I'm definitely not reading all the posts, but I take the word slave-bride to mean a slave you freed and then married. At least that's what I'd think of an old "b" movie with that in the title. In fact, I think I remember an old movie with that in the title. Like, Hercules and the slave-bride, or something. I highly doubt it was meant as the OP is taking it.

**** Star Wars for objectifying women!

It's out of place and in poor taste in our modern society.

Luckily for us this is in regards to fantasy setting and not our society. So we don't need to ascribe more importance than that to it.

One throwaway flavour line does not invalidate the game. If you really want to be offended I suggest you go read the rules for FATAL RPG.

Is this another "Haley, don't google that." moment?

The game book seems to use male and female pronouns in different places. I guess I just read it as being that rather than getting all huffy and puffy and feeling offended. Slaves exist in this fictional setting. I'd point my finger at Jabba feeding a slave to his pet and laughing about it as being a lot more evil than some smuggler buying his wife from a slave market.

BTW, if there's some way to uncensor the forum, I don't know it which is fine by me. Using text to speech means I might have to listen to an angry dad if he hears what I'm reading... which sometimes happens anyway when something leaks through the filter. Plus, I get to play a fill in the blank game and try to guess what words are being written when I hear stuff like "Why don't you go starstarstarstar yourself!"

And, if anyone is scoring me, I did not do well on OP's message.

One throwaway flavour line does not invalidate the game. If you really want to be offended I suggest you go read the rules for FATAL RPG.

Is this another "Haley, don't google that." moment?

Not if you want to sleep well tonight. Simply put, it is like if some utter madman like Charles Manson wrote his own version of D&D when he was 15.

I'm definitely not reading all the posts, but I take the word slave-bride to mean a slave you freed and then married. At least that's what I'd think of an old "b" movie with that in the title. In fact, I think I remember an old movie with that in the title. Like, Hercules and the slave-bride, or something. I highly doubt it was meant as the OP is taking it.

Another good point. Shmi Skywalker-Lars was a "slave-bride." Cliegg Lars bought her off Watto, so he could free her and marry her.

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 said: "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?"

The words "homo sexual behaviour"? That was all you bro. Quite dishonest.

It is also quite glaring that whether it be homo sexual or just sexual behaviour ( neither of which there was anything alluded to in the preview of that book) in a broader sense that all of a sudden you junp off the barricades and join the 'censorship camp'.

It's a role-playing game. You know, fiction? Stories? Imaginary? Playtime? People forget one of the cardinal rules of role-playing games is that as long as everyone at the table is ok with a certain subject, then it can take place in the game. If someone isn't ok with it, then it doesn't come up. See? Easy. And you don't have to go posting moralistic and puritanical screeds on a message board.

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 said: "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?"

The words "homo sexual behaviour"? That was all you bro. Quite dishonest.

It is also quite glaring that whether it be homo sexual or just sexual behaviour ( neither of which there was anything alluded to in the preview of that book) in a broader sense that all of a sudden you junp off the barricades and join the 'censorship camp'.

I actually said I don't think sexual behavior belongs in Star Wars, again, had nothing to do with the LGBT issue regarding that novel or otherwise. It also has nothing to do with this thread. It also had nothing to do with the point I was making in that thread. You're the one that makes everything personal typically which leads me to the inevitable conclusion that it really isn't about issues, it's just about Dante with you.

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.

Actually, they're not. DanteRotterdam's got a pretty good point. Of course sexual activity and slave-brides are "different things" as you state in your defence. But that's rather missing the point. It doesn't matter that they're different things, the fact is that when it suited you, you were arguing that things the author might want to include shouldn't be. Hypocrisy in other words.

'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 ......

Even worse - okay, I could see the Jedi not being allowed to interfere where there is no Republic jurisdiction. Why in the hell did Padme not go "Thanks Anakin for saving my planet. Here, let me do you a solid - I'll dip into the Royal Treasury of Naboo and bury Watto in enough credits to convince him to sell me your mom!"

