Orson Scott Card Writing Firefall’s Story


Firefall devs, Red 5, have revealed that their Tribes-a-like online shooter has its story written by Orson Scott Card, he behind the SF novel Enders Game, and other games including the exquisite Shadow Complex. Some will greet this news with enthusiasm, as it means the already promising action MMO will have something deeper than “the man shoots the other man” as a backstory. Others will start scrawling protest banners.

Card will be writing the game’s story, while his daughter, Emily Janice Card, will be collaborating with him on a manga that will accompany it all and be put out for free. Much like the game.

Here’s the thing. As repulsive as you might find Card’s views on homosexuality (and let’s be clear, his views are repulsive), the man pens a decent game story. Wagner sure knew how to write a tune, but I’m not sure I’d want to sit down at his table for tea. Would I want to give Wagner my money? Probably not. You’re capable of making your own mind up.

You can see Red 5 and Card chatting about his involvement here:


  1. Jim Rossignol says:

    It’s a shame they chose Card, there are so many other, better, less objectionable SF writers who could have done this job.

    • alice says:

      I will probably play this game as I was interested in it before I knew about this, but I do not like it one bit.

    • theleif says:


    • Griddle Octopus says:

      Agreed; I mean, Ender’s Game was good, but his output since that… though, bizarrely, Wikipedia says he contributed dialogue to Loom, The Secret of Monkey Island and The Dig. And does anyone remember Advent Rising? Passable Halo rip-off.

    • coffeetable says:

      Octopus; it’s not so much the quality of his writing as the fact he’s a creationist homophobe climate change denier.

    • Hoaxfish says:

      Mr Card seems to be the “in thing” for writers in computer games. Didn’t he do some stuff with Bioware and some other companies too. He’s at least one of the names more commonly flashed around.

      I wouldn’t mind something from Ian Banks, though I’m not sure how his stuff would fit into a game narrative.

      As to the game, and games in general, I’ve never paid much attention to the “writing”. Given that most games are very shallow, and for some can be completely irrelevant to the enjoyment (e.g. Tetris).

    • Acorino says:

      Haven’t read his novels, but wasn’t that impressed by the writing in The Dig and Advent Rising was just unintentionally hilarious sci-fi pulp fiction.

      Couldn’t care less about his personal beliefs, though. If he’s the right man for the job, then he should get it. But I don’t see how he is.

    • Tom OBedlam says:

      Oh… learning this has rather soured Ender’s Game for me…

    • President Weasel says:

      I still love Ender’s Game, although it’s YA and I’m no longer young (and there’s probably many who would say I’m not particularly adult either). I also rather like some of the Alvin Maker books, and I think it should be possible to separate my dislike for the man’s view from my feelings about his work.

      That said, the sequels to Ender ran the gamut from poor, to shit, to really poor series of cash-in novels from a different POV but with “Ender” in the title somewhere. He’s metamorphosed from decent writer to hack, like a butterfly turning into a turd.

    • I LIKE FOOD says:

      Im a “homophobe climate change denier”.

      U mad coffeetable?

    • Carra says:

      I don’t agree with his views.

      That doesn’t make Ender’s game any less good.

    • Lilliput King says:

      Hoaxfish – “wouldn’t mind something from ian banks”

      Neither would they, I imagine. Likelihood is he’s out of their price range as he’s written more than one decent novel.

    • ReV_VAdAUL says:

      Iain M Banks is a huge Civilisation addict, I imagine if he was asked to write for a game, by the right people at least, he may well say yes.

    • FakeAssName says:

      well, I can’t say I knew all this shit about his background (not really all that surprising to me, sorta toe in line with Heinlein), but I’m glad to hear that I’m not the only one who thought his books sucked.

    • TXinTXe says:

      Almosts all his books sucks. But the good ones are pretty good though. The thing is… why nobody get china mieville onboard to write a steampunk game??

    • MadTinkerer says:

      You know what? I found more than one of Douglas Adams’ essays irritating, but that didn’t make him any less of an entertaining writer. I didn’t boycott the Hitchiker’s Guide movie just because of his views.

      But hey: let’s boycott everything Card is remotely connected with just because he agrees with the views of his church. It doesn’t matter whether those views actually come up in the works or not: BLACKLIST THE HERETIC!

    • feighnt says:

      MadTinkerer: it’s a little bit worse than just agreeing with his church – he’s part of the board of directors for the “National Organization for Marriage”, which is a homophobic organisation that seeks to “prevent the legal recognition and acceptance of marriage and civil unions for same-sex couples, and to ensure that adoption agencies have the right not to place children with gay couples.” (from the wikipedia article)

      they’re well funded, and have made a number of successful campaigns against gay marriage in USA.

      one would assume that Card would be giving part of the money he earns from his work to this organisation, naturally.

    • Rii says:

      @FakeAssName: “well, I can’t say I knew all this shit about his background (not really all that surprising to me, sorta toe in line with Heinlein)”

      Heinlein, really? The Heinlein who wrote Stranger In A Strange Land?

    • yutt says:

      What an absurd position to take. Do you “vilify” Muslims who’s religious beliefs involve stoning their daughters to death for coming in proximity to men they are not married to? Stop with this politically correct nonsense, you are ceding the extremists control over discourse and socially acceptable behavior.

      This isn’t just some trivial belief Card would reveal to you over a few beers. He actively works to restrict the rights of others, and he does that, in part, with the royalties from all our copies of Ender’s Game. How far we should carry this is debatable, but the products we buy and the people who collect those funds *hugely* impact our world. Look at the Koch brothers or Rupert Murdoch.

      Can I dislike neo-Nazis for their views and try to avoid actively financially supporting them? Or is that not politically correct? Is that mean-spirited of me? Well too bad for you – you can’t judge me based on my views! Ha!

    • Deano2099 says:


      The only reason we can do that though is that Card publicly vilifies people for being homosexuals in the first place. If someone wants to put that view out there and campaign for it then of course people should fight back.

    • Daniel Rivas says:

      Frightlever: Moral Relativism. He’s allowed to get away with it because it’s his religion or his culture. It may disgust us right-thinking folks but really we don’t have a right to tell him what’s wrong.

      Yes we do.

    • DeathHamsterDude says:

      I’ve read the Ender series. Some of them were pretty good, in that I liked the world of the series (and the fact that Ender was vilified for the genocide of a species in subsequent generations), but I have never read another writer who uses so many mcguffins, and also uses Deus Ex Machina to an absurd extent in the last twenty pages of most of his novels to tie everything together. Seriously. Speaker For The Dead was a huge mess of a book that just tried to tie everything together with an extradimensional flourish in the last chapter, practically out of nowhere. I did admire the anthropological dilemma of the book though.

      Secondly, maybe I wouldn’t mind giving the man my money, even though I’m repulsed by his views, if it weren’t for the fact that he donates quite an amount of his earnings to combat Gay rights. I cannot willingly give money to that man because of it.

      @Frightlever – of course I vilify them. I’ve moved beyond the point where I can forgive people for horrible things on the grounds of religious rights. Executing homosexuals, stoning women, genocide; I would not forgive these things any more readily if the person or people doing such a thing did so because of some religion. That’s absurd. Dawkins wrote in The God Delusion about why we shouldn’t tiptoe around an issue just because it’s of a religious nature. We have no problem calling people out on their politics or philosophies, and religion should be no different. Now, I wouldn’t stop someone practicing a religion by any means, it wouldn’t be right, but sure as hell would I stop people committing horrible acts because of said religion. In Ireland a few years ago there was a slew of sacrificial killings, brought over from Africa. You can be sure as hell that the government didn’t go, ‘Oh, no, don’t worry, those killings were religious in nature, so they’re okay.’

      @FakeAssName – Ahm, which of Robert Heinlein’s views are you talking about? As far as I know, he was quite progressive. He spoke out against racism and sexual inequality in his books, and also believed in sexual liberation. Perhaps he may not have been as liberal in his views as we are today, but I would think he was miles above the status quo of America in the 40’s and 50’s.

    • FataMorganaPseudonym says:

      @I LIKE FOOD

      Not mad at all. Just objectively superior and non-retarded.

      So, with that said… u mad?

    • Urthman says:

      I’m pretty sure there’s a lot of game developers with political opinions that I find repulsive.

    • Wulf says:

      Wait… him. Really?

      Well shit.

      I thought I’d be able to enjoy this game due to it being colourful and rather harmless looking, but there’s enough homophobia in multiplayer games as it is, I don’t want the game I’m playing to have characters which actively compel the gullible types who’ll doubtless play this that homophobia is okay.

      Whereas I would’ve jumped in on this from the get-go, I’m now going to wait until at least one of my trusted sources has given this the once over to ensure that my fears won’t come to pass.

      (But with an arsehole like him, I wouldn’t put it past him to do something as horrific as having a bit about how homosexuality was an ‘illness that was cured’ in there, just so that he can get his jollies. And if he’s slipped even one instance of such in there, then they’ve just lost one player. And who wants to bet that he’s managed to? Dicks with an agenda can often force that into any crevice. So yeah, gone from ‘eager and interested’ to ‘looking like I’ll skip this.’)

    • Wulf says:

      And, you know, this seems like as good an excuse of any to post this little gem from my stash.

      Yeah. Not a fan of Ender’s Game, sorry. Annnd… well, I tend to view Mr. Card as a very disturbed little man through and through.

    • Commisar says:

      Uh oh, looks like its time to boycott Firefall, after all, it is being written by an American who isn’t some politically correct liberal who actually stands up for what he believes in. Sure, his views are not “European” but a good writer is a god writer. Boycotting a game/entire book series just because he has differing views is in a word RETARDED

    • rayne117 says:

      If his views were instead “stone all gay people” I would still dislike him just as much.

      This isn’t 5000 BC, let gay people do gay people things.

      Also, he hates gay people.

    • Reefpirate says:

      While I think his views on homosexuality are backwards and not productive at all, I also don’t understand the venom leveled towards his views. He would be right in one of his essays if he were to say that his opponents like to warp his views.

      He’s opposed to legalized gay marriage. This does not immediately mean ‘homophobia’ (visceral fear of homosexual individuals), and it does not automatically mean that he would have homosexuals live life any less free. In that linked essay above, he does seem to respect ‘liasons’ and relationships between homosexuals, but he reserves a sacred place for heterosexual unions.

      Frankly, I think heterosexual marriage ought to be unlegislated a lot, and trying to get the state involved in more romantic squabbles over property and inheritance, etc. is silly. Marriages ought to be handled by contracts between individuals, not as some sort of special list of ‘rights’ of married couples. If those individuals happen to be of the same gender, and happen to be intimate, who gives a flying f#@%?

      No doubt his personal beliefs affect his creative works, but to vilify the guy because he doesn’t want gay people to have access to the same divorce courts and lawyers that straight people do hardly makes him a bigot. He’s just a little misguided perhaps. Please arouse my conscience when he advocates burning or incarcerating homosexuals, otherwise go find some other moral crusade that actually means jack-shit in the big picture.

    • MCM says:

      To all the people who liked Ender’s Game:

      I hate to say it, but Ender’s Game is a bad, manipulative book, and you shouldn’t like it. It speaks to the worst, weakest parts of teenagers and appeals to them in unhealthy ways. There’s an excellent essay by a different science fiction author detailing why:

      link to www4.ncsu.edu

      I’ll just quote a bit of the abstract here:

      The superior child whose virtues are not recognized. The adults who fail to protect. The vicious bullies who get away with their bullying. That was the world as I saw it in seventh grade. Apparently this is a story that still appeals to many people: Ender’s Game is probably the most popular science fiction novel published in the last twenty years.
      In relating Ender Wiggin’s childhood and training in Ender’s Game, Orson Scott Card presents a harrowing tale of abuse. Ender’s parents and older brother, the officers running the battle school and the other children being trained there, either ignore the abuse of Ender or participate in it.
      Through this abusive training Ender becomes expert at wielding violence against his enemies, and this ability ultimately makes him the savior of the human race. The novel repeatedly tells us that Ender is morally spotless; though he ultimately takes on guilt for the extermination of the alien buggers, his assuming this guilt is a gratuitous act. He is presented as a scapegoat for the acts of others. We are given to believe that the destruction Ender causes is not a result of his intentions; only the sacrifice he makes for others is. In this Card argues that the morality of an act is based solely on the intentions of the person acting.
      The result is a character who exterminates an entire race and yet remains fundamentally innocent. The purpose of this paper is to examine the methods Card uses to construct this story of a guiltless genocide, to point out some contradictions inherent in this scenario, and to raise questions about the intention-based morality advocated by Ender’s Game and Speaker for the Dead.

      I was pretty convinced by the rest of the essay, particularly the idea that “intentions matter more than results”-morality is precisely what people like George W. Bush adhere to in their invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. It is a very dangerous, horrible belief with actual real-world consequences, and Ender’s Game perpetuates them.

    • qrter says:

      My guess why developers keep asking Card for their games is that it’s the path of least resistance – he’s worked on a couple of games, which means you can presume he knows a bit of how game development works, also that he knows his place within that process, etc.

      It’s the same adage that mainstream Hollywood tends to follow – use what you know works.

      Personally, I would never spend money on any project Card is involved in – I don’t really see that as a boycott, or to send a message to the developers, just as my perogative as a consumer not wanting to give my money to people like him.

      I’d love to see China Mieville work on a game, that could be spectacular.

