17 hours ago, Daeglan said:

That is a weird claim. I saw no one defend it.

In this thread, we've had people frame roleplaying Nazis to be a value-neutral affair. They treat being moral as being immature, and present being evil as being 'deep'. We've seen apology for the Nazi-inspired organization and characters. And at no point have they been ashamed by the thought they might be confused for a Neo-Nazi.

You don't have to defend fascism by outright saying it.

25 minutes ago, Whiz Canmaj said:

In this thread, we've had people frame roleplaying Nazis to be a value-neutral affair. They treat being moral as being immature, and present being evil as being 'deep'. We've seen apology for the Nazi-inspired organization and characters. And at no point have they been ashamed by the thought they might be confused for a Neo-Nazi.

You don't have to defend fascism by outright saying it.

I think no one's "ashamed" because most people don't really care about politics as far as roleplaying games go. You play a role in a game for entertainment. Politics aren't relevant.

1 hour ago, Galakk Fyyar said:

I think no one's "ashamed" because most people don't really care about politics as far as roleplaying games go. You play a role in a game for entertainment. Politics aren't relevant.

All Culture is Politics.

Everything we feature in games and social play is normalised into the cultural values we accept as a society.

To pretend otherwise if you lying to yourself or you attempting to ignore problems in your own reasoning. The Right Wing narrative that has arisen in recent years was allowed to do so by treating the atrocities committed by the Nazis too lightly for decades before that - essentially allowing the atrocities to be eclipsed by a new narrative focused on the "extraordinary efficiency" of Nazi Germany, or viewing their race politics as "Flawed" but having come from a good place of making ones Nation great again.

5 hours ago, Whiz Canmaj said:

In this thread, we've had people frame roleplaying Nazis to be a value-neutral affair. They treat being moral as being immature, and present being evil as being 'deep'. We've seen apology for the Nazi-inspired organization and characters. And at no point have they been ashamed by the thought they might be confused for a Neo-Nazi.

You don't have to defend fascism by outright saying it.

No. We have had people discuss playing evil games. We have discussed whethernyou can be a good person while working with in an evil organization. At no point has anyone said the empire was ever good. Ignoring nuance is a large part of why politics has gotten so terrible.

4 hours ago, Spartancfos said:

All Culture is Politics.

Everything we feature in games and social play is normalised into the cultural values we accept as a society.

To pretend otherwise if you lying to yourself or you attempting to ignore problems in your own reasoning. The Right Wing narrative that has arisen in recent years was allowed to do so by treating the atrocities committed by the Nazis too lightly for decades before that - essentially allowing the atrocities to be eclipsed by a new narrative focused on the "extraordinary efficiency" of Nazi Germany, or viewing their race politics as "Flawed" but having come from a good place of making ones Nation great again.

So you do think Zahn, Gray, and Golden (among others) endorse fascism and think the Empire was good, because they wrote novels with Imperial protagonists?

1 hour ago, Nytwyng said:

So you do think Zahn, Gray, and Golden (among others) endorse fascism and think the Empire was good, because they wrote novels with Imperial protagonists?

Probably thinks Schindler was bad because he was a member of the Nazi Party. Of course it ignores the lives he saved using the access he had as a member of the party.

1 hour ago, Nytwyng said:

So you do think Zahn, Gray, and Golden (among others) endorse fascism and think the Empire was good, because they wrote novels with Imperial protagonists?

I do not. That is a silly assertion.

I have read and greatly enjoyed Zahn's books, there are Imperial Protagonists, but they are distinctly written as good guys. They are written like protagonists.

You have to admit that Thrawn is conveniently distant from all the most questionable parts of the Empire. His is also motivated by a greater good tied to his Chiss background, which suggests that the Empire is a means to an end, not a true believer.

My arguments have all been very clearly laid out as " This would be a risky book to publish, as it encourages making light of and playing as facists."

