TheRPGSite

Some cowardly people decided to have a thread attacking me over at RPG.net, where I could not post a response myself. To be fair, a couple seem to be trying to give credit where credit is due.

In any case, this thread is to respond to this thread (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=309893), where a number of points are made that I will be responding to.

1. "Blue Rose was always a 3-book Series". That's a cop-out and everyone knows it.  Had Blue Rose been the runaway success the RPG.net hype implied it would be, and no doubt GR hoped it would be, there's NO FUCKING WAY that they would have dropped the series after just 3 books. So you can't then turn around and claim that if they only did 3 books, its not a failure.

2. "Aldis is an objectively good society": If that were true, why does it need a fascist metaphysical device to engage in societal control? If the point of the Magic Deer was to say "look, Aldis is really GOOD", then the Magic Deer would really be utterly unnecessary. Its there because of the typical Nanny-state implication that if one does not allow "the elite" to govern and rule over the "mobs" then those mobs will inevitably bring all kinds of chaos to governance.  Its the "we know what's best for YOU" mentality.

3. This one's my favourite: "No one seems to have a problem with the "Objective Evil" of the Shadow in Midnight; so people's issue with the Magic Deer is really just a childish hatred of Goodness".
Look, I'm pretty sure that if the designers of Midnight had said: "The Shadow is objectively evil and embodies everything that is evil, like cruelty, malice, kittens, and environmental stewardship", you would have had cat-fans and environmentalists up in arms.
So why are you surprised that when Blue Rose said "The Magic Deer is objectively good and embodies everything that is good, like love, kindness, and collectivism", you ended up getting classical liberals a little upset?
Especially when you turned around and also said "There's also an objectively Evil alignment, and its pretty well defined by people who value individual freedom over the collective will. That's pure evil".

So its got fuck all to do with people having an evil-fetish, its just the opposite, its the fact that Blue Rose had an utterly fucked-up utterly politicized perspective of what "Good" and "Evil" are. "Good" is the nanny-state, "evil" is valuing individuality over collectivism.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditSome cowardly people decided to have a thread attacking me over at theRPGsite, where I could not post a response myself.

RPGnet, surely?

Quote from: GrimGentRPGnet, surely?

Argh. Too early in the morning.

RPGPundit

Maybe they need the Law and Chaos axis added to their alignment system. ;)

Yes, the existence of the Deer undermines the entire premise that Aldis is good. It's hard to claim a free choice about being brave, sincere, kind to others, etc. when there's a Magic Deer who kicks your ass if you aren't.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineYes, the existence of the Deer undermines the entire premise that Aldis is good. It's hard to claim a free choice about being brave, sincere, kind to others, etc. when there's a Magic Deer who kicks your ass if you aren't.

I suppose this is all just rehashing, but I fail to see the once-a-century appearances of the Golden Harte to be terribly significant to any campaign.  The Golden Harte is considerably less interventionist than D&D gods, who constantly monitor the alignment of all their clerics and strip them of powers if they shift away in alignment.  

Similarly, having the "good guys" be organized as a state with an autocratic King or Queen (as opposed to a constitutional democracy that guarantees civil rights) is really pretty darn common in fantasy fiction and RPGs.

Quote from: jhkimI suppose this is all just rehashing, but I fail to see the once-a-century appearances of the Golden Harte to be terribly significant to any campaign.  The Golden Harte is considerably less interventionist than D&D gods, who constantly monitor the alignment of all their clerics and strip them of powers if they shift away in alignment.  

Similarly, having the "good guys" be organized as a state with an autocratic King or Queen (as opposed to a constitutional democracy that guarantees civil rights) is really pretty darn common in fantasy fiction and RPGs.

I dislike the conventional D&D pantheons for the same reasons. Here's my take on religion in the D&D game I'm running:
http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=71563&postcount=18 Suffice to say, there's no giant wise old men with lightning bolts running around.

As for the autocratic king, I'm a little more willing to use that, but because of the way my group plays (violent, gritty, and cynical) we tend to have more kings like Henry the VIII and Mad King George than Queen Amidala. For all that, we aren't completely closed off to romantic fantasy, but most of our players are far more interested in subverting the tropes than buying into them.

For those of us who don't own Blue Rose what is the "magic deer"?

Quote from: jhkimI suppose this is all just rehashing, but I fail to see the once-a-century appearances of the Golden Harte to be terribly significant to any campaign.

