Big Changes At White Wolf Following Controversy

Following an online backlash regarding the content of their recent publications, White Wolf Publishing has just announced some big changes, including the suspension of the Vampire 5th Edition Camarilla and Anarch books, and a restructuring of management.

White Wolf's Shams Jorjani made the following announcement about an hour ago:

"Hello everyone,

My name is Shams Jorjani, VP of Business Development at Paradox Interactive and interim manager at White Wolf Publishing. I wanted to inform you of some changes that will be implemented at White Wolf, starting immediately.

Sales and printing of the V5 Camarilla and Anarch books will be temporarily suspended. The section on Chechnya will be removed in both the print and PDF versions of the Camarilla book. We anticipate that this will require about three weeks. This means shipping will be delayed; if you have pre-ordered a copy of Camarilla or Anarchs, further information will follow via e-mail.

In practical terms, White Wolf will no longer function as a separate entity. The White Wolf team will be restructured and integrated directly into Paradox Interactive, and I will be temporarily managing things during this process. We are recruiting new leadership to guide White Wolf both creatively and commercially into the future, a process that has been ongoing since September.

Going forward, White Wolf will focus on brand management. This means White Wolf will develop the guiding principles for its vision of the World of Darkness, and give licensees the tools they need to create new, excellent products in this story world. White Wolf will no longer develop and publish these products internally. This has always been the intended goal for White Wolf as a company, and it is now time to enact it.

The World of Darkness has always been about horror, and horror is about exploring the darkest parts of our society, our culture, and ourselves. Horror should not be afraid to explore difficult or sensitive topics, but it should never do so without understanding who those topics are about and what it means to them. Real evil does exist in the world, and we can’t ever excuse its real perpetrators or cheapen the suffering of its real victims.

In the Chechnya chapter of the V5 Camarilla book, we lost sight of this. The result was a chapter that dealt with a real-world, ongoing tragedy in a crude and disrespectful way. We should have identified this either during the creative process or in editing. This did not happen, and for this we apologize.

We ask for your patience while we implement these changes. In the meantime, let’s keep talking. I’m available for any and all thoughts, comments and feedback, on shams.jorjani@paradoxinteractive.com."

White Wolf is currently own by Paradox Interactive, who acquired the World of Darkness rights in 2015 from previous owner CCP (who you might know from Eve Online) whose plans for a WoD MMO failed to bear fruit.

The recent Camarilla and Anarch books have met widespread criticism. The former, Camarilla, includes a section which appears to trivialise current real-life events in Chechnya, where the LGBTQ community is being persecuted, tortured, and murdered and uses that current tragedy as a backdrop for the setting. This comes after the company was forced to deny links to neo-Nazi ideology. White Wolf recently announced that "White Wolf is currently undergoing some significant transitions up to and including a change in leadership. The team needs a short time to understand what this means, so we ask for your patience as we figure out our next steps" and this appears to be the result of that decision.

 

[Ovinomancer]

That's .... not a good point.

You understand that there's a difference between using concepts in fiction, as opposed to using things that have happened and adding fictional elements?

To make this clear, there is a very sharp divide between a fictional work that uses genocide as a topic, as opposed to a fictional work that presupposes some alternate ideas about the Holocaust.

So, of the three you use, the only one that (plausibly) can be in the same category is Satanic Verses, and the issue there isn't the same, as it doesn't involve fictionalizing a currently-unfolding tragedy, but instead involves issues of blasphemy.

Different things are different. And controversial things can be controversial for different reasons.

Ah, I'm off the blocked list.

I disagree. Sure, there are differences, but in degree, not kind. Frex, the Nazi's have been portrayed in many fictional ways, including around the genocide of Jews, to tell sometimes outlandishly fictional stories. There's a current movie where Nazi's experiment on prisoners to develop a zombie formula, fercrissakes.

