Tempted to Run Blue Rose backwards

[Nisarg]

There's something about Blue Rose that screams to being run backwards: Playing Aldis as a total nanny-state where being "good" means that the government decides what you can and can't do, protects you from doing anything that might be harmful to yourself, regardless of how enjoyable ("ohh, I'm sorry, adventuring isn't actually legal anymore, because second-hand adventuring has been proven to be harmful to children.. THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!"), socially engineers generally inept programs of education, and drags anyone who isn't "tolerant" into "counselling camps". The Golden Hart is really not that benevolent, and only chooses mediocre rulers who will maintain its status quo.

Meanwhile Jarzon is actually a relatively fair state (a republic, not a theocracy at all), where personal civil liberties are the utmost concern, and people aren't willing to give up their rights and freedoms for the sake of greater "security" or "safety".

NOTE: I no more believe in the above than I believe in the original premise of Blue Rose. Both are relatively silly extremes in no way reflective of true political realities. My only point in starting this thread was to find out if anyone else felt the temptation to turn Blue Rose on its head, replacing one silly extreme with another.

Nisarg

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I would do the same, except I'd leave Jarzon a theocracy just to play with the setting even more. It's not like a largely benevolent theocracy is theoretically impossible.

Also, I'd start the PCs out in Jarzon, where they initially get a "bad" vibe. Once they've seen Aldis firsthand, they'll be going back real quick.

 

[Nisarg]

I would do the same, except I'd leave Jarzon a theocracy just to play with the setting even more. It's not like a largely benevolent theocracy is theoretically impossible.

Also, I'd start the PCs out in Jarzon, where they initially get a "bad" vibe. Once they've seen Aldis firsthand, they'll be going back real quick.

The only reason I wouldn't make Jarzon a theocracy is because it would by typical of a government like Aldis' to accuse the Jarzonites of being a "theocracy" because they're "intolerant", when really they're neither of the two, just having certain religious values which in no way cancel out their value of democracy and civil liberties; unlike Aldis which really has neither.

Nisarg

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

The only reason I wouldn't make Jarzon a theocracy is because it would by typical of a government like Aldis' to accuse the Jarzonites of being a "theocracy" because they're "intolerant", when really they're neither of the two, just having certain religious values which in no way cancel out their value of democracy and civil liberties; unlike Aldis which really has neither.

Nisarg

Point.

I wasn't really thinking of it as "The Blue Rose setting material is a propaganda text from Aldis," but if that's the way you wanted to run with it, it would be enjoyable that way, too.

Of course, you could also make Jarzon and Aldis, the two extremes, BOTH be bad, and the REAL good guy, the only one with a sense of proportion and history, is the Lich King.

 

[JPL]

To each his own, I guess.

Social commentary about liberal excesses and "nanny states" and how the supposed good guys are not so good seems like it would cut into time when you could be smiting stuff, though.

 

[Desdichado]

I'd enjoy that more. I'd probably enjoy neither very much, though.

Although it sounds like you've somewhat weakened the strength of the potential irony in turning it around. Why not have Jarzon be a theocracy? Why have such an emphasis on civil liberties? Is that the only possible concept of what being "good-aligned" means to gamers? Seems like if you leave it more as is, but still reversing which is positively-viewed and which is negatively-viewed, you actual gain something by doing the reversal.

If you're into social commentary game settings, anyway. I'm not really, so it's a bit of a moot point.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I'd enjoy that more. I'd probably enjoy neither very much, though.

Although it sounds like you've somewhat weakened the strength of the potential irony in turning it around. Why not have Jarzon be a theocracy? Why have such an emphasis on civil liberties? Is that the only possible concept of what being "good-aligned" means to gamers? Seems like if you leave it more as is, but still reversing which is positively-viewed and which is negatively-viewed, you actual gain something by doing the reversal.

If you're into social commentary game settings, anyway. I'm not really, so it's a bit of a moot point.

Agreed.

Agreed across the board, actually, right down to your thoughts on social commentary games.

 

[Turanil]

Hey, I will just quote Nomad4life in this thread, as it sounds really appropriate to this discussion...

As I continue to look over BR, I start to think that maybe, just maybe, the default romantic fantasy setting could work… If you TWIST it around a little bit.

Examples:

