Doesn't matter to me. I never went along with the "canon" anyhow.

I like having the CSA around. I like having the Union around. Just like I run Old Republic games with the Sith Empire vs. the Republic.

This *isn't* real life. This is an RPG. As others have said here - Shane is perfectly within his rights to make whatever he wants canon. I personally do not care about canon in any game I run as long as it serves my purposes.

While it may sound "un-PC" today - but the fact is, if a player feels uncomfortable about something like this in the game - especially since by Shane's own words that Deadlands has had the CSA as part of the game for the last two decades, the problem is on the player. No one alive today was a member of the CSA. No one alive today should feel some kind of antipathy towards the CSA any more than they should feel antipathy towards Mongolians for the invasions of the Khanate into Central Asia and Eastern Europe (not to mention China and further south). Or any other institution one side would call historically "bad".

Because if we're going to talk about offense at history - and project that into FICTION... where does the cut-off begin? I want someone to defend that logic. Where do people whose ancestors were oppressed by *any* institution get to finally feel fine with the fact that history is just that - History. And fiction is just that, fiction.

Who get to make that decision for *everyone*? And to what degree am I obliged to engage with other people's neurosis over their inability to parse fiction from fact and history from today?

Edit - And yes, nothing about Deadlands when it comes to the CSA is remotely realistic in the first place. Nor do I agree that it would have played out across their products as they pretend it did. But who cares? Just use what you like and toss the rest. I'm not faulting Shane. I'm calling into question anyone freaking out about it one way or the other.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1104638Ehh?

I disagree with basically everything you say, and I have reams of supporting evidence including the words and deeds of the founders of the Confederacy, but debating the differences, nature, and causes of the war seems to step beyond the realm of a games discussion.

On topic, I think that the existence of the Confederacy was getting in the way of the types of adventures they wanted to write; making a change seemed necessary.  It's silly to wring one's hands over whether they made the right change for the 'wrong reasons'.  I'm troubled to think that for some people the 'wrong reasons' are that the Confederacy were/are the good guys.

Quote from: tenbones;1104643Because if we're going to talk about offense at history - and project that into FICTION... where does the cut-off begin? I want someone to defend that logic. Where do people whose ancestors were oppressed by *any* institution get to finally feel fine with the fact that history is just that - History. And fiction is just that, fiction.

Sorry for the double-post, but this was posted while I was writing my prior response.

There's no problem with having the Confederacy in a historical game.  There's no problem with having the Confederacy in a fantasy game using an alternative timeline.  The 'problem' is when the historical figures are used in a way that is ahistorical and you're giving villains a 'face-turn' to treat them like good guys.  When you're including Nazis in your game, you don't make Goebbels the Hero.  If you do, you'll offend the people who are familiar with the historical facts.  

Virtually all of the criticism of the CSA in Deadlands comes from the decision that the CSA completely abolished slavery on their own because they weren't racist and never were.  That ignores a whole lot of bad stuff and it isn't even consistent with the history.  When you pretend that a villain only had noble motives, it can make people VERY uncomfortable.

This is the kind of thing that divides your player base, and causes fans to say an older edition was better.

And I'm not even familiar with this particular game....

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1104646Sorry for the double-post, but this was posted while I was writing my prior response.

There's no problem with having the Confederacy in a historical game.  There's no problem with having the Confederacy in a fantasy game using an alternative timeline.  The 'problem' is when the historical figures are used in a way that is ahistorical and you're giving villains a 'face-turn' to treat them like good guys.  When you're including Nazis in your game, you don't make Goebbels the Hero.  If you do, you'll offend the people who are familiar with the historical facts.

*None* of these "face-turning" things happened in the game to my knowledge. Not only that - WHO CARES? Let me play Devil's Advocate for the other side...

If a crack in the ground opened up and Satan and his pals from the underworld came out - and for kicks and giggles the CSA said "Well... I'll trust the human slaves to be on our side to fight the hordes of hell over Satan and his army" - as a justification to allow the CSA to survive while abolishing slavery not for moral reasons but for existential ones...

WHO is harmed by this in a fictional game? About a fictional what-if? timeline about fictional propositions about REAL people that existed decades for before any living person today was around to experience directly? Who precisely? Are these people playing Deadlands?

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1104646When you pretend that a villain only had noble motives, it can make people VERY uncomfortable.

Why? Is Darth Vader never really redeemed at the end of Star Wars? Or are you insinuating that historical figures *must* never be put in any light other than whatever narrative suits some consumer of history - IN FICTION? Or... what?

Quote from: Razor 007;1104648This is the kind of thing that divides your player base, and causes fans to say an older edition was better.

