Quote from: jhkim;1104691Maybe this is just an issue with phrasing, but I think slavery was most certainly the central issue of the Civil War. Is that what you mean by it being the underlying problem? The North wasn't explicitly abolitionist until the Emancipation Proclamation, but the rebellion was clearly about concerns that the North would continue to dominate and restrict slavery until the system was untenable.



I don't get this. For those who didn't like the original Deadlands history, the issue wasn't that the CSA was too horrible. Rather, it was the opposite that the fictional CSA was too nice. By having the fictional CSA abolish slavery on their own, and overlooking other prejudices, the original Deadlands seemed to be whitewashing historical reality. It seems similar to me to complaints about Disney's Song of the South. It wasn't that the movie was horrible to black people -- there were very positive black characters. It was that it portrayed a nice sweet plantation-owning family who got along well with their black workers, which gave a false impression of Southern race relations, particularly to kids.

The parallel in WWII games wouldn't be editing out the Nazis, but rather having the Nazis give up on their anti-semitism and freeing the Jews while also winning.

Only to kids, small immature kids who can't distinguish between fiction and reality.

A work that pretended to be historically accurate and did that would be well deserving of criticism, A work of fiction? Where do you draw the line? How about all those crusades movies/books? You know, the ones where none of the horrors committed by the Muslims are depicted or even mentioned? Should those be erased/burned?

How about all those books that claim the republicans were the racists and not the democrats?

Or how about those works by the wewuzkangs and sheit brigade?

Or any work glorifying Che, Castro and all the other communist murderers?

Where do you draw the line on works of fiction? and why isn't it akin to the moral majority and the satanic panic?

RPGs cause devil worship = RPGs cause {Insert ism here}

Quote from: GameDaddy;1104638Slavery is evil, but that didn't start the civil war, and wasn't even made an issue in the war until after 1863...

:rolleyes: What tripe. Try reading the actual articles of secession the various rebel states issued. They all list their desire to maintain slavery in the slave states, and in some cases they wanted to expand slavery, as reason for secession.

As far as Deadlands reboots, I couldn't give one shit, much less two. If I was going to do the Wild West I'd prefer the West of the movies e.g. spaghetti westerns, John Wayne, and Randolph Scott. If I wanted a weird west for anything more than a one-off single adventure, I'd base it on the West of TV shows, e.g. Brisco County and The Wild, Wild West.

Quote from: jhkim;1104691I don't get this. For those who didn't like the original Deadlands history, the issue wasn't that the CSA was too horrible. Rather, it was the opposite that the fictional CSA was too nice. By having the fictional CSA abolish slavery on their own, and overlooking other prejudices, the original Deadlands seemed to be whitewashing historical reality.

Precisely no one I know stopped playing Deadlands because they thought the way Deadlands handled "slavery" in the CSA was too unrealistic. No one cared. My evidence: everyone still playing Deadlands. Are there people that did stop? Maybe. But Deadlands proved to be ridiculously successful for Pinnacle regardless.

By claiming that Pinnacle was whitewashing reality - in a fictional game where Hell has opened up and the Four-Horsemen are planning on enacting the Apocalypse... you're saying you can't tell the difference between "fantasy" and "reality" and are pretending someone is actually *hurt* by this creation of fiction. You realize that is not true right? Or are you doing your contrarian/disingenuous dance? I literally asked this question upthread.

Quote from: jhkim;1104691It seems similar to me to complaints about Disney's Song of the South. It wasn't that the movie was horrible to black people -- there were very positive black characters. It was that it portrayed a nice sweet plantation-owning family who got along well with their black workers, which gave a false impression of Southern race relations, particularly to kids.

And? Does it *really* matter? Is there some mandate that all fictional representations of *anything* remotely historical should only show.... the *worst excesses* of that period? Or only what you and those that believe like you, about that period? Again - who is hurt by this? What is this outrage? History buffs? Fiction buffs? Fantasy/Sci-Fi buffs? Who?

Quote from: jhkim;1104691The parallel in WWII games wouldn't be editing out the Nazis, but rather having the Nazis give up on their anti-semitism and freeing the Jews while also winning.

