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.

 

[Dire Bare]

I've never got around to purchasing any Judge's Guild products, I was a bit too young back in the hey days, and never got too deep into the OSR movement now that I'm older. But I've always been curious about "The City State of the Invincible Overlord" . . . . such a cool, evocative title!

Now, I suppose, I'll remove JG products from my "need to check this out someday" list. Not a huge loss for JG, really, but it saddens me that such an important company and product line are now tainted with racism and antisemitism. Sigh.

I wonder if this is the beginning of the end for Judge's Guild as we know it, or if they have enough customers who don't care about Bledsoe's views to keep them afloat? This on top of their Kickstarter failure can't be good.

 

[Weiley31]

So apparently according to Matt Finch, who I'm assuming is a major member/part of Frog God Games on their FB page, somebody asked about the royalties from purchasing Tegel Manor from Frog God Games.

Under contract and REQUIRED/REQUESTED by Frog God Games, Bledsaw II CANNOT legally use the royalties,from the sales of Tegel Manor from Frog God Games, for anything OTHER THAN "making their Kickstarter supporters whole"
So the money paid would be used to fulfill The City-state of The Invincible Overlord Kickstarter that Judge Guildes botched hard on


So if I'm reading that right, the royalties HAVE to be paid back/used to finish and provide the promised material promised by Judge Guildes Games. Using it for ANYTHING ELSE will really nail Bledsaw II HARD for breach of contract.

Unless I'm reading that all wrong.

 

[Umbran]

As a practical matter, how is it not similar.

We are being kind of vague, so, I can perhaps only mention this: Statistics.

To say, "everyone gets abused at some point" rather misses the statistics - within the US, some groups are given more abuse than others. This doesn't speak to any individual person's experience, but is still highly relevant in considering the impact of abuse, in a cultural sense.

Say I am a cis-het-white-male. I probably have picked on for something in my past. I should not, however, pretend that gives me anything like the perspective of an African American man, or anyone transgendered, or most other groups we might choose to name.

I can use my experience to extrapolate ("Geeze, what must it be like to get that, every day, for decades?"), but that doesn't mean I really know.

 

[darjr]

Well, I don't know if it's true, but I want to believe it.

Same here.

 

[Celebrim]

We are being kind of vague, so, I can perhaps only mention this: Statistics.

Numbers are a horrible way to look at individuals. Most of the time when someone tells me I need to judge an individual by statistics, it's a racist.

 

[Alzrius]

We are being kind of vague, so, I can perhaps only mention this: Statistics.

To say, "everyone gets abused at some point" rather misses the statistics - within the US, some groups are given more abuse than others. This doesn't speak to any individual person's experience, but is still highly relevant in considering the impact of abuse, in a cultural sense.

Say I am a cis-het-white-male. I probably have picked on for something in my past. I should not, however, pretend that gives me anything like the perspective of an African American man, or anyone transgendered, or most other groups we might choose to name.

I can use my experience to extrapolate ("Geeze, what must it be like to get that, every day, for decades?"), but that doesn't mean I really know.

Would it be fair to characterize what you're saying as standpoint theory?

 

[Umbran]

Numbers are a horrible way to look at individuals. Most of the time when someone tells me I need to judge an individual by statistics, it's a racist.

Which is why I said, very specifically, this doesn't speak to individual experience.

But, it does remind us, that "I have, on occasion, been abused" may not necessarily tell us what it is like to be part of a group that gets abuse more often.

 

[Umbran]

Would it be fair to characterize what you're saying as standpoint theory?

This is the first I've heard that term. I'd have to read up a bit. So... maybe?

 

[Charlaquin]

Well, that's not fully fair. I think the better way to look at it is this-

The American way(tm) is that there should be no prior restraints on speech by The Man.*
-This means that The Man can't censor you before you speak.

The American way(tm) is also that there should be a high burden for The Man to punish you for your speech, even after the fact.
-This means that The Man shouldn't throw you in jail or fine you or otherwise hurt you for what you say. Absent some amazing circumstances.

However, the American Way has also always been that the best way to counteract bad speech is with more, better speech (the Mo' Better Blues theory of speech, aka the Spike Lee marketplace of ideas). In this manner, it wouldn't be correct that the right approach to someone hurling abuse at "black/jewish/gay/handicapped/etc" would be to say, "Very good! I might have some small manner of disapprobation at your words, dear sir, but let me assure you that I am fully in your corner and cheering you on so that you understand I am fully in support of your right to loudly exclaim upon your vicious ideology! Cheers!"

Nope. Instead, the best approach would be to use your speech (and/or actions, including but not limited to boycott) to show that this speech is distasteful, odious, unwelcome, and that you support the targets of the abuse with both words and actions.


TLDR; free speech is truly a good thing; but use it to support great causes, not as an abstract "I love Illinois Nazis" thing.**



*I am using "The Man" in the technical term to mean state action, which basically means the government and/or the Men in Black, but I repeat myself.

**Blues Brothers, since I apparently have to explain my references.

Unfortunately, the hateful ideologies have proven themselves to be incredibly adept at taking advantage of this policy of countering hateful speech with better speech. They know how to communicate their message in a way that speaks to certain vulnerable demographics much more strongly than ostensibly better speech does. The only effective way to combat their propaganda is deplatforming them so that their message can’t reach the people who are vulnerable to it. This has been pretty effectively demonstrated throughout history.

 

[Uller]

Well, that's not fully fair. I think the better way to look at it is this-

The American way(tm) is that there should be no prior restraints on speech by The Man.*
-

And to take your point a lottle further, freedom of association is right up there with freedom of speech. Implied in freedom of association is freedom to not associate...which is exactly what is happening here. I have seen no one in this thread defend the sentiments being discussed. That he was free to say them is important so his ideas can be countered. Now people know and can choose to not associate with him by nit doing business with him.