Personally I think that running an Imperial campaign is fine. People should run the games they want. That is also part of culture. But publishing a book telling and encouraging people to play as Imperials sends the wrong messages. Handling a subject matter like that requires a degree of emotional maturity - which I do trust the book authors of. Much as I think the Director of films like Downfall did a great job handling a difficult subject matter.

Earlier in the thread someone said "Writers used to not care what people thought when they wrote RP books" or something to that effect - Well guess what, that was ****. The TTRPG community has historically been a small homogeneous community, it was incredibly unwelcoming for women, people of other races or sexuality's. It is a good thing if roleplaying as a hobby can grow and take some responsibility for the effect it has on it's players. White Wolf deserved to collapse for the content they produced.

1 hour ago, Nytwyng said:

So you do think Zahn, Gray, and Golden (among others) endorse fascism and think the Empire was good, because they wrote novels with Imperial protagonists?

You confuse "protagonist" with "person who is not evil".

17 minutes ago, Spartancfos said:

I do not. That is a silly assertion.

I have read and greatly enjoyed Zahn's books, there are Imperial Protagonists, but they are distinctly written as good guys. They are written like protagonists.

You have to admit that Thrawn is conveniently distant from all the most questionable parts of the Empire. His is also motivated by a greater good tied to his Chiss background, which suggests that the Empire is a means to an end, not a true believer.

And here’s where the Certain Point of View (TM) comes in: You can’t make that same assessment of Thrawn from his portrayal on Rebels .

8 minutes ago, micheldebruyn said:

You confuse "protagonist" with "person who is not evil".

Not at all.

Tell me which of the characters in the books I mentioned are evil.

18 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

Not at all.

Tell me which of the characters in the books I mentioned are evil.

Well, I haven't read them all, but Thrawn, for starters.

3 minutes ago, micheldebruyn said:

Well, I haven't read them all, but Thrawn, for starters.

If all you know of Thrawn is what’s in the books...maybe not so much. What does he do in them to indicate he’s evil?

59 minutes ago, Spartancfos said:

I do not. That is a silly assertion.

I have read and greatly enjoyed Zahn's books, there are Imperial Protagonists, but they are distinctly written as good guys. They are written like protagonists.

You have to admit that Thrawn is conveniently distant from all the most questionable parts of the Empire. His is also motivated by a greater good tied to his Chiss background, which suggests that the Empire is a means to an end, not a true believer.

My arguments have all been very clearly laid out as " This would be a risky book to publish, as it encourages making light of and playing as facists."

Personally I think that running an Imperial campaign is fine. People should run the games they want. That is also part of culture. But publishing a book telling and encouraging people to play as Imperials sends the wrong messages. Handling a subject matter like that requires a degree of emotional maturity - which I do trust the book authors of. Much as I think the Director of films like Downfall did a great job handling a difficult subject matter.

Earlier in the thread someone said "Writers used to not care what people thought when they wrote RP books" or something to that effect - Well guess what, that was ****. The TTRPG community has historically been a small homogeneous community, it was incredibly unwelcoming for women, people of other races or sexuality's. It is a good thing if roleplaying as a hobby can grow and take some responsibility for the effect it has on it's players. White Wolf deserved to collapse for the content they produced.

You confuse playing an imperial character with playing evil or anyone at the table endorsing the behavior of the likes of Palpatine. When none of these are the same thing and dont all apply in every situation there is a lot of nuance in this thread you are outright ignoring. As no one has said real world Nazi behavior was ok. No one has said the behavior of Imperials was ok. What was discussed was how much an imperial is aware of how that effects their morality etc. And others have said that playing evil characters does not make the players evil. It does take mature players who have had adult conversations about the game they are going to play. But apparently the nuance is lost on the likes of you. Your RPG character is not you. And it might be worth exploring how evil characters think. Understanding leads to better ways of facing such things.

10 hours ago, Spartancfos said:

All Culture is Politics.

[...]