    • FakeAssName says:

      “@FakeAssName: “well, I can’t say I knew all this shit about his background (not really all that surprising to me, sorta toe in line with Heinlein)”
      Heinlein, really? The Heinlein who wrote Stranger In A Strange Land?”

      “@FakeAssName – Ahm, which of Robert Heinlein’s views are you talking about? As far as I know, he was quite progressive. He spoke out against racism and sexual inequality in his books, and also believed in sexual liberation. Perhaps he may not have been as liberal in his views as we are today, but I would think he was miles above the status quo of America in the 40′s and 50′s.”

      no, Heindlein was not homophobic, but he was a rather passive supporter of pedophilia and incest (usually at the same time). I’m referring to the connection of them both being bat shit insane Science Fiction writers who are rather fucking clueless as when it comes to the “Science” part.

      … Not to mention Heindlein’s unsettling preoccupation with rationalizing cannibalism.

    • Lilliput King says:

      The lexicon used in that article is incredibly confusing. What he’s actually asking is “does the end justify the means”. To mix intention in with that is stupid – if someone ‘intends’ to end a war by destroying the enemy, he also ‘intends’ the accompanying violence. It’s not an accident, or something. To put it another way, if an end is intended, the means themselves are also intended.

      In genuine moral philosophy, intention really is everything, because somebody can’t be blamed for something out of their control. If someone’s action has an evil unintended result, then he’s been merely too stupid to predict that result, rather than immoral.

      I think he’s got a point, but that really bugged me.

    • zerosociety says:

      Damn. I was looking forward to this, but I won’t let my money go anywhere near a hatemonger like Card.

    • donmilliken says:


    • Wozzle says:

      Thank you, RPS. Unsurprisingly, your comments are so much more to my liking than the drivel that showed up in the PCG article.

      Even the people who aren’t turned off by his work give better reasoned reponses than the PCG creatures.

    • Ex Lion Tamer says:

      @Lilliput King:

      Actually, the author is raising perfectly reasonable questions about the type of deontology present in Ender’s Game. His point is that being concerned exclusively with intent or character or behavior produces disastrous outcomes (Kant’s moral fanatic, Card’s genocidal boy wonder). It also produces some curious philosophical contortions like the principle of double effect. From the end of the piece, I imagine the author favors something more like virtue ethics (if only in the general sense of sitting between deontology and consequentialism on the intention vs result scale). It sounds like you’re pretty committed to OSC’s side (as different as you likely are on the specifics) when it comes to moral philosophy. I’m sympathetic to the deontological approach, but it’s hardly a settled matter. If anything, deontology has been at low tide consensus-wise for quite some time – which hardly makes it wrong, and that will no doubt change if it hasn’t begun to already…I’m just saying.

      Let me add that you’re right, though – Kessler (the author) doesn’t spell any out of this out very clearly. At all. To the point where I doubt he comes from any particularly strong ethics/moral philosophy background. I just think the underlying points are much more worthy than you’re allowing.

    • WombatDeath says:

      I won’t be buying this game. Partly because I have no desire to risk lending even slight legitimacy to Card and his fucked-up world view, and mostly because he’s not very good.

      No, really, he isn’t. Ender’s Game is fine for what’s effectively a love letter to “under-appreciated” nerds with delusions of genius (and I say that as a fully fledged nerd with an over-developed sense of my own cleverness) but it’s a pretty flimsy basis on which to build a reputation. The problem Card has (aside from his blinkered and malign worldview) is that age tends to bring the realisation that Ender’s Game is not so much inspirational as patronising and pandering.

      The good news is that most of us, I suspect, have more games in the queue than we have time to play them. This one doesn’t particularly appear to be a must-play, and so the involvement of Card makes it easier to allocate my gaming time to other titles.

    • Lilliput King says:

      I think you’re misunderstanding me – I’m only taking issue with the lexicon. Here’s why it’s inappropriate:

      Deontology is about an action (necessarily intended). It asks “Is this action acceptable as defined by my code of ethics?” Consequentialism concerns the intended outcome (goal or objective might be better words) rather than the actual outcome. It asks “Is this goal acceptable as defined by my code of ethics?”

      Both teleological and deontological theories judge based on intention rather than final, real-world, what-actually-eventually-occurs outcome. Anything otherwise is outside of the remit of ethics.

      You’re right in general terms – as I said, the author is indeed weighing the two systems up (I couched the question in the form “does the end justify the means”) but he’s using the wrong terms.

    • Rii says:

      @Commisar: “Uh oh, looks like its time to boycott Firefall, after all, it is being written by an American who isn’t some politically correct liberal who actually stands up for what he believes in. Sure, his views are not “European” but a good writer is a god writer.”

      There are millions of non-bigoted Americans, and millions of bigoted Europeans. Don’t try to turn this issue into something it isn’t.

      “Boycotting a game/entire book series just because he has differing views is in a word RETARDED.”

      It’s an example of standing up for what one believes in. I thought you were all in favour of that?

    • FakeAssName says:

      I’m an american and I would so totally boycott this if it was ACTUALLY HIS PROJECT!

      also, if it was actually going to be sold …. it’s kinda scary how many people still can’t grasp the concept of “free to play.”

      as it is, he is just a contracted worker, outside of what red 5 has already paid him, he isn’t going to get a damned dime from the cash shop profits. so I say “red 5 you are some dumb asses for hiring this dude” but other than that this is like not buying pepsi because you don’t like the super model the hired to look vacantly into the camera for them.

    • Jabberrwocky says:

      @Reefpirate: Thank you for an intelligent response.

    • Rii says:


      The boycott ain’t my cup of tea either, although I must say that after reading this thread what little interest I had in reading Ender’s Game or any of his other fiction has evaporated. But I still watch Polanski’s films, y’know?

      I’m just sayin’, Commisar is all over the place here: “OSC is just standing up for what he believes in and that’s awesome. Curse you dirty liberals for standing up for what you believe in!”

    • TillEulenspiegel says:

      He’s opposed to legalized gay marriage. This does not immediately mean ‘homophobia’ (visceral fear of homosexual individuals), and it does not automatically mean that he would have homosexuals live life any less free.

      “Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those whoflagrantly violate society’s regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.”

      link to nauvoo.com

      Just a silly policy disagreement. Yawn.

    • BobsLawnService says:

      Scott Card is an unpleasant human being but it is important to seperate the man from his art. When it comes to artists all that matters is the output.

    • PFlute says:

      I can’t say I quite understand how upset some people get at others for simply choosing how to spend their money. It seems like some carry a concept that simply by making a product people are entitled to money.

      Choosing where to spend one’s money is simply the nature of the market, and a basic freedom most anywhere you go. I can choose not to support this game because I don’t want to indirectly support Card’s advocacy’s either by giving him money or by reinforcing the developer’s decision to give him money. I could choose not to support them because I simply don’t like backpacks. That’s entirely my choice. They are not entitled to my money; I am not being mean or thoughtless by denying it to them.

    • Grygus says:

      I think there are two factors at work here: nobody actually cares what you spend your money on, until you decide to make that choice a political statement. At that point it’s not about the money or the decision anymore, but your justification.

      The second factor is the towering hypocrisy in the gaming community, where an awful lot of people will publicly castigate a game and then go and purchase it anyway. This makes it difficult to take arguments for boycotts seriously.

      The fact is that if this game gets a 90+ on Metacritic and great word-of-mouth, a great many people are going to purchase and play the game, because in the end what matters is an artist’s output, not the artist. Arguments to the contrary are masturbation. We all suck somehow.

    • Blackcompany says:

      Cannot really say I would begrudge Card his views. Or fault the devs for utilizing his talent, such as it is. Card is who he is. They selected him for his talent as a writer, not for his personal views.
      On the other hand, how about China Mieville, as someone else said. Or Glenn Cook. Kelly McCullough…a number of excellent authors come to mind, each of whom would likely have been a better selection than Card. Mieville in particular is bold and daring and explores themes many authors fear to approach. McCullough utilizes humor in writing about blended science and fantasy.
      But hey I will reserve judgment until I see the game itself and have a chance to play. Its free to play so may as well give it a chance.

  2. 4026 says:

    Ah, this old dilemma.

    It’s hard to know what to reasonably do about this, given that just boycotting the game (or.. er… not buying their microstuff or whatever the equivalent is for F2P) has some pretty serious collateral damage, in the form of the entire rest of Red 5.

    Maybe play the game (and/or buy some microstuff), but also donate to a gay rights lobby group or something? I don’t know.

    • Baboonanza says:

      Play the game, skip the cut-scenes/intro and ignore the back-story.

      Which is pretty much what I would have done anyway.

    • Daniel Rivas says:

      Why should I give a shit about the finances of Red 5 games when they’re willing to employ this man?

    • 4026 says:

      Because not everyone at Red 5 was part of the decision to hire this cretin. Many of them probably disapprove. Most of them will be designers, artists and coders passionate about creating an awesome game, and it seems callous to let a (let’s face it) bolted-on plot to a multiplayer shooter written by a hate-filled goblin completely wreck what might be an otherwise decent game and an otherwise decent games company.

    • Daniel Rivas says:

      If they expect my pity (and my money) they should find a more ethical employer.

    • DiamondDog says:

      Yes, because it’s just that easy to throw away your income.

    • Jumwa says:

      If we didn’t boycott products because we feared for the employees, we’d never boycott anything at all. Ever.

      That seems a silly proposition. One would hope a boycott would be done to hopefully induce change, and get the company to smarten up next time. Isn’t that the point? I don’t say this is a case where a boycott would be intended to topple the company, just to get them to reconsider their support of this writer.

      Regardless, I’d say I’d boycott the game with everyone else, but I didn’t really have much in the way of intentions to play this in the first place, so it’d feel weak and hollow of me to say so. Though I do find his views rather repugnant right along with the rest of you. Gay marriage an affront to democracy, but harassing poor women suffering with the decision of having an abortion is just plain ol’ freedom? Oh come on.

    • Daniel Rivas says:

      DiamondDog: Then they won’t get my pity or my money. They aren’t slaves.

    • MrMud says:

      The only way to get people to employing him is to not get the game and make the reason well known.

    • 4026 says:

      @ Daniel Rivas: Fair enough, I guess. (Man, you really hate this guy and everything he touches, huh.)

      I just worry that, in the end, Firefall will turn out to actually be a really great game (like Shadow Complex was, by all accounts). Just turning one’s back on it because of one team member’s shitty political beliefs seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

      I guess I’m playing Devil’s Advocate here: in practice, Firefall doesn’t look like a must-play innovative game-changer, and I’ll probably be happy enough to let it pass me by in favour of other games that don’t fund political hate-groups.

      But this situation does seem to crop up a lot. UbiDRM springs to mind. Sure, boycott their games to protest the stupid DRM, and the stupid decisions made (no doubt) by suits in a boardroom somewhere, but don’t forget that you’re using a scattergun tactic that ultimately punishes individual developers. And, to go back to my other point, what if the game’s quite good?

      What I’m asking is: do we have any better options here than a simple boycott? Is there some other effective way to register our displeasure with ridiculous decisions developers (and their publishers) make? Or are we stuck with a choice between the blunt-instrument of boycotts and just venting our rage into the echo chamber of the internet?

    • DiamondDog says:

      They aren’t slaves, but you must be naive in the extreme to think leaving your job at a time like this is a simple choice for a person. Either that or utterly heartless.

    • Stephen Roberts says:


      I was wondering about this with UbiDRM. Is it so bad to both purchase the game and write a letter to the developers complaining about the game at the same time? Because that is what you should do. Write a letter to the developers. But there is hypocritical behaviour in then playing the game. But if you want to do that, why shouldn’t you? Perhaps wait for the price to drop or, as firefall is f2p, don’t pay as much as you might. As people have pointed out here, the guys political beliefs don’t actually affect you.

      It’s a tough one, but it’s not entirely unreasonable to have contradictions in things you do. Get Confucius, man.

    • Jumwa says:

      Companies respond to your money. If you buy their products again and again, they presume you approve. Strongly worded letters are not likely to get much attention as long as it’s accompanied by your cash.

      Notice how in all the big MMO kerfuffles that the only time the developers say anything other than “Ah, it’s just an outspoken minority, the changes stay” is when people start cancelling subscriptions in large swathes.

      They know that if you’re not willing to put your money where your mouth is, the matter isn’t that important to you and it’s certainly not worth their time to address.

    • Fox1 says:

      DiamondDog: There are times when the right thing to do is not an easy thing to do. If said employees aren’t able to see their way through to the right thing because it is difficult, I don’t hate or even, necessarily, condemn them, but I still won’t support them.

    • vodkarn says:

      “As people have pointed out here, the guys political beliefs don’t actually affect you.”

      Unless, you know, you’re gay. Or have gay family members. Or gay friends.

    • donmilliken says:

      “Unless, you know, you’re gay. Or have gay family members. Or gay friends.”

      Or even just think that people trying to live in relative harmony without propagating needless, ignorant hatred for one another is a good idea.

    • Jabberrwocky says:

      “Or even just think that people trying to live in relative harmony without propagating needless, ignorant hatred for one another is a good idea.”
      Do you guys realize the amount of “hate” you are showing towards OSC?

      Marriage between a man and a woman is a long standing, world-wide idea that is a building block of society. Even game designers can’t get around this. Imagine playing Civilization with a society that starts out as entirely homosexual. How long would it last?