Actually, they're not. DanteRotterdam's got a pretty good point. Of course sexual orientation and slave-brides are "different things" as you state in your defence. But that's rather missing the point. It doesn't matter that they're different things, the fact is that when it suited you, you were arguing that things the author might want to include shouldn't be. Hypocrisy in other words.

No actually if you go back to the thread and read it, what I was defending was someone having a right to hold any opinion they like, outrageous or otherwise, and that while it's ok to question an opinion you don't agree with, it's not ok to use it as an excuse to be a jerk. Really exactly what I am saying here as well. Did you actually read my posts in that previous LGBT thread or are you basing it on Dante's word?

I thought it would be pretty apparant as well, Knassler, but somehow he is just trying to find fault in the way I am teling him.

2P51: If anything, fighting censorship only when it suits your "image of Star Wars" is "making it all about you", not someone calling you on it. And for some reason you keep harking back to me saying you opposed "homosexual behaviour" which I never did. Repeating a lie doesn't all of a sudden make it right.

Actually, they're not. DanteRotterdam's got a pretty good point. Of course sexual orientation and slave-brides are "different things" as you state in your defence. But that's rather missing the point. It doesn't matter that they're different things, the fact is that when it suited you, you were arguing that things the author might want to include shouldn't be. Hypocrisy in other words.

No actually if you go back to the thread and read it, what I was defending was someone having a right to hold any opinion they like, outrageous or otherwise, and that while it's ok to question an opinion you don't agree with, it's not ok to use it as an excuse to be a jerk. Really exactly what I am saying here as well. Did you actually read my posts in that previous LGBT thread or are you basing it on Dante's word?

More lies.

Yes, you ALSO were of the persuasion that people needed to tolerate intolerance but that was not what I was refering to here. I was refering to you telling us that "no sexual behaviour had any place in Star Wars".

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.

That's not accurate. Firstly, it's a cherry-picked example of the Women's Rights movement which wasn't peculiar to the USA but a domino affect across the Western world. Women's Suffrage passed in the USA supported by the suffrage movements of women in other countries - women who endured terrible things and were even killed. And even in America it's far from the polite protest movement you depict. Many women were arrested, kept in prison. Not uncommonly away from their children. There were force-feedings of women on hunger-strike... And one of the factors that tied into women getting the vote was black people's civil rights movements which helped clear the path in the USA and I would hope most of us have an idea what that took. Kshatriya says that civil rights weren't won by people being nice and respectful to their oppressors - and you respond with women's suffrage as your counter-example? Poor choice. Though I can think of no better examples given that what Kshatriya says is basically true.

Actually, they're not. DanteRotterdam's got a pretty good point. Of course sexual orientation and slave-brides are "different things" as you state in your defence. But that's rather missing the point. It doesn't matter that they're different things, the fact is that when it suited you, you were arguing that things the author might want to include shouldn't be. Hypocrisy in other words.

No actually if you go back to the thread and read it, what I was defending was someone having a right to hold any opinion they like, outrageous or otherwise, and that while it's ok to question an opinion you don't agree with, it's not ok to use it as an excuse to be a jerk. Really exactly what I am saying here as well. Did you actually read my posts in that previous LGBT thread or are you basing it on Dante's word?

More lies.

Yes, you ALSO were of the persuasion that people needed to tolerate intolerance but that was not what I was refering to here. I was refering to you telling us that "no sexual behaviour had any place in Star Wars".

No, actually what I said was that people not to be tolerant of other people's opinions. I never said any overt act of intolerant behavior had to be accepted, I said that if you want to live in a peaceful world you have to exercise tolerance of differing opinions. I then went on to point out that tolerance does not equal acceptance.

Sexual behavior really doesn't have a place in this genre.

Actually, they're not. DanteRotterdam's got a pretty good point. Of course sexual orientation and slave-brides are "different things" as you state in your defence. But that's rather missing the point. It doesn't matter that they're different things, the fact is that when it suited you, you were arguing that things the author might want to include shouldn't be. Hypocrisy in other words.

