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.

 

[CleverNickName]

The way I understand it, "free speech" (here in America) means that someone cannot be arrested for what they say.* It does not, nor has it ever, nor was it intended to, insulate us from the consequences of our own poor behavior.

I'm not an expert in Constitutional law, but I think a couple of people at ENWorld might be.

*unless you are inciting actions that would harm others, like falsely shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater and inciting a stampede. (thanks @lowkey13 for the important distinction)

 

[billd91]

Maybe I didn't understand what you were saying here, and if that's the case I apologize, but... this seems very simplistic of a statement. When you say the verbal abuse and harassment I feel for not being straight (or in the case discussed here, a jewish person for their religion, or a black person for the color of thir skin) is similar to the kind of abuse everyone gets from some quarter makes me feel reduced.

Well, I think it can be interpreted a bit as "everyone gets targeted at some point". But that misses or even blindly (tone deafly?) skips over the fact that different groups suffer differently because they lack the same levels of power and privilege in society. Because of historical discrimination and various forms of oppression, some groups are far more vulnerable than others, will not be able to seek similar forms of redress, etc as ones that have had decades or centuries to build up privilege or even resources.

 

[Bolares]

The way I understand it, "free speech" (here in America) means that someone cannot be arrested for what they say.* It does not, nor has it ever, nor was it intended to, insulate us from the consequences of our own poor behavior.

I'm not an expert in Constitutional law, but I think a couple of people at ENWorld might be.

*unless you are inciting actions that would harm others, like shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater and inciting a stampede.

well, in Brazil we have laws that define slander and other crimes that can be comitted just by saying something.

If you threaten someone, if you attack someones honor and dignity, if you slander them, if you falsely acuse them of something...

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I can't say I ever followed what Bledsaw II was doing or saying. But I'm sure there are people that did, and should've said something.

I still love the old Judges Guild stuff, but part of me also worries that this sort of bigotry is all too easily inherited. Lacking confirmation in either direction, I don't have an answer there.

I'm surprised he had a long history of doing that in public and only now he's getting called out? like he runs a niche company in an arguably niche hobby, but it's still fairly egregious, you'd think a peripheral friend or even casual fan would've seen his posts and be like "uhhhhhhhhh"

Darn right. There are more people that want this hobby to be a wonderful place for everyone, made better by that inclusivity, than there are people that agree with Bledsaw's reprehensible ideas.

As far as I’m concerned, these people can sit to the side, watching their pool of gamers who will play with them dwindle smaller and smaller. hopefully they begin to disappear. I have no sympathy.

 

[Mistwell]

Sigh... I don't even know how to respond to this.

Don't take that either way. I think there is a lot of fault here, but I also feel there is a lot of judgement.

I started out without immediate judgment. I looked at the initial two posts that were reported, and then I privately asked Bob directly about them. Because I don't believe in immediately judging people for a couple of things they say in a day on the Internet, as a generalization.

Unfortunately, what he responded to me in private made it clear this isn't a couple of things he said in a day on the Internet. It sounded to me like a long-standing and deeply held set of beliefs with a lot of history behind them. I encourage you to talk to him privately and ask him about these beliefs and see if you think I am wrong in drawing that conclusion. If your experience turns out to be different than mine, please let me know. But I don't think my characterization is unfair at all, and I don't think your experience will differ from mine if you do ask him directly about these views.

Then I wondered, is he just having a bad week? So I looked back as far as I could in his public posts.

Nope. This isn't this week. Or this month. Or this year. I don't think it's this decade or this millennium even.

Bob has said similar stuff, even worse stuff, for a very long time. He said similar stuff prior to 2016. He has strong similar views going back to 2000, and strong similar views about events going back to the Kennedy administration and even earlier.

While I have not seen it, I would not be at all surprised if he said similar stuff going back to Usenet days. Maybe BBS days? In fact Bob at one time mentioned he's a Short Wave Radio enthusiast and considered that sort of the "Internet Message Boards before there were Internet Message Boards". I would not be at all shocked if Bob was saying this kind of stuff over shortwave radio too. Perhaps before I was born. Admittedly that's me speculating. I can only say for sure it goes back what I consider "a meaningfully long time".