So that's what this ongoing ranting by RPGPundit has been about? A McGuffin 'scourge' that occurs every 3 or 4 generations?  :haw: :rolleyes:

Quote from: estarFor those of us who don't own Blue Rose what is the "magic deer"?

A Libertarian's worst fucking nightmare. :)

Quote from: jhkimSimilarly, having the "good guys" be organized as a state with an autocratic King or Queen (as opposed to a constitutional democracy that guarantees civil rights) is really pretty darn common in fantasy fiction and RPGs.

Yes, but its generally pretty fucking rare to suggest that these Kingdoms are the only possible Good that can exist and that anyone who believes in liberal democracy is objectively Evil.

I mean, your comparison isn't apt.  It would be apt if, say, some overzealous SCA member or reaaaallly old-school Catholic wrote a game setting where he tried to argue that rule by the Divine Right of Kings and a Feudalist system of government was the literal and objective definition of "goodness" and that to even object to this system (say, by an uppity serf who didn't know that he was being governed by wise christian rulers appointed by Jesus) was objectively Evil.

RPGPundit

So what you are saying is you don't like the political "what if" of the setting and are having a hard time separating that from real life?  As in "what if there was a an asskicking monster. Let's make him a deer because they are wild and romantic and lets have them come down every once in a while and do a house clearing of all the shitdisturbers like the Allies did with Germany at the end of WWII so that WWIII didn't follow as quickly as WWII did WWI.  So what might that look like?"

Is that what Blue Rose is like?

So the Magic Deer is a uber being that will kill/dethrone any ruler/authority that doesn't conform to it ideals.

Interesting, well this won't bode well for the humans in the society it dominates. No matter what it's intent it will be a form of totalitarian rule.

People response to totalitarian rule has generally been in the form of corruption. The ideals of the system will get a *wink* *wink* *nod *nod but behind closed doors there will be a black market involving whatever pleasures are forbidden. This assume we aren't talking about some form of Zhodani mind control system here.

I would have to read up on the setting to figure out where the cracks would be in such a place. Of course mind control/reading stuff make trying to figure out how people will act in such a place difficult (Federation re-eduction centers anybody?)

Rob Conley

Quote from: estarI would have to read up on the setting to figure out where the cracks would be in such a place.

Er?  Usually this sort of stuff for settings is just glorified handwaving to get a bit of suspension of belief up to justify something or another [EDIT:...in the setting.]. In this case the theme of the setting is a faux medieval utopia fantasy where they can all get along, except for the super evil external threat. *shrug*

EDIT: P.S.  Note my comparison to the Allies and post-WWII Germany (and Japan for that matter). It doesn't sound like the deer has much ongoing involvement.

Quote from: estarSo the Magic Deer is a uber being that will kill/dethrone any ruler/authority that doesn't conform to it ideals.

Interesting, well this won't bode well for the humans in the society it dominates. No matter what it's intent it will be a form of totalitarian rule.

Huh?  Do you have any idea what you're talking about?  As I've mentioned last time (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1552&page=2),

The Golden Hart is the divine or semi-divine force which by tradition chooses the sovereign in the kingdom of Aldis. Its direct intervention is almost exclusively in choosing and crowning the new ruler.  It has  appeared at three other times in the history of Aldis. It aided the original rebellion which formed Aldis by conferring immunity to sorcery to all those within sight of it. It has also appeared twice in the 300 years since to depose a ruler of Aldis. It does nothing to enforce the sovereign's rule, however.  

The Blue Rose setting descriptive text does have flowery language about how good the Hart's choices of people is and so forth.  Somehow, I didn't think this constitutes a real-world argument for rule by magical animal selection of a sovereign and take offense.

So one-horned nepotism good, two-horned benevolence baaaad.

Quote from: jhkimSomehow, I didn't take this constitutes a real-world argument for rule by magical animal selection of a sovereign and take offense.

:lol:

That reminds me oh so much of the classic....

"Listen. Strange women lyin’ in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony." - Dennis, member of the anarcho-syndicalist commune

Quote from: jhkimSomehow, I didn't take this constitutes a real-world argument for rule by magical animal selection of a sovereign and take offense.

I think this about sums it up:

Quote from: DennisListen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords         is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive         power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from         some farcical aquatic ceremony.

EDIT: Dammit, Blakkie beat me to it!!!!

Dennis: You can't expect to wield supreme power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
Arthur: Shut up!
Dennis: I mean, if I went 'round saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!