And I'm not even familiar with this particular game....

It's divisive because people can't seem to tell the difference between fiction, history and reality - or whenever these things cross paths in a game. And further - in their own ignorance of history, they'd prefer to *never* engage with history in reality OR fantasy if someone can pretend outrage at it... especially as fiction.

Apparently.

Quote from: Shane HensleyBut 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.

This seems foolish, at least at first glance, for one reason alone: I am pretty sure that a clear majority of African-American gamers would rather prefer to play in a more authentic fantasy version of the West, one which includes the Confederacy and its remnants. I could have seen your point if you had said that you want to avoid the discomfort of having a player defending the south in-character while sitting next to an African-American. But then you had to go "Imagine the GM having to roleplay those voices" and you lost me completely.

What's next? An Indiana Jones RPG without Nazi NPCs? Imagine all the Jewish gamers, perhaps some who had an ancestor die because of the Shoah! This makes no sense. Heck, I'm a German and I love the idea of blasting some German Nazis of the era. Or of any other era, including the current one, regardless of political stripes. It's just fucking fantasy. Jesus Christ.

Quote from: Shane HensleyI run Deadlands for people *all around the world*. I play with all ethnicities, genders, orientations, cultures, religions, and political outlooks. I've literally run thousands of games for probably about ten thousand people over the last 25 years, and met and talked to FAR more than that in various talks, panels, guest appearances, signings, etc. And I *love* meeting you all. I *love* learning about our similarities AND differences and then having a drink and throwing some dice and shooting zombies with you.

...and as a Non-American from "around the world", I can tell you that it just makes your setting seem less authentic. But you're right: it's your baby, your call. I'm just not convinced of its wisdom. But you do you.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1104636I have played Deadlands and I own ~15 books of the weird west setting and a few from the Hell on Earth alternate setting.  The fact that the Confederacy survived was itself a retcon of reality.  The fact that trying to keep the Confederacy as a viable faction didn't really accomplish what they wanted is good enough reason to change direction.  And as the creator states, it is his decision and people who don't like it can find a game they like better (or modify it to suit their taste).

It was never a problem that Deadlands had Confederate characters, just like it wouldn't be a problem if a World War II had Nazi characters.  In a World War II setting, what would be a problem was if the Nazis were trying to save the Jews while containing the existential threat of a Communist juggernaut aimed at Europe - turning them into heroes and ignoring their actual historical policies goes far beyond 'including them'.  

There are a lot of historical reasons that you can consider the Confederate States 'evil'.  At the very least you can be certain that all of the political figures of the United States that violated their oaths to the Constitution committed treason by pledging themselves to a new political entity.  When you try to ignore things along those lines, it definitely can make people uncomfortable.

All I can hear among your Reeeeeing is it might somehow, somewhere, sometime make someone uncomfortable. So? 50 shades of gray I'm sure can make someone somewhere uncomfortable, should it not exist?

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1104644I disagree with basically everything you say, and I have reams of supporting evidence including the words and deeds of the founders of the Confederacy, but debating the differences, nature, and causes of the war seems to step beyond the realm of a games discussion.

On topic, I think that the existence of the Confederacy was getting in the way of the types of adventures they wanted to write; making a change seemed necessary.  It's silly to wring one's hands over whether they made the right change for the 'wrong reasons'.  I'm troubled to think that for some people the 'wrong reasons' are that the Confederacy were/are the good guys.

Who the fuck has said that the REAL confederacy were/are the good guys?

Nice straw-man you got there buddy, you sure you can beat him to death all by yourself?

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1104646Sorry for the double-post, but this was posted while I was writing my prior response.

There's no problem with having the Confederacy in a historical game.  There's no problem with having the Confederacy in a fantasy game using an alternative timeline.  The 'problem' is when the historical figures are used in a way that is ahistorical and you're giving villains a 'face-turn' to treat them like good guys.  When you're including Nazis in your game, you don't make Goebbels the Hero.  If you do, you'll offend the people who are familiar with the historical facts.  

Virtually all of the criticism of the CSA in Deadlands comes from the decision that the CSA completely abolished slavery on their own because they weren't racist and never were.  That ignores a whole lot of bad stuff and it isn't even consistent with the history.  When you pretend that a villain only had noble motives, it can make people VERY uncomfortable.

Yet more Reeeeeeing and more "it might offend someone!" Who the fuck cares? If it offends you, or makes you uncomfortable the solution is easy, do not buy the fucking thing or play it.

The Coran calls for the murder of all atheists over 100 times, as an atheist my self this makes me uncomfortable, will you join me in demanding it be re written or else banned from being printed, sold distributed and it's teachings made illegal?