In contrast, Lolita touches directly on child sex crimes as it both humanizes and demonizes it's main character throughout for his lusts and behavior. Reading Lolita would be more traumatizing for a survivor of child sex abuse than the WW Chechya section to un-impacted LGBQ persons. Hiwever, @Ubran posits a simple test for the WW issue based on the reactions of thise same un-impacted LGBQ persons. If the "simple" test advocated by [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] was actually simple, he wouldn't have needed to erect a lack of Scotsmen to discuss Lolita. By his test, Lolita is unethical. It might help to recall that Lolita faced far more outrage from a broader swath of the populance than WW for it's highly offensive nature. Lolita humanizes a child rapist, after all. WW monsterized Chechyan genocide.

Was what WW did tasteful? No, and neither is Lolita, Catcher, or Satanic Verses. Potter was just commercial. But to claim a simple test that bars WW while ignoring the others because the WW case justifies other biases is just a bad argument. Personally, I dislike what WW chose to do here, and I also dislike the reaction of it's owners. I don't think there was a "good" choice here, and I'm certainly not going to pretend any of it is simple.

 

[Maxperson]

No they are not. Period. End sentence. This is just plain, old fashioned factually incorrect. Sorry.

You seem to equate, "Do fiduciary duty" to "maximize profits". Fiduciary duty is a duty to act in the best interest of another - as best you know and understand at the time.

For a corporation, for example, the best interest of shareholders is probably not "maximize corporate profits" but is instead, "maximize shareholder value". But, a *lot* of things can influence shareholder value - f'rex, having the company's name go down the toilet due to a controversy probably doesn't do a lot for shareholder value. And there will be a judgement call on how to achieve the value.

A real lawyer can probably do better, but my understanding is that fiduciary duty is really only in play when you can show that the alleged offender took an action they *knew* was not in the best interest of their client/employer. Like, "I am your financial advisor, and I encourage you to buy a junk stock because I am getting a great commission on it." Making a judgement call on a matter of public relations? Not an issue, unless you say, "I hate these guys, and I'm gonna actively antagonize them, even if that makes the company lose money!"

We see it happen all the time, without any major consequence to the corporations. Pharmaceutical corporations put out drugs that they know kill people, because the profits they make vastly outweigh the price of lawsuits and the fines they receive. Banks abuse their customers for the same reasons. Profits outweighs ethics. This isn't true for all companies, as we saw with Starbucks who would have been far more hurt financially had they not responded the way that they did, but many times the bottom line will outweigh ethics for corporations.

 

[ruemere]

Morrus runs a very safe site, I don't think it's necessary to carefully examine all URL's posted here. OTOH, you're posting links to a website that literally bans you for supporting the President of the United States anywhere on the internet if they can connect it to you. The onus is upon you to very clearly indicate where you're linking to when linking to a site with such controversial and political policies.

It's one thing to link to a standard site with standard behavior policies, it's quite another to link to a site that bans anyone who supports the sitting President.

"Morrus runs a very safe site, I don't think it's necessary to carefully examine all URL's posted here."

You're wrong. Any clickjacker software running in a background of your O/S can turn safest link into one-way ticket to problematic site. Also, as evidenced in this case, Morrus cannot monitor everyone's links, so ultimately, the security is on you.

Finally, your political preferences have nothing to do with me. Somewhat political statement spoilered (though it's a bit amusing, too).
[sblock]
Mod Edit: Per Morrus' statement - no politics. ~Umbran
[/sblock]

Regards,
Ruemere

 

[Ovinomancer]

If you want to say that children do get abused, and that religion is important to people, sure.

But "theme" in literature is entirely arranged. Real lives don't have "themes" - the events in those books are entirely fabricated to produce themes. And, more important, while there are alienated young people out there, Holden Caulfield does not exist outside of Catcher.

Take *real* people, who have suffered, and make it so the known and historical source of their suffering is not only fictional, but outright not possible in our universe? While some of the victims are still alive? Not the same. Sorry.