    • Fox1 says:

      “…’…ignorant hatred for one another is a good idea.’
      Do you guys realize the amount of “hate” you are showing towards OSC?’

      I don’t hate Card. I dissaprove of his actions and have some anger towards him, and it isn’t ignorant, either. It’s based on actions that he has, by his own admission, taken towards other human beings. As a response, I will simply state that I disagree, and, should the opportunity arise, consider not taking actions that might support him or his projects. I will in no way call for his right to expression or financial or political activism for his cause to be curtailed by anything other than individuals freely choosing whether or not to support him or organizations he, in return, receives support from.

      “Marriage between a man and a woman is a long standing,”

      Anthropologically debatable.

      “… world-wide idea”

      Anthropologically debatable.

      “…that is a building block of society.”

      Anthropologically and sociologically debatable, plus irrelevant. Many “building blocks of society” have gone by the wayside and are now considered immoral. That’s called “progress.”

      “Even game designers can’t get around this. Imagine playing Civilization with a society that starts out as entirely homosexual. How long would it last?”

      What? If I don’t like Card I’m advocating for an entirely homosexual society? You need to read some evolutionary biology if you don’t think there’s any way for the fitness of a population to benefit from having some homosexual members.

    • PFlute says:

      @Jabberwocky: Showing “Hate” towards Card? I suppose what’s important here is that while he’s campaigning to restrict the rights of fellow human beings, we make sure not to hurt this wealthy author’s feelings by saying that we dislike him for his beliefs and/or will avoid funding him in the future. Thank goodness someone has come around to point out what’s really important. I see now our shrill braying for what it really is.

      As Fox1 pointed out, you’re making completely ridiculous jumps in logic. You’re essentially making the false conclusion, repeatedly, that homosexual marriage somehow threatens heterosexual ones; that the natural extension of campaigning for homosexual marriage rights is a world in which only homosexual unions are possible, or are the overwhelming majority.

      I find the repeated implications that conceptual homosexual societies in the far past during our strongest population growth periods are somehow a strong parallel to the ability for homosexual marriages to happen during an age rife with overpopulation and its resulting issues curious to say the least.

  3. bonjovi says:

    Big fan of Ender’s Saga here, but Card has a capacity to write repulsive nonsense as well.

    • alice says:

      I enjoyed the original books and the first in the Ender’s Shadow splinter of the canon, but my interest in that series waned right about the same time Card started speaking his anti-gay marriage diatribes. I do sometimes wonder if those books ever resolved themselves in a satisfying manner but not enough to ever pick up another one.

    • formivore says:

      Not to pile on OSC in a somewhat unfair manner, but as someone who read the Ender series at a very young age I feel compelled to link to this essay: link to www4.ncsu.edu

    • Daniel Rivas says:

      If we’re going to do that, then it’s also probably worth pointing out that he was an adult member of the church of latterday saints while it was an officially racist organisation, and to my knowledge he has never spoken publicly about this or clarified his position.

      Can anyone provide a source in which he has? I’d hate to hate him for something which has no grounds, when there’s so much else to choose from.

    • icupnimpn2 says:

      Hey, why don’t you go ahead and hate me too, while you’re at it.

    • Daniel Rivas says:

      You haven’t said anything objectionable yet.

      If you’re a homophobe or a racist, I certainly will hate you. :-)

    • icupnimpn2 says:


      I am personally uncomfortable with some of the notions about blacks espoused by leaders of the church at the end of the 1800s and start of the 1900s. But the “racism” of the LDS church needs to be put in perspective against other churches of the same times.

      I met an African American member of the LDS church who had been a member since before the end of Jim Crow. When asked about his views of the church as they relate to black people not being allowed to hold the priesthood until the 1970s, he said approximately the following:

      “My family attended the same church as the white members. We sat in the same building and in the same rows. We weren’t even allowed to enter other churches.”

      Keep that in mind as you denounce the racism of the LDS church. While there were rules on who could be ordained priest, there never was racial segregation for church attendance or membership. Rules on who could or couldn’t participate in priesthood ordinances did mean that blacks in the church would be limited in their ability to take on leadership roles. But again, other churches wouldn’t allow them at all, whereas the LDS church had black members since the first half of the 1800s, near the time of its inception.

    • Daniel Rivas says:

      The church of LDS was an officially and institutionally racist organisation until 1978, denying black people of African origin the right to join the priesthood (their not allowing women is a separate and ongoing issue—and certainly not one they are alone in).

      As you presumably know, joining the priesthood is more or less a matter of course for males within the church. It’s one of the saving ordinances, required for one to be eligible for eternal life.

      The “revelation from God” that brought down the racist ban occurred when Orson Scott-Card was a 27 year old man. He is a public figure and involves himself in politics; he should absolutely be called upon to explain his adult role in the church prior to the revelation, as should anyone else in the same circumstances who was a member of similarly (or more) racist organisations, be they churches or the KKK.
      If he hasn’t been thusly challenged, that’s not his fault. But this should be remedied.

      Edit: I should say, if I’ve gotten anything wrong with regards to the structure of the church, please tell me—it’s probably fairly obvious that I’m not a Mormon.


      All entitled to our own opinions but not our own facts etc etc.

    • icupnimpn2 says:

      Daniel, you’re right that the church believes the priesthood is necessary for saving ordinances. But the church also believes that these saving ordinances will be performed by proxy for all worthy people that have already passed on and who would have received them in life if circumstances had allowed. So effectively, by the church belief system, any black person that lived righteously prior to the time when blacks were allowed to be ordained as priests in the flesh on Earth would now be able to benefit from the same saving ordinances as those living.

      In the meantime, other churches did not simply disallow ordination of blacks, but banned them altogether from the premises and from associating with church members. Of course, many public works were the same way. Should every person that drank from a water fountain, went to school, or rode a bus prior to desegregation be called upon to explain their adult role in society?

    • Daniel Rivas says:

      Thank you. I find this stuff interesting.

      Membership of a church is a rather more participatory action than living in a country; which is why I say he should be actively challenged on it. And to say ‘it was wrong’ is such a very easy thing to do, after all.

      And you ignored the first part of my statement there: it’s generally a matter of course for male members of the church to join the priesthood, is it not? To say they were “limited in their ability to take on leadership roles” seems a tad misleading for anyone who assumes Mormon priesthood works as in other Christian faiths. And if I’m wrong here, I also don’t think my argument fails without it: to repeat, saying “other organisations were also racist” isn’t much of a defence; I think the same of their members as well (to varying degrees).

    • icupnimpn2 says:

      It is generally a matter of course for male members of the church to join the priesthood, and that is believed to be necessary for members of the church to attain the highest degrees of salvation. As I said before, those same ordinances can be performed by proxy for those that did not receive them in their own body during their lifetime, with no degradation of their legitimacy or power. The saving ordinance, however, is not thought to be priesthood ordination but baptism. And blacks were allowed to be baptized and to take the sacrament alongside whites and everyone else that was interested.

      Daniel, you’re imposing your belief system on God. Members of the LDS church believe that their religion is governed by God, not man. They cannot say, “God, you were wrong.” They could say, “God, I don’t understand.” They could pray for understanding. They could pray and petition God to allow all worthy black men to be able to hold the priesthood. And that is effectively what they would say had happened when the change was made in the 1970s. To them, it wouldn’t be the leaders of the church changing their minds, it would be God revealing his plan. Members of the church admit that they do not have a full knowledge or understanding of everything that is asked of them to do, but they believe that they will understand eventually once Christ has returned. It is a part of their faith.

      In the Old Testament, the God of the Jews orders them to wipe out races of men. Issues of race are littered throughout these scriptures. God slays the firstborn sons of the Egyptians. In the New Testament, Jesus Christ discriminates between people based on their race, stating that he had come to the Jews and not to the gentiles or other races. For a time, the LDS church did not ordain black men to the offices of priesthood. It is impossible to say that the Judeo-Christian God does not consider or discriminate based on race or culture.

      For a time, it was not a matter of course for black male members of the LDS church to join the priesthood. If one is to believe the leaders of the church at that time, this was because of God’s direct revelation and will. Black members of the LDS church did not have to attend the church; they chose to do so because they believed it was the true church. They willingly entered into the socio-cultural framework of the LDS church, to join in association and fellowship with its members, and to follow its practices.

      This is distinctly different from organizations like the KKK which persecuted and physically harmed blacks. The KKK, of course, did this against the will of their victims. Society-at-large and the U.S. government enforced segregation laws against black people, probably against their will. Black members of the LDS church chose to join and participate knowing that they would not hold the priesthood. Do you hate black members of the LDS church who were members prior to the change in the late 1970s, as you do Orson Scott Card?

    • Daniel Rivas says:

      I think they should explain themselves if they trade on their public image, yes.
      And the idea that hateful beliefs become acceptable once you introduce “God told me to do it” into the mix is not one I consider valid, I’m afraid. Because he doesn’t exist. And because even if he did, the abnegation of moral responsibility doesn’t follow from that premise.

      (And the same goes for the suborning of Moses to visit genocide upon the Hittites, Canaanites, Amalekites etc, or the many immoral proclamations in the new testament.)

    • Oreb says:

      Some of you may be interested in the novel “Pastwatch: The Redemption of Christopher Columbus” by Orson Scott Card (link to amazon.com).
      It is a time-travel novel in which we learn the not-so-obvious truths that the world is better off now that: a) slavery has been invented; and b) the Americas were colonized by Europeans and that native populations were mostly wiped out. When I first read the novel, I found it more thought provoking than disturbing, but the more I learn about the author, the more creeped out I get.

    • icupnimpn2 says:

      @Daniel, you’re sort of talking in circles, for if a deity existed surely they would dictate what is a moral responsibility and what is not. From the strength of your views, it sounds that you’re not a moral relativist. Having no God to point to as the source of morality, from where do you derive the surety that your views are correct and moral?

      What gives you the right to dictate the proper rules of priesthood ordination to a God you don’t believe in? Black members of the LDS church chose to join the church. If they decided to stay knowing that they could not at that time hold the priesthood, then they did so willingly. This is absolutely unlike the KKK in every way.

      Many present-day institutions such as universities and businesses have practices that choose students or employees with race as a strong consideration. Is this not racist?

      Meanwhile, the LDS church has extended the priesthood ordinances for worthy males of every race and culture since the 1970s and has a very global, equitable outlook.

  4. Tei says:

    I use to post on internet on a forum where a terrorist dude used to post. He was terrorist and writter for childrens books.

    We live in 2011 and theres still people thinking God is real. People is that good a tperception dissociation.

    We must accept reality: a artist can be a jerk, garbage, a motherloving idiot, but still be good as artist. Being good at artist don’t mean automatically that you are a cool smart dude. Nope, don’t work that way.

    Card is a good writter.

    • Lobotomist says:

      I must agree with that.

      Dont judge artist by his personal beliefs , no mater how crazy they are.

      Lewis Carroll was a pedofile that wrote Alice In Wonderland to seduce a small girl. Does that make Alice in Wonderland any less of masterpiece ?

      Wagner wrote Ride of the Valkyries in height of his antisemitic , ubermensch nazi obsession. Does it make it any less of a masterpiece ?


      Its art. And art is not an artist that makes it. It has the life of its own.

    • Daniel Rivas says:

      But he uses his money and fame to cause real harm. It’s not a case of loving the art and hating the artist; the issue surrounds giving money to a director of the “National Organisation for Marriage”.

      Or: I don’t have a problem with buying a T.S. Eliot book, because he’s dead.

    • Xercies says:

      And sometimes some art can become really great because it comes from a crazy racist/homophobic genius.

    • Lobotomist says:

      Yes. Giving him the money is a problem. I agree

    • Klerik says:

      This is spot on – sometimes people are both good artists and a jerk. I’ve no love for Card, but I like Ender’s Game and the related books. I’d call him a good writer, but I was surprised when I read about him on Wikipedia. I’ll admit I have bought several of his books and so might be suffering from buyer’s remorse or whatever, but I think refusing to work with or give money to anyone with WRONG opinions would be a difficult position to uphold, but then again it’s difficult to argue that giving money to a jerk like Card is to some extent giving money to homophobic ‘charities’.

    • Quirk says:

      Lewis Carroll probably wasn’t a pedophile, and certainly didn’t write Alice in order to seduce anyone. :(

      Go do some reading on it. Heck, even the Wikipedia page will tell you a lot more than you know already.

    • Tom OBedlam says:

      Sorry, what? Lewis Carrol was a “pedofile (sic)”? Almost entirely a hundred year old sentence from the court of public opinion. Read more link to en.wikipedia.org

    • studenteternal says:

      I am sorry but you made a little typo there, Card USED to be a good writer. Enders game was, and still is, fantastic. The other 2 enders, were at least kinda interesting, but it goes downhill fast, I read the first two “shadow” books and I think they made me physically ill. I don’t know if he burned out, or just got lucky early on, or perhaps started writing before being subsumed into his reprehensible religious dogma, but he has not written anything good for more then 2 decades.

      Klerik :
      I think it is disappointing not so much because red 5 is working with a famous bigot, but because there are so many actually good sci fi authors they could have tried to get to pen their script instead. Off the top of my head John Scalzi springs to mind as someone who was written some great sci-fi recently and seem like they would be open to working on interesting projects that were not a straight book deal.

