|
Right now, the OPF has two "members": Paizo's organized play programs (Pathfinder Society, Starfinder Society, and Adventure Card Society), and Evil Genius Games' new OP program.
In recent days, there has been an exodus of staff from the latter as well as freelancers cutting all ties with the company, based on "ethical" or "moral" differences between the individuals and the company.
This is not the place to talk about what those issues are, or who is right or wrong, since they are irrelevant to my point.
This condemnation of an OPF member company's ethical standards causes some concern, both for volunteers of the OPF but also given the OPF's new charitable status. It is extremely easy for concerns about ethics at a charity to cause prospective supporters to look elsewhere or to pull support. Left unchecked, it can even cause government to review said charity's status if the concerns continue.
I trust that the OPF board is already investigating the issue and looking at any actions they deem necessary based on this. That's also not what this thread is about.
My main question going forward is: what process is used to vet prospective members of OPF? That should be made public, so that people who play or volunteer for one OPF program know that the same charitable organization isn't also running an organized play program that they strenuously object to.
(I personally wouldn't support an OP program where the table rules allowed GMs to exclude players based on gender, say, or where all the scenarios were written by AI. Right now I don't know whether OPF programs would be allowed to do that or not.)
Clear standards about what OPF stands for would help everyone, and can serve to foster the kind of gaming environments the OPF wants to build. (Maybe it is out there somewhere, but right now the OPF website redirects to a Paizo OP page, and I couldn't find anything on it.)
---