Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raduin711" data-source="post: 8006168" data-attributes="member: 15303">...Outlawed for... robbing the rich and giving to the poor, perhaps?I wouldn't really consider the people of Nottingham to be a political ally per se. They don't have any real say in how they are governed, and are more or less the property of the landowners. Their ability to influence politics is proportional to their ability to rebel, and the language here should be telling. TL;DR they have no political power.As for King Richard, Robin doesn't actually do anything to put him back on the throne. Richard merely returns from the Crusades at the end of the story. Robin is loyal to him because he is a benevolent king, but simply preferring one dictator to another doesn't make one Lawful, it just means that he recognizes that Prince John is a nasty, corrupt leader that lets people starve and King Richard... doesn't?The idea of Robin dismantling feudalism is quite a bit beyond the scope of the story and beyond what Robin hoped to achieve.It ends with Richard taking the throne again because the story needed a happy ending that wasn't &quot;And so, the noble people of Nottingham paraded the Prince's head around the town square, and thus began our anarcho-communist utopia, hey nonny-nonny.&quot; That would have been... weird.Feudalism was just the way of the world back then. Having a preference of Kings does not make one lawful. King Richard is effectively a deus ex machina to give the story a happy ending that wasn't revolution.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raduin711, post: 8006168, member: 15303"] ...Outlawed for... robbing the rich and giving to the poor, perhaps? I wouldn't really consider the people of Nottingham to be a political ally per se. They don't have any real say in how they are governed, and are more or less the property of the landowners. Their ability to influence politics is proportional to their ability to rebel, and the language here should be telling. TL;DR they have no political power. As for King Richard, Robin doesn't actually [B]do[/B] anything to put him back on the throne. Richard merely returns from the Crusades at the end of the story. Robin is loyal to him because he is a benevolent king, but simply preferring one dictator to another doesn't make one Lawful, it just means that he recognizes that Prince John is a nasty, corrupt leader that lets people starve and King Richard... doesn't? The idea of Robin dismantling feudalism is quite a bit beyond the scope of the story and beyond what Robin hoped to achieve. It ends with Richard taking the throne again because the story needed a happy ending that wasn't "And so, the noble people of Nottingham paraded the Prince's head around the town square, and thus began our anarcho-communist utopia, hey nonny-nonny." That would have been... weird. Feudalism was just the way of the world back then. Having a preference of Kings does not make one lawful. King Richard is effectively a deus ex machina to give the story a happy ending that wasn't revolution. [/QUOTE]

Verification