I may be trying to mind-read here, but I think the rub is that utopian fiction, with its ideal societies, is usually assumed to represent the real world political desires of the authors. Thus, if a fictional ideal society has an autoritarian structure, then the authors of that fiction, and those who admire that fiction, actually desire an authoritarian structure for the real society in which they live. This argument has been made against the fantasies of Middle Earth, "Star Trek"'s Federation, "Star Wars"' Republic, etc. Because the fictional worlds have elitist tropes like hereditary rulers, divine guidance, social conditioning, etc. this implies that the creators and fans of those settings are more likely to favor such elitist tropes in the real world.

It has also been charged by some critics that these fictions, because of their implied utopian/ divinely inspired heroes and heroic societies, are actually a subtle (or blatant) form of propaganda. For example, some critics have charged that "Star Trek" is squishy soft liberalism, a 'friendly fascist' wet dream, promulgated by liberals to indoctrinate fans to further a liberal social agenda.

Of course, my group laughed at "Blue Rose" because they thought it looked queer.

Arthur: Shut up! Will you shut up?! [Grabs Dennis and shakes him]
Dennis: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system!
Arthur: Shut up!
Dennis: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! HELP, HELP, I'M BEING REPRESSED!
Arthur: BLOODY PEASANT!!
Dennis: Oh, what a giveaway. Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about! Did you see him repressing me? You saw it, didn't you?

You know, I once gave the book to a group of female gamers at the gaming pub. Every single one of them rejected the setting, and couldn't even bring themselves to read the rules (even when I told them they were very good).

Quote from: Leo KnightThus, if a fictional ideal society has an autoritarian structure, then the authors of that fiction, and those who admire that fiction, actually desire an authoritarian structure for the real society in which they live. This argument has been made against the fantasies of Middle Earth, "Star Trek"'s Federation, "Star Wars"' Republic, etc. Because the fictional worlds have elitist tropes like hereditary rulers, divine guidance, social conditioning, etc. this implies that the creators and fans of those settings are more likely to favor such elitist tropes in the real world.

Actually it's been levelled at other fictional worlds, too. The Draka of S.M. Stirling's books are so efficient, and the books go to such lengths to illustrate how well treated the serfs really are and how if it weren't for the Draka they'd be living in mud huts and eating rats that you really have to wonder if the author - consciously or not - started to buy into the rationale behind the Draka's supremacy.

Quote from: JongWKYou know, I once gave the book to a group of female gamers at the gaming pub. Every single one of them rejected the setting, and couldn't even bring themselves to read the rules (even when I told them they were very good).

Back to the drawingboard for pickup lines then, huh? :hehe:

EDIT: I doubt I'd get into the setting myself. I find any world or organization written up as something utopian as more than a little creepy. Leo's list is a good start. Toilken Elfs just flatout give me the willies. Although I'll say to Star Trek's credit ST:NG, for example, had at least a few episodes focusing on political rot at the core of Federation.  But then this is just me, there are people out there that eat up that utopian fiction. Of both genders.

Quote from: blakkieBack to the drawingboard for pickup lines then, huh? :hehe:

"Hey, Babe, wanna go back to my place and play some "Blue Rose"? Romantic fantasy?" Wink, wink, nudge, nudge. "You look like this girl in the artwork here. How do you feel about wearing chainmail and a cloak? With suede thigh high boots?" SLAP!

I once knew a girl with a chainmail bikini [EDIT:bikin top that was, brown suede leather skirt and kneehighs]. No cloth underpadding. She looked good in it.

Quote from: Leo KnightI may be trying to mind-read here, but I think the rub is that utopian fiction, with its ideal societies, is usually assumed to represent the real world political desires of the authors. Thus, if a fictional ideal society has an autoritarian structure, then the authors of that fiction, and those who admire that fiction, actually desire an authoritarian structure for the real society in which they live.

As RPGPundit has pointed out in his blog, there is a very good reason to think that this is the case here:  http://www.xanga.com/RPGpundit/545826431/item.html (which contains a link to John Snead's blog (http://heron61.livejournal.com/442490.html)).

Quote from: blakkieBack to the drawing board for pickup lines then, huh? :hehe:

:D

Jokes aside, two of them looked to me like a perfect match for BR, at least on paper--hell, they even read romantic fantasy. And still, they despised it.

Quote from: RPGPunditYes, but its generally pretty fucking rare to suggest that these Kingdoms are the only possible Good that can exist and that anyone who believes in liberal democracy is objectively Evil.