You know what? Agree to disagree. I'm sick of modern politics being forced into games. If you're of the mentality that that's inevitable as part of the nature of RPGs or should even be encouraged as a good thing, we're so far to a point of not seeing eye to eye that talking about it isn't going to be worth anyone's time. Nobody was talking about politics at all until the last two pages or so, nobody was talking about Nazis or Trump or the Electoral College or whatever, but now it's all gone off the rails and I don't think it's salvageable.

All I did was talk about top-down governments! Why is it that when ever I walk into a room we start talking politics?

5 hours ago, Spartancfos said:

Earlier in the thread someone said "Writers used to not care what people thought when they wrote RP books" or something to that effect - Well guess what, that was ****. The TTRPG community has historically been a small homogeneous community, it was incredibly unwelcoming for women, people of other races or sexuality's. It is a good thing if roleplaying as a hobby can grow and take some responsibility for the effect it has on it's players. White Wolf deserved to collapse for the content they produced.

*sigh* this is why we can't have nice things.

The idea that every character someone plays has to endorse all their values becomes complete nonsense the second it looks at fantasy (you know, the most common and iconic type of RPG). Very little of modern world endorses concepts like caste system (which commons/nobility/royalty is a form of), serfdom, or churches with hard political power, yet every single one of those things is considered normal by the majority of RPG characters. Indeed, some of these are even explicit laws of physics in the setting: Kings are descended from gods, and the church doesn't just get approval from their deity (who is very much a real, provable, thing), but get divine power to influence government. Roleplaying is about not being you.

1 hour ago, NanashiAnon said:

The idea that every character someone plays has to endorse all their values becomes complete nonsense the second it looks at fantasy (you know, the most common and iconic type of RPG). Very little of modern world endorses concepts like caste system (which commons/nobility/royalty is a form of), serfdom, or churches with hard political power, yet every single one of those things is considered normal by the majority of RPG characters. Indeed, some of these are even explicit laws of physics in the setting: Kings are descended from gods, and the church doesn't just get approval from their deity (who is very much a real, provable, thing), but get divine power to influence government. Roleplaying is about not being you.

Equally nonsense that characters and games have to inherently deal with or address problems. Thieves don't have to have monologues about why stealing is bad and why crime is a problem in our world. Barbarians don't have to act as a message about violence and bloodshed. Lawful Paladins don't need to talk about real-world legal corruption. Those saying you can't do an Imperial game unless it specifically addresses that the Empire is bad would seem then to want those sorts of things. You don't need to address political or any kind of real world issues when you play a game if you don't want to. Want to run a game where the Imperial party is heroic and the Imperials are good? Go right ahead. I seriously don't get why this even has to be said. Even if you were to decide to do bad things, how is that any different from doing bad things in another game? Even the same game if you play as Rebels and choose to do bad things? By doing something evil in a game you're not endorsing it in the real world, and there isn't some kind of expectation that you'll use a game specifically to soap-box about real-world issues otherwise you shouldn't run it. I haven't seen that type of argument for a Star Wars game before but I've seen it for a few other systems and it's equally nonsense to me. It's a game. Run it, play it, enjoy it. If you don't enjoy it, find a game you do. If you want to talk about real politics or issues in it, go right ahead, but don't act like everyone has to as well or else they're doing something wrong.

On 8/28/2019 at 4:14 PM, Spartancfos said:

The TTRPG community has historically been a small homogeneous community, it was incredibly unwelcoming for women, people of other races or sexuality's. It is a good thing if roleplaying as a hobby can grow and take some responsibility for the effect it has on it's players. White Wolf deserved to collapse for the content they produced.

I'm sorry to (hopefully only) briefly sidetrack the thread here, but IME this particular statement is flat out false, and typically voiced by people who weren't a part of the hobby during the times they refer to. Yes, the old RPG community was for the most parts consisting of a fairly small and relatively homogeneous group of people within various local communities. But in my experience, most of these communities were not hostile to people that didn't look like themselves. Rather the opposite, because it was typically a pretty nice thing to find someone new to be able to talk to the hobby about, without being immediately labled as a nerd/geek/wierdo, and this common ground typically overcame any difference in genetic differences or sexual preferanced between the individuals in question. The fact that few people from outside of this stereotypical group of geeky/nerdy white males played RPG games at the time, had more to do with a variety of other factors, than with hostility against "outsiders" amongst the playerbase.