No actually if you go back to the thread and read it, what I was defending was someone having a right to hold any opinion they like, outrageous or otherwise, and that while it's ok to question an opinion you don't agree with, it's not ok to use it as an excuse to be a jerk. Really exactly what I am saying here as well. Did you actually read my posts in that previous LGBT thread or are you basing it on Dante's word?

I was one of the most active people in that thread. I am very familiar with your position in it so don't try and white-wash it. You're trying to evade by arguing there are differences between slave-brides and sexuality in Star Wars. Yes there, are that's not the point. The point, quite clear, is that you are calling one person asking for something not to be included "tyranny" yet elsewhere you have called for things not to be included in Star Wars yourself. And I'll go the next stage and say that calling for a character not to be shown as a lesbian is a great deal worse than the OP calling for buying a "slave-bride" not to be one of the suggested motivations for PCs.

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.

That's not accurate. Firstly, it's a cherry-picked example of the Women's Rights movement which wasn't peculiar to the USA but a domino affect across the Western world. Women's Suffrage passed in the USA supported by the suffrage movements of women in other countries - women who endured terrible things and were even killed. And even in America it's far from the polite protest movement you depict. Many women were arrested, kept in prison. Not uncommonly away from their children. There were force-feedings of women on hunger-strike... And one of the factors that tied into women getting the vote was black people's civil rights movements which helped clear the path in the USA and I would hope most of us have an idea what that took. Kshatriya says that civil rights weren't won by people being nice and respectful to their oppressors - and you respond with women's suffrage as your counter-example? Poor choice. Though I can think of no better examples given that what Kshatriya says is basically true.

I'm confused, did I say violence wasn't used against people seeking civil rights? I never said that at all. I pointed out that women conducted themselves peacefully and in the end achieved their right to vote.

Jim Crow laws were struck down by essentially non violent protest, marches etc. Violence was widely used against the black movement but by and large was not returned in kind. Essentially achieving the goal without being violent.

I never said anything about you have to be nice or respectful either. I said if you want to change the minds of people on the fence you shouldn't be rude and hateful. I stand by that.

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.

That's not quite accurate. This isn't stated as merely something that happens in the Star Wars setting. I think the OP's objection is primarily that it is explicitly a suggested motivation for PCs.

One throwaway flavour line does not invalidate the game. If you really want to be offended I suggest you go read the rules for FATAL RPG.

Is this another "Haley, don't google that." moment?

Mainly on the grounds of quality. FATAL was a role-playing game designed to appeal (so far as I can tell), to tasteless fourteen-year old boys who thought it was really cool to shock. So no, don't Google it - mainly because your time is more valuable than that!

One throwaway flavour line does not invalidate the game. If you really want to be offended I suggest you go read the rules for FATAL RPG.

Is this another "Haley, don't google that." moment?

Mainly on the grounds of quality. FATAL was a role-playing game designed to appeal (so far as I can tell), to tasteless fourteen-year old boys who thought it was really cool to shock. So no, don't Google it - mainly because your time is more valuable than that!

Fourteen year old boys or the criminally insane. Take your pick.

The game book seems to use male and female pronouns in different places. I guess I just read it as being that rather than getting all huffy and puffy and feeling offended. Slaves exist in this fictional setting. I'd point my finger at Jabba feeding a slave to his pet and laughing about it as being a lot more evil than some smuggler buying his wife from a slave market.

