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.

Well you said it a great deal more effusively than that in the thread, but essentially that is our point. You were calling for something not to be included (sexual behaviour) but when someone calls for FFG to leave something out that they think has no place (buying a sex slave as a suggested PC motivation) you declare it "tyranny" and "censorship". Dante caught you out - I've seen nothing from you that actually counters what they wrote, just attempts to evade by pretending the accusation was something else.

The difference is between the previous issue and this one is I am simply stating I don't think sexual behavior should be included in Star Wars material. I am not telling anyone to remove anything. I am not telling anyone to reprint something. I am not telling anyone they should include anything I feel they haven't. I'm not trying to control what some author includes or doesn't in their piece of fictional literature.

The difference is between having an opinion about how I think things should be, and telling someone else they should conform to my view or they're wrong.

The difference is between having an opinion personally, and seeking to impose that opinion on others, particularly their art. One is freedom, one is tyranny.

Just to be clear here we are talking about freedom of expression in art here. My effort to head off someone dreaming up some wild ass tangential BS hypothetical.

The difference is between the previous issue and this one is I am simply stating I don't think sexual behavior should be included in Star Wars material. I am not telling anyone to remove anything. I am not telling anyone to reprint something. I am not telling anyone they should include anything I feel they haven't. I'm not trying to control what some author includes or doesn't in their piece of fictional literature.

The difference is between having an opinion about how I think things should be, and telling someone else they should conform to my view or they're wrong.

The difference is between having an opinion personally, and seeking to impose that opinion on others, particularly their art. One is freedom, one is tyranny.

Just to be clear here we are talking about freedom of expression in art here. My effort to head off someone dreaming up some wild ass tangential BS hypothetical.

So to summarize, you can declare that sexual behaviour has no place in Star Wars media and this is fine. But for the OP to say they are shocked that purchasing a sex slave is suggested as a PC motivation and hope that FFG will remove it in the future is in your own words: "censorship", "tyranny", interfering with "Literature" and makes them "a chickenshit twerp" who "lacks balls" and "should post under their real name" (Mr. 2P51). Did I get that right? I'm pretty sure every part of that can be backed up and directly follows what you've been saying here.

Answer to op question: I don't think it is partially amoral to mention that as this is the fringe, no more dirty then slavery in general. The fringe is a boiling pot of amoral vices including spice trafficking, thus I don't see the point in removing a single word as most of these activities should be against our moral consuence to begin with.

What we do have however is gm that can set the tone of the adventure and PCs that can buck the amoral trend as characters in a otherwise grey universe. That should be good enough incentive.

Wow, this thread really has blown up hasn't it.. so, I'll just toss my opinion out there once more even if it may not be all that popular.

Quite bluntly, I think this is a bit ridiculous. Yes, the concept of a slave-bride is somewhat sexist.. but does it really warrant them going about doing a whole reprint to fix it? I don't think so.. there's no indication that slave-grooms don't exist.. there's no exact definition to what a slave-bride/groom is but I don't believe that just changing to to slave actually maintains the same connotations.. but all of that aside, it is 1 or 2 sentences in a book of thousands, which present some concise examples but not an exhaustive list.. is it really necessary to get up in arms about it? Shocked, sure, but I don't see a need to start demanding changes.

If an entire section, say the whole piece of motivations, carried an undertone of sexism, discrimination and/or objectification of a group of people that would be quite a bit different. That shows an overall theme towards that end. Lets also take this another direction, would people be crying sexism if there was a block of text about pirates rounding up all the men of a village to put them to work in the mines, gathering raw ore that the pirates then turn around and sell?

Quite simply though, it's a singular example and not a continuous theme of objectifying women, or anyone else.

Even though I clashed with 2P51 in this thread (again) I would like the record to reflect that I don’t think this should be censored or changed. The fact that such slavery exists is factual in the Star Wars world and it might motivate quite a few people on the fringes of galactic society. I do however wonder why FFG went this route in this chapter since they tend to steer pretty much into the moral tracks on the whole.

Even though I clashed with 2P51 in this thread (again) I would like the record to reflect that I don’t think this should be censored or changed. The fact that such slavery exists is factual in the Star Wars world and it might motivate quite a few people on the fringes of galactic society. I do however wonder why FFG went this route in this chapter since they tend to steer pretty much into the moral tracks on the whole.