I mean, your comparison isn't apt.  It would be apt if, say, some overzealous SCA member or reaaaallly old-school Catholic wrote a game setting where he tried to argue that rule by the Divine Right of Kings and a Feudalist system of government was the literal and objective definition of "goodness" and that to even object to this system (say, by an uppity serf who didn't know that he was being governed by wise christian rulers appointed by Jesus) was objectively Evil.

RPGPundit

Such as, say, Norman Arminger of Dies the Fire? :D

Quote from: JongWKJokes aside, two of them looked to me like a perfect match for BR, at least on paper--hell, they even read romantic fantasy. And still, they despised it.

For what it's worth, my group is majority female (5 out of 7), and we just about all liked Tamora Pierce (generally regarded as a romantic fantasy author).  However, when it came to selecting campaigns, Blue Rose still didn't generate any interest.  The closest was some interest in using the Blue Rose rules for a game set in Pierce's Tortall universe -- but that still lost out to other preferences.  

However, that doesn't mean that whatever negative bullshit anyone says about the game is true.  I don't think it's all that great a setting, but the shit being set about it is just ridiculous.

Quote from: jhkimHuh?  Do you have any idea what you're talking about?  As I've mentioned last time (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1552&page=2),

The Golden Hart is the divine or semi-divine force which by tradition chooses the sovereign in the kingdom of Aldis. Its direct intervention is almost exclusively in choosing and crowning the new ruler.  It has  appeared at three other times in the history of Aldis. It aided the original rebellion which formed Aldis by conferring immunity to sorcery to all those within sight of it. It has also appeared twice in the 300 years since to depose a ruler of Aldis. It does nothing to enforce the sovereign's rule, however.  

Yup, everything you wrote there is pretty well correct. However, it does nothing to address the real point, that the issues with the Magic Deer are just symptomatic with the deeper issues of a game where they have classified collectivism as objectively good, and liberalism/libertarianism as objectively evil; the deer is just a cherry on top of a Deus Ex Machina that MAKES SURE no uppity players could EVER possibly change the situation.

QuoteThe Blue Rose setting descriptive text does have flowery language about how good the Hart's choices of people is and so forth.  Somehow, I didn't think this constitutes a real-world argument for rule by magical animal selection of a sovereign and take offense.

No, its just a real world argument for rule by a special elite of social workers and sanctimonious politically correct beaurocrats. The deer is a metaphor for Orwell's "boot stepping on a human face, forever".

RPGPundit

You seem to have some unresolved conflicts Pundit. Since JongWK has a copy of the book that he can't seem to give away he could GM a short campaign for you. You'll roll up an rediculously overpowered Ranger/Wizard with a pet/mount Tarrasque named Robert Heinlein. Then you can go an a rampage burning the entire nation to the ground, salting the earth, and then finally hunting down the deer itself. After killing it you can turn on you pet and kill it to. Maybe call the whole thing Open Season 2:Bambi Bites It?

Quote from: RPGPunditYup, everything you wrote there is pretty well correct. However, it does nothing to address the real point, that the issues with the Magic Deer are just symptomatic with the deeper issues of a game where they have classified collectivism as objectively good, and liberalism/libertarianism as objectively evil; the deer is just a cherry on top of a Deus Ex Machina that MAKES SURE no uppity players could EVER possibly change the situation.

The supposed deeper issues amount to a sentence or two in the alignment section where they say that Light-aligned characters value community and the good of all over self-interest.  Now, I suppose you can interpret that to mean that communism :eek: -- or you could interpret it as "Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others" (which is D&D's definition of Good alignment).  

Even if you smell the whiff of communism in those words, however, they're pretty trivial to adjust.  

And, again, the Hart is a Deus Ex Machina which never fucking appears.  The only thing the Hart would get in the way of is putting a different individual on the traditional Aldean throne.  There is enormous room for change without doing this.  The Aldean government has changed in the past without the intervention of the Hart -- such as by the formation of the Merchant's Council.  Note that Aldea isn't totalitarian since the sovereign can be overruled by unanimous vote of the three councilors (Merchant, Noble, and Rhydan).  So if you were set on PC's changing things, they could, say, institute a constitution without the Hart's interference and potentially without the sovereign's approval.  


Seriously, I'm sympathetic to bringing this sort of thing in, but I can easily see doing it in Blue Rose.  In the Amber campaign we wrapped up in December, the PCs had grown up on Earth and reacted badly to the assumption of totalitarian rule.  So we were all set on reforming Amber into a constitutional monarchy.  We ended up rescuing Oberon, and reinstating him only on the condition of restricted power.