    • megazver says:

      Yeah, but he’s also a shitty hack that hasn’t written anything good since Ender’s Game.

    • Rii says:

      But were they good children’s books?

    • Wulf says:

      I’m with Daniel, but I’d take it a step further and say that I’m not going to give money or support to a person who seeks to bring suffering to people like myself. Such a person is an unethical dick and I don’t care what they’re responsible for creating. I, personally, cannot look past the whole unethical dick angle. I never have been able to. Perhaps that’s a personal failing, but to be honest, the bit of moral high-ground taken by the Lobotomist here reminds me of so many people who’re fine until they personally are targeted by this sort of thing.

      Then they change their tune.

      (I still question Ender’s Game being ‘good,’ too.)

  5. Pictoru says:

    that guy has some SICK canines O_o

  6. Lobotomist says:

    90% of earth is destroyed by a chaotic energy storm that disintegrates everything it touches. While humanity is trying to survive by mining element called “crstyne” (well known in chemical element found on earth) that is powering all energy in the world.In middle of this , evil humanoid race called “the chosen” is suddenly trying to invade the earth.

    Not confused enough?

    Dont worry , we hired Orson Scott Card to make it even worse. Perhaps add a gifted child prodigy with anger problems.


  7. Teddy Leach says:

    Do online shooters NEED a story? Can’t it just be ignored?

  8. Dominic White says:

    I’d just like to mention that Shadow Complex had a hilariously dumb plot. It was basically a slightly edgier (there’s a bit of blood and swearing and there’s a torturer villain) version of GI Joe, right down to the enemy looking just like COBRA (and having similarly convoluted goals for world domination) and even their leader looked more than a bit like COBRA Commander.

    It’s a pretty decent game (not as good as the games it’s trying to copy, but solid enough for the budget price), but yeah, the plot literally could have been written by anyone who has watched a bunch of 80s cartoons.

    • Deano2099 says:

      To be fair, Card didn’t write the Shadow Complex story, he just established the setting and backstory, Peter David wrote the actual plot.

  9. MajorTomG says:

    What a dick.

  10. Kdansky says:

    Let’s hope he sticks to the shooting stuff kind of story, and doesn’t divulge his outright insulting political views which were outdated before I was even born. That blog entry was quite a pain.

  11. Astatine says:

    I’m tempted to say “boycott”. Ender’s Game is a wonderful novel; everything else he’s written is at best rambling drivel. And the man’s views are repugnant. Frankly, it’s hard not to subscribe to the conspiracy theory that Ender’s Game was written by someone else… Blech!

  12. Triangulon says:

    The Ender’s Saga is one of my favourite SF series. However I can’t see that having an author write the story will make it much less of a man-shooting-other-men plot. Le’s face it, I didn’t see Crysis 2 getting many plaudits for story, yet Richard Morgan’s Altered Carbon was one of the most refreshing novels I’d read in years.

  13. arienette says:

    I wrote about this couple of days ago, see link to saos.posterous.com (shameless plug). Essentially though, an author’s work isn’t separate from them and by supporting the work of an author (artist, etc.) whose views we disagree with we are tacitly supporting those views. Legitimising this person and allowing them to keep spreading the hate.

  14. Ross Angus says:

    Surly Card will object to the big, butch armour in the game. The art style is a little “Tom of Finland”, like Gears of War.

    • KauhuK says:

      Before you lot go googling “Tom of Finland” heed my words: you have been warned. Unless, of course, you like that kind of stuff in which case: enjoy!

  15. SurprisedMan says:

    Put off, to be honest.

    In around 2001 I decided I would start reading Ender’s Game before going to bed, since I’d been given the book. At around 6 AM I finished the book, wondering where all that time went. My next thought was: I need to find out more about this author! I had had good experiences with getting to ‘know’ authors I enjoyed in the past, having enjoyed reading Asimov-related material for years. So to find an author capable of writing such intelligent fiction spouting such complete ignorance hit me, harder than I could have predicted. It KILLED me that this was the guy that wrote the swordfight insults in Secret of Monkey Island that I had joked about with friends for years.

    And it’s put me off ever since. I’m not sure I’ll boycott the game as a result but I would defend anyone’s decision to, not just because he has particular views but that he actively lobbies for the promotion of those views. The ideal situation would be that none of my money would ever go into any project he was involved in ever again. But what if the game is very good; should my principles prevent me from enjoying it, then? Is that just letting him ‘win’ in a different way? I don’t want to become one of those people who is so obsessed with their own moral outrage that they are unable to enjoy anything.

    It’s a tricky one.

  16. Handsome Dead says:

    I wasn’t interested anyways.

    Steambot Chronicles 2 has been canceled by the way i just found out today i am very sad about this please cheer me up.

    • Harlander says:

      Chin up, in a hundred billion years everything will be nothing but space dust anyway!

  17. Deano2099 says:

    As long as there’s no homophobia in the plot I really don’t mind.

    Plus, maybe they hired him as he’s cheap because of all this negative stuff going around. Or maybe they hired him because it makes it a front page story on RPS, whereas if they’d hired a good, lesser-known and uncontroversial author, it wouldn’t get reported on…

    • FakeAssName says:

      yeah, I’m pretty damned sure they hired him for the name and nothing else.

      shits heating up in the F2P shooter market so Red 5 probably figured they would tag the cheapest big name they could for a little extra -oompf-

      I’m guessing all that he will be contributing will be a three paragraph “backstory” burred on their webpage.

    • arienette says:

      Wrong reply

  18. AN_D_K says:

    I don’t think it is really a matter about art vs. the person who created it. With art we can say “this is good, but the guy is a prat*” …if anything this is a good thing because it brings out in the open the erm…prat-ish-ness.

    The problem here is funding such a prat and showing that you find it acceptable to be such a prat. That I cannot do.

    *insert you own harsher word

    • Jim Rossignol says:

      The issue for me is that when a man like Card gets work, some better SF writer is missing out. He’s just not the right man for the job.

    • Kieron Gillen says:

      You know, I’m more torn than you may expect on this one. Never read Card at all, but I suspect there’s a hypothetical alt-dimension RPS out there who’d say we should boycott a game which (say) China Mieville because he’s a full-on Marxist.

    • ReV_VAdAUL says:

      Thats dangerously liberal wishy washyness really. Having the courage of your convictions is a good thing even if people you disagree with may well have their courage of theirs. Especially because of that.

      Any money that goes to OSC could well go to help oppressing gay people unless you are a homophobe that is a bad thing and should be opposed.

    • John Walker says:

      It’s also worth noting that I absolutely didn’t suggest boycotting the (free) game.

    • arienette says:

      The thing is, not all opinions are equal or valid. Not a marxist myself, but as a political view it holds much more water than gays are evil.

    • Kieron Gillen says:

      I just think free discourse in society is perhaps a greater goal. If Card or similar idiots didn’t state their opinions, we wouldn’t be able to argue against ’em. I tend to think an intolerance of people’s views is what’s tearing America apart. If you’ve got two halves of the country boycotting everything the other half believes, it’s the end of a crucial part of the democratic exercise.

      Or to put it another way – I’ve seen people in comment threads say that we should boycott Stardock because its boss votes Republican. Where to draw the line? In the case of Card, he’s anti-gay marriage. I think that’s vile. It’s also not equivalent of being an actual card-carrying Nazi.

      EDIT: It’s an opinion which is sadly common enough to win free democratic votes.

      I think views should be reallllly fucking extreme to justify a boycott, and I’m not sure that Card hits that bar.

      I also suspect I may be an art fascist. If art’s good enough, it trumps most things. Of course, I come from a pop music background where you get some right odious views expressed much more viciously than Card. I’ve had to roll with – say – Public Enemy’s anti-Semitism *and* homophobia.


    • Lilliput King says:

      “I just think free discourse in society is perhaps a greater goal. If Card or similar idiots didn’t state their opinions, we wouldn’t be able to argue against ‘em.”

      So talk to him. Free discourse is just fine. Actually giving money to the creep goes one step further, affirming him culturally and economically. That would be the justification for the boycott. It wouldn’t be an attempt to censor, just a commitment not to tacitly support.

      EDIT: Whether that economic support is actually an enabler for putting prejudice into action is obviously another concern.

    • Deano2099 says:

      @Jim – trouble is when a better, lesser-known sci-fi author gets the job, it’s not an RPS news piece. James Swallow does some great stuff but his being a a chief writer on DX was something I discovered by accident in the middle of a another article. Understandably, as it’s not news as no-one really knows who he is…

      @KG – it’s less about drawing the line so much as it’s not a line but just random pot-shots at the most convenient boycotts. People want to boycott this as it doesn’t look like it’ll be amazing so they can feel good about themselves. Just like loads of us will go and not buy the News of the World on Sunday this week, just like we never buy it anyway, but if someone suggests that this was all done on Murdoch’s watch and you should cancel your Sky subscription if you’re that bothered then “oh no, but how will I watch the foot-to-ball”.

      If anyone is seriously thinking of boycotting this game, please send me a list of companies you regularly buy stuff from and I’ll find you atrocities committed and unpleasant views held by people high up in those organisations that you fund that are far, far worse than just being strongly homophobic. But boycotting Nestle or Tesco or Coca Cola or whoever is actually inconvenient, whereas this is a game you probably wouldn’t have played anyway.

    • Kieron Gillen says:

      But you can’t have free discourse in a society where writers are afraid to say anything vaguely about their beliefs in fear of being made unemployable.

      Deano: And yeah, you pick up on the other part of it.


    • Hmm-Hmm. says:

      I think that people should have a right to their opinions. I think that boycotting things for reasons such as this is almost always a bad thing, not just because it stops any discussion of the respective work. I think civil, intelligent discourse is a hallmark of civilisation.

      Also, I quite liked the first three of the Alvin Maker books.
      And feel free to stay away from Firefall, for whatever reason. To each man/woman his/her right to choose what to partake of.

    • arienette says:

      The way is see it, an artist is on some level inseperable from their work. By supporting Card’s work I’m lending credence to his views. So many horrible things get done because otherwise good people don’t take a stand. It’s the whole banality of evil thing and Card’s views are evil. He isn’t just against gay marriage, he think’s the whole idea of gay people is ‘sinful’.

      He’d be doing worse if he could get away with it, but by contuining to support him we’re enabling him to do more.

      I’m not about to stop anyone from saying what they think, but some views are wrong and when that happens we shouldn’t be afraid to say so. This isn’t a political debate about socialism vs free market where the line of right and wrong is blurry. Card actively works to oppress and deny rights to millions of people who’ve done nothing more than fancy someone with the same sexual organs.

    • studenteternal says:

      Kieron Gillen: You raise an a good point, and one I find comes up with surprisingly frequently when discussing any number of authors (Heinlein) however regardless of his political stance and activism, I think the bigger issue is that he is a poor choice to pin any narrative hopes on because both his previous game work and his recent novels have been, to put it generously, substandard. And then that his daughter is also involved in the project, no offense to her she may be a talented individual but tagging along on daddy’s project does not scream ‘artistic integrity.’

      So in the broader stance I think there is an interesting discussion to be had in how independently we should view an author, or other artists work, in this particular piece of news, there are so much less philosophical reasons to be distressed. :)

    • Kieron Gillen says:

      Put it another way: do you think 52% of Californians should lose their jobs?


    • Harlander says:

      I’m down with the “Whether it’s good is more important than whether or not the creator is a despicable sliver of pseudo-humanity” stance, but

      Put it another way: do you think 52% of Californians should lose their jobs?

      almost suggests the idea that I’m somehow obligated to fund people’s creative endeavours, regardless of political alignment, quality or personal interest.

    • Kieron Gillen says:

      It’s not about being obligated to fund people. In fact, it’s the exact opposite of that.

      (It’s not about it being a “creative endeavour”. It’s about it being a job. Writing isn’t some magical fairy-dust thing.)


    • ReV_VAdAUL says:

      Should 52% of Californians lose their jobs? Well no firstly because the turnout on Prop 8 wasn’t anywhere near 100% but further one has to be very careful when taking the “high road”. I read at the time how upset and angry small businesses that had publicly backed Prop 8 were when the gay community organised to dramatically undermine their business.

      They viewed it as wholly right and proper to deny fundamental rights to other human beings but if they were to suffer at the hands of group action it wasn’t fair.

      In fact it is dangerous you conflate people voting with their wallets against someone who has openly funded anti-gay rights with taking away a person’s job. People not giving money to a game indirectly funding homophobia by an author who is likely a millionaire several times over is rather different from the draconian image of ordinary Californians forced from their jobs.

      Further if you look at hearings for US federal appointments recently you will see the GOP has denied anyone who has said anything even remotely reasonable appointment if they possibly could. It is deeply foolish to naively assert everyone should be free to say what they wish without backlash when those on the right who hold a lot of money and power are doing everything they can to restrict the speech of those on the left.

      That is a recipe for a whole lot of freedom for right wingers and those who are otherwise intolerant and a whole lot of censure for those on the left.

    • misterk says:

      I dunno KG. Lets imagine an artist who supports the “killing kittens act” brought in to allow people to freely kill kittens. He writes an article in which he describes, lucidly, why killing kitterns is an a-ok thing to do. But he’s a great artist, so we keep buying his stuff. Then he decides to give his money to an organisation dedicated to upholding the kitten killing act.. perhaps we’d then stop financially supporting him?

