Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;275780It didn't take Gramsci to define left politics as fundamentally class-based, hence collective. That's right there in Marx. If anything, in the past decades that broad base for solidarity has been atomized into micro-collectivities by "progressive" identity politics.

The difference is that Gramsci managed to infiltrate way further into leftist "strategy" in democratic countries, in ways Marx couldn't really do.

RPGPundit

It might be helpful to move away from titles and define positions - Which does define what you think titles mean...

For example, I'm for the individual being able to take any action, without 'enforced' consequences, which has no been defined as 'illegal' by a democratic process.

Enforced consequences would be 'legal' consequences enforced by a democratically-created jurisdictional 'group'.

Democratic would mean that the rules are created according to the 'will of the majority' - That is, what most people want is what most people get. This does include electing people to represent your interests.

As for illegal, I think anything which has a non-consensual negative impact on another person should be illegal, for a broad-base definition. I would include 'voluntary' slavery under that definition, because slavery is inherently non-consensual. On the other hand, smoking does have a negative impact, but can easily be confined to the person smoking - For example, someone smoking in an open-air area does not have a measurable/provable negative impact on anyone else.

I also call myself an 'environmentalist', insofar as I think we should take care to preserve and repair natural resources, within the boundaries explained above - With special care for those which are 'unique'.

Quote from: RPGPundit;275846How I understand it, the Technocracy wanted everyone to be relatively secure and safe, but at the cost of taking away the wonder from existence; while the wonderful different special snowflake mages were the ones fighting for a world where reality was totally bendable to their wills and they'd get to rule over the worthless peasants who no one gave a fuck about anyways.

RPGPundit

Nope, they both wanted to completely awaken humanity, but were doing it by different means.

The Technocracy tried to work within the Consensus (i.e. the self imposed limited reality of the Sleepers i.e. good old mankind) by disguising Magic as sufficiently advanced technology. By bringing magic to the sleepers on terms they could accept they would improve life for everyone involved. They believe this is the safer path and destroying the Consensus would drop the world into chaos.

Tradition Mages wanted to shatter the Consensus and destroy the Gauntlet completely. This would destroy the rift between humans and their higher selves so that all Mankind would become as Mages and ascend (hence the title of the game).

It was this disagreement in ideology that originally caused the rift between the Technocracy and the Traditions. Again, later in the canon, after the Avatar Storm cut them both off from their Avatars/Genius, the Traditions and the Technocracy joined forces against the Nephandi.

Quote from: RPGPundit;275370You want a "World of Brightness"? OK:

The stars were shifting in alignment, and slowly, but surely, it was happening. People were manifesting wonderful powers: some to heal, some to protect, some to find truth, others to have visions of the future. And every single one of us could fly.

And we knew, those of us who had been affected, that the great change was going to come to ALL mankind, because all of us were created equal.  None of us is more special, though our gifts may be different.

For some few, knowledge of this drove them mad; thinking that they were the only "special ones" who deserved to be gifted (because they thought of themselves as greater thinkers, or better artists, or prettier, or simply superior) they have now banded together in the shadows and seek out sinister ways of trying to stop the gifting, so that only they will get the power and get to keep it for themselves. They will try to use dark magic and fringe religion, and drive the world into a superstition where only they have power and they are the "natural elite".

We are the Lodge. In it, we are all equal, and everyone who is free and of good report may join.  We are dedicated to make sure that the next step in human evolution goes to ALL human beings, to rid ourselves of popes and kings and tyrants, and not let a band of criminal pretentious elitists try to become the new tyrants peddling a lie that they are better than everyone else and that other human beings are just their chattel in a pointless world.  We have Science and Reason as weapons to help us, we work in the light, not in the darkness, and Democracy is our strength. And we're going to kick these Swines' asses.

RPGPundit

My world of brightness would be rather like the real world, except better.  People would have equal opportunities to succeed regardless of sex, race, or their social status at birth.  The characters would occupy positions they had acquired through merit and the recognition of society.  Their skills would be the result of years of study and experience.  The antagonists would be egotistical, superstitious, and largely unaccomplished misfits (whose sense of entitlement leads them to strike out at the world that fails to give them the acclamation they feel they deserve).

This is of course intended to be almost exactly the opposite of nearly every White Wolf game.

.....Okay if we can get away from the political definitions sidetrack....

Over on the Goldenrod & Fluffy I started a thread like this one with a similiar OP.

Here is some stuff I posted over there:

QuoteQoltar's post #31: The 'conflict" is the Bad guys or adversaries that don't want the big change to happen...plus the usual obsatacles in getting anything to - happen: people being petty, bureacracy, traffic jams, natural disasters, unexpected violent encounters with factions not related to the 'bad guys', awkward romances, love triangles, ....

VS.
the "Good Guys" or player characters and their allies...

Also.....

QuoteEd's post #41: There is nothing wrong with optimism in a game setting.

The players should know that if they screw up the "Big Change" might not happen or might be squelched by the bad guys.

The "Bad Guys"/adversaries have resources at their command and would rather things stay the way they are. The "Good Guys" CAN eventualy win ouyt with creativity and a little organization amongst themselves.

The hints the GM gives should give indication that as things improves the team and othjers become even MORE coinnected with humanity and others around them. Even though in a game like GURPS this would have to be portrayed as powers or ability - in the gamespeak of the setting these are natural abilties and talents just now being recognized becauise of whats about to happen.