Quote from: blakkieYou seem to have some unresolved conflicts Pundit. Since JongWK has a copy of the book that he can't seem to give away he could GM a short campaign for you. You'll roll up an rediculously overpowered Ranger/Wizard with a pet/mount Tarrasque named Robert Heinlein. Then you can go an a rampage burning the entire nation to the ground, salting the earth, and then finally hunting down the deer itself. After killing it you can turn on you pet and kill it to. Maybe call the whole thing Open Season 2:Bambi Bites It?

Actually, I've had a copy of Blue Rose for a lot longer than Jong; I also ran one of the earliest, and longest-running campaigns using BR, though it wasn't set in Aldis (it was actually set in Port Blacksand).

RPGPundit

Quote from: jhkimHuh?  Do you have any idea what you're talking about?  As I've mentioned

No that why I am asking questions and throwing out what I understand at that point.

Among my interests is alternative history. But not just that but I like what-ifs in general. Most of my campaigns, I like to extrapolate logically from the whatever initial conditions are. Whether it a universe where sentient dinosaur terraformed every possible world within several hundred light years and disappeared, where people developed superpowers in 1986 due to a genetic plague released by a dying alien trying to give us a chance at stopping an invasion that will occur in 20 years, etc.

So I am interested in knowing where were the initial conditions of Blue Rose and why a fair amount of people think about it the way they do.

Quote from: jhkimThe Golden Hart is the divine or semi-divine force which by tradition chooses the sovereign in the kingdom of Aldis. Its direct intervention is almost exclusively in choosing and crowning the new ruler.  It has  appeared at three other times in the history of Aldis. It aided the original rebellion which formed Aldis by conferring immunity to sorcery to all those within sight of it. It has also appeared twice in the 300 years since to depose a ruler of Aldis. It does nothing to enforce the sovereign's rule, however.  

The Blue Rose setting descriptive text does have flowery language about how good the Hart's choices of people is and so forth.  Somehow, I didn't think this constitutes a real-world argument for rule by magical animal selection of a sovereign and take offense.

You  state it clearly, thanks. This helps summarize nicely what I been reading in other places.

Well it isn't as bad as the uber being problem. The Golden Hart works by empowering those who share it values. This reinforced by mythic belief because of the Golden Hart grant of immunity against sorcery that won the freedom of Aldis against the undead 300 years ago.

Quote from: RPGPunditYup, everything you wrote there is pretty well correct. However, it does nothing to address the real point, that the issues with the Magic Deer are just symptomatic with the deeper issues of a game where they have classified collectivism as objectively good, and liberalism/libertarianism as objectively evil; the deer is just a cherry on top of a Deus Ex Machina that MAKES SURE no uppity players could EVER possibly change the situation.

No, its just a real world argument for rule by a special elite of social workers and sanctimonious politically correct beaurocrats. The deer is a metaphor for Orwell's "boot stepping on a human face, forever".
RPGPundit

You know all of this has a very familiar ring to it......

Mmmm I played, ran events, and owned a chapter in the boffer LARP NERO for over 12 years. (Stepped out due to lack of time after the birth of my 2nd child) The viewpoints and arguments seems very similair to some situations I ran into in NERO Larp.

The NERO campaign wasn't a Blue Rose type game by any means. But many problems arose because in-game was ruled by the Plot committee of the chapter. And if you were unhappy in-game and plot didn't give you an adventure path (and plot often didn't) to resolve those type of issues. You were out of luck and knew that you couldn't beat the nobles.

And another problem was that rarely a majority was upset at the nobles. While nearly everyone ran into problems with in-game rulers it was always at different times for different reasons.

It seems to me that the Golden Hart has its ideals of 'good'. And the liberation from the undead was the perfect time to inject its ideas into the general populace. Making sure that the initial leader not only shared its values the Hart also gave a useful tool (in the form of the scepter) to help the leader pick people that also shared those values (collectivism, and rest of Aldis culture) to support him in daily rule.

This in combination with aiding victory with the immunity against only furthered the adoption of the Hart's values among the people of Aldris. Further the speaking animals sorta of a priesthood. Not in a ritualistic way but in a symbolic way to remind everyone that the Golden Hart was instrumental in the liberation of Aldis.

And like NERO you have your maddogs and just plain people for whatever reason can't get along with how thing are run. With no hope of rebellion or change because the Golden Hart choses the one to be King they run to other lands.