I guess the reason many people have a more severe reaction to something like "slave-bride" than something like Jabba feeding Twi'Leks to his Rancor, is that the former is a lot closer to home. Murder is something sufficiently removed for most of us that it can be handled in game as a non-real thing. But "slave-brides" are a very real thing and many of us know or have known people who have been forced into marriage (I do) and victims of r a p e. Plus in many ways, it feels worse in a game than murder even if the latter is objectively worse, due to the motivations involved. When a PC kills an Imperial Storm Trooper it's generally an abstract "we're trying to get the credits, they were trying to stop us" game-level sort of thing. If a PC does the other, it makes everyone at the table want to shuffle their chairs away because there's no way it's an abstract part of the mission that you don't invest any reality in. It's deeply offensive in a way the other isn't. And that's even before you take into consideration the possibility that someone at that table may have been a victim of this in real life.

BTW, if there's some way to uncensor the forum, I don't know it which is fine by me. Using text to speech means I might have to listen to an angry dad if he hears what I'm reading... which sometimes happens anyway when something leaks through the filter. Plus, I get to play a fill in the blank game and try to guess what words are being written when I hear stuff like "Why don't you go starstarstarstar yourself!"

There is a way to bypass the word filter but I avoid doing it out of respect for the admins (even though some of their choices are pretty silly). Maybe Angry Dad Problem can be solved by a good pair of headphones. You're a teenager, right? You're supposed to be wearing them all the time and ignoring the adults - it's tradition!

Actually, they're not. DanteRotterdam's got a pretty good point. Of course sexual orientation and slave-brides are "different things" as you state in your defence. But that's rather missing the point. It doesn't matter that they're different things, the fact is that when it suited you, you were arguing that things the author might want to include shouldn't be. Hypocrisy in other words.

No actually if you go back to the thread and read it, what I was defending was someone having a right to hold any opinion they like, outrageous or otherwise, and that while it's ok to question an opinion you don't agree with, it's not ok to use it as an excuse to be a jerk. Really exactly what I am saying here as well. Did you actually read my posts in that previous LGBT thread or are you basing it on Dante's word?

I was one of the most active people in that thread. I am very familiar with your position in it so don't try and white-wash it. You're trying to evade by arguing there are differences between slave-brides and sexuality in Star Wars. Yes there, are that's not the point. The point, quite clear, is that you are calling one person asking for something not to be included "tyranny" yet elsewhere you have called for things not to be included in Star Wars yourself. And I'll go the next stage and say that calling for a character not to be shown as a lesbian is a great deal worse than the OP calling for buying a "slave-bride" not to be one of the suggested motivations for PCs.

All I said in the previous thread about sexual behavior, pick whatever orientation you like, is that I don't think it really belongs in Star Wars given the younger age range involved in fandom. I didn't make any requests for it to be removed, didn't say I was going to boycott anything, no judgement of morality, just said I don't think it's the correct setting/universe for delivering sexual behavior oriented entertainment content. Sexual behavior need not be displayed to explore marriage or relationships as a story plot issue imo.

I said if a LGBT character's relationship was written into the story in a good way where the relationship factors into the story that's fine. I wouldn't be supportive of some contrived drivel attempting to score PC points by including it in a tacked on irrlevant fashion.

If someone said they just don't think homosexuality in any way belongs in Star Wars and wanted it removed from some novel or other item I would hold the same position as the one I am holding here, which is it it not the place of people to tell an artist what is in their work. I'd tell the person they're wrong for trying to impose their opinion of what should be expressed in that piece of literature as unacceptable and when people seek to control other people's free will and expression that is tyranny.

Pretty consistent in both threads also about people being entitled to their opinions, outrageous or otherwise.

One throwaway flavour line does not invalidate the game. If you really want to be offended I suggest you go read the rules for FATAL RPG.

Is this another "Haley, don't google that." moment?

Mainly on the grounds of quality. FATAL was a role-playing game designed to appeal (so far as I can tell), to tasteless fourteen-year old boys who thought it was really cool to shock. So no, don't Google it - mainly because your time is more valuable than that!

Fourteen year old boys or the criminally insane. Take your pick.

I think functionaly they're equivalent, actually. Unfortunately, iirc, Haley has about another three or four years to go before boys start turning back into actual human beings from their teenage-ape status. Though there's the occasional early-bloomer who's a decent sort.