M.A.R. Barker, author of Tekumel, also author of Neo-Nazi book?

[pemerton]

You keep saying we fought and making sweeping statements.

Who is “we”?

I think @Hussar is referring to the mainstream political currents in liberal democratic states.

What is not a not a “despotic tyranny”? Most of the good aligned political entities in the default D&D settings are well connected to the people and the government serves the people pretty well.

I think @Hussar's claim rests on the premise that, in real life, the number of governments which are absolute monarchies, feudal or otherwise controlled by non-democratic and semi-constitutional monarchies, plutocratic oligarchies, or similar; and are benevolent; is modest. And that the mainstream political currents in liberal democratic states assert a non-accidental connection between (moderately) benevolent government and (a meaningful degree of) popular government by way of periodic elections, robust entitlements to participate in the political process, strong legal constraints around the conduct of public officials, etc.

Those mainstream political currents obviously can be questioned. Presumably the author who is the topic of this thread questioned them, but of course that's not the only way in which one might raise questions.

Hussar will correct me if I'm misunderstanding him, but my summary take on his claim is this: an absolute monarchy, or a system of aristocratic and monarchical government modelled loosely on mediaeval and early modern England or Japan, doesn't cease to be undemocratic and objectionable just because you stick the "LG" label onto some key ruling figures. I think that sticking on that label would be exactly an instance of the "lampshading" he has referred to.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I'd like to add "lampshading" on the list of terms that are being used wrong...

Also this setting tangent has barely anything to do with the topic, and a new thread was spun for it, so I don't understand why people can't take the discussion there. Though I'm not sure if defending arranged marriages has much to do with the topic either, besides being questionable.

 

[Fifth Element]

(2) is a cheap shot, and you're a better person than that.

I disagree, and making it personal isn't cool, but I deleted the post.

 

[Hussar]

Hussar will correct me if I'm misunderstanding him, but my summary take on his claim is this: an absolute monarchy, or a system of aristocratic and monarchical government modelled loosely on mediaeval and early modern England or Japan, doesn't cease to be undemocratic and objectionable just because you stick the "LG" label onto some key ruling figures. I think that sticking on that label would be exactly an instance of the "lampshading" he has referred to.

Yup. That's it in a nutshell. Like I said upthread, we can argue about the perfectly correct description of the form of government, fair enough, but, that's not really my point. Pemerton has very nicely outlined exactly what I meant.

And, yes, Crimson Longinus is entirely right that this is the wrong thread for this. Only problem is, I cannot see the linked thread because of Ignore policies.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

There are people I care about whose agency you are ignoring and/or questioning.

There are people I care about who get harmed by liberal cultural forms, day-in day-out.

I think that's a reason to avoid generalisations about the cultural forms of hundreds of millions of people.

I think there is a danger of straying too far into the political sphere with this thread; I freely admit that some of my comments have been pointlessly whataboutist and inflammatory - for that, I apologize; I was tired and irritable. An explanation, not an excuse.

My own experience of arranged marriage has been in the context of relatively affluent, college-educated, professional Hindus in London and Birmingham - which may skew my perception of the broader phenomenon. Or not - which is to say that the problems which have been identified as associated with arranged marriage, are not caused by arranged marriage, but rather, symptomatic of issues pertaining to the broader cultural systems in which arranged marriage prevails.

My - wholly subjective and anecdotal, of course - experience of the phenomenon of arranged marriage has been:

1) (Young) couples, who seem (to me) considerably more self-aware than their "average" Anglo- counterparts, and endowed with good critical thinking skills and a sense of social responsibility who enter into:

2) A social contract in which needs and resources are allied for the purpose of mutual support (and child-rearing), with the understanding that such an alliance will not be perfect, will require considerable work, and will act as a liflelong means of growth and learning, and who willingly appeal to:

3) Their parents, in conjunction with a matchmaker, vetting a suitable spouse based on similar social status, comparable education, shared interests, a shared social milieu, and a genuine desire to secure the happiness of their offspring. This ceding of authority by the prospective bride or groom is not simply an acquiescence to power; it is often - surely, not always, but often - a recognition that a rational parent is better positioned to make a good choice regarding a prospective partner than:

4) An inexperienced youth, who, experiencing limerance, is driven by their loins into making bad choices.

