up to that point no gender was specified. One argument is that it's reasonable to ask that the gender be removed so it reads just Slave. By doing this the remark is essentially the same without being overtly sexist.

The point is the unlike slavery, sexism is still an issue that is being worked on in our society there is no reason for a sexist a remark in the book. Especially an RPG that caters to all genders.

As men, or boys, we don't really understand what it's like being the victim of sexism in the way women do. Even little things like it being taken for granted that it's acceptable to allude to female sexual slavery without at least mentioning the same for males. It may look insignificant when taken individually but it's everywhere and women deal with this kind of sh*t all the time. This is an easy thing to remove these kinds of things from a product like this.

Am I advocating we whitewash everything? No but for new products that are for mass consumption we owe it to women and girls to make sure when we do put in gender it's not denigrating them, even if it's just an offhand remark. We have to build a world where women aren't treated a lesser because of their plumbing.

On my side we believe it's appropriate to ask FFG to consider what I mentioned above, to change the line to remove the gender.

Wasn't a slave-bride the core plot point of the Clone Wars episode "Bounty"?

Wasn't a slave-bride the core plot point of the Clone Wars episode "Bounty"?

Yep, pretty much the whole episode was, directly or indirectly, about a female slave being taken for a marriage/concubine.

The book also documents murder, smuggling, piracy, use of narcotics, and any other number of acts that are illegal, both in the real world and in the Star Wars setting. The RPG is just accurately describing the motivations, actions and crimes of people in the Star Wars setting. It is in no way condoning that behaviour, in either our world or Star Wars, just describing it.

I see no issue with that, just as I would have no issue with a book or RPG set in World War 2 accurately describing the murder, looting and sexual assault of innumerable people on the Eastern Front.

Disagreeing with it and believing it to be a disturbing crime is perfectly valid - indeed, expected, in a civilised society. Pretending it doesn't happen, however, isn't.

A slave-bride is not the same as a slave or a sex slave.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_slavery#Forced_marriage

We don't have to defend the existence of the passage. Slavery has clearly been shown to exist in Star Wars, so why wouldn't a game about living on the Edge mention the existence of such. And yes, some people might be looking for a groom/bride and find that buying him/her might be the only way to get one. Hell, that happens even here in the US. Just look at all the sites about Russian or Asian women looking to get married to an American if he's able to afford the fees to buy her.

The argument has evolved a bit. [sNIP...]

I'm sure it has, but I was replying to the original poster.

As for the rest... what exactly is the issue of the use of a pronoun? Pathfinder uses He throughout their books when dealing with the protagonists. They also use She, but they don't leave out pronouns or randomly switch between them. So, you would object to the fact that an entire section, or chapter, of a book defaulted to one pronoun or another when being written in third-person narrative?

Suggesting that characters buy slaves is sickening. Suggesting that they commit **** is even more sickening.

1) The game isn't suggesting anything. It's out-and-out stating that this is a thing that can, and does, happen in the Star Wars setting. The morality of it isn't commented on, just the fact it occurs, and is demonstrated to occur in a number of different EU sources.

2) Player characters can, and do, do these things, because some characters are not nice people.

3) Doing this, if done maturely, doesn't imply anything about the morality of the player, as character and player morality do not have to coincide. The impact of slavery and sexual assault can be dealt with maturely and with the gravitas required in a roleplay game, and can, in fact, add a significant amount to both the tone of the game, and allow people to explore a variety of circumstances that they would not normally deal with in real life.

4) If you don't like it, ignore that line, and don't include such things in your game.

That pretty much solves the issue for everyone.