Quote from: Manic Modron;1104712The Union fought to prevent secession.  The Confederacy seceeded to preserve their ability to own black people. See the Cornerstone speech, articles of secession, An Address to the Citizens of Alabama on the Constitution and Laws of the Confederate States of America, and the Constitution of the Confederacy.

It was actually pretty crazy for the south to secede at all, as slavery would not have been abolished by the election of Lincoln.
It was insane to believe they could win a war with the north.
The Dredd Scott decision had ensured that owning slaves was a right guaranteed by the Constitution.
It would have taken a Constitutional amendment to abolish slavery (or for each State to abolished it in turn).
Many scholars believe that slavery as an institution would have been voluntarily abolished entirely by the States by around 1880 at the latest.

Quote from: jeff37923;1104729So how many of these offended Players are going to now rush to play Deadlands because of the retcon? How many of those offended Players were paying customers to begin with?

Probably close to zero.  It sounds like most of the people who are happy with this upcoming retcon were already playing Deadlands.

Quote from: DocJones;1104735It was actually pretty crazy for the south to secede at all, as slavery would not have been abolished by the election of Lincoln.
It was insane to believe they could win a war with the north.
The Dredd Scott decision had ensured that owning slaves was a right guaranteed by the Constitution.
It would have taken a Constitutional amendment to abolish slavery (or for each State to abolished it in turn).
Many scholars believe that slavery as an institution would have been voluntarily abolished entirely by the States by around 1880 at the latest.

Expanding slavery into the territories was a big issue for the South, which they were concerned about even if slavery was preserved in the existing slave states. They wanted to enter new markets so that they could get even richer. Although it was a political pipe dream, the Confederacy had plans to form a "Tropical Empire" in Latin America of new slave states should they have successfully seceded.

Quote from: Libertad;1104734Because pro-Confederate sympathies piss off political centrists in addition to the mainstream left and far-left, especially outside of the South. Deadlands' whitewashed Confederacy has been the greatest hurdle in new players in trying said setting, and it's not an understatement to say that it's the issue gamers by and large have in regards to Deadlands. More so than its handling of many other issues, in part because the Lost Cause looms largest in the minds of many Americans.

We may never truly know due to the confidentiality of sales figures, but on anecdotal evidence I've seen people reluctant to try Deadlands before now much more interested in the setting due to this change.

Without even really knowing how the so-called change is going to ultimately manifest?  As I have said numerous times already, I don't see how this change is going to make the game "more inclusive" or eliminate racism.  You yourself mentioned earlier that there are Chinese immigrants segregated into their own towns, Apaches slaughtered, mega-villains with bigoted attitudes, etc.  Is this retcon going to remove all of that?  Seems to me that would neuter the setting, making it free of conflict, aside from just simple monster-bashing.  Still can't believe this is such an issue for people.  Deadlands has always seemed to have over-the-top villains to me, almost caricatures of evil, to be taken on by the player characters.

There's a difference between including racist content as a feature of the world vs. repeating real-world racist propaganda as an objective fact within a world.

And like I said in an earlier post, it'd be pretty foolish to pull a "well actually the Confederacy was right and noble all along" card given the statements by Shane Lacy Hensley about the discomforts many gamers had with it. So he is at the very least aware of Neo-Confederate rhetoric and how it harmed his game line. In the end, time will tell, but if that's the plan then the Facebook update was much ado about nothing.

Quote from: Libertad;1104741There's a difference between including racist content as a feature of the world vs. repeating real-world racist propaganda as an objective fact within a world.

And like I said in an earlier post, it'd be pretty foolish to pull a "well actually the Confederacy was right and noble all along" card given the statements by Shane Lacy Hensley about the discomforts many gamers had with it. So he is at the very least aware of Neo-Confederate rhetoric and how it harmed his game line. In the end, time will tell, but if that's the plan then the Facebook update was much ado about nothing.