Why? Why does this arbitrarily matter? Who is hurt by this? /rolls random What If? Table - What about a game where we find out that Hitler was mind-controlled by Aliens? Who is hurt by this fictional representation of a game/novel/movie? I'm changing NOTHING about what the Nazi's did... but you know... Alien Mind Control(tm)

What if Egypt conquered Rome before 750BC? And they went on to conquer Europe following in the footsteps of Caesar and everyone in Germany was partially black before the eventual rise of Hitler... but the Third Kemet would be carried out exactly the same, only the Germans of WWII would be mixed race. Who does this hurt as an idea to engage with and how?

Quote from: Bren;1104697As far as Deadlands reboots, I couldn't give one shit, much less two. If I was going to do the Wild West I'd prefer the West of the movies e.g. spaghetti westerns, John Wayne, and Randolph Scott. If I wanted a weird west for anything more than a one-off single adventure, I'd base it on the West of TV shows, e.g. Brisco County and The Wild, Wild West.

Oh man, this is a HUGE discussion I've been having with my players.

Simply removing most/if not all the supernatural apocalyptic stuff and play it straight up Brisco/Wild,Wild West style. I think this would be awesome.

I have plans. PLANS!!!!!

Quote from: Bren;1104696:rolleyes: What tripe. Try reading the actual articles of secession the various rebel states issued. They all list their desire to maintain slavery in the slave states, and in some cases they wanted to expand slavery, as reason for secession.

The Corwin amendment, and indeed, Lincolns own words say different.  

"I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution--which amendment, however, I have not seen--has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied Constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express
and irrevocable."

No objection to slavery, yet he went to war over it?

Quote from: jhkim;1104691Rather, it was the opposite that the fictional CSA was too nice. By having the fictional CSA abolish slavery on their own, and overlooking other prejudices, the original Deadlands seemed to be whitewashing historical reality.

Thank you for using the term "whitewashing" in its original sense rather than the current bastardization. My inner linguistic Puritan's eternal torment is slightly lessened.

I would have more sympathy for this kind of criticism if it wasn't so often used as one fork of a heads-I-win-tails-you-lose kafkatrap. Write out a controversial historical reality in one's setting in an effort to free the game from that baggage, you're accused of whitewashing history. Leave it in for the sake of creating dramatic conflicts for your PCs, you're accused of creating a hostile gaming environment for players assumed to identify with the situational underdogs. Ya cain't win.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1104704I would have more sympathy for this kind of criticism if it wasn't so often used as one fork of a heads-I-win-tails-you-lose kafkatrap. Write out a controversial historical reality in one's setting in an effort to free the game from that baggage, you're accused of whitewashing history. Leave it in for the sake of creating dramatic conflicts for your PCs, you're accused of creating a hostile gaming environment for players assumed to identify with the situational underdogs. Ya cain't win.

Isn't that what jhkim just did? Isn't that why this whole thing happened? Isn't that exactly the reason why it's being changed?

It seems to me that most of the people that have a problem with this change don't play Deadlands while a lot of actual Deadlands players didn't like the CSA element and downplayed it.

I've lurked here for a long time but this thread has compelled me to chime in with my two cents for the first time.

I played a lot of Deadlands in the late 90's and consider it one of my favorite games/settings.  I've played a little of the Savage Worlds Reloaded version but not nearly as much as the original flame-orange books.  In 1996 when the original book debuted, I owned a comic book/gaming shop and we featured the books prominently on the shelves.  I ran several demos of the game at the store and then ran the game sporadically over the next five or six years for my own group.  As a huge fan of westerns, I was excited to get my hands on the game despite the fact that it melded several genres together.  The only other western games were generally out of print by this time (Boot Hill, FGU's Wild West, and a few other less popular outliers).  In fact, several in my gaming circle at the time had no interest in westerns but actually enjoyed Deadlands because it contained the "other" stuff like magic, steam tech, monsters, campy horror, etc.

Seeing this thread was a little surprising because just last week I had made a decision to run Deadlands Classic for my regular group.  My group is entirely onboard, with most of them outright excited to try it out.  They range in age from 17 to mid-50's.