      Obviously kitten killing and banning gay marriage aren’t the same thing, but they are wrong, and they do cause harm. Its not that OSC has terrible opinions, its that he’s willing to spend money protecting said opinions.

    • arienette says:

      That’s a bit reductio ad absurdum with your logic. We can all turn it around and say would you prefer gay people had no rights? But we know that isn’t true.
      Card has a right to speak up, but that doesn’t make him right and it doesn’t mean he should have my money. We’re always told to vote with our wallets. I stand for the rights of all people and if someone does things like Card does then they won’t get my business. You might talk about expression of ideas in general, but it isn’t about anyone who disagrees with me, plenty of people on the political spectrum disagree with me. Card is actively working to make society a worse place, bit of a difference.

      This is more than just freedom of expression, it’s one person abusing their power to oppress others. I can’t support it

    • Harlander says:

      It’s not about being obligated to fund people. In fact, it’s the exact opposite of that.

      I think I’m missing a step that’d give me a proper grasp on what you’re trying to get across here.

      (It’s not about it being a “creative endeavour”. It’s about it being a job. Writing isn’t some magical fairy-dust thing.)

      I guess the question would have been better phrased as “Should I have to pay for something if something about it makes me not want it?” Of course, phrased like that it’s pretty clear that’s not what you were saying.

      So.. uh, yeah.

      *shuffles off*

    • Deano2099 says:


      That’s perfectly reasonable, but I’d question if you apply those values consistently? I obviously don’t know you, and there could be any number of reasons why this particular issue is of great importance to you personally. So I can’t say that you’re wrong.

      But a huge number of organisations and people fund things that are pretty appalling. The labour conditions for cheap clothes and all sorts of stuff. The connection here is extremely obvious and right there on the surface, but I know from the few times I’ve scratched around that were I to stop buying anything that funded anything I found objectionable, I’d pretty much have to stop buying anything.

      Card’s sort of a victim of the fact that he wrote a good book once, so people expect more of him. So it’s an issue when he turns out to be a dick. But we all expect Tesco and the banks and Wallmart to be evil so don’t really give a damn and continue to buy from them.

    • misterk says:

      I do my best to do so. I fail, but I do try and shop reasonably ethically. Also, its important to note that one doesn’t actually have to be terribly consistent to apply principles. If I boycott nestle but still wear fur, boycotting nestle is still a good thing on my part, despite my immoral actions elsewhere. We can, of course, always do better.

    • arienette says:

      Yeh, I do what I can. I don’t campaign on every front, there’s only so much time for a few and gender/sex/race politics are of most interest to me. But generally I try not to support bad practices of these sorts and others.

    • Deano2099 says:

      Which was kind of my point. This is an easy way to make yourself feel better by not playing something you probably wouldn’t have played anyway. I’ve no doubt most boycotters will change their mind if it turns out to be the greatest game ever too.

      Striving to be good is always a good thing, I’m like you, I try and often fail. It’s just on the grand scheme of things, with all the awful stuff happening in the world, not playing a free-to-play videogame because of the writer’s homophobic activism is very very low on the list of things to concern myself with.

    • arienette says:

      I’m not sure we proved your point, if we proved any point it’s that people are flawed. But Card even more so. I was very interested in this game, but I assure you, I will hold up my end and not support him.
      That other evil things are also being done doesn’t make Card’s views any less important to stand up to.

    • Kieron Gillen says:

      In passing, I haven’t time to properly develop this idea, but it struck me and I wanted to put it out there:

      Boycott, as a tool, works against corporate entities. I’m comfortable with that, because they are inherently amoral and its the only tool of censure (or way of manipulating them) we have against them.

      Boycott against an individual I’m less sure about (And doubly so when it’s not even a work of their own, but a work with 25-200 other people)*. What is it meant to actually achieve? It’s either meant to recant their views or simply drive them out of employment when his employers, in turn, don’t want to employ them. When it’s for an opinion as “mainstream” as “gay marriage is wrong and homosexuality is sinful”, this is troublesome.

      (A second thought:: a culture of boycotting an individual – especially when “our” view is apparently in the minority – is surely going to be self-destructive. At best, the people who hired express no politics ever. At worst, anyone who speaks up *for* gay marriage never gets hired. As far as tactics goes, isn’t it oddly culturally suicidal?)


      *I mean, let’s say the gaffer on HOT FUZZ wrote a blog where he said he thinks homosexuality is sinful. Is that a reason to boycott for HOT FUZZ?

    • arienette says:

      The hypothetical gaffer on Hot Fuzz is a nobody though. Card is a prominent and highly controversial figure. I’m not blaming everyone who’s had a role in making this game, but they must have known choosing Card comes with all this baggage.
      I’d be okay if Card didn’t get any work again. By taking a stand we’re letting people know that however ‘mainstream’ you say his views are, I’m not having it. Change doesn’t happen by staying silent on issues, maybe in the grand scheme of thing’s Card is small fry. But nothing gets done by ignoring the issue. I also don’t agree with you that it’s self destructive, I’m not interested in getting Card to change, he’s clearly irrational, but I want to show companies like this developer that people care, and they don’t exist in a vacuum outside of societal problems.

    • Fox1 says:

      Kieron, this isn’t a gaffer listed 500 people deep into the credits. Card is a public figure who has made a conscious decision to publicly advocate, financially support and politically maneuver to restrict the civil rights of individuals in my country. This goes beyond having or stating an opinion, offensive song lyrics revealing that an artist may not be a saint, etc. Furthermore, Red 5 have NOT simply hired this man for the quality of his work: they are trading on his (relative) celebrity and hoping for positive publicity and word of mouth.

    • Kieron Gillen says:

      But you’re describing a line I simply don’t see.

      His books sold. So what? How is he different from – say – John? He’s just a writer. And since writer is just a job, I can’t see it.

      Arienete: What I meant by self-destructive is if 52% of the population are anti-gay marriage in US (And go with me on that number), then if one side of the argument boycotts people who disagree with them, then when their side does exactly the same thing, it’s a bigger economic blow. In other words, when we accept this is a way society works, it’s actually “our” side of the argument that gets hurt by it.

      Or, in short: How do you feel when a liberal writer doesn’t get hired because of his fairly common beliefs?


    • arienette says:

      The difference is that his money and celebrity mean he wields a lot more power. His view is heard by more people, he is trusted more, considered to be more ‘reputable’ merely by virtue of being more well known. He also doesn’t merely think or talk about it, but actively campaigns against gay people and their rights. His writing is also specifically being used to promote the game whereas junior animator #5 isn’t.
      All these things add up to create a different dynamic and thus we can be expected to treat it differently.
      I don’t like it when it happens to liberal writers, however, a liberal writer generally believes in rights and freedoms. If anything they work for extensions of them, to promote them rather than crushing all these people.
      It is worth noting that 52% of prop8 voters in california might still only equal as low as 30% of the population there. Basically, we have to speak out, with no suffragetes or martin luther king and any number of other movements/figures we’d never have progressed. Historically, taking a liberal stand seems to work.

    • Deano2099 says:

      I don’t reckon he’s that well off or, frankly, he wouldn’t be taking a writing job on a F2P shooting game.

    • Saiwyn says:


      We are a dieing breed. People do not want to hear what others who’s views oppose theirs think. It is much safer to outright reject opposing viewpoints than it is to strike up a discussion about them and have our own views tested.

      Also, you are spot on about the trouble here in America. Many people will not hold a discussion with me due to the fact that I am straight, white, Christian and male. They instantly throw hate at me and usually won’t even let me begin to defend my point of view. I can’t tell you how much hate I receive as people often start to angrily shout me down with terms such as “homophobe” and “nazi” as soon as they know that I am a Christian, whether I’ve actually had the chance to speak or not.

      I want people to keep this in mind, if all views that were not perfectly in line with yours died this world would consist of……..only you.

    • Fox1 says:

      Simple, he’s not “just a writer.” He is on the board of the National Organization for Marriage. I think it’s slightly bizarre to try to conflate that with John’s blog, or whatever. I’m not sure you’re seeing the forest for the trees here, as you’re simultaneously arguing that his writing is “just a job,” but that he should be given special consideration because we wouldn’t want to silence an artist over a difference in viewpoints? Not to mention that no one has really stated any intent, let alone capability, to actually “silence” Card, and that seems a bit like when people shriek that their freedom of speech is being violated when their posts are moderated/deleted. It seems like a category error.

      Edit: Also, I’m not sure I can acknowledge the legitimacy of your comparison, as I’m not a moral or cultural relativist and I don’t view general “liberal” political tenets as being equivalent to attempting to oppress a minority population. You might, or you might not consider NOM an oppressive organization, but that’s another argument.

    • Garret says:

      If this guy’s political views were things like his views matters of budget, or social security, or something less tied to individual rights, I’d be willing to support him because it’s possible to reach a compromise on those issues. I can’t compromise on individual rights, particularly when the person I’m facing is actively working to suppress them.

    • Ravenholme says:

      I’m with Kieron on this, I have to say.

      The argument you guys are proposing is a hugely circular one which ends with people no longer being hired or unable to find work because they “support views that I (the employer) find morally objectionable.” Basically, you’re all riding your high horse down a dark road for society.

      Many organisations which you buy from and support in little ways do objectionable things. If you’re American, every time you buy a piece of meat you are supporting appaling animal welfare conditions and bad farming practices. (If you’re vegan this argument does not apply to you) Yet those of you eat meat are not stopping to do so. An employee in a company like Walmart might pour his money into supporting something like the organisation that Orson does, are you going to boycott walmart due to the actions of this single employee? And, given as this is America, I can guarantee that this certainly does happen, and with more than a single employee. Or should Walmart fire that employee, because of something he believes in and financially supports? Perhaps even chairs such an organisation?

    • Fox1 says:

      Ravenholme: I think you’re proposing the dark road for society, honestly, as you seem to be stating that, if we can’t be morally perfect consumers, there’s no point even trying to evaluate whether what we spend our assets on is good or bad for our society.

      What’s wrong with doing what you can, where you can, where you think it could actually make a difference?

      I think we in the US have trained ourselves, for too long, to abdicate any further responsibility for where our economic output goes once we hand it over to the cashier. We shake our fists and say “they’re all corrupt and imperfect,” and then sigh and buy it anyway. We grumble about how the only affordable clothes are made in asian sweatshops, but the buy them anyway, because the other ones as so expensive.

      But if we can’t change it all, right now, there’s no point in doing anything, right?

    • Ravenholme says:


      And there you go, misunderstanding my point entirely. I’m saying it’s unfair to mix personal beliefs and crusades in with a man’s professional conduct. I’ve read a fair amount of Scott Card’s work, and whilst it’s rubbishy drivel, I never noticed anything that was openly homophobic.

      And again, he’s not actually against homosexuality (openly), what he is against is homosexual marriage, which is an understandable point to have because marriage is a religiously-based social partnership which has the defining feature of being between a man and woman.

      You all ride your high horse, espouse high ideals, demand tolerance and acceptance from the religious right yet refuse to do the same in return. The sensible compromise to reach for would be to strike out for the same rights that married couples get (tax breaks etc) for domestic/civil partnerships (Whatever yankland calls ’em), and have that option available to couples of all sexualities and alignments. I consider myself a liberal and firmly on the LGBT side on this, but this strikes me as a sensible compromise rather than us endlessly attacking the RR for holding onto their own ideals and their definition of marriage, which frankly is the original definition of marriage and one they should be allowed to hold onto.

      What we should be aiming for is making it so that the difference between being in a civil partnership and being a “married” couple is a religious ceremony commemorates one, and the other allows homosexual couples. And that should be the extent of the difference.

      Of course, we’re all so goddamn hypocritical, talking about how the RR deny us our right to free speech, our right to live life as we choose, to believe as we will etc, and yet we go on to try the same rights back to them because we “disagree with them”. Take a look at the RR and you’re looking in the goddamn mirror, some of you.

  19. Owain_Glyndwr says:

    I don’t get what makes his views ‘repulsive’. Saying that gay people should be put in camps, that they should be harshly discriminated against, these are repulsive views. He opposes gay marriage- that’s not hate speech. Saying that homosexuality is a sin- that’s not hate speech either, if the intention is to convert the person for fear of the others soul. Has he said that gays should be ‘cured’ or anything of that nature? Or that the state should take action against them in some way?

    • I LIKE FOOD says:

      They are indeed not repulsive in any way. I agree with him in almost everything he has said.

    • Hanban says:

      But it’s not at all that easy.
      He opposes a fundamental right for people in society that is denied gay people. Why should they not be allowed to marry? Marriage entails many rights that are not reserved for non-married couples.

      I am not gay, so I cannot speak for them. But I imagine that people calling you sinful and wrong, would be very hurtful. If people started openly saying that my way of life was disgusting and that I would burn in hell, that would certainly suck.

      So, I don’t like what Card says, and I don’t understand how people reason who do not sympathize with gay people’s situation.
      Edit: I can’t say I have seen Card write that they should burn in hell, so don’t interpret my text as saying such. :)

    • mlaskus says:

      What gives anyone the right to limit the freedom of another human being on the basis of a fantastical concept of soul? Quite frankly, I find it to be absolutely disgusting.

    • SurprisedMan says:

      I can’t find the link to the interview at the moment (because I read it in 2001), but I remember one where an interviewer challenged him on his views on homosexuality, asking him why he would deny their happiness of allowing them to be who they are. His answer was along the lines of that he didn’t believe any gay person was truly happy, because he’s never met one that he reckoned was really happy if they were being honest with themselves.