This also explains the viability and existence of the ultra-conservative land. Because of the first people to not be able to deal with the situation would be your wackos. But as the problem slowly grows year after year the wackos get some competent people on their side as which time they cease becoming your wacky enemy but a competent enemy as well.

Also as the rebellion passes out of living memory of humans (say 150 years after the grandchildren of the people who fought in the war start dying) The needs and wants of human society will start changing. But it can't because the Golden Hart is still there picking Kings the way it wants to since the beginning.

Now the dissatisfaction grows large enough that the subset that is doesn't want to move to wacko land will stay in Aldis. They will form cliques and sub societies that aren't mainstream Aldis and throughly out of power. Given enough time their fringe members will become even more extreme and form the what the rulers consider evil societies in the heart of Aldis.

As for the barbarians the combination of the reality of the Golden Hart and speaking animals has given them the  belief that they can't ultimately beat Aldis.

So as I see it

1) If you believe in the values of the Golden Hart Aldis is heaven.
2) If you somewhat disagree but not otherwise hostile, Aldis is hell as you will never be in power and other people who have power are like various shades of deadly and/or wacko.
3) The long term situation is that most humans will develop a "why should I care, I can't change it" attitude. Productivity will drop and the economy will suffer. Society will become less flexible over time.

It would be interesting to take a land like Aldis and make a group that is good aligned but at odds with many of the value. As outsiders with good intention they can see the rot effecting Aldis and what could they do about it.? (Aside from pulling Kirk versus the computer with the Golden Hart)

Quote from: estar

Quote from: jhkimHuh? Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

No that why I am asking questions and throwing out what I understand at that point.

I missed the part where you asked questions.  Can you ask your questions again, please, and I'll be happy to answer them.  

Quote from: estar...etc...
So as I see it

1) If you believe in the values of the Golden Hart Aldis is heaven.
2) If you somewhat disagree but not otherwise hostile, Aldis is hell as you will never be in power and other people who have power are like various shades of deadly and/or wacko.
3) The long term situation is that most humans will develop a "why should I care, I can't change it" attitude. Productivity will drop and the economy will suffer. Society will become less flexible over time.

It would be interesting to take a land like Aldis and make a group that is good aligned but at odds with many of the value. As outsiders with good intention they can see the rot effecting Aldis and what could they do about it.?

Again, this is a mighty fine theory except that it doesn't match in the slightest what is in the book.  Like -- absolutely great thinking that the conservative Jarzonis arose in reaction against the Aldean rule based on the Golden Hart...  except that they arose in isolation from Aldea by the mystically-devastated, impassable Veran Marsh -- and their theocratic government was already in place by the time the Golden Hart picked its first sovereign.  

More importantly, you assert that people can't change Aldean society, which is contradicted by the historical evidence.  Society was changed, for example by the Merchant's Guild demanding and receiving a seat in the government.  Again, it might help to ask a question or two.  

The Golden Hart does indeed pick a sovereign, but it does nothing to empower that ruler.  The only way that the sovereign gets things done is the plain old usual way of people agreeing to obey orders.  If the people don't do as they are told (like when the Merchant Guild defied the government), the government has to deal with it as usual.  

Moreover, you're asserting that somehow prior to the Kingdom of the Blue Rose that common people expected a say in the government -- and that productivity would drop as they "slowly" came to the realization that they didn't.  That's an obvious anachronism.  Like most historical kingdoms, Aldis has no history of representative government.  The current kingdom is demonstrably easier to change and less authoritarian than any of the prior kingdoms.  

Incidentally, the nomadic people of Rezea are a deliberate contrast to Aldis, who fit your claim to a good people that does not share Aldean values.  Rezeans strongly valuing their independence and freedom.

Quote from: RPGPunditSome cowardly people decided to have a thread attacking me over at RPG.net, where I could not post a response myself. To be fair, a couple seem to be trying to give credit where credit is due.

I'd just like to apologise for that. For some odd reason I didn't think the thread would turn into what it did in part. I suppose I just shouldn't have quoted you at all.

Quote from: QuasarI'd just like to apologise for that. For some odd reason I didn't think the thread would turn into what it did in part. I suppose I just shouldn't have quoted you at all.

So you quoted RPGPundit and that was attacked? LOL, oh yeah real "cowards".

Quote from: QuasarI'd just like to apologise for that. For some odd reason I didn't think the thread would turn into what it did in part. I suppose I just shouldn't have quoted you at all.