As for your comment on White Wolf and their games Spartancfos, I'll restrain my comment here to saying that I strongly disagree with you on this on every level I can think of right now. But this is not the place for a more detailed debate on that subject.

If anyone should feel the irresistable urge to throw napalm or similar after me for this comment, pls. do it in a PM, rather than in this thread.

Reading a book, watching a movie, reading a comic, or even playing a board/card/dice game from an Imperial perspective is explicitly different from asking people to actively play the role of a bad guy in an RPG. An RPG opens up a wide range of possible experiences, experiences that the publisher can't control. That lack of control is scary for a big name like Disney.

If some kids, with the content currently released, played an Imperial campaign and dabbled in ideas of slavery, fascism, genocide, etc and a parent found out. That parent could make a big stink about it, and it could turn into a media storm. But, Disney would have plausible deniability in stating that the game is designed for players to be playing the good guys, the rebels, the Luke Skywalkers, the Han Solos, the Jedi that fight against that. Once they put the game in the player's hands, it's no longer in their control.

If they release a Imperial Source Book they risk losing that plausible deniability. Now the mom can hold up the 'fascist guidebook' in front of the local TV news station cameras who are desperate for literally anything they can get their hands on.

The last thing Disney wants to do is have an 80's style anti-RPG war with overly concerned moms forming some new BADD group. In today's political sphere, releasing a source book for a pro-fascist faction could ignite something even more upsetting than a new age BADD if they suddenly attracted a very vocal crowd of people as new players.

Disney is much more concerned about their image than Lucas Arts was. I doubt in today's day and age that Disney would be willing to do a KOTOR that allows you to swing to the evil side, or a SWTOR that allows you to play evil characters, have slaves, and even torture them. Heck, I doubt we'd even see a Star Wars: First Order TIE Fighter game. All of those muddy the waters a little to much for a franchise where Disney wants to make sure you know who to root for.

It's not a matter of interest, or sales projections, or how dark the material would need to be (or conversely how thoroughly scrubbed of any offensive material you could make it). It's a matter of how much Disney is willing to risk any crazy story popping up that could put them in a negative light. Disney is VERY concerned about their public image, and very controlling of any PR. No doubt share holders, lawyers, or PR managers have likely said that a book that encourages players to take on the role of fascist bad guys may not be the best idea.

The thing is, it's not Disney's fault. It's reactionary to how people perceive things. The general public understands that a book is just a story. A movie can just be for entertainment. They understand that pushing plastic toys around on a table is not an emulation of the beliefs that the characters in those IPs held. They even, for the most part, comprehend that a video game is just entertainment. But few people, in the grand scheme of things, understand RPGs. They don't understand playing the role of a character that isn't you, doesn't have your beliefs, morals, or ethics. There is still a sizable portion of the population that think playing D&D is a direct path to evil, committing sins, and going to ****.

I've never actually met anyone that thinks rock and roll is evil, or that reading Harry Potter is evil, or thinks we should ban or destroy certain books. I occasionally hear about some fringe lunatic with one of those beliefs, but I've never actually met one. Heck, I can't even think of a single person that I've met in person that has tried to blame the evils of the world on video games despite the popularity of that idea in the media. However, I've actually heard people, in person, question the safety of role playing games more times than I can count.

Could they release an Imperial source book? Sure. Will they? Who knows. Is it understandable if such a book never sees the light of day? Absolutely. Are some of those concerns based on pretty shaky ground? Ayup.

I doubt anyone here would have a problem with such a book. I doubt anyone here actually opposes such a book being published. Trying to convince me, or others they SHOULD publish such a book is pointless, because I'd pre-order that book as soon as it was possible. All I'm trying to explain is a valid reason why such a book may never be released.