Now that is a very valid question. I do wonder why they would bring that up as well.. if I had to hazard a guess, I think they may have wanted to shock people.. remind them that this is the darker side of Star Wars and what motivates people may not always be what you would think. It is a curious choice regardless.

Even though I clashed with 2P51 in this thread (again) I would like the record to reflect that I don’t think this should be censored or changed. The fact that such slavery exists is factual in the Star Wars world and it might motivate quite a few people on the fringes of galactic society. I do however wonder why FFG went this route in this chapter since they tend to steer pretty much into the moral tracks on the whole.

Now that is a very valid question. I do wonder why they would bring that up as well.. if I had to hazard a guess, I think they may have wanted to shock people.. remind them that this is the darker side of Star Wars and what motivates people may not always be what you would think. It is a curious choice regardless.

I think it's probably just a case of forgetting the context for a moment. Someone thinks "why might a pirate or smuggler be trying to acquire all this wealth - let me think of some interesting / unusual motivations that add depth" and then not really considering that this is the suggested motivations for PC "heroes" and that this is Star Wars not World of Darkness. These things exist in the Star Wars universe. It just stands out that it's suggested as a PC goal.

Not just humping-- they have mail order brides IRL. You can BUY a bride. Just like buying a 'slave bride'. Sure you have needs but other needs too. Emotional and physical.

Heh heh. Another beer and popcorn moment. Wow! Is it just me or are we getting some good grenades tossed in here the last couple of days? What's next? Some idiot complaining that their particular favorite race hasn't been supported yet so FFG must be racist (speciest) and then disappearing?

Not just humping-- they have mail order brides IRL. You can BUY a bride. Just like buying a 'slave bride'. Sure you have needs but other needs too. Emotional and physical.

I wonder if perhaps this was more along the lines of what the writer was thinking. EotE has many Western themes to it. Westerns often included mail order brides in their plots. But, "mail order", does not come off as something that you would expect to exist in Star Wars and thus would confuse the reader or sidetrack them into other questions (is that snail mail? e-mail? what exactly would that be?). So the writer inserts "slave" instead which is not the same thing, but is something we actually have encountered in Star Wars. With no intention or thought that it would offend someone since we are speaking of PC make-believe actions and not Player real-world actions.

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.

15!?!?! OOOHH EMMMM GEEEE!!!

Wow. Successful troll sure is successful.

Heh heh. Another beer and popcorn moment. Wow! Is it just me or are we getting some good grenades tossed in here the last couple of days? What's next? Some idiot complaining that their particular favorite race hasn't been supported yet so FFG must be racist (speciest) and then disappearing?

... I've been working on that thread for months! OMG FU MAN!

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?

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!

Does the mystery of 14 year old boys help in figuring out the mystery of 17 year old boys? I have reason to be interested...

Does the mystery of 14 year old boys help in figuring out the mystery of 17 year old boys? I have reason to be interested...

There is absolutely no mystery to 17-year old boys. They're all walking bundles of hormones and insecurities, just like everyone else around that age.

Seventeen year old boys also aren't very good at D&D. I speak from experience.

Does the mystery of 14 year old boys help in figuring out the mystery of 17 year old boys? I have reason to be interested...

There is absolutely no mystery to 17-year old boys. They're all walking bundles of hormones and insecurities, just like everyone else around that age.

Hey!! Why would you say that? Are you implyimg I'm insecure?? Why are you being mean to me? I'm angry! i'm sad! I'm going to go call my boyfriend, now.

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!

Does the mystery of 14 year old boys help in figuring out the mystery of 17 year old boys? I have reason to be interested...

17 year old boys are just improved versions of 14 year old boys. Wider shoulders and generally now able to talk to girls without panicking. Still prone to insecurities and doing inexplicably stupid things out of the blue though, I'm afraid.

I resent these misandrist remarks and over generalisations about the development of adolescent males. It's stereotyping and misrepresenting roughly half of the adolescent population, one which I do not recognise nor agree with. It's inaccurate and demeaning.