So the problem people have with the game is that the south was somehow portrayed as noble and good and abolished slavery themselves eventually?  So when the retcon happens, they will be happy returning to the CSA being defeated (although later than in the real-world) and just still bigots and racists that still wish they had slaves?  The problem isn't the portrayal of racism, but the fact that the CSA came to their senses and abolished slavery themselves in the original fiction?

Even in the original alternate history of the game, there had to still be plenty of southerners who would have disagreed to giving up slavery after their government abolished it.  So still plenty of evil people to contend with.  In the retcon, it is going to go back closer to historical real-world history where the south is defeated.  But of course there will still be plenty of southerners who are unhappy with how things have turned out, that slavery was abolished, etc.  Still plenty of evil people to contend with in this case as well.

I guess I fail to see how there is much difference in either option.  There will still be those offended by the racism either way it would seem.  To me, terrible people doing terrible things are fodder for the PC's to smack around in the game.  My players, when presented with the alternate history, would take it in stride.  It's fiction and does nothing to change real-world history.  Maybe it comes down to how individual GM's run their games?  I dunno, but I'll stop beating a dead horse as I clearly don't get how this is a thing.

Quote from: Libertad;1104734Because pro-Confederate sympathies piss off political centrists in addition to the mainstream left and far-left, especially outside of the South. Deadlands' whitewashed Confederacy has been the greatest hurdle in new players in trying said setting, and it's not an understatement to say that it's the issue gamers by and large have in regards to Deadlands. More so than its handling of many other issues, in part because the Lost Cause looms largest in the minds of many Americans.

We may never truly know due to the confidentiality of sales figures, but on anecdotal evidence I've seen people reluctant to try Deadlands before now much more interested in the setting due to this change.

So I have to take your word for it? Sorry I don't operate like that, So far in this same thread there are people who play/played Deadlands and disagree with you, so in my eyes your argument is the Phantom audience argument, done to death with Star Wars, Doctor Who, Star Trek, and comics. Said audience remains a phantom, a figment of the imagination of the fauxtrage merchants.

Don't get me wrong, I don't give a rats ass about Deadlands, never played it, it's the censorious twats gaining terrain that irks me.

And, my experience leads me to believe said phantom audience will fail to materialize this time too.

Quote from: Toric;1104743So the problem people have with the game is that the south was somehow portrayed as noble and good and abolished slavery themselves eventually?  So when the retcon happens, they will be happy returning to the CSA being defeated (although later than in the real-world) and just still bigots and racists that still wish they had slaves?  The problem isn't the portrayal of racism, but the fact that the CSA came to their senses and abolished slavery themselves in the original fiction?

Even in the original alternate history of the game, there had to still be plenty of southerners who would have disagreed to giving up slavery after their government abolished it.  So still plenty of evil people to contend with.  In the retcon, it is going to go back closer to historical real-world history where the south is defeated.  But of course there will still be plenty of southerners who are unhappy with how things have turned out, that slavery was abolished, etc.  Still plenty of evil people to contend with in this case as well.

I guess I fail to see how there is much difference in either option.  There will still be those offended by the racism either way it would seem.  To me, terrible people doing terrible things are fodder for the PC's to smack around in the game.  But I'll stop beating a dead horse as I clearly don't get how this is a thing.

Don't worry, they'll go to complaining about the blacks not being portrayed as marysues/martystues, perfect in every sense and ever present in all halls of power, then not enough latinos, asians, LGBTQWERTY, etc.

There's a reason you never bend the knee to the SocJusCult

Quote from: Libertad;1104737Expanding slavery into the territories was a big issue for the South, which they were concerned about even if slavery was preserved in the existing slave states. They wanted to enter new markets so that they could get even richer. Although it was a political pipe dream, the Confederacy had plans to form a "Tropical Empire" in Latin America of new slave states should they have successfully seceded.

This is very interesting considering what happened in 1898.  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish%E2%80%93American_War

Quote from: RandyB;1104597Then why not do something radical and have the CSA win the war? Surely a historian with those credentials understands that the CSA would leave the USA to govern itself while the CSA did the same.

