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.

 

[LordEntrails]

Do you think I shouldn't be allowed to not do business worth somebody whose values are antithetical to my own? And if so, why should I be forced to do business with that person?

I would love to discuss this, but as pointed out, we really can't. All I will say is that this issue is not so simple, and just as a last thought, depends upon if one is acting as an individual or as a public business.

 

[billd91]

What's actually happening is some people are choosing not to do business with somebody who has espoused values that do not align with their own. Do you think I shouldn't be allowed to not do business worth somebody whose values are antithetical to my own? And if so, why should I be forced to do business with that person?

That is more controversial than you think. A lot depends on whether you're a seller or a buyer. If you do business in public, you can't simply discriminate because you think your customer might have values that do not align with your own - depending on those values. For example, the gay wedding cake issue. There are a number of people who try to discriminate against selling gay couples wedding cakes because a gay wedding does not align with their own values. They are wrong to do so because by engaging in selling to the public, they are taking on the responsibility of selling to everyone regardless of what they are -what race, what religion, what gender, what sexual preference - all sorts of protected classes of people. They can't simply refuse to do so on the basis of claiming their values are at odds with the practice of gay marriage.
So yes, you may be forced to do business or hang up the business if you don't like the cut of someone's jib... if that dislike stems from them having protected class status.

Fortunately, in this case, it's entirely acceptable to refuse to do business with the living Robert Bledsaw generations because they're terrible hatemongers - bigotry not qualifying anyone for membership in a protected class of people.

 

[Panda-s1]

Michael Jackson (RIP)
R. Kelley (ouch)
Louis C.K. (attempting comeback, much lower profile)
John Lassetar (although now controversially with Skydance)
Charlie Rose
Matt Lauer
Bill Cosby (and jailed)
Kevin Spacey
Les Moonves

etc.

But as a general rule, if you're high profile and have a lot of money, you have a better chance of riding it out. It's the mid-tier execs you don't hear about in the major news (the local news) that don't bounce back.

I mean I guess I'll give you R. Kelly, and Michael Jackson, pedophilia is generally regarded as horrid by most of society, but they still managed to get out of controversy for years. Kevin Spacey seems to have gotten himself out of legal trouble (I think?) and hell we might very well hear from him again (which apparently we did lol). I feel like Bill Cosby could've gotten away with what he did under different circumstances, but sure he got cancelled hard.

but if I use Hulk Hogan as an measuring stick for everyone else seems like it's too soon to tell.

He got rehired after he was cleared though, right?

in RPG industry contexts, what about Ken Whitman? He seems to be cancelled a few times, but always pops up with a new project (one that usually ends up with lots of people out of money)

idk Ken Whitman just feels like a con man more than anything (thought admittedly I don't know a whole lot about him, it seems his biggest issue is a constant outpouring of bad kickstarters).

Zak Smith is probably a better example, a lot of people dropped him when allegations of abuse and rape surfaced early last year. who knows if he'll be back, but I had to google "d&d with porn stars" 'cause I forgot his name and came across his very active twitter. he sure retweets a lot of anti-witch hunt/apologetic stuff lol

It isn't. They may use it also, but it was created by black activists on the left as a Twitter hashtag. You can look that up in Webster's dictionary. That's how mainstream the concept has become - it's in the dictionary

would you like to point out where exactly this is?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It isn't. They may use it also, but it was created by black activists on the left as a Twitter hashtag. You can look that up in Webster's dictionary. That's how mainstream the concept has become - it's in the dictionary

To be clear, “cancelling” and “cancel culture” are quite distinct.

Cancelling someone is a warning to the rest of a culture or community that they aren’t “safe”, in some way or other. It was invented by black women and black queer activists to keep each other safe and call out bad actors within or peripheral to the community, but most notably false allies.

“Cancel Culture” is a BS right wing propaganda term that has been successfully propagandized into the mainstream, that creates hysteria about calling out bad actors and bringing social consequences to those who deserve it, and is used as a dog whistle, much like SJW, and other such buzzwords.

 

[Azzy]

I don't condone what he said, but I think people people only deserve to he cancelled for acts of violence, like what Amber Heard did to Johnny Depp, not words, in sicking vile racist ones (although by all means, point out his ignorance).

No, bigots, Holocaust deniers, and nazi sympathizers deserve to be cancelled hard. Screw them.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

To be clear, “cancelling” and “cancel culture” are quite distinct.

Cancelling someone is a warning to the rest of a culture or community that they aren’t “safe”, in some way or other. It was invented by black women and black queer activists to keep each other safe and call out bad actors within or peripheral to the community, but most notably false allies.

“Cancel Culture” is a BS right wing propaganda term that has been successfully propagandized into the mainstream, that creates hysteria about calling out bad actors and bringing social consequences to those who deserve it, and is used as a dog whistle, much like SJW, and other such buzzwords.

Spoiler: Topical Video with NSFW language

Relevant Cody's Showdy:

For those who can't watch, "In today's episode we explore why wealthy entertainers don't like mild consequences or accountability, and we cancel the idea of cancel culture."

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Relevant Cody's Showdy:
For those who can't watch, "In today's episode we explore why wealthy entertainers don't like mild consequences or accountability, and we cancel the idea of cancel culture."

Really good episode of that news show with the news guy.

 

[Eltab]

Does anybody know if Judges Guild can be separated from the family's finances - as in 'hostile takeover' (family's view) or 'merger and acquisition' (bigger company's view) - so money spent on JG products does not pass near the motormouth in question?
I've dawdled about buying Invincible Overlord for decades, I can be patient for a few years more.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

FWIW, “cancel culture” is just a new (loaded and weaponized) term for organized, sophisticated shunning/boycotting, and it’s a tool that has been used by people all across the spectrum of socio-political views. Those who think it’s just a left wing thing are ignoring or forgetting the Dixie Chicks. And others.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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?

The ”why” depends on a whole bunch of factors, especially (among my fellow Americans, at least) the current politics of the day coupled with the perceived anonymity of the Internet, even when the posts are not actually hidden.*

But regardless of the reasons, it ultimately boils down to one of two things:

1) they feel safe making such statements, believing they’re part of the “silent majority”, so whatever repercussions there may be will be relatively minor.

2) they feel profoundly unsafe and feel pressured to find like minded others or bring the unaligned into their fold.

And sometimes a mix of both.

in this case in particular, I’d say its most probably the former. He’s not recruiting, he’s not using coded language. But his public behavior towards minorities of all types is reportedly quite different from his recently revealed troublesome online postings, even though they- and similar- go back a decade or more. He feels safe onlkne, so he reveals himself.

Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
~ Oscar Wilde

* it’s ridiculous how many criminals have been caught because of their bragging on social media