I would prefer that rather than have you apologize, you might post my response on there, or a link to my response.

RPGPundit

You are trying to get him banned, aren't you? :p  Why not just use a real sockpuppet like any other self respecting stalker. ;)

Quote from: jhkimAgain, this is a mighty fine theory except that it doesn't match in the slightest what is in the book.  Like -- absolutely great thinking that the conservative Jarzonis arose in reaction against the Aldean rule based on the Golden Hart...  except that they arose in isolation from Aldea by the mystically-devastated, impassable Veran Marsh -- and their theocratic government was already in place by the time the Golden Hart picked its first sovereign.  

Well this means that the people who go mad-dog are likely killed by the authorities. But just increase the rate that dissident groups will grow in Aldis as they have no place to escape.

A crucial point is it possible for any of Aldis neighbors to physically attack the country. What is the extent of travel and contact between Aldis and the outside world.

Quote from: jhkimMore importantly, you assert that people can't change Aldean society, which is contradicted by the historical evidence.  Society was changed, for example by the Merchant's Guild demanding and receiving a seat in the government.  Again, it might help to ask a question or two.  

Well your points are certainly filling in the gaps. A good question is that is there a statement within the game to the ideals professed by the Golden Hart? Other than a general statement of be good?

As for the merchant's guild. It depends on how comprehensive the creed of the Golden Hart was. If it was highly focused on a few tenets then there will be a lot of areas that are left to the competence of the ruler. I am sure that the early days were focused on rebuilding Aldis from whatever was left from the undead socerors. But after a generation or two other priorities will rise up. So given that the idea of merchants demanding a share of governance is reasonable. Particularly if what the merchants are interested in doing is something that the Golden Hart is not concerned with.  

Quote from: jhkimThe Golden Hart does indeed pick a sovereign, but it does nothing to empower that ruler.  The only way that the sovereign gets things done is the plain old usual way of people agreeing to obey orders.  If the people don't do as they are told (like when the Merchant Guild defied the government), the government has to deal with it as usual.  

First never under estimate the power of a ideal/religion/myth. People know that the Golden Hart liberated their ancestors from a horrible fate. There is a living example next door that they can see how things would have continued. Plus there is the fact that Golden Hart has shown great power in the past and acted to depose rulers in the recent past. This knowledge is enough is to prevent an overt overthrow.

This is coupled with the fact that rulers have the scepter with allows them to reliably to pick people who initially share the values of the Golden Hart (and themselves) Of course it doesn't help them later on when circumstances changes as it can be only used once on a individual.

But limited goals and limited change sure change is possible.  I can see groups in Aldis telling the government to pound salt and agitate for change provided it doesn't touch what the Golden Hart is concerned with.

Quote from: jhkimMoreover, you're asserting that somehow prior to the Kingdom of the Blue Rose that common people expected a say in the government -- and that productivity would drop as they "slowly" came to the realization that they didn't.  That's an obvious anachronism.  Like most historical kingdoms, Aldis has no history of representative government.  The current kingdom is demonstrably easier to change and less authoritarian than any of the prior kingdoms.  

It not a modern anachronism. In a nutshell people who don't care for the society they live in will not be as productive. They will not work as hard, they will not have as many children. In most cases it isn't like a light going on in their head as one day they realize "OMG this sucks". But general malaise that sets in after generations.

In part it why societies like Rome, Byzantine Empire, Soviet Union, and various Chinese Empires have fallen. Plus it is not likely Aldis will collapse for a long time because of it  the main effect is a less flexibility to outside pressure. (If any exist)

For what it worth it is only 300 years after the seminal event that shaped
Aldis so any problems that I am describing is in its infancy. Arising only because for many human the events are out of living memory. Which ranges 150 years. (Grandparents telling children what their grandparents experienced).

Quote from: jhkimIncidentally, the nomadic people of Rezea are a deliberate contrast to Aldis, who fit your claim to a good people that does not share Aldean values.  Rezeans strongly valuing their independence and freedom.

The only thing I have to say is that for an Aldean, Rezea is not a viable alternative. Sure they are "good" have independence and freedom. But the price is giving up that cozy cottage on Bagshot Row and all the amenities of civilized Aldean life.

Wow. So not one of you actually has the balls to post my response to RPG.net?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditWow. So not one of you actually has the balls to post my response to RPG.net?

I've got the balls to say if you want your words posted over there you should suck it up, reel in your outlandish antisocial behavior, and play by their rules instead of being a coward and having someone do your dirty work for you. Or STFU and take your lumps as the martyr you profess yourself to be.