Right, because vampires. Curiously, in the plot in the WW supplement, aren't the vampires manipulating the humans in government to conduct the pogrom? Aren't then the humans just as guilty as the real world humans who, instead of vampires as a motivation, use something equally fictional to justify their actions?

But, before we go much further down the path of which things are Scotsmen and which aren't, here's your original claim:

If you do something, and a bunch of people hear about it, and show up to tell you that you were being an insensitive, ill-informed jerk, whether or not you have potential business with them is not material in determining if you were, in fact, being an insensitive, ill-informed jerk. They are not wrong just because they weren't going to give you money.

Worrying about who is a customer, and who isn't, is a business decision. But the core issue here isn't a business problem - it is an ethical problem. If your basic answer to ethical questions is to check your bottom line, you have probably missed the point of the ethical question.

As this claim has nothing to do with Chechnya or White Wolf, but is much broader, either you can defend the above using Lolita or my other examples, or you cannot. If you cannot, then it appears you have nothing more that 'because reasons' for your claim and don't have a broader basis for your statement. I'm interested in hearing a defense of the original statements.

 

[Morrus]

"Morrus runs a very safe site, I don't think it's necessary to carefully examine all URL's posted here."

You're wrong. Any clickjacker software running in a background of your O/S can turn safest link into one-way ticket to problematic site. Also, as evidenced in this case, Morrus cannot monitor everyone's links, so ultimately, the security is on you.

Finally, your political preferences have nothing to do with me. Somewhat political statement spoilered (though it's a bit amusing, too).
[sblock]
I am not from US, I do not hold current US president in high regard - this is the guy (youtube link) who quoted Benito Mussolini, and then did not know who Benito Mussolini had been - just look at his initial response and the baffled look on his face when he slowly realized what kind of cesspool he stepped into (ye gods - how can anyone with so little education become a president of US?).
On the other hand, (youtube link, longish) Obama's having dinner with Anthony Bourdain simply made my day. I wish you could xerox this guy and ship it to my country for several turns of presidency - for the record I think my country current president also sucks, especially since he is party to dismantling democratic institutions.
[/sblock]

Regards,
Ruemere

I repeat: this is NOT a free-for-all politics thread. You can discuss the thread topic, but politics and religion in general are not allowed on EN World. You've been here since 2002, so you know this. Don't use this thread as an excuse to interject your random political soapbox. This goes for everybody. Stay on topic.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It’s not complicated. If Lolita used a real life, recent (relative to publication), victim and perpetrator, it would be entirely a different sort of situation than a book that explores the mind of a hypothetical fake person commiting a fictionalised sex crime.

If someone wrote a similar book about Roman Polanski, humanzing him while describing his crimes, it would create a deserved crap-storm of vociferous negative press.

 

[grimslade]

This seems pretty simple to me. Vampire and the World of Darkness line have been very LGBTQ+ friendly, even at the beginning in the '90s, when not much media was. The Chechnyan 'plotline' was hamfisted* and downplayed a current, ongoing tragedy to many of the WoD property's fans/consumers. Paradox looked at the bad press being generated over their product and pulled the plug rather than to further damage the IP. Seems pretty cut and dry. I do not see a free speech issue here or censorship. The PR of the Camarilla book had become so bad, the remedy had to be pretty drastic to keep Vampire IP from becoming radioactive for other future projects.
You don't need to even question if people were right or wrong to feel offended. People were offended. They presented a bunch of cogent reasons why they were offended. You might not agree with those reasons, but the offense is there.

* Obviously, IMNSHO, this storyline was a hash. It reads like a parody, with the leaders name change and laughable conspiracy theory to cover up supernatural atrocities with real atrocities. The world is full of evil being committed in every corner of the globe. You want to draw attention and shine a light on a particular evil in the storyline? It would have to be handled with such delicate precision, because it is a real evil and causes real fear and anxiety for many, even those not in the precise situation, it would take more effort than deadlines allow. Current events are rarely understood well enough to ever be given a proper context in current fiction.

