Goodman Games: Our Efforts Have Been Mischaracterized

Goodman Games' CEO Joseph Goodman made a statement via YouTube over the weekend*. The video itself focused on the content of the controversial upcoming City State of the Invincible Overlord crowdfunding product, but was prefaced by a short introduction by Joseph Goodman, in which he reiterates his company's commitment to inclusivity and diversity and its opposition to bigotry, something which they say they "don't want to be associated with".

Goodman goes on to say that the company's efforts have been "mischaracterized by some folks" but does not go so far as to identify the mischaracterization, so it's not entirely clear what they consider to be untrue other than the "inaccurate" statements made by Bob Bledsaw II of Judges Guild about Goodman Games' plans, which Goodman mentioned last week.

For those who haven't been following this story, it has been covered in the articles Goodman Games Revives Relationship With Anti-Semitic Publisher For New City State Kickstarter, Goodman Games Offers Assurances About Judges Guild Royalties, and Judges Guild Makes Statement About Goodman Controversy. In short, Goodman Games is currently licensing an old property from a company with which it claimed to have cut ties in 2020 after the owner of that company made a number of bigoted comments on social media. Goodman Games has repeatedly said that this move would allow them to provide backers of an old unfulfilled Judges Guild Kickstarter with refunds, but there are many people questioning seeming contradictions in both the timelines involved and in the appropriateness of the whole endeavour.

Despite the backlash, the prospects of the crowdfunding project do not seem to have been harmed. The pre-launch page has over 3,000 followers, and many of the comments under the YouTube videos or on other social media are not only very supportive of the project, but also condemn those who question its appropriateness. In comparison, the original (failed) Judges Guild Kickstarter had only 965 backers.

The video is embedded below, followed by a transcript of the relevant section.

Hi everybody, I'm Joseph Goodman of Goodman Games. We recently announced our City State of the Invincible Overlord crowdfunding project for 5E and DCC RPG.

In the video you're about to see, some of our product development team is going to tell you about what makes the City State so amazing and why we're bringing it back to 5E and DCC audiences nearly 50 years after it was first released. It really is an amazing setting.

But we could have rolled this project out with a lot more clarity. Now, to be clear, Goodman Games absolutely opposes any sort of bigotry, racism, anti-semitism, homophobia, transphobia. We don't want to support it. We don't want to be associated with it.

Our well-intentioned effort to launch this project in a way that refunds backers of a former failed Kickstarter from another publisher kind of backfired in the way we announced it. Rest assured, the funds from this crowdfunding will actually fund refunds to backers of the original City State crowdfunding for the Pathfinder edition from 2014.

Unfortunately, our efforts have been—you know, I didn’t clarify them perfectly when we rolled it out—and they've been mischaracterized by some folks since then. But please rest assured, we stand for inclusivity and diversity.

You can read a lot more detail in the post that's linked below, and there's another video linked below where we talk about this in even more detail. But for now, we hope you will sit back and enjoy as some of the product development team tells you about really what makes the City State of the Invincible Overlord so amazing, and why you might want to check it out when it comes to crowdfunding soon.

Thanks, and I'll turn it over to them now.

The statement refers to a post about this that is supposed to be linked below, but at the time of writing no post is linked below the video, so it's not clear if that refers to a new post or one of Goodman Games' previous statements on the issue.

I reached out to Joseph Goodman last week to offer a non-confrontational (although direct and candid) interview in which he could answer some ongoing questions and talk on his reasoning behind the decision; I have not yet received a response to the offer--I did, however, indicate that I was just leaving for UK Games Expo, and wouldn't be back until this week.

*Normally I would have covered this in a more timely fashion, but I was away at UK Games Expo from Thursday through to Monday.

 

[Bravesteel25]

It does, but I still see some quirks in my community’s discussions of racism that indicate a drive to frame it as a distinct and therefore somehow worse form of bigotry than the others.

For instance, several of my mentors over the years have insisted that racism requires a power imbalance in favor of the racists. OTOH, there are definitely racists within my family- some self-described. Some hate whites; some hate Koreans; some hate Indians. Etc. So I don’t buy that power imbalance prerequisite.

I think it's because your mentors are confusing systematic racism with bigotry. Systematic racism, to me, definitely requires some sort of power imbalance.

On a side note, I think it's good that we can all identify areas where we and others around us are being bigotted.

 

[Gradine]

Yeah. This language isn't shared by everybody - I don't use it consistently myself. But it is useful to know, so when you do run into it, you can recognize it and not be lost.