So at what point do you express disappointment in a person for their beliefs? I can certainly see not snapping to judgment over a few errant Tweets in the midst of a bad day or a bad week or even month. But what appears to be a lifetime of beliefs which do not appear to have gotten better or changed much over the years?

But even with all that, I STILL gave him an opportunity to try and explain this earlier stuff, so I could see if I was missing something. I asked him about some older comments I found that he had posted. I tried to explain why I was disappointed with these views, put them in a context I thought he could appreciate, and explained my personal experience and why I found the comments hurtful. I tried to change his mind about these views in a fairly non-aggressive manner where I was listening as much or more than I was talking.

His replies, in my opinion, were a doubling and tripling down on them. And then he disappeared and stopped talking. I can only hope with time he thinks more about our conversation.

So you tell me - at what point do you tell people you're really disappointed?

 

[billd91]

well, in Brazil we have laws that define slander and other crimes that can be comitted just by saying something.

If you threaten someone, if you attack someones honor and dignity, if you slander them, if you falsely acuse them of something...

A lot of countries do - even the US. But sometimes, and this gets into some pretty muddy waters, the burden of proof as far as whether or not something is the truth shifts around. But in a lot of these cases as well, slander or libel isn't actionable if directed at a group of people. It has to be specific and personal. So, saying something offensive about Jews in general can't be easily redressed - how do you assess or prove an individual Jew's injury? The comment has to be about a specific person for them to have standing as an injured party.

 

[Alzrius]

I'm not an expert in Constitutional law, but I think a couple of people at ENWorld might be.

*unless you are inciting actions that would harm others, like shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater and inciting a stampede.

I'm no expert, but I do dabble, and the shouting fire in a crowded theater example isn't actually a very good one. It's from Schenck v. United States, where the Supreme Court unanimously held that distributing fliers encouraging people not to submit to the draft (for World War I) presented a "clear and present danger" that the first amendment didn't protect. Years later, this would be replaced by the "imminent lawless action" standard that presents a narrower scope of restricted speech, whereby issuing fliers urging people not to comply with conscription wouldn't be considered to be a crime.

 

[Celebrim]

When you say the verbal abuse and harassment I feel for not being straight (or in the case discussed here, a jewish person for their religion, or a black person for the color of thir skin) is similar to the kind of abuse everyone gets from some quarter makes me feel reduced.

When you've been thrown to the ground and kicked by a group of people, stoned, tripped, spit on, pushed, stabbed, punched, mocked, belittled, and so forth, then you can tell me how you feel reduced.

I don't personally feel why one gets abused is nearly as important as the fact that they have been. If you have been abused, and made to feel small, regardless of why, you have my full sympathy has someone who has also suffered. If you are trying to tell me that I don't have your sympathy, because I wasn't mocked for the right reasons (reasons I might add you don't know), take a step back and ask if that is reducing other people.

 

[Bolares]

A lot of countries do - even the US. But sometimes, and this gets into some pretty muddy waters, the burden of proof as far as whether or not something is the truth shifts around. But in a lot of these cases as well, slander or libel isn't actionable if directed at a group of people. It has to be specific and personal. So, saying something offensive about Jews in general can't be easily redressed - how do you assess or prove an individual Jew's injury? The comment has to be about a specific person for them to have standing as an injured party.

We have articles of law that protect against this broad kind of hate speech, I will try my best to translate them, as although I'm a lawyer I don't usually use legal terms in english hahaha

Law nº7716/1989 (number of the law/year of publication)

...Article 20 - To practice, induce or incite the discrimination based on race, color, ethnicity, religion or nationality.

Penalty: one to three years of reclusion and a fine.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

When you've been thrown to the ground and kicked by a group of people, stoned, tripped, spit on, pushed, stabbed, punched, mocked, belittled, and so forth, then you can tell me how you feel reduced.

I don't personally feel why one gets abused is nearly as important as the fact that they have been. If you have been abused, and made to feel small, regardless of why, you have my full sympathy has someone who has also suffered. If you are trying to tell me that I don't have your sympathy, because I wasn't mocked for the right reasons (reasons I might add you don't know), take a step back and ask if that is reducing other people.

Using your personal experiences as a bludgeon with which to deny systemic discrimination and oppression is incredibly short-sighted and narrow minded.