I understand that, and I think it's most likely why we've not got and probably never will get any such book. People can and will look for and find absolutely any reason to get offended.

4 hours ago, Galakk Fyyar said:

I understand that, and I think it's most likely why we've not got and probably never will get any such book. People can and will look for and find absolutely any reason to get offended.

People have different perspectives. It is easy for me, in a position of comfort, not part of any minority, without many personal tragedies, to not be offended by what others want to do.

However, it is important to recognise that many have these raw wounds, and that some subjects can cause significant offence.

9 hours ago, Darzil said:

People have different perspectives. It is easy for me, in a position of comfort, not part of any minority, without many personal tragedies, to not be offended by what others want to do.

However, it is important to recognise that many have these raw wounds, and that some subjects can cause significant offence.

I get what you're saying though I disagree, but this isn't the place for a debate on that. If someone would take offense or not enjoy an Imperial-sided game book, they're not forced to buy it or read it, but that possibility is more likely than not the reason we won't get a book like that in the first place.

West End Games ran a Star Wars published a Star Wars rpg for 11 years, and nobody gave them crap for not publishing an evil players campaign sourcebook.

They did publish an Imperial Sourcebook, but it was a GM resource, focused on how to run them as NPCs, with zero player options in the book.

3 hours ago, micheldebruyn said:

West End Games ran a Star Wars published a Star Wars rpg for 11 years, and nobody gave them crap for not publishing an evil players campaign sourcebook.

They did publish an Imperial Sourcebook, but it was a GM resource, focused on how to run them as NPCs, with zero player options in the book.

WEG was also pretty open about the game being centered on the PCs being heroes (if not out-and-out members of the Rebellion or the New Republic), with very punishing rules if the characters did evil things, up to and including taking away the character once they crossed the dark side threshold. Even murkier characters were at worst shades of light grey rather than being morally ambiguous or very dark shades of grey.

Although, the Heroes & Rogues supplement (pretty much a bunch of new character templates) did have a small section on playing Imperial characters in an Imperial-centric campaign, but it pretty much broke down to "either they're on a redemption arc and are going to become good guys and fight against the Empire, or they're going to come a bad end when their villainy and treachery catches up to them, either by Rebel heroes or being stabbed in the back by other Imperials." They made no effort to glorify or suger-coat the simple fact that the Empire was a fascist regime built upon suppressing the galactic populace and committing war crimes at the drop of a hat if it advanced the goals or desires of the ruling elite.

2 hours ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

WEG

I assume the harsh rules for what they considered "Dark side" play was probably a sort of CYA. Then even more than now RPGs were being hit with tons of scrutiny for their content, especially DND.

However, what you said with Heroes and Rogues is factually untrue. The book doesn't express that Imperial characters will always be evil or are expected to defect or die. In fact one of the first sidebars about your character's allegiance talks about that, while certain actions can clearly be good or evil, the idea of the war and who you side with isn't cut and dry and largely depends on what you believe in or who you're with. Specifically it gives an example that an ace pilot might be seen as a brave hero by their own side and a despicable villain by the other. You aren't good or evil just by signing on to one side and in most books there's a broad sense of freedom in how you approach things. With Age of Rebellion's own Rebel scenarios you can take evil actions if you want to.

The player decides what they do, not the book they're using, and the same would be true of an Imperial rulebook. Just like the 90s though people would probably find ways to get offended anyway.

5 hours ago, micheldebruyn said:

West End Games ran a Star Wars published a Star Wars rpg for 11 years, and nobody gave them crap for not publishing an evil players campaign sourcebook.

No one's giving them crap now either, but I know an Imperial book has been a suggestion for the previous systems too. Just like then it's easy now to run an Imperial game with what we've got, it's just that an expansion dedicated to Imperial games would be nice to have. It's a request or an idea, not an angry demand.