D&D General Companies Cut Ties With Judges Guild After Owner's Racist Posts

Several game publishers, including Bat in the Attic, have said that they will no longer do business with Judges Guild after its owner posted a number of racist and anti-semitic statements. They don't need to be repeated here; but there are several examples.

Judges Guild has been around since 1976, producing products compatible with Dungeons & Dragons; the current owner, Bob Bledsaw II, is the son of its co-founder, Bob Bledsaw, and has run the company since 2008. The company is well known for 1976's City State of the Invincible Overlord, amongst other classics. Bat in the Attic and Frog God Games both license Judges' Guild properties.

Rob Conley of Bat in the Attic stated yesterday that the company would no longer do business with Judges Guild, or its properties. "Sunday evening, I called Robert Bledsaw II and discussed the issue. I notified him that I will no longer be doing future Judges’ Guild projects and will only continue to sell what I have currently listed. I stated that I will be calling the other Judges Guild licensee and inform them of the situation and of my decision."

Frog God Games, which has been working with Judges Guild for nearly 20 years, followed suit. "Recently the owner of Judges Guild made a series of racist and anti-semitic posts on Facebook. We will not reproduce them here; they are shown on Rob Conley's Bat in the Attic blog, and we are convinced of their authenticity. Rob wrote his post because, as a licensee of Judges Guild property, he felt he needed to state clearly that he would not be doing business with Judges Guild in the future. We have also licensed property from Judges Guild in the past, and we are seconding Rob's example by cutting off all future business with Judges Guild. The posts made on Facebook were completely unacceptable."

UPDATE — DriveThruRPG has severed ties. “The Judges Guild publisher account has been closed and they are no longer available on DriveThruRPG.”

A few years ago, Judges Guild ran a Kickstarter to bring back City State of the Invincible Overlord, with nearly a thousand backers raising $85K. The Kickstarter has not yet been fulfilled. The latest update was in October 2019.

 

[Celebrim]

Also, don't disparage people who engage in antifascist action like that. They're good folks, it's not always violent, and when it is it's in no way hypocritical.

Board rules prevent me telling you what I think of that opinion, so can we just drop this line of discourse before things get heated?

 

[PsyzhranV2]

Board rules prevent me telling you what I think of that opinion, so can we just drop this line of discourse before things get heated?

@gyor brought it up, prior to that the subject hadn't entered the picture at all. He made a descriptive ethical claim, which I challeneged because I thought it was inaccurate, so ¯\(ツ)/¯

Also,

No, it shows that I do not tolerate what they think.

I don't care about their positions and rationales of why they think that way.

I recognize their threat and protect myself and my community from them.

These are very different things.

Engaging with "them" doesn't have to be conciliatory. Something as simple as fact-checking, as nipping erroneous claims in the bud and preventing them from spiraling into commonly repeated rancid talking points, is engagement, no matter how brief. This kind of engagement is important.

Plus, I would argue that such shutting down isn't persuasive, but performative. You aren't doing it for "their" sake, or for your own. You're doing it for everybody watching you.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

One thing I never understand about things like this. I intellectually understand that there are people who hold strong racist (or other equally objectionable) views; that's clear and apparent. What I don't get is why they post them publicly; surely they know what will happen? Or do they literally just not care about the consequences?

Catching up on this thread. But @Morrus I think this is a clear example of the echo chambers people live in.

 

[Birmy]

We made it past page 12.

Don't think I'm not disappointed.

 

[Bawylie]

“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.” Fred N.

I’m skeptical of the idea that the best answer to hatred and anger is hatred and rage.

I wonder whether monsters even know that they are monstrous.

 

[ad_hoc]

@gyor brought it up, prior to that the subject hadn't entered the picture at all. He made a descriptive ethical claim, which I challeneged because I thought it was inaccurate, so ¯\(ツ)/¯

Also,

Engaging with "them" doesn't have to be conciliatory. Something as simple as fact-checking, as nipping erroneous claims in the bud and preventing them from spiraling into commonly repeated rancid talking points, is engagement, no matter how brief. This kind of engagement is important.

Plus, I would argue that such shutting down isn't persuasive, but performative. You aren't doing it for "their" sake, or for your own. You're doing it for everybody watching you.

I disagree on both counts.

Christian Apologists are great examples of this as they are well funded and devote their profession is to have these conversations. They converse, make arguments, and the longer they go the stronger they claim their victory. Their goal is the argument. An example of a particular tactic is something called the 'Gish Gallop'. They make many claims in a small amount of time. The people they are arguing with cannot possibly address all of the claims in the span of a conversation so they spend the rest of the conversation claiming victory.

Why am I not doing it for my own? I think you're both overestimating how many people are watching and how much they care about what is being said.

Choosing not to include someone in a community isn't for 'an audience'. It's the right thing to do. People shouldn't buy Judges Guild products and they shouldn't engage with the people who are making racist proclamations.

Arguing with someone over whether Jews should be eradicated is not helpful.

Just shut those people out of your community and be done with it. That is the best and only reasonable course of action.

Don't allow them to continue. Don't keep listening to them.

 

[Panda-s1]

I don't expect everyone to be a Darrel Davis or to take it to that extreme, but I do think there are lessons to be learned from his approach and not just for PoC or on the issue of racism, but on a Plethora of issues. It's not PoC that I tend to use him as an example for anyways, it's the violent and often hypocritical Antifi activists and their cheerleaders with their punch a Nazi attidude that drives me to keep holding up Darrell Davis as a better way for those that want to fight racism. It's really to show their is a more effective option then violence.

yeah y'know once upon a time Americans had a shoot a Nazi "attidude" and it was surprisingly effective! whoa! O: it's like punching people who want to see me removed from this part of the world, or worse: dead, seems reasonable compared to what they'd do if given the chance.

EDIT: actually we're both missing the point here: what Antifa fights against and what facists want is absolutely reprehensible. that should be the end of the argument over whether or not we should take them seriously.

 

[Celebrim]

@gyor brought it up, prior to that the subject hadn't entered the picture at all. He made a descriptive ethical claim, which I challeneged because I thought it was inaccurate, so ¯\(ツ)/¯

Yeah, I know. I wasn't happy when gyor brought the subject up either, but I don't want to derail this with dueling ethical claims and challenges.

 

[CleverNickName]

It looks like a number of publishers and distributors are dropping Judges Guild. Sadly, I don't think they (the company) are going to be able to recover. I don't know how many people will be hurt by this, but it's bound to be more than the hateful person who instigated it.

People who accept leadership positions in a company, no matter how large or small that company might be, have also agreed to a certain level of responsibility. Their image and reputation will affect the image and reputation of their company, their employees, and their products. This isn't new; it's not a product of the Internet age or social media. It's always been the case.

So before you offer a leadership to someone, do your homework: find out what kind of person you are about to put at the helm, and make your decision carefully. And if you take up a leadership position, consider carefully the responsibility you now have to your employees and your customers...the things you say and do will reflect on them, for good or for ill. Leadership isn't a job for everyone, and it's not something to be taken lightly.

I'll climb down from my high-horse now. Sorry, this is just a stupid and sad way to ruin a company.

 

[numtini]

I don't think there's any real company here. Just the family licensing their father's work from 40 years ago. And running the odd kickstarter and not fulfilling it.