Two gay men kissing in the street makes some people feel uncomfortable, will you join them to ban such behavior?

Hypocritical, moralistic, holier than thou, censorious, totalitarian fuck.

Quote from: wmarshal;1104641Slavery was never defended in Deadlands, and Shane has never "promote advocating for slavery." What Deadlands did was have the CSA abolish slavery and whitewash the hostile race relations one would otherwise have expected to occur, and did so in a way that's a bit hard to believe. Making him out to be some kind of neo-confederate is a bit much.

The amateur historian in me always has balked at the idea that the Confederacy could hold out for a stalemate against the Union (in reality a win since secession was the goal), but "magic" makes anything possible and I can certainly understand the dramatic appeal of a split union beyond being a confederate apologist or having a secret wish  that slavery had continued (which in game it didn't anyway).
Much in the same way that while I would personally be somewhat uncomfortable running or playing in a "good" Germans based WW2 campaign, I doubt that many who do are secretly celebrating Nazi-ism rather than just the fact that the German's had really cool stuff to play with and the players ignore the historical baggage attached to the Axis.

Seems like a dumb change made for silly reasons to me but hey, it's their game to do with what they will. I'll say that the "signal" factor comes off as pretty high in that announcement.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1104656Who the fuck cares? If it offends you, or makes you uncomfortable the solution is easy, do not buy the fucking thing or play it.

I really do wish more people followed this advice.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1104656Yet more Reeeeeeing and more "it might offend someone!" Who the fuck cares? If it offends you, or makes you uncomfortable the solution is easy, do not buy the fucking thing or play it.

This seems bizarre.  The owners of the IP are making the change.  

I'm not arguing against it - I'm pointing out that I can see why they decided to make that change.  

If the change offends you you don't have to buy the fucking thing or play it, just like the quote says.  

It's telling that there are a number of people who have indicated that they don't play it, won't play it, and never had played it complaining about a change.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1104663This seems bizarre.  The owners of the IP are making the change.  

I'm not arguing against it - I'm pointing out that I can see why they decided to make that change.  

If the change offends you you don't have to buy the fucking thing or play it, just like the quote says.  

It's telling that there are a number of people who have indicated that they don't play it, won't play it, and never had played it complaining about a change.

You're not arguing against the change correct, you're defending the change on the basis of some potential offense.

I'm not a customer of theirs, like my first intervention says, I could give less of a fuck about what they do with their IP, and I'm the kind of people to drop an IP if it's not for me. Like I did with decades of Marvel/DC comic books as a reader/collector.

I should have added disingenuous twat to the closing of my answer to you.

Quote from: Toadmaster;1104660I really do wish more people followed this advice.

It would accelerate the get woke go broke factor.

I'm not a fan, I'm a consumer, you stop producing stuff I like? My money stays in my wallet. Nobody is entitled to my hard earned pesos. I might or not make public and loud criticisms of the changes and the twats behind them but that's besides the point.

Quote from: Antiquation!;1104659Seems like a dumb change made for silly reasons to me but hey, it's their game to do with what they will. I'll say that the "signal" factor comes off as pretty high in that announcement.

I'll be charitable and simply say: I'm not going to second-guess Shane's business needs. I'm not going to presume to know his sales-needs in direct relation to his personal feelings as a scholar who is selling a product to his consumer-base.

I believe him. I believe he believes exactly what he says. And I don't think that he's virtue-signaling as much as he's acknowledging the ground has *changed* in the gaming-world below his feet and he's making the call he believes is most important for the business in direct relation to his personal desires for the game.

I'm a relative latecomer to Deadlands - I only started a couple of years ago, but I literally own nearly everything for the game across multiple editions. I chuckled at the handling of the CSA from the start - even in the pre-Savage Worlds edition. It didn't make me do anything particularly different. It really isn't a problem. What is a problem is exactly how he puts it - the years of whinging about merely using the CSA in *any* manner has been turned into an outrage-feeder despite his efforts. I get it. And he and his wife (and the rest of Pinnacle) are particularly closer to the fire than any of us on it, so I'm sure it's affected them in terms of their own views in direct proportion to whatever impact, potential or otherwise, it's had on their business. I'm not going to second-guess them on that (nor would I do that to anyone).  

Despite all this - with no offense to his sensibilities, I simply will always ignore whatever it is I like/don't like about a setting, like I do with any game. It's a bummer that it even turned into this in the first place from the whining of the Usual Suspects(tm). Deadlands is a magnificent setting, and this does precisely ZERO to get me to stop using it. But I'm always open for it to get worse. Or better.