Of course, I understand that we - in the "West" - exalt the notion of self-determination in romantic matters, and resist any notion that our autonomy be compromised. I, for one, would certainly rail against any such imposition; I demand freedom to make my own choices and suffer the consequences of my own bad mistakes (I've made a few).

I think that folding in LGBTQIA+ issues into the broader question of arranged marriage - arranged marriage as an ideal, divorced from any specific cultural context - sort of misses the point. Which is to say that the marginalization of Queer people which occurs in cultures where arranged marriage prevails, is, again, a function of broader social norms and expectations. India is the most obvious example, insofar as gay marriage (or civil union) is not recognized, despite numerous divergent laws regarding marriage depending on religion, because of heteronormative assumptions in law and tradition. But this is changing - India isn't too far behind Western democracies in this regard.

Which leaves open a question - is there a future for arranged gay marriages in India? Well, yes:

GROOM SEEKING GROOM: THE CASE FOR GAY ARRANGED MARRIAGE IN MODERN INDIA
In India, even gay people want an arranged marriage
Old custom, new couples: Gay Indians are having arranged marriages
Arranged Gay Marriage Bureau: helping homosexuals find love and marriage
Indian marriage site Shaadi.com to start matchmaking LGBT+ couples – despite same-sex wedding ban

Like I say, it's complicated.

 

[pemerton]

I think there is a danger of straying too far into the political sphere with this thread

Fair point.

My view, based in part on personal experiences and in part on scholarly experiences, is that rational, fully agential people can have good reasons to subordinate personal desires in romantic matters to other imperatives, typically involving family, language, "culture" etc.

Another idea I have, which I think is relevant: free choice of occupation in a competitive labour market leaves some people stranded, alienated and dissatisfied with their lives. Sometimes cold or hungry too. That doesn't mean I would rather live in a guild system: those have their own issues, and maybe they're worse taken as a whole; and in any event I'm stuck with what I've got.

I just think it's a reason to go less than full throttle in judging various cultural forms.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

There are people I care about whose agency you are ignoring and/or questioning.

There are people I care about who get harmed by liberal cultural forms, day-in day-out.

I think that's a reason to avoid generalisations about the cultural forms of hundreds of millions of people.

For whatever reason, you choose to keep continuing this fight despite my repeated attempts to provide you an off-ramp. I will reiterate that you asked this question of me, and you have repeatedly ignored the fact that I have said that (1) this topic is grossly inappropriate for this forum, and (2) your repreated insistence on the value of enforcing these retrograde cultural norms is incredibly demeaning to the values I care about, and the people I know.

I never thought I would have to defend the ability of people to choose who they wish to be with, but here we are. I think that your position is hurtful, ignorant of the struggles of so many, and your distate for liberal cultural forms is noted.

But you are correct- I do not subscribe to those values that encourage bride burning. That force transgender and gay youth into marriages of unhappiness. And that keep people shackled in partnerships that allow domestic violence.

But you do you. Again, didn't think that a dislike of arranged and forced marriages was a particularly wild and crazy liberal idea.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Mod Note:

Howzabout a return to our regularly scheduled concerns about identified issues in the writings of game/fiction authors?

 

[Smackpixi]

My point being, these are horrifying governments. The kind of thing we've spent centuries fighting. And that fact is entirely lampshaded. Of course it is. It wouldn't be a fun game otherwise. But, we should still recognize what's going on here - the romanticization of societies that were incredibly unjust and frankly horrifying in so many ways.

I guess, maybe I’m alone here, but I don’t hide the forms of government in D&D settings. A ”benovelent” monarch who disappears opponents to their rule is pretty common and I portray as such. Do other people portray absolute monarchs as sunshine and rainbows and romanticize them? CRPGs often do, think Nintendo, but I never run any DND government as “good” or nice…I mean absolute hereditary monarchies are not nice. Thought that was obvious. Perhaps I misunderstood you earlier, cause I didn’t realize people were running around acting like the default political systems are favorable to the people In it. Most charitable I’ve ever been in my descriptions is probably “not antagonistic” to common people.

 

[Smackpixi]

Feels like a good survey question someone that didn’t make a s-post and get on a bunch of ignore lists two weeks ago should ask. Would be curious how people portray d&d governments.