I haven't touched Classic Deadlands in many years, probably since the early 2000's, maybe 2001 or 2002.  So it's been 17+ years since I've run it or played it.  I DID run a little Reloaded more recently but not for any length of time.  I don't recall ever having an issue at the table regarding the portrayal of the CSA.  We probably had some players who played characters from the CSA but I don't believe any of them were portraying their characters as flagrant racists.  I certainly don't recall anyone singing the praises of Jefferson Davis in real-life or in the game.  At most, we probably used the USA/CSA divide to represent tensions between northerners and southerners out in the disputed lands of the west.  We might have even had a PC that was a former slave in one game, but we were all adults and were able to play the game without being insensitive to anyone's feelings.  And had someone offended someone else playing in my game, they certainly would have spoken up, resolved the issue and that would have been that.

I guess I shouldn't be given the times, but I am truly surprised that this is an issue and that there is a need to retcon the original setting to remove the CSA as a faction/power.  Like several have said, especially @tenbones, this is a fictional setting.  Sure there are some real-world parallels but the game is certainly not trying to be a simulation of reality.  There's ghost rock, monsters, magic, mad scientists, and alternate history.  For me, that is the bottom line.  It's a game.  And quite frankly it is easy enough to ignore or modify parts of the setting if someone finds something they don't like, just like any game.

I don't want to assume to speak for anyone else though, so if someone finds something about the game offensive, they can ignore the offensive part, or step away from it altogether.  Problem solved.  Of course, Shane and PEG are within their rights as the creators of the game to do whatever they want with regards to the history, setting, rules and future releases.  I have no problem with that either.  I understand the care which often must be taken in our current climate, especially by a company trying to produce material to sell to the masses.  I don't have to agree with every decision that a company makes to still enjoy their products.  And if I stop enjoying the product, I can keep the wallet closed.

All of this said, it doesn't really matter to me.  I greatly prefer Classic Deadlands to the Savage Worlds version.  Yeah, it's more crunchy, runs slower, etc.  But it makes up for that in flavor and options.  The SW version just doesn't feel the same to me.  So I will continue playing the original orange book version and not worry about any changes made to the setting in the current iteration of the game.  And our group will likely go on as it has, everyone gathering to escape reality into a fictional universe and have some fun together.

But the SJW's are trying to save all the souls that clearly aren't as racist as yours and mine, Toric. This is the new "Satanic Panic" - only more organized, more nebulous, and with more crazy.

Welcome to the RPGsite!

Quote from: Bren;1104696:rolleyes: What tripe. Try reading the actual articles of secession the various rebel states issued. They all list their desire to maintain slavery in the slave states, and in some cases they wanted to expand slavery, as reason for secession.

I was talking about the North, The Union. Slavery was a non-issue for them until it became conveniently an issue. ...after they were losing the war ...after half of Lincolns cabinet, and the Northern state Senators, Congressmen, and State Legislatures pressed the President to sue for a truce and re-establish the peace at the cost of recognizing the right for the Southern States to withdraw from the United States, and permanently splitting the Union. Only after all of that and two years of war did the North actually abolish slavery, and with a presidential directive no less, not by a vote, or act of congress.


Fact: A fight was about whether the Union retained control of its government and military bases in the states that succeeded from the Union started the Civil War, not in an altercation over slaves.

The Battle of Fort Sumter (April 12–13, 1861) was the bombardment of Fort Sumter near Charleston, South Carolina by the South Carolina militia (the Confederate Army did not yet exist), and the return gunfire and subsequent surrender by the United States Army, that started the American Civil War. Following the declaration of secession by South Carolina on December 20, 1860, its authorities demanded that the U.S. Army abandon its facilities in Charleston Harbor. On December 26, Major Robert Anderson of the U.S. Army surreptitiously moved his small command from the vulnerable Fort Moultrie on Sullivan's Island to Fort Sumter, a substantial fortress built on an island controlling the entrance of Charleston Harbor. An attempt by U.S. President James Buchanan to reinforce and resupply Anderson using the unarmed merchant ship Star of the West failed when it was fired upon by shore batteries on January 9, 1861. South Carolina authorities then seized all Federal property in the Charleston area except for Fort Sumter.

During the early months of 1861, the situation around Fort Sumter increasingly began to resemble a siege. In March, Brigadier General P. G. T. Beauregard, the first general officer of the newly formed Confederate States Army, was placed in command of Confederate forces in Charleston. Beauregard energetically directed the strengthening of batteries around Charleston harbor aimed at Fort Sumter. Conditions in the fort, growing increasingly dire due to shortages of men, food, and supplies, deteriorated as the Union soldiers rushed to complete the installation of additional guns.