      Now, that’s not hate speech. But it’s definitely patronising, presumptuous, almost laughably ignorant, and well within what I would have no trouble calling ‘repulsive.’

    • Deano2099 says:

      I think the problem with Card isn’t so much that he holds those views, it’s that:

      a) his fame gives him a platform to promote them and,

      b) he doesn’t just think gay people shouldn’t get married, but actively campaigns against it. I think we’d all be better off if David Cameron were dead, but I’m not attempting to rally people in to a plot to kill him.

      That all said, as long as his work on this game doesn’t give him a platform for that speech (and I don’t think it will) then I’m not too bothered. Also, were I Red 5, I’d bring in a second writer after the script was done purely to change one of the hero characters in to a homosexual.

    • Owain_Glyndwr says:

      Hmm. I think the place where myself and my oppenents conflict is the classic definition of marriage. Marriage as defined as one man and one woman- this makes the argument that the gay community only wants equal rights a non sequiter. It would be similar to a man requesting maternity leave, under the pretence of excersising his rights, in an area of course where they do not exist.
      I think a more effective argument can be made from the fact that people use hellfire and damnation to scare gay people because of their own particular prejudice, but this can only be taken so far. As a Mormon, Card would presumably think that cohabitation or adultery would be just as bad as homosexuality, and ,even though sex before marriage has long ceased to be a taboo, if he were to rail against all those who practice it and accuse them of being in danger of hell it would not be hate speech.
      The challenge for Card, Mormons in general and Orthodox Christians and so on is to state their case in a way that is not emotionally manipulative, nor should it be directed by fear and hatred. Does anyone think this can be done without the messenger being a bigot, homophobe etc?
      BTW In a tangentially related topic, is Ender’s Game any good?

    • 4026 says:

      “It would be similar to a man requesting maternity leave, under the pretence of excersising his rights, in an area of course where they do not exist.”


    • Deano2099 says:


      But assuming you think gay people should have equal rights to straight people, then there should be some civil mechanic that provides for gay people the exact same benefits as marriage does to straight people. With identical tax and legal implications. And if it’s identical, then why not just call it ‘marriage’ as that seems a bit simpler than inventing a whole new word.

      (There’s a whole other issue with what a church/religion defines a marriage as, and frankly I couldn’t care less – as someone who is straight and doesn’t belong to any religion, it’s no different to any private members club denying access to anyone they choose).

    • Owain_Glyndwr says:

      My point was that this would be similar to a British citizen calling for an Independance Day celebration, or an atheist demanding time off for Ramadan, or even a person protesting the destruction of a wooden chair on the basis of animal rights. The point is that certain rights ,in these contexts, are simply not applicable.
      The analogy was not a particularly good one, fair enough, but I believe the point stands. I agree with Card in that it is illogical to demand marriage on the basis of equal rights.The state would have to take it upon itself to redefine marriage entirely, which is practically legislating morality, a development which everyone here should be nervous about.
      This tends to lead into a debate around the question of whether rights are entirely a man made construction or something more. But leaving that, does believing this sort of thing make you bigoted, or homophobic?

    • Werthead says:

      “Is Ender’s Game any good?”

      If you read it when you’re about 14, yeah. As an adult you can see the end coming a mile off and there’s a rather huge moral problem with the way the book ends (which in fairness Card explores in the immediate sequel). It’s probably the single most overrated novel in the entire canon of SF lit though. It’s ‘good’, not ‘mindblowingly awesome’. Amongst contermporary SF novels, the likes of NEUROMANCER, A FIRE UPON THE DEEP and HYPERION all blow it out of the water.

      The sequel, SPEAKER FOR THE DEAD, was more interesting and philosophical, though it had less explosions. SPEAKER also gets a lot of love because it won the 1987 Hugo Award for Best Novel, halting an attempt by Scientologists to get L. Ron Hubbard’s last published novel before his death to win instead, for which many were thankful.

      “I’m not voting for Card, did you hear what he said about homosexuals?”
      “But he’s our only chance of stopping the Scientologists!”
      “Goddamn it, it’s just like having side with Stalin to stop Hitler! Kind of!”

    • Deano2099 says:

      It’s not about moral rights (at least to me), it’s about legal rights.

      The Independence Day thing doesn’t apply, as the UK and US are governed by different bodies. But you can bet that if say, London, was given an extra bank holiday next year as “Olympic Day” but that wasn’t extended to the rest of the UK, there sure as hell would be complaining.

      Likewise if someone I work with gets an extra day off for Ramadan, I’m going to demand an extra day off too. Employers are expected to be somewhat flexible about lunch hours and stuff, but it’s never extra, and they’ll always be expected to make up any time.

      Like I said, as far as I’m concerned, it doesn’t have to be ‘marriage’ – but then as far as I’m concerned, marriage is just a document that confers certain rights on two people. I don’t come at this with your baggage of marriage being an institution with all this morality attached, and frankly neither does the law, which is why this IS an equal rights issue.

      A hell of a lot of people (but not all) would be perfectly happy for you to call it something else if the word marriage is so special to you. As something of a grammar pedant, I can understand where you are coming from. As long as the alternative for gay people is EXACTLY THE SAME legally as it is for straight people then that’s fine.

      Also, if re-defining marriage is legislating morality, why was it not legislating morality when we defined marriage legally in the first place, and why should we not be nervous about that?

    • Saiwyn says:


      I’m not sure about abroad, but here in Washington State USA we have “Domestic Partnership” which allows all of the same legal rights as marriage. The only distinction is that they aren’t legally “married.”

      There is not one single benefit married people get over domestic partnerships and, in fact, only same sex couples can register for domestic partnership whereas heterosexual couples must get married in order to enjoy the benefits.

    • Deano2099 says:

      I might be wrong on this as my knowledge of the US legislative structure all comes from The West Wing, but isn’t there still a problem in Washington State and other such places with ‘equal’ partnerships, in that the Defense of Marriage Act doesn’t recognise them as equivalent at a federal level?

      So while every state-conferred benefit (so most of them) is equal, stuff like pensions, medicaid and social security are not?

    • Hanban says:

      As long as the partnership offers the same legal rights as marriage, I think it’s fine. One needen’t get bogged down on the word marriage, although I really don’t see the point of defending marriage as an institution only including man and wife.

      Here in Sweden same-sex marriage is legal, and that seems like a sensible way to do it. Why make it complicated eh? :)

    • fraek says:

      Hanban, It’s clear you’ve thought about this issue for all of 5 seconds. What is the right that is being denied? The right that is referred to by judges is the right for every competent (of age) person to marry a member of the opposite sex, with varying other restrictions being placed. There is no discrimination based on sexuality. Homosexuals can marry a person of the opposite sex too. Maybe this is a right they don’t care to partake in, but it means homosexuals want to create a new right for everyone. The right for anyone (whether homosexual or hetero) to marry a person of the same sex.

      There are many restrictions placed on who you can marry that apparently don’t merit your calling them a ‘fundamental right’. Are you a bigot against polygamists? Why isn’t it a fundamental right for a man to marry 3 wives or a wife to marry 2 husbands? Why can’t a person marry a child or an object or blood relative that they love? In other words, where does your “principle” (I use the term loosely when talking about progressives) of equality go when talking about other forms of “marriage” you wish to discriminate against? Were you just emoting?

      Marriage is about children, and linking the mother and father together to form a family. Without the protection for children, there is little rationale for the state being so deeply involved in the institution. The state has a very good reason for making sure the mother and father raise kids instead of pushing the responsibility on tax payers. As well as the benefits of the having a next generation. However, the push to remove children from the equation in order to include homosexuals will fundamentally change the meaning of marriage.

      Please don’t say not all marriages produce children. No kidding. All immature people aren’t stopped from drinking alcohol. But does that mean age limits on the purchase of alcohol are not about maturity? It just means the law has other considerations like efficiency (in both cases, setting a bright line standard), and privacy. Do you want the government intruding in our lives to determine if parents are trying hard enough to have kids?

      In order to believe in homosexual marriage you have to first assume homosexuals are no different than heterosexuals with respect to marriage. It is like screaming that the NBA discriminates against blind people, because the game isn’t meant for people without sight.

      The solution is civil unions, which homosexuals reject because it doesn’t affirm their lifestyle as they believe homosexual “marriage” would do. Homosexual “marriage” will not change this. Instead it will erode the special meaning of marriage, which is, in a way, self-defeating for homosexuals.

      I could go on, but I’ve said too much.

    • Hanban says:

      Clearly I must have thought about it for five seconds, since I didn’t come to the same conclusion as you did. In all of your discussion, you emphasize children as being the ever important factor in marriage.

      To me, this argument rests on the notion that children are produced within marriages, and in these marriages, the children are raised. This is becoming less and less a fact, in most parts of the world.

      I do not agree, simply. It’s neither here nor there if a legally accepted civil partnership is called marriage or a civil union, to me. What I find being the key issue is that gay people when in relationships can enjoy the same rights as heterosexual people do in terms of having their relationship being accepted as a union by law. Meaning that the partnerships they enter enjoy the same, e.g. financial rights as heterosexual partnerships enjoy.

      Calling this union marriage, makes sense to me. Since it will be much like any heterosexual marriage, bar the fact that gay people will tend to get babies through other means.

    • Thants says:

      @fraek: It seems like you could make the same argument for anti-miscegenation laws. If white people and black people both have the same right to marry someone of their own race then there’s no problem! And if marriage is about the children then we should let gay people get married. They raise children too, you know.

  20. ReV_VAdAUL says:

    Given the less than enlightened views held by a lot of gamers maybe his deeply unpleasant views are seen as a positive by the company?

    • Saiwyn says:

      Maybe the company didn’t bother to take his personal views into account.

      Edited for clarification.

  21. I LIKE FOOD says:

    I think this is good. Nice with a story writer that has some sense of morals in real life too.

    • ReV_VAdAUL says:

      They see you trollin’ they hatin’

    • arienette says:

      Just confirm for us which morals those are?

    • Harlander says:

      I suspect these morals may be expressed similarly to the following:

      Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with two kinds of seed: neither shall there come upon thee a garment of two kinds of stuff mingled together.

    • 4026 says:

      Obvious troll is depressingly obvious. “I LIKE FOOD”? C’mooon.

  22. WPUN says:


  23. Unaco says:

    So… Orson Scott Card’s views on Homosexual marriage seem to be the big talking point here. I think it was Voltaire who was paraphrased as saying…

    “I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.”

    Then, it was Saul Williams who said…

    “Some freedom of speech makes me nervous.”

    I don’t know what I think about this. I knew about it anyway to begin with, Cards views that is. Ender’s Game was a great book, and that hasn’t changed and probably won’t change. This game looks interesting and I’m going to keep an eye on it still. My concern is… the rest of Card’s work never matched Ender’s Game, so are we going to get some absolute trash, or will it be halfway decent? As Jom Rissignol states, card getting the job means there is another, probably better SF writer out there not getting the job.

    Then, as Kieron points out, should someone’s political/personal/Religious views count against their work in another field? Personally, I can’t stand Scientology, but that doesn’t stop me watching something with Juliette Lewis, Ethan Suplee or Jason Lee in it.

    One last thing… Everyone who is up in arms about this, I do hope they are all equally up in arms about “The Secret World” as well, and the entire Cthulhu mythos. H.P. Lovecraft was a vicious, virulent Anti-Semite, and a repugnant Racist.

    • studenteternal says:

      “the rest of Card’s work never matched Ender’s Game, so are we going to get some absolute trash, or will it be halfway decent?”
      This is the point I keep returning to as well, though to say that the rest of his work never matched EG is putting it nicely. I think he was a poor choice because he has lately been a remarkably poor WRITER, first and foremost. While there has been a dynamic discussion regarding the impact of political views on art, no one here has said anything to defend this basic point, nor have they offered a counter to the point that there are certainly more talented writers available, who incidently would not have brought the rest of this garbage with it.
      Of course it may be that the controversy is exactly why Card was brought on in the first place, in which case we can expect the typical shooter story depth (kiddie pool at best) and some throwaway lines on the website, which is disappointing both because I have always thought a strong narrative makes a game much more interesting (one of the reasons I had trouble liking the original quake) and because I had hoped that this developer was more dedicated to making news with a great game, rather then sensationalist trickery.

    • Lilliput King says:

      re: lovecraft: He’s also stone dead, so I don’t think he poses much threat.

  24. utharda says:

    To distinguish from Public Enemy..

    They expressed anti-semetic and homophobic views. I don’t recall them ever trying to export them across the entire society. I don’t care what kind of ignorant, assnine, racist, homophobic, anti-science views you might have. As long as you keep it to yourself. Card as noted pushed the california anti-gay referendum (its not about marriage its about homophobia), and he teaches college kids. Card waves his hate around like a flag. Admittedly, he’s a good teaching moment for my kids, but personally, the American social contract used to be, believe what you want, but keep it at home.

    These people are pushing to implement a state religion. F them,and F anyone who gives them so much as a dollar. Nice game, hope it goes bankrupt.

