Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Jonathan Lewis

Is it immoral for the rulebook suggest we buy a slave-bride?

Recommended Posts

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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the slave-bride is meant for an employer, and the PCs involved must make a choice about how to deal with the situation. Do they selfishly steal the dowry, leaving the poor girl in to her fate? Do they pay for the "bride" and "steal" her, returning her to her family or recruiting her for paid work? Either way, they are sure to incur the wrath of their now-former employer.

Maybe the slave-bride is a PC's friend, sibling, or long-lost childhood sweetheart, and he must come up with a dowry to buy her back.

It doesn't have to be as depraved a situation as is being suggested above. I doubt that anyone at FGG would condone **** being acted out by a player in game; after all, the PCs are "the good guys." It's expected that forced slavery of any kind would sicken your PCs just like it sickens you. But it can create a real tense Roleplaying experience to be caught in the middle of such a thing, and as such can provide a rich narrative opportunity for how the "heroes" deal with the situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't imagine FFG in any way condones or suggests the action, nor does the section you're referencing include any encouragement towards that particular activity. I'm sure the language as it's written was included to cause such a reaction as you're describing. Just because the description is shocking doesn't mean it should be removed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean the same rulebook that gives you ways to seriously kill and maim people?

 

Eh...you are not your character and your character is not you. You are telling a story, I personally would not normally play a character who would own a slave, however my character may not have a formed opinion on slaves. Think Qui-Gon in Ep 1, he saw that there were slaves on Tatooine, yet only did anything to help one particular one because he was a special snowflake.

 

People like to play dark games and sometimes dark characters. I am not among them and personally I despise the idea of slavery...but it is just a game. You can't condemn a game for alluding to slavery and then not mention anything about it giving you ways to kill, lie, cheat, steal etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have a problem with the mention of "Slave-bride," maybe you should ask, no demand, that FFG remove all mentions of bounty hunting and piracy.  After all, not all bounties are criminals and many have been innocent people.  The same goes for piracy, hitting an innocent, civilian ship and enslaving, perhaps killing, the innocent, civilian passengers of said ship.

 

 If you don't like it, take a Sharpie and scribble that line out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's also worth noting that the passage in no way suggests this is the case for players. Just that those seedy, scoundrel, scum-of-the-galaxy types the players are likely to be rubbing shoulders with have various things driving them.. some not so bad (Hey I want a faster ship or to live a luxurious life) and some quite dark and unsavory (I want to buy one of Jabba's slave girls for my own personal use)

 

This is a game about the dark, seed, underworld and criminal type element of the Star Wars universe. Be prepared for the possibility that they may present some quite shocking options. That aside, it's up to the players and their GM if this is going to be in any way highlited within their game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The OP has an actual point. Slavery is a part of the setting of Star Wars and is in this context considered an evil as far as Heroic PCs are concerned so it has a place in the description. Taking out references to slavery aren't necessary because we know it's an evil. However, there is no reason to limit it to females by using the term "slave-bride'. It should be just "slave".

 

Women have enough sexism to deal with in real life there is no reason to re-enforce it here.

Edited by FuriousGreg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shocking?  Probably.  Immoral?  Probably.  Remove it in future editions?  Nope, no thanks.  Not a big fan of the whole book burning/designating to the masses what is acceptable thought and writing or how people should act correctly with someone else getting to designate details for all else to follow.  It used to be called tyranny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shocking?  Probably.  Immoral?  Probably.  Remove it in future editions?  Nope, no thanks.  Not a big fan of the whole book burning/designating to the masses what is acceptable thought and writing or how people should act correctly with someone else getting to designate details for all else to follow.  It used to be called tyranny.

 

 

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.

 

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

Edited by FuriousGreg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm actually with the OP on this one, despite the instinctive reaction many have to defend the product. I never noticed it before but that is what it says and more to the point, it's listed under the motivations for PCs. And yes, it is distinct from mere method such as piracy or bounty hunting that a character might use to obtain wealth, or simply recognizing it exists in the setting. It's called out as a reason WHY a PC might engage in these other things - your character may be trying to acquire money to pay for a life of ease, to buy a faster ship, or acquire a slave-bride are the examples given. It's suggested.

This isn't World of Darkness, it's a Star Wars role-playing game played by all ages and people. People can always make Star Wars darker if they wish - the setting is already pretty dark when you think about what actually happens in it. But as a motivation for PCs, that's pretty questionable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Shocking?  Probably.  Immoral?  Probably.  Remove it in future editions?  Nope, no thanks.  Not a big fan of the whole book burning/designating to the masses what is acceptable thought and writing or how people should act correctly with someone else getting to designate details for all else to follow.  It used to be called tyranny.

 

 

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.

 

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

 

The justification is commonly referred to as freedom.

Edited by 2P51

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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

 

The justification is commonly referred to as freedom.

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

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

 

The justification is commonly referred to as freedom.

 

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

 

It's called censorship.  I don't support it.  I'm not disagreeing with whether the phrase is going to cause some people outrage.  I'm disagreeing with the censorship notion that somehow telling people what to put down in any piece of creative writing is anything other than tyranny. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

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

 

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

 

Edit: Really FFG...making a word that defines an orientation a censored word...well played....well played indeed.

Edited by Ebak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

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

 

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

The justification is commonly referred to as freedom.

Freedom to do what? And how does removing an unjustifiable sexist remark hinder your freedom in this context?
It's called censorship.  I don't support it.  I'm not disagreeing with whether the phrase is going to cause some people outrage.  I'm disagreeing with the censorship notion that somehow telling people what to put down in any piece of creative writing is anything other than tyranny.

Yet ironically you're telling people they shouldn't voice their complaints. No-one is calling for the government to step in and prevent FFG from putting what they want in there - that would be censorship. They're just saying that they shouldn't - which is not censorship.

And in neither case do I think the word "tyranny" is appropriate, given what the word has traditionally described.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

Sorry, not buying it.  Too coincidental.

Edited by 2P51

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Feel free to tell me where I said people shouldn't voice their complaints?  Go ahead and quote me where I said that.

You didn't say that they shouldn't, you're attacking someone over posting their opinion here likening them to book-burners and calling such attitudes tyranny. It's ironic that you act against someone sharing their opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

It's called censorship.  I don't support it.  I'm not disagreeing with whether the phrase is going to cause some people outrage.  I'm disagreeing with the censorship notion that somehow telling people what to put down in any piece of creative writing is anything other than tyranny. 

Asking for a justification or a change isn't censorship, forcing them to do so is. If I point out that you, for example, have written something abhorrent, that you may or may not have realised, and I can give you a convincing reason why it is so and ask you to change it it's not censorship. You can still choose not to change it, however you will now know that what you wrote did not go unnoticed.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Edit: Really FFG...making a word that defines an orientation a censored word...well played....well played indeed.

 

Ask a few female friends what their experiences with sexism have been and whether or not this is something that would bother them.

Edited by FuriousGreg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

Sorry, not buying it.  Too coincidental.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...