The way we were taught it was: "Racism = Hate + Power"

Which is a bit reductive but gets the point across that there is hatred (animosity based on inherent characteristics) and oppression (bias leading to measurably negative outcomes based on inherent characteristics). They are definitely different but are, in many ways, inextricably linked. Primarily in that the normalization of hatred can make it easier to justify oppression (see trans rights in the UK and much of the US, or immigration... basically everywhere, at this point). This is why the "let the racist's speak!" isn't the great plan some seem to think it is. But it's also why hatred can flow in every direction but based on location and culture, some people will not experience oppression.

Personally I think that the push to label racism as only oppression by anti-racists (ie the "there is no racism against white people") was super wrong-headed and you don't really see that argument anymore.

 

[Umbran]

The way we were taught it was: "Racism = Hate + Power"

Yeah. In the formulation I've mentioned, it would be "Racism = Bias + Power". Where the bias might be hatred, or could be other things.

Personally I think that the push to label racism as only oppression by anti-racists (ie the "there is no racism against white people") was super wrong-headed and you don't really see that argument anymore.

I can see that.
As a straight, monogamous, cis, white male, though, I'm okay with the framing that my privilege creates an asymmetry. There will be people who hate me for what I am, too, but I still have a word for that.

 

[GreyLord]

It does, but I still see some quirks in my community’s discussions of racism that indicate a drive to frame it as a distinct and therefore somehow worse form of bigotry than the others.

For instance, several of my mentors over the years have insisted that racism requires a power imbalance in favor of the racists. OTOH, there are definitely racists within my family- some self-described. Some hate whites; some hate Koreans; some hate Indians. Etc. So I don’t buy that power imbalance prerequisite.

Those arguing here that there has to be a Power Imbalance for there to be racism means that I could never be a racist for the most part. I disagree with that idea. I am a PoC, but I've seen enough from all different variations of people, that I think anyone can be racist, and anyone can stay away from being a racist.

A close relative of mine was the most racist person I know. They definitely did not have the power to enforce their racist views on others, which is fortunate. They were not white.

The unfortunate truth was that my sister was thus seen as undesirable to a degree, where as I got lucky in the luck of the skin draw. It really wasn't based on anything more than looks for a lot of it.

I think when they say systemic racism, they are talking about the ability to enforce their racist views on others, or that the system makes it so that the views of one group are enforced upon those of another group, which requires some sort of power imbalance.

This could be as little as my relative who disliked certain Asians or those who were blacker than they were (which is ironic, I know, but yes, there are some who are prejudice against others, even of their own "race" dependent on skin color) to the point of excluding them if they could, or avoiding them. In a setting such as a school, calling others names or saying they can't sit near you, or other things could be seen as systemic racism if you had the power to enforce it...even though it is between minorities.

However, being racist, I feel, does not require one to have power to enforce that racism, but merely happens if one despises or hates another simply for a facet due to something such as race or ethnicity, or even something smaller such as skin tone or appearance that are different than their own.

 

[Parmandur]

It does, but I still see some quirks in my community’s discussions of racism that indicate a drive to frame it as a distinct and therefore somehow worse form of bigotry than the others.

For instance, several of my mentors over the years have insisted that racism requires a power imbalance in favor of the racists. OTOH, there are definitely racists within my family- some self-described. Some hate whites; some hate Koreans; some hate Indians. Etc. So I don’t buy that power imbalance prerequisite.

In terms of thinking through these issues, I have found that Ibram X. Kendi definitions of racism super helpful, particularly framing "racist" an adjective rather than a noun (people aren't in some metaphysical category of "racist", people have ideas which can be kdealogically racist) :

"Racism is a marriage of racist policies and racist ideas that produces and normalizes racial inequities." (p. 17-18, How to Be an Antiracist)

Kendi then goes on to define racial inequity, racist policies, and racist ideas.

"Racial inequity is when two or more racial groups are not standing on approximately equal footing." (p. 18)

"A racist policy is any measure that produces or sustains racial inequity between racial groups. By policy, I mean written and unwritten laws, rules, procedures, processes, regulations, and guidelines that govern people." (p. 18)

"A racist idea is any idea that suggests one racial group is inferior to or superior to another racial group in any way. Racist ideas argue that the inferiorities and superiorities of racial groups explain racial inequities in society." (p. 20)

So, by these definitions, an African-American individual can definitely have racist ideas about other groups, but might not have the social or exonomoc levers to create racist policies that influence racial inequality.