    • Twitchity says:

      @utharda — To be fair to the Mormons, they haven’t tried to implement a state religion since the Deseret days. You wouldn’t know it from pseudo-rightists like Mitt Romney, but generally Mormons have been strong proponents of religious freedom in the US (getting on the wrong side of the US cavalry can have that effect on one). At the same time, the Mormon church has a pretty dispiriting history of racism, sexism, and homophobia, and I know quite a few Mormons who — like staunch but politically liberal Catholics — have to work pretty hard to reconcile what their faith’s leaders do versus what they find their own moral consciences to say.

      As for Card, his political beliefs are vile and — unlike, say, T.S. Eliot — I don’t think the quality of his output makes up for his right-wing activism. Although for myself, I never liked “Ender’s,” it’s clear that it was the high point of OSC’s career. Card’s most recent books, like his evil-liberals-plunge-America-into-civil-war screeds, are so bad that even the hackiest of ghostwriters for the lowest tier of Tom Clancy-branded grocery store fiction would be ashamed to turn it in to his editor. Given that, I don’t expect him to turn in a stellar performance on this latest video game either.

      Now, if someone ever gets around to hiring Joe Haldeman to write a game, I’ll buy copies for all my family and friends.

    • Hanban says:

      Arguably they did, though. The lyrics spread and influence those who listen to it.

      I listen to a lot of rap music and have always found it hard to deal with much of the homophobic messages that can be found in some lyrics. I have of lately stopped listening to the kind that contains these types of influences, but there are some very good artists who in their past conveyed negative thoughts on homosexuality, but have now changed their stance on the matter. Common for example, whose music I still love today.

    • Unaco says:

      Public Enemy are also very open supporters of the Nation of Islam and Louis Farrakhan… who is, to put it mildly, an anti-semitic c*nt.

    • Deano2099 says:

      There’s a huge difference between creating art and holding a belief, and expressing those beliefs through the art. I wouldn’t buy a hip-hop album with homophobic lyrics because I judge the art as not up to my moral standards. If the same artist wants to make something that isn’t homophobic I might give it a chance.

      In this particular case, Card is just a writer-for-hire and I doubt the plot will be pushing any sort of homophobic agenda (if it turns out it is, I take back everything and will heartily support any boycott).

    • johnpeat says:

      @Deano2099 so you’ll accept food from someone who SOMETIMES puts shit in it on the basis that there appears to be no shit in the food they’ve given you? :)

    • Deano2099 says:

      Err, yeah of course I would. I’d have Michael Winner check there was no shit in it first though. Or rely on the head chef to stop him putting shit in stuff when he worked at that restaurant.

  25. angramainyu says:

    I may have loved Ender’s Game back in the day, but given Card’s vocal homophobia, I can’t justify doing anything giving the sad scared old man a penny. I’m disappointed any studio would support him,

    • Commisar says:

      wait, so now being against Gay marriage is “repulsive” Interesting, I wounder when being against gay marriage will be illegal

  26. studenteternal says:


    To play devil’s advocate for a moment here, while big companies do atrociously unconscionable things, they tend to dilute the moral harm of their decisions across a number of implementer, decision makers, and hapless wage slaves. Any moral message in boycotting or buying from the home depot, Microsoft, or whatnot is thus likewise diluted. However Orsen Scott Card is the only acknowledged creator in his published works (there is, I assume, an editor, agent, and various people involved in marketing and publication of his books, but they are not on the cover, and rarely factor into the purchasing decision) so there is a much stronger association, both for good and ill between the individual and their product then there is between a CEO of a major corp and their finished goods.

    • Deano2099 says:

      That’s a perfectly fair point, and you also have the greater issue of those views seeping in to the output because it’s so creator-driven.
      The point of course, doesn’t apply to this game, where Card is just a cog in the machine and not the auteur which does make it different. I probably wouldn’t boycott him, but I do find myself feeling a bit awkward watching Polanski films, for example.

  27. scut says:

    There are plenty of science fiction writers better than Card that a studio could be benefiting from. It’s irksome to see a fun sci-fi IP get poisoned with a name like his. My personal pick for an alternate writer would be Peter Watts.

    Regarding the rationale /why/ hiring Card is different than appreciating the art of other bigoted individuals from the past; to me the problem is that Card will directly profit from this during his life. The other names I see getting dropped in the article and thread (Wagner, Lewis Carroll) are dead, and cannot experience any satisfaction from people engaging in their work.

    I’ll be opting out Firefall. There isn’t enough time to play every game out there, so Red 5 just made my decision simple.

  28. Monteef says:

    As much as I loved Shadow Complex – and it was a fantastic game that is sorely lacking a PC port – it was excellent in every regard bar one.

    The plot was godawful. It was colossally stupid, very light, and didn’t make a whole lot of sense. It was basically just an excuse to run around a giant base doing awesome shit to blank-helmeted goons. It barely HAD a story, for chrissake.

    Orson Scott Card will do nothing to aid Firefall, and his inclusion on the project only hurts its integrity.

    • Deano2099 says:

      Card didn’t write the Shadow Complex plot. It was just based on his setting (it was written by Peter David, who is also an actual writer, and by all accounts normally better than that,

  29. Dawngreeter says:

    So guess which game I won’t have anything to do with because they knowingly finance disgusting bastards which have no place in any decent society.

  30. pipman3000 says:

    oh great orson scott “gay-slayer” card the homophobic madman is writing firefall. i don’t want to give any money to orson “i love hitler and hate gays” scott card so i’ll not be buying or playing this game.

    but if you hate gay people and love supporting nazis then firefall is the game for you!

  31. pipman3000 says:

    the games plot written by great nohomo writer orson scott card: gay liberal bi-racial terrorists who hate america and freedom have dropped super-weapon called the obomba on real america turning everyone but a select few republicans into limp-wristed sissies that must be rounded up and dealt with by our hero adolph hietler, but it’s okay he will feel a little bad about it afterword as he rides into the sunset on his pure-blooded equine steed goebbels.

    • pipman3000 says:

      “a great story that should be included in any literary canon” – conservapedia.com

      “a frightening look into the future barrack hussein obama has in store for the world” -the free republic

      “though written by an american i would prefer it’s authors’ presence to the throngs of asians and muslims who are colonising our country.” – the daily mail

  32. johnpeat says:

    What people here can’t seem to separate is the art and the artist.

    The art is one thing – it stands in it’s own right (Wagner, Gauguin etc.)

    The artist is different tho – I doubt anyone would ask Wagner to create music for them (were he still alive)

    There’s also the “court of retrospective history” – judging long-dead people by standards which didn’t exist when they were alive/where they lived.

    End of the day tho, Card has expressed views which are heinous and anyone associating themselves with him IS associating themselves with his views and should be shunned.

    End of.

    • Commisar says:

      so being against gay marriage is now a capitol crime.. good to know

    • diamondmx says:

      @commisar Go find capital crime in a dictionary, then come back and try again.

  33. StingingVelvet says:

    I only read the first half or so of the linked article, but honestly I agreed with a lot of it. I guess to the lefties that makes me a “homophobe” too, which is nothing new really. Lefties love labeling their opposition.

    Even if I hated his views though I wouldn’t care about supporting the game. I try to remove the personal beliefs of creators from their creations, otherwise half my music, books and movies would have to be thrown out. The argument that buying their wares supports their beliefs doesn’t jive with me. Everyone has a right to argue, support and finance any political agenda they want, barring outright illegal acts of course, and I don’t mind them doing so. Wanting people opposed to gay marriage to not be able to argue their point is very Leftist as well.

    • johnpeat says:

      There’s a difference between buying art and commissioning it.

      You might buy a book because you like the story – or a CD because you like the music.

      Would you ask the same people to create an original work for you tho – knowing their views – that’s entirely different.

      Also – equating outrage at homophobia and ‘leftism’ is retarded – it’s as-if it’s a political choice whether you decide to hate someone and/or that it makes it OK to do so.

      It’s not left v right – it’s right-minded v extremist stupidity.

    • Dawngreeter says:

      “Lefties love labeling their opposition.”

      Are you still there? Haven’t imploded in a dramatic moment of self-defeating contradiction? No? You could be exploited for FREE ENERGY then!

    • StingingVelvet says:

      @ johnpeat

      I didn’t label outrage at homophobia as anything, thank you very much. I only mentioned homophobia in the context of it being a go-to word to attack people with opposing stands on certain homosexual rights issues. Similar to how anyone against affirmative action or for profiling is labeled a racist by the opposition. It’s a quick and lazy tactic to try and characterize the opposing viewpoint as hateful in order to make your stance appear more logical, or as the stance of “good people.” People on both sides of the political aisle have been doing it for centuries, though on these particular topic it is mostly those on the left.

      In any case, Card talks about the same exact thing in the article.

  34. Snuffy the Evil says:

    To be honest the only good things Card has ever wrote are Ender’s Game and Speaker for the Dead, and even then I’m probably wearing rose-tinted glasses. Most of his other stuff is absolute shlock.
    Especially “Empire”. The description said it was about American Red State/Blue State politics escalating into civil war, but the actual book was about a mad scientist creating an army of mechs and invading New York. The only time politics is given a mention is when the protagonists are arguing over which news station to take evidence to.

    It’s kind of like if “Transformers” was advertised as an insight to transhumanism and the events of First Contact.

  35. googoogjoob says:

    ender wiggin is the biggest mary sue

    • Dave L. says:

      Making it entirely appropriate that he’s a sociopath with homicidal tendencies and a persecution complex.

  36. Mendrake says:

    I love RPS. A carefuly glued together katamari-like wad of intelligent people. Its sad that it seems exeptional for a large group of gamers to be so enlightened about human rights and fairness. It always seems that the most vocal gamers are asses, but RPS is skilled in proving me wrong.

  37. the.celt says:

    It’s weird to see this much hatred directed at someone who is rumored to have (and may actually have) “hateful ideas”. It makes me scared to think, much less express, anything that isn’t agreed on by pretty much everyone. Or at least anyone near me who may think it’s ok to do something to me because I deserve it for holding a “hateful idea”.

    Every one of us has a “hateful idea” in his head from someone else’s perspective. Look out.

    • Deano2099 says:

      It’s not rumoured. He freely puts it out there. He’s a published writer with a big platform for his views, and he uses them to espouse pretty awful stuff.

      That he is vilified for it is good, because that’s the flip-side of free speech folks. Free speech does not mean “I can say what I like and not be judged for it” it means “I can say what I like but have to face the consequences”.

    • StingingVelvet says:

      @ Deano

      “Pretty awful stuff” being purely subjective, of course. Someone writing in favor of emancipation in 1810’s Alabama would certainly be told they were writing “awful stuff.”

    • Wulf says:


      He takes it outside of his works and pretty much slips his homophobia into any interview that he feels he could get away with. There’s the problem. It’s in his work, it’s in his words, it’s everywhere. And it’s proving harmful to people right now. It’s basically a war of philosophy and anyone who is gay can’t just roll over and say that this is okay. It’s not.

      And comparing an instance of the past with something that’s affecting people today is a misnomer. It’s a very misleading argument.

      But yeah, I’m going to just step out of this thread. I’ve said all that I’ve wanted to say and really… I can’t stop people from making justifications or putting up defences no matter how bizarre or quixotic those defences might be. We all have our opinions, it’s just that some of us have unethical opinions against groups of people for what can only be entirely arbitrary reasons.

    • the.celt says:

      You’re not getting my point. Let’s go with assumption that he’s got (and expressed) “hateful ideas”. Isn’t there some sort of problem with expressing sigificancant hatred towards him? Is it possible to hate “hateful ideas” out of existence?

      Life is complicated, right? For example: I think abortion is murder. I know people around me that, from my perspective, are murderers (a vile thing to be, right?). I know they don’t self-perceive to be murderers and I have to deal with the huge gap between my beliefs and theirs. I need to find a useful way to interact with them, and if I regularly exhuded the feeling to them that they were vile, stinking murderors… well, there could be serious problems.

      I don’t believe the significant gap between my beliefs and someone else’s grants me a license to treat them as vile. Keep in mind, this doesn’t diminish my feeling that murder *is* vile. I still feel it, and I feel it very strongly. But my expressing hatred towards them raises the ante. In purely practical terms, if my goal is to reduce murder (and it is), it’s better for me to keep the hatred to a minimum and stay able to talk.

      It might make me feel less empowered, in a “use the dark side of the force, Luke” kind of way, to just have to reason with someone instead of playing the hate card, but it needs to happen. I think we’re getting so polarized, so full of license and hate, that it’s getting dangerous. We play the hate card over just about everything. Racism, religion, science, liberal, conservative, evolution, creationism, Star Wars, Star Trek, abortion, gay, straight, real-time, turn based.

      You and I are the next people that society will need to punish for having hateful ideas. Quickly, adjust your mindset so that all you care about is who wins Dancing With The Stars. And pay constant attention to who everyone else is voting for and adjust your vote accordingly.

    • StingingVelvet says:

      @ Wulf

      “Unethical” again being a subjective term.

      I have no issue with people being homosexuals, not that they should care whether I do or not in the first place. My aunt is a lesbian and by brother is bisexual, I have enjoyed conversations with them about their love lives and have never judged them. I am just against gay marriage, because I believe it changes what marriage is rather than open access to it. I am for civil unions, which I believe is what they have in the UK. My aunt believes the same thing and is in fact a lesbian, so I doubt that stance is “homophobic” by default.

    • Daiv says:

      @Stinging Velvet: that was a thoughtful response, thank you.