That would require balls.

The CSA winning its freedom and pushing to create further slave states in the Caribbean and into Mexico would have turned the CSA into a very dangerous and vital force in the setting. If the CSA is victorious, you now have a dangerous mortal enemy in the setting. As originally written, the CSA was rather dull and the retcon will be PC nonsense.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1104614Fuck him and fuck his game.

Exactly. This is nothing but Shane kneeling to PC bullshit. His "explanation" was so laughable. His dickless "I changes it cuz I owns it" makes it even more obvious that Pinnacle is running scared thanks to SJW screeching.

Of course, you can never kneel deep enough to appease SJWs, but if you kneel to them once, the screech mob knows you're an easy target for future harassment and demands.

Dance Shane dance! Let's see what you gotta "fix" next to keep the freaks appeased!

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1104683I'm unsure how any attempt to create an even semi-historical game setting is going to survive this kind of retroactive Puritanism, to be honest.

Over at Boardgame Geek, there was a thread a few months ago where someone mused that game designers would stay away from making historical or faux-historical games in the future because of the culture of PC bullshit. Of course, the screech mob quickly began screeching...thus proving the point.  

Quote from: Antiquation!;1104686Protect your ass and ride out the wave.

LOL. The last will and testament of a plate of mutton chops.

Make sure to slather yourself in mint sauce.

Quote from: Toric;1104743Even in the original alternate history of the game, there had to still be plenty of southerners who would have disagreed to giving up slavery after their government abolished it.  So still plenty of evil people to contend with.  In the retcon, it is going to go back closer to historical real-world history where the south is defeated.  But of course there will still be plenty of southerners who are unhappy with how things have turned out, that slavery was abolished, etc.  Still plenty of evil people to contend with in this case as well.

I've got to assume that slavery is alive and well in both the old and new versions of Deadlands, since most of the tribes of the Sioux Nations follow the "old ways".

Quote from: Toric;1104740As I have said numerous times already, I don't see how this change is going to make the game "more inclusive" or eliminate racism.  You yourself mentioned earlier that there are Chinese immigrants segregated into their own towns, Apaches slaughtered, mega-villains with bigoted attitudes, etc.  Is this retcon going to remove all of that?

For myself, I didn't take the intent of the statement to be to 'eliminate racism' from the setting... only the a-historical bits that align with actual real-world racist apologetics... namely that the actions of the CSA weren't really about slavery.
I don't eschew prejudice from games I run, it's a fact of life that people are generally prejudiced toward strangers and people who are 'different'. A game without such elements would be waaay to Disney for my tastes.
I'm not easily offended and I wasn't by Deadlands either... but I thought it was a stupid fence position to take and it DID work against my liking the game (along with other stuff... like being too gonzo).
The CSA were and remain the bad guys in that war and to paint them as otherwise just struck me as lame. Not that I think there weren't good people there, even well-meaning slave-holders who didn't know anything different. I'd have no problem with a 'good' PC from the CSA in a game... or a reformed one... but I'd still prefer to keep the general portrait of that faction as rebel slavers.
Just as an aside: If I were playing in a game set in ancient Rome I'd expect some PCs might obtain slaves... and I'd argue against anyone demanding we expurgate that element from the setting.

Who gives a shit what the developer does with the fluff?

Quote from: cranebump;1104759Who gives a shit what the developer does with the fluff?

Seems like a lot of folks on this site like to bag on Blue Rose... is that just because of the mechanics?

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1104598People who don't find the Confederacy an enjoyable element to include in their own games have always been free to do that. People who object to the basic element of the Confederacy not yet being defeated in the Deadlands setting strike me as, by definition, being the people who weren't playing the game to begin with, so the contention that it's "getting in the way of their enjoyment" seems like a category error.

Nope, we were always playing the game, just we adjusted it to play in the style of The Outlaw Josey Wales rather than the Lost Cause Wankmob that the game accrued over the years like dogshit on a shoe.

Barry