 

[Rygar]

This seems pretty simple to me. Vampire and the World of Darkness line have been very LGBTQ+ friendly, even at the beginning in the '90s, when not much media was. The Chechnyan 'plotline' was hamfisted* and downplayed a current, ongoing tragedy to many of the WoD property's fans/consumers. Paradox looked at the bad press being generated over their product and pulled the plug rather than to further damage the IP. Seems pretty cut and dry. I do not see a free speech issue here or censorship. The PR of the Camarilla book had become so bad, the remedy had to be pretty drastic to keep Vampire IP from becoming radioactive for other future projects.
You don't need to even question if people were right or wrong to feel offended. People were offended. They presented a bunch of cogent reasons why they were offended. You might not agree with those reasons, but the offense is there.

* Obviously, IMNSHO, this storyline was a hash. It reads like a parody, with the leaders name change and laughable conspiracy theory to cover up supernatural atrocities with real atrocities. The world is full of evil being committed in every corner of the globe. You want to draw attention and shine a light on a particular evil in the storyline? It would have to be handled with such delicate precision, because it is a real evil and causes real fear and anxiety for many, even those not in the precise situation, it would take more effort than deadlines allow. Current events are rarely understood well enough to ever be given a proper context in current fiction.

It is pretty cut and dried, Paradox in this case did the right thing, and the impression I have is that there isn't anyone who disagrees really. The thread's more moved on to a generic discussion of outrage and business/ethics matters.

Honestly, IMO, Morrus should just kill the thread. No one's really discussing the original topic anymore, we've all moved on to generic discussions about outrage and ethics, and TBH none of us are going to change our minds anyways.

 

[dco]

You don't need to even question if people were right or wrong to feel offended. People were offended. They presented a bunch of cogent reasons why they were offended. You might not agree with those reasons, but the offense is there.

* Obviously, IMNSHO, this storyline was a hash. It reads like a parody, with the leaders name change and laughable conspiracy theory to cover up supernatural atrocities with real atrocities. The world is full of evil being committed in every corner of the globe. You want to draw attention and shine a light on a particular evil in the storyline? It would have to be handled with such delicate precision, because it is a real evil and causes real fear and anxiety for many, even those not in the precise situation, it would take more effort than deadlines allow. Current events are rarely understood well enough to ever be given a proper context in current fiction.

There is always people offended. For some people like me the real question is what is the limit for a possible offense to influence the fiction of the books and what will happen with the next ones. For example the old Chicago by night had vampires that pulled the strings of a minority group which was nearly decimated before the foundation of the city, the vampire gangster Al Capone controlled practically all the crime of the city and was behind a lot of problematic real events, the police can be controlled by vampires, etc. If someone of Chicago knows people who were killed by a criminal, a police, for drugs or has drugs problems, or she is part of a minority group and gets offended... the new Chicago by Night sourcebook will go back to the kitchen and change to a city of only vampires in another dimension? The people who don't like to have fictional vampires behind politics and real events will buy the book?

The main problem of the story is that the game had a poor editor who ruined and published it.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

We see it happen all the time, without any major consequence to the corporations. Pharmaceutical corporations put out drugs that they know kill people, because the profits they make vastly outweigh the price of lawsuits and the fines they receive. Banks abuse their customers for the same reasons. Profits outweighs ethics. This isn't true for all companies, as we saw with Starbucks who would have been far more hurt financially had they not responded the way that they did, but many times the bottom line will outweigh ethics for corporations.

All that proves is that:

1) they’ve made a certain cynical calculation as to their exposure if/when they get caught, not that they ignore ethics completely

2) the penalties within the legal framework in which businesses operate isn’t keeping up with realities of business profits. Like when Dr. Evil initially demanded a ransom of mere millions.