All of the "New stuff" is not Magic, but natural or scientififc in characteristics. Its able to be studied and predicted under the right circumstances. Thats part of the reason the scientists start to be a factor in the campaign and major allies of the player characters.

...and this....:

QuoteGame Store Guy's post #43: Unlike World Of Darkness, this is a world where good things are possible and are actually likely to happen.
Instead of an impending variation on "Judgement Day" , the good guys know there is upcoming GOOD something or other if the right things happen. It just needs several little and big nudges from Hero types to actually happen.


Think The Prize" idea from HIGHLANDER - just without having to chop heads all the time. That kind of an impact....without magic involved.

- Ed C.

Quote from: hgjs;275965My world of brightness would be rather like the real world, except better.  People would have equal opportunities to succeed regardless of sex, race, or their social status at birth.  The characters would occupy positions they had acquired through merit and the recognition of society.  Their skills would be the result of years of study and experience.  The antagonists would be egotistical, superstitious, and largely unaccomplished misfits (whose sense of entitlement leads them to strike out at the world that fails to give them the acclamation they feel they deserve).

This is of course intended to be almost exactly the opposite of nearly every White Wolf game.

Yup, which is basically the mold I was going for in my example.

RPGPundit

Quote from: KrakaJak;275786This actually sounds exactly like the Technocracy from Mage: the Ascension. They originally weren't the good guys but later on in the canon, the Traditions and the Technocracy joined forces against the nihilistic Nephandi.

The Technocracy (or the "Order of Reason", as they were known until the 19th century) arguably started out with the best of intentions, arming ordinary people against the supernatural and bringing the chaos of the Mythic Age under control, but eventually they lost sight of their original noble goals after coming to the conclusion that common humanity couldn't be trusted to take care of itself. What made them the villains of the game was that they had one vision for the entire universe, and anyone who didn't fit into their designs had to be eliminated. True magic in the hands of anyone other than the Technocrats was the ultimate thought crime, naturally enough, and so any mage who wouldn't convert to their cause would be an enemy. And of course, everyone was a potential mage: what defined all Sleepers was that they could Awaken, but hadn't... yet.

(The new World of Darkness is another story altogether. Not only did Mage: The Awakening get rid of ideology as a weapon in battles over consensual reality, but nWoD as a whole has moved away from global conspiracies.)

Just thought of a possible sidenote or backstory for this setting idea: The new discovery was faciliatated BECAUSE we have a space station in orbit.

 Somehow the intense mapping and orbital pictures of Earth helped a few scientists and talented amateurs piece together something 'major'. They just had to step back and have a chance to see the really BIG picture. (or would that be "stepping up" into orbit?)

As I said before this campaign or campaign setting would be very Pro-science and scientist.


- Ed C.


Afterthought: Should I have started or posted this thread in the Design sub forum instead? I am never quite sure if my rough draft ideas fit there or not since somehow I got the thought into my head that sub-forum was just for designers, writers, and publishers of RPGs.

I would start with the idea that a two-fisted Boy Scout would be a good thing to be.

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;276819I would start with the idea that a two-fisted Boy Scout would be a good thing to be.

...but in a GOOD way, of course.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;276819I would start with the idea that a two-fisted Boy Scout would be a good thing to be.

Yes, and that an nihilist weirdo-outcast "poet" who wants to be outside of normal society and hasn't done anything to deserve power but has it anyways is NOT something good to be.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Soylent Green;275355... or David Brin's Uplift style?

As a fan of his Uplift books, I ran a campaign in a bastardised version of the setting a while back to some success that ran in a similar vein to some of what RPGPundit was saying.

Quote from: RPGPunditIn the WoL, you would want everyone to be getting powers (albeit possibly start while this is still slowly happening). And the powers should NOT be unpredictable at all. They should be completely consistent and predictable, because they are a quantifiable natural force, and not a supernatural anti-science "weirdness" that proves science wrong somehow.

Essentially the Aliens had been discovered by the scientists, first contact had been successfully and peacefully made and the population of Earth was given the gifts to remove poverty (basically a Transmet-styled Maker that could make anything from any waste matter was given to all people) and sickness (better medical science stuff).

Given that conflict is one of the main drivers for gaming in the circles I play in, I had the transition cause considerable (but not catastrophic) social upheaval. This was borne out of things like: money, trade and agriculture being suddenly not important as anyone could just 'Make' it; xenophobia; religious disillusionment/fervour; national governments collapsing in favour for a (ultimately) benevolent global one. I also had various opposing factions within the massive multi-alien galactic spanning civilisations, some of which (for a variety of reasons) were against human integration (or just opposing those alien species involved out of millennia long habit).

So in the context of the game, the most likely outcome of the game was basically a "better" version of today but the players were able to try and make that come about faster/more easily or have some influential part in the supposed history.

For their part, the players chose to start off being bodyguards/liaisons to recently arrived diplomat and/or tourist aliens visiting Earth.

Also, science, religion and western civilization would not necessarily be bad, and minorities, political radicals, and non-Europeans would not necessarily be good.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;277258Also, science, religion and western civilization would not necessarily be bad, and minorities, political radicals, and non-Europeans would not necessarily be good.

RPGPundit

That makes sense.

 Finally a setting where every ethnic minority or sub-culture has an equal shot at being either hero or villain.


Veery much in the spirit of what I was hoping for.


- Ed C.

Also, the law would apply equally to everyone, in both benefits, restrictions and punishments. No-one would get off because they were famous or rich or a member of a government. (See sig)