I resent these misandrist remarks and over generalisations about the development of adolescent males. It's stereotyping and misrepresenting roughly half of the adolescent population, one which I do not recognise nor agree with. It's inaccurate and demeaning.

They're all just trying to keep the boy down.

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.

Core rulebook also discusses murder. No problem with that?

ROTJ Jabbas palace - Jabba to Leia in her leech "in time you will learn to appreciate me" - SLURP . I think it was pretty clear what he meant. There you have it, the movies introduce to us that sex slavery is in a galaxy far away, and that was a kids movie.

Maybe Monopoly is more your type of game friend.

Happy gaming!

I resent these misandrist remarks and over generalisations about the development of adolescent males. It's stereotyping and misrepresenting roughly half of the adolescent population, one which I do not recognise nor agree with. It's inaccurate and demeaning.

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.

Entertaining role reversal yes? Now imagine if this was the norm for your entire life. Little things, big things, nearly all the books, comics, games, movies, jokes, all with varying levels of demeaning attitudes to what you are not who you are. Each individual one can be passed off as "Setting" or "not that bad" or whatever but it adds up.

This isn't a classic novel which was a product of it's time or old cartoons and their treatment of race or a Frazetta painting from the 70's, it's a contemporary RPG in a setting that is completely made up.

I'm not advocating censorship but I am calling out the writer(s) to re-examine their premiss and to justify it. If they can then fine but if they can't then they should consider changing it. Remember this is a fiction and as such it can be written in any way and as we have seen even things that were once canonical can be changed as well. Removing this bit of sexism will not hurt the story but it will remove one little bit of the demeaning statements that a girl or woman has to endure in their lives.

It's only partly meant as a joke. That's the only medium most people will sort of accept it in. It's also partly a comment to the sexism-individuals spouting out the misogyny-argument, I agree with them... But also, in this case, I find it an odd battle to pick, of all the arenas of sexism and misogyny, pick the one-off comment of slave-bride, remove it from its context and body-tackle it, drop-kick it and be proud...? What have you actually gained? Nothing. Absolutely nothing, except provoking some fellow-nerds who don't understand the finer points of the gender inequality problem. (Actually, I mean basic ******* points ! It's horrible to consider how many nerds/geeks [whatever you prefer] are [arguably?] intelligent [as in IQ], with degrees here and there, but when it comes to this question there seems to be a ******* button that turns off conscience, ability to think and reflect, to understand, to be ******* conscious and admit they're no longer retarded cave dwelling primates. Ugh!)

Sure, they could've gone "slave" or "slave-partner" or somesuch thing ("slave-in-legally-binding-partnership" ?). Perhaps they should, perhaps the future will bring such writing. We can only hope I guess. But wouldn't you agree there are more pressing issues in the sexism/misogyny problem? Issues not just for the privileged inhabitants of the (post-)industrialised world? I get it, it's important to fight it wherever and whenever, and I agree, one shouldn't just be nice and respectable about it, because that won't work in most cases - any study of social movements and social change will show that being "nice and respectable" won't do, but please remember to consider "nice and respectable" also with a historical lens, so not to confuse a contemporary understanding as ahistorical and universally applicable. History, such a [insert universal derogatory term independent of species and gender] to contemporary understanding, right?

It may be interpreted sexist, sure. Someone asked "who decides what is sexist" and there's a simple answer to that, as with racism, it's the person/people subjected to it - anything else would be counter-productive to solve the problem. I cannot say something isn't misogynist or racist (unless it's specifically directed against me and my phenotype, and I can define something as misandrist, a female cannot). I can assume something is sexist, but not that it isn't. On the other hand I don't think it (slave-bride) was intended as sexist, it was intended to keep within the context of the universe of Star Wars. This should carry some weight, but it's not a deciding factor. Pragmatism can be a helpful tool in some cases.

The OP didn't think it was "merely" sexist as such, as he equated the whole notion with sex-slave and ****. Which of course is a rather extreme interpretation, which I don't think anyone can really agree with or accept. We can with reasonable certainty say that we know that this wasn't FFG's intention (sex-slave, ****). To me it says more about the OP that he thought in this way by reflex, than it does about FFG.