The resupply of Fort Sumter became the first crisis of the administration of the newly inaugurated U.S. President Abraham Lincoln following his victory in the election of November 6, 1860. He notified the Governor of South Carolina, Francis W. Pickens, that he was sending supply ships, which resulted in an ultimatum from the Confederate government for the immediate evacuation of Fort Sumter, which Major Anderson refused. Beginning at 4:30 a.m. on April 12, the Confederates bombarded the fort from artillery batteries surrounding the harbor. Although the Union garrison returned fire, they were significantly outgunned and, after 34 hours, Major Anderson agreed to evacuate. There were no deaths on either side as a direct result of this engagement, although a gun explosion during the surrender ceremonies on April 14 caused two Union deaths.

Following the battle, there was widespread support from both North and South for further military action. Lincoln's immediate call for 75,000 volunteers to suppress the rebellion resulted in an additional four southern states also declaring their secession and joining the Confederacy. The battle is usually recognized as the first battle that opened the American Civil War.

Seven Southern States did succeed from the Union directly on account of the election of Abraham Lincoln and his platform of abolitionists who advocated eliminating slavery. These included South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and and Texas and they all had succeeded by February 1st, 1861.  

The other four States below the Mason-Dixon line Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina succeeded primarily because of States right issues, primarily objecting to the presence of Federal Military bases within the State, and whether the State legislature controlled making the laws for the state, or the Federal (Union) Government did.

In several states, effective secession in most of the state critically destabilized or virtually eliminated state government control over a region where people widely rejected secession, favoring the Union over their state. This was particularly true of Virginia, leading to the creation of a Union West Virginia. The same effect occurred in part of Tennessee and in other areas, but did not actually result in any split of other Confederate states.

Fact: The South was not unified over slavery as the issue that lead to succession. Behind the scenes, slavery was economically viable for the Southern States, and the North had introduced heavy industrialization, factories, and mass manufacturing facilities instead with its indentured servitude that in many ways resembled slavery, and Northern business leaders had been pressuring the South to Industrialize as well, and the Southerners resented such demands.

It was the same in the North as well. There were many Northerners that supported maintaining slavery as a legal institution as well, and this is one of the more interesting stories that you will see Union supporters completely ignore, or gloss over, with their fingers continually pointing south of the Mason Dixon line.  

Elsewhere, especially in the North overwhelming Union military intervention and mass arrests of elected lawmakers blocked the secessionist Maryland legislature even from considering the question. The Delaware legislature did, quickly and overwhelmingly rejecting secession. The unorganized Indian Territory did not document secession and was not unanimous in its orientation, but generally supported the Confederacy.

Quote from: tenbones;1104700Precisely no one I know stopped playing Deadlands because they thought the way Deadlands handled "slavery" in the CSA was too unrealistic. No one cared. My evidence: everyone still playing Deadlands. Are there people that did stop? Maybe. But Deadlands proved to be ridiculously successful for Pinnacle regardless.

I had never even considered that someone might be offended by how the game handled slavery and the CSA until today when I read Shane's post and this thread here.  In our games, I guess it never came up, or it just proved to not be an issue to anyone I was playing with.

Quote from: JRR;1104703The Corwin amendment, and indeed, Lincolns own words say different.  

"I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution--which amendment, however, I have not seen--has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied Constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express
and irrevocable."

No objection to slavery, yet he went to war over it?

The Union fought to prevent secession.  The Confederacy seceeded to preserve their ability to own black people. See the Cornerstone speech, articles of secession, An Address to the Citizens of Alabama on the Constitution and Laws of the Confederate States of America, and the Constitution of the Confederacy.

QuoteBut there is a real world "cost" to keeping the CSA, and it's one I don't have to pay...someone else does. And I don't want that. Having characters loyal to the CSA...not just "Southerners" but actual loyalists to the cause, even if anti-slavery but loyal for some reason... can be *incredibly* uncomfortable for others at the table. Especially those of African-American descent. Imagine the GM having to roleplay those voices. That's not fun. That's not what our game's about. It's not what we *want* our game to be about.

What?  The CSA in the game had abolished slavery.  Am I wrong?