      Unfortunately marriage is a civil construct that has appropriated religious overtones. I know a few gay couples, and it isnt the religious and social “meaning” of marriage that bothers them. In the US, at least, there are marriage based tax breaks. There are marriage based rights to a spouse that a gay couple doesn’t get. In a US hospital a gay partner has no “right” to make decisions for his/her significant other in cases of incapacitation. In fact they dont even have a right to visit in hospital. All the couples I know couldnt give a toss about marriage, just the rights they dont get because their partner is the “wrong” gender.

      Wow. Unexpected attack of politics.

    • Lilliput King says:

      I agree with a lot of what you’ve said celt, except that, well, the notion that homosexuality is inherently sinful based on scripture doesn’t leave a lot of room for debate, except of the theological kind. How can you begin to reason with it?

  38. Kaldor says:

    I don’t think giving him money is a problem, as he will get it anyway, it’s a problem how he can keep out of every debate while continuing making his money. Money is not the issue here, and yes, I might have given Wagner money, because he was an artist of a whole other magnitude, and the issue might be more complex than you can make it look in a half-sentence. Card is very outspoken and clear and active about his views, with no dampening aspects (as e.g. Lovecraft and his wife) or societal convolutions facilitating strange views. He’s defined more directly by them. What is at issue is not whether the man gets money, but whether I would read his works. Would I read Orson Scott Card after knowing about his screwball politics and discriminatory views? Certainly not, because I could not enjoy it, or only on the most superficial level.

    It would be best to make it prerequisite of a contract to distance himself from these views. That would stop making him immune from uttering filth, it wouldn’t put the issue at rest between him and his employers or fans by keeping it away from him, to do with as he pleases.

  39. Wulf says:

    I wish they’d picked more sensibly. There were so many writers they could have chosen from but the fear that I’m going to have to put up with his hateful anti-homosexuality shit (and if you don’t think it goes far enough to be anti-homosexual, you don’t know a lot about Card’s agenda, and I suggest you read up on it) just kills my interest in this game, for me. Just as anything Card has ever touched.

    You really just need to read up on him. He’s even done a slippery slope argument where apparently making gay marriage legal would lead to making anything from drug use to bestiality and manslaughter legal. That’s just the sort of person he is. He’s not just a person who finds homosxuality distasteful, he’s a bona fide homophobe.

    And that’s going to get into the game. Anyone with an agenda is going to somehow slip their agenda into whatever they work on, and really, there’s enough negativity towards homosexuals in competitive gameplay as is, do we really need to be teaching youngsters that this is a good call? That mimicking homophobia is a good thing? To be honest, knowing Card was working on this, I wouldn’t advise anyone to go near it in good conscience.

    So yeah… I was excited by this, but now I’m feeling so disappointed. So, so disappointed. I’m sorry but, to say it again, as a gay person the last thing I want to be exposed to in my games is an anti-homosexual agenda. You might not be bothered by it, and more power to you, but there’s a good chance it’s going to be there in Firefall. (And I won’t trust it until I hear otherwise from trustworthy sources.)

    There are so many BETTER writers they could have used for this. Seriously. I could suggest a few hundred off the top of my head. Why him?


    Oh well, striking Firefall off the list. I suppose it’s nice to get a forewarning. Sometimes when being confronted with an anti-homosexuality sentiment in a game I have no forewarning. Here I do. Thanks John. I owe you one.

    • Unaco says:

      “And that’s going to get into the game. Anyone with an agenda is going to somehow slip their agenda into whatever they work on”

      I call bullshit on this. Someone’s professional work can be entirely separated from their personal beliefs etc. And I haven’t seen any evidence of his ‘homophobia’ in any of his work. He seems to keep his personal beliefs separate.

      “I suppose it’s nice to get a forewarning. Sometimes when being confronted with an anti-homosexuality sentiment in a game I have no forewarning.”

      Again, there is NO evidence that his ‘homophobic agenda’ is in the game. Was it in The Secret of Monkey Island? Because he wrote for that. Was it in Loom? Because he wrote for that. Was it in Marvel Comics Ultimate IronMan? Because he wrote that. Is it in the “InterGalactic Medicine Show”? Because he founded that.

      You say you won’t believe his ‘homophobic agenda’ is absent from the story until you see reliable sources (even though there is no evidence that OSC puts his personal views into his professional work). Can I just point out that that is really quite irrational.

      And, what? Has he suddenly changed his mind and realised all those books and magazines he’s been writing for years weren’t the best way to get his message across and now he’s decided to put his agenda across in a Video game for which he’s likely writing some flavour and dialogue for?

    • the.celt says:

      Listen, I was raised Christian and still hold most classicly Christian beliefs. That earns a lot of hatred nowadays, but whatever.

      When I was raised, I regularly heard that we shouldn’t listen to certain music or read certain books because the life-style of the artist in question was sinful. The idea was that, a person with certain beliefs couldn’t *help* but include them in his works, and that consuming his works essentially made you at risk to the virus of his ideas. Also, even if you didn’t succomb to his virus, you were basically paying him to do drugs, cheat on his wife, or steal millions. You were enabling his lifestyle and the goal was that his lifestyle cease.

      And, hey, some of that is probably true. But what I’ve learned since then is that crappy people can produce great art. Crappy people can say great and beautiful things. They do it all the time.

      Also, there’s never been any historical shortage of people hoping to starve someone else’s ideas out of existence.

    • Commisar says:

      @the.celt- Ain’t that the truth

  40. Unaco says:

    Just to point out, Orson Scott Card is published by Tor books (in the US at least). Will the people calling for a boycott of this also call for a boycott of Tor books? That would mean no George RR Martin, and no Dance With Dragons next week.

    Also, Orson Scott Card has worked/written for Marvel Comics (Ultimate Ironman and others). So, does that mean Marvel should be shunned for hiring him? Or what about Steam? They have Advent Rising up… which OSC wrote dialogue and a ‘screenplay’ for. Or Lucas Arts? OSC worked on Monkey Island, Loom, and The Dig.

    I’m not saying his views aren’t bad… I’m all for equality and equal rights and all that. But, should we conflate his professional work with his personal views? And, if we do that with him in this instance, should we not do it for everything? Demand that every games studio gives us a list of EVERYONE that works for them, and their political, personal, and religious views?

    • pipman3000 says:

      uhh guy unless orson scott card owns TOR books you can still buy things from other people who go through them without worrying about giving him any money.

      while orson scott card contributed some insults for the sword fighting mini-game he doesn’t get any money from that either besides the cash they (presumably} paid him up-front.

      i know you’re trying to make some (dumb) point about how if you don’t want to support orson scott card because he hates gays and works to make our life worse then you have to stop liking things he touched so you might as well just give him your moeny or life in a cave but this is like that dumb “well hitler was tangentially involved with [thing] so if you also use [thing] you’re basically a nazi!” argument .
      why can’t people accept that minorities generally don’t like supporting people who hate them. would you get in a fight with a black guy because he doesn’t like prussian blue’s music?

    • Unaco says:

      Excuse me lady… If you think that was my point, you missed my point.
      I agree… boycotting or blaming TOR or holding TOR accountable for OSC’s personal beliefs is wrong. As is holding his sins against Lucas Arts or anyone else he has worked with or for. Just as it would be wrong, in my opinion, to hold them against Red 5 and this game. OSC has never brought his ‘homophobic agenda’ into his professional work, and there is no evidence that he is doing so here.

      I think OSC’s views are wrong. But, I don’t think we should conflate personal beliefs and professional work. His personal beliefs haven’t impacted or twisted his work in the past, there’s no evidence that they are going to with this.

      Also, your analogy at the end is dumb. Would I get into a fight with a Black Guy because he doesn’t like Prussian Blue? No… because Prussian Blue DO bring their Personal beliefs into their work… their songs are about White Supremacy or whatever. OSC’s work is NOT anti-homosexual/homophobic. He doesn’t bring his personal beliefs into his work.

      There are (probably) plenty of artists, actors, musicians, writers who have objectionable views or ideas (objectionable to some of us, at least). And yes, if their objectionable views inform their professional work, I’ll avoid it (that’s why I refuse to read Lovecraft, his works containing thinly veiled racist and anti-Semitic attacks). But in this case, with OSC, he doesn’t involve his objectionable views in his writing.

    • Commisar says:

      @Unaco DAMN STRAIGHT. I too have read some of his books and played Advent rising, not once have I seen any homophobia in his books I didn’t even know he was a Mormon until I read an author description on the back of Empire

    • Ravenholme says:

      Very well said Unaco.

  41. Mayjori says:

    Card? You mean that unoriginal author that takes the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith story/history, and the Bible and turns them into sci-fi/fantasy books?


  42. Jamesworkshop says:

    not interested in the game

    card is going to get paid, reguardless, no matter what anyone here thinks or does.

  43. Vinraith says:

    Card has a right to speak his beliefs, and a right to contribute money, time, and effort to the causes in which he believes. If he’s interested in defending marriage as a “sacred institution” however, I would gently suggest that committed homosexuals wishing to avail themselves of the practice are the least of its problems. Then again, I suppose he also has a right to be irrational.

    In turn, I have a right to label him a bigot, and do my best to ensure that none of my money ends up in the hands of a man that loudly and publicly supports bigotry.

  44. fraek says:

    I came to rescue this thread from the ad hominem fallacy. The ad hominem fallacy occurs when an egalitarian questions the motives of an Orson Scott Card (example “homophobe”, “hateful”), when OSC doesn’t claim to be an expert in the field, or have facts not readily available to the public. You’re welcome. You can stop using it now.

    • Thants says:

      That’s very confusingly worded. I’ve read it three times and I can’t understand what you’re saying.

  45. Jabberrwocky says:

    I think that it is sadly ironic that a group that preaches “tolerance” is displaying such intolerance towards someone who does not agree with them. Should I stop reading RPS because they use it as a forum to promote their views on homosexuality (or criticize those who do not share their views)?

    • Commisar says:

      my goodness, this is the best comment I Have read on the comments to the article yet. :) Good job at exposing the hippocrasy

    • Jim Rossignol says:

      “Should I stop reading RPS because they use it as a forum to promote their views on homosexuality (or criticize those who do not share their views)?”


      Also it would be a mistake to think that we preach tolerance. We do not. We are simply against people being dicks.

    • Nick says:

      “lol it’s ironic that you aren’t tolerant of me hating gays”

    • Jabberrwocky says:

      Please define “people being dicks”.

    • Jabberrwocky says:

      @Nick: “lol it’s ironic that you aren’t tolerant of me hating gays”
      Your assumption that “disagree = hate” is wrong in my case. Should I assume that you hate me for disagreeing with you?

    • TillEulenspiegel says:

      “Should I assume that you hate me for disagreeing with you?”

      Yes. On this? Yes.

    • the.celt says:

      “Dicks” = People who are intolerant. Also, people who are intolerant of intolerant people. If there’s anyone in the world I don’t want to hear speak their opinions, it’s those smug close-minded people. Yuck!

      Actually, I don’t mean to be too intolerant of RPS’s seeming intolerance of intolerance. I sincerely love the site and wouldn’t bother to express myself at all on most other sites. I’d rather be here, where I get the sense of a person on the other side of the writing, than nearly all other gaming sites that have writing of the same skill and integrity as can commonly be found on the back of cereal boxes.

      Suggestion though: Perhaps RPS should consider putting a comment next to every person they mention (real or fictional) that describes that person’s stance on gay rights. Sort of like a Tom “Risky Business” Cruise thing. It could be Orson “pretty damn intolerant towards gays” Scott “thinks global warming is overrated” Card.

    • Nick says:

      I was merely playing ‘spot the subtext’, I don’t really care what you think about anything, beyond a passing amusement to myself, let alone summon enough thought to hate you.

    • Lilliput King says:

      Oh Jom. Best possible reply.

      Regardless, surely we don’t have to worry about being intolerant towards those who practise intolerance in the same way we don’t have to worry about shouting at those who practise noisiness. The net result is less noise.

    • Thants says:

      “You should be tolerant of my intolerance” isn’t a valid argument. It would only be hypocritical if someone were arguing that all view-points are equally valid, which no one is.

  46. Commisar says:

    Good freakin’ job RPS, it seems that you have turned a good amount of people off to a game because SOMEONE didn’t like who was writing it. I have played through Advent Rising, read Ender’s Game and Empire and had not ONCE in any of those stories seen an ounce of “homophobia” “creationism” or “racism”. Most of the comments that I have read are disgusting, and if you can’t hand Card writing a good story for a Sci-Fi videogame, than GET THE F*CK OUT!!!!!!!!!!!

  47. John Walker says:

    I find it interesting to note that the ability to spell is inversely proportional to the degree of homophobia in an individual.

    • Nick says:

      I doent know wat you our talkeeng abowt.

    • Unaco says:

      What John? Have you seen some of Orson Scott Card’s first drafts? Has his copy editor been complaining on Twitter?

    • lightswitch37 says:

      I find it interesting to note that homophobephobes are always trumpeting their intellectual superiority. I guess it’s because /that/ is what will win the unwashed masses over to your perfect cause.

  48. DaFishes says:

    Why in the everloving hell do people keep hiring this relic? He’s not even that good at writing!

    Look at his Dragon Age comic if you want to see what I mean.

  49. Craymen Edge says:

    Surely a ‘Manga’ created in the US, by English speaking Americans, for an English speaking audience isn’t really Manga? It’s just a Comic book.