Or better yet, they have keyword advertising over there right?  At least I know they do in the Reviews. Buy some advertising. Then you can feed this deepseated need of yours to get heard and still keep your lovable rapscallion personality intact. :hehe:

I want to hear more about Midnight. Anyone care to elucidate?

Quote from: blakkieI've got the balls to say if you want your words posted over there you should suck it up, reel in your outlandish antisocial behavior, and play by their rules instead of being a coward and having someone do your dirty work for you. Or STFU and take your lumps as the martyr you profess yourself to be.

Hey, they started a thread there; not about BR, but specifically about ME, and something I said. Which they all proceeded to piss on, including throwing insults at me.
I have posted my response here.  The fact that they aren't willing to let me post it there, and that no one here seems to have the guts to, even so much as a link, says a lot about who's scared of whom.  Clearly many of you are scared of being banned, and clearly the mods over there are terrified of me.  

What would that make me again? Ah, right, the only one with balls in the whole bunch.

RPGPundit

Quote from: One Horse TownI want to hear more about Midnight. Anyone care to elucidate?

What do you want to know? Its a very cool setting BTW, but the analogy they tried to make between BR and midnight was utterly nonsensical.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditHey, they started a thread there; not about BR, but specifically about ME, and something I said.

Er, going by what was said earlier in this thread apparently Them didn't start this. So you can't respond on that board? Boo-hoo.

QuoteClearly many of you are scared of being banned, and clearly the mods over there are terrified of me.

Or they don't really give a flying fuck about anything further you have to say on the matter. Because they can come here and read it if they actually wanted to hear it. Unless RPG.net has somehow installed spyware on their computers that blocks your blog.

Or they don't want to risk you being some sort of RedRedderRedest nutjob so they don't register or post responses because they don't want to give you a shot at gaining their IP. *shrug*

Sorry bub, that just makes you a whiner about the wetspot after you pissed in your bed.

Quote from: RPGPunditWhat do you want to know? Its a very cool setting BTW, but the analogy they tried to make between BR and midnight was utterly nonsensical.

RPGPundit

I've only seen the odd thread about it and it seems pretty cool. I think there's a place for a doomladen setting like that. I guess what i'm after is how PCs are meant to take the fight to the (dark lord (s)?) or aren't they meant to? Is it survival only or can you take the fight?

I've also heard that magic is dealt with differently. Is it feat based or something? Does it try to capture the feeling of the decline of the Elves in the Silmarillion or is it something completely different?

Okay, in case nobody else has, I linked to this thread on rpgnet so the pundit will quit whining.

You are most welcome.

Quote from: FickleGMOkay, in case nobody else has, I linked to this thread on rpgnet so the pundit will quit whining.

You are most welcome.

Thank you FickleGM.

RPGPundit

Oh, looks like some of them had already read your blog at least. "Repulsed" seems to be the operative word. A pox be on the poor souls that give into their base curiousity and follow that link to this forum. :D :pundit:

They can be as Repulsed as they like. Fuck, in many of their cases, their repulsion is precisely sign that I'm doing my job.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditThey can be as Repulsed as they like. Fuck, in many of their cases, their repulsion is precisely sign that I'm doing my job.

Your job is being an intellectually repulsive person? What's that pay, and how are the bennies? :raise:

Quote from: blakkieYour job is being an intellectually repulsive person? What's that pay, and how are the bennies? :raise:

Blakkie, when your psychiatrist says you need to keep taking your medication, you need to keep taking your medication.

Quote from: mythusmageBlakkie, when your psychiatrist says you need to keep taking your medication, you need to keep taking your medication.

But I find things much more interesting when I don't.

Quote from: One Horse TownI've only seen the odd thread about it and it seems pretty cool. I think there's a place for a doomladen setting like that. I guess what i'm after is how PCs are meant to take the fight to the (dark lord (s)?) or aren't they meant to? Is it survival only or can you take the fight?

I've also heard that magic is dealt with differently. Is it feat based or something? Does it try to capture the feeling of the decline of the Elves in the Silmarillion or is it something completely different?

Midnight is a weird setting, in that it says outright that you can't beat Izrador (the Sauron-a-like of Midnight), but both games of it I've played, and all the campaigns I want to run in it, involve fucking Izrador and his Nazgul-a-likes over. I'm usually pretty sensitive to setting expectations like that, but something about that world just makes me want to whup Unstoppable Evil's ass.