Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Gentlegamer" data-source="post: 2193659" data-attributes="member: 2425">Forgive me; I tend to employ Socratic techniques too often.&nbsp; The point about Tartuffe is that he is a &quot;religious&quot; villain that really has nothing to do with religion.&nbsp; That is, his villainy is distinct from any social commentary on &quot;organized religion.&quot;&nbsp; It may be comentary on false piety or the age old &quot;religion is the last refuge of the scoundrel,&quot; but that is an age old issue of the human condition, and the reason it is a great play.&nbsp; Cardinal Richelieu seems to me to be a very similar type of character.&nbsp;&nbsp; The Grand Inquisiter, on the other hand . . .As for the Catholic dynamics of the Cardinal et al . . . perhaps it is a social statement . . .&nbsp; of the mid 19th century.&nbsp; It is social statements of 20th century (contemporary) views that detracts from my enjoyment in source material for a FRPG.Perhaps you are projecting your own social views into the story and find greater meaning in Richelieu's &quot;religious&quot; standing than the story itself intends.&nbsp; Nothing wrong with this, though.&nbsp; This the mark of a great story; corellary issues can come up that different readers will interpret in different ways but are not central to the story, more like an &quot;interesting side quest.&quot;&nbsp; From what I've read of the &quot;romantic fantasy&quot; and Blue Rose setting, such things seem very central to the entire sub-genre.Mind you, my characterization of the whole matter is taken from the summary of the &quot;romantic fantasy&quot; sub-genre on the Blue Rose website.&nbsp; I have not read the works in question and their execution of the material could possibly make any &quot;social commentary&quot; agreeable to my reading and inspirational tastes.I'd like to thank you for our discussion.&nbsp; You make an excellent case, but I'm still not convinced.&nbsp; Perhaps my ignorance of the actual &quot;romantic fantasy&quot; stories is the problem.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Gentlegamer, post: 2193659, member: 2425"] Forgive me; I tend to employ Socratic techniques too often. The point about Tartuffe is that he is a "religious" villain that really has nothing to do with religion. That is, his villainy is distinct from any social commentary on "organized religion." It may be comentary on false piety or the age old "religion is the last refuge of the scoundrel," but that is an age old issue of the human condition, and the reason it is a great play. Cardinal Richelieu seems to me to be a very similar type of character. The Grand Inquisiter, on the other hand . . . As for the Catholic dynamics of the Cardinal et al . . . perhaps it is a social statement . . . of the mid 19th century. It is social statements of 20th century (contemporary) views that detracts from my enjoyment in source material for a FRPG. Perhaps you are projecting your own social views into the story and find greater meaning in Richelieu's "religious" standing than the story itself intends. Nothing wrong with this, though. This the mark of a great story; corellary issues can come up that different readers will interpret in different ways but are not central to the story, more like an "interesting side quest." From what I've read of the "romantic fantasy" and Blue Rose setting, such things seem very central to the entire sub-genre. Mind you, my characterization of the whole matter is taken from the summary of the "romantic fantasy" sub-genre on the Blue Rose website. I have not read the works in question and their execution of the material could possibly make any "social commentary" agreeable to my reading and inspirational tastes. I'd like to thank you for our discussion. You make an excellent case, but I'm still not convinced. Perhaps my ignorance of the actual "romantic fantasy" stories is the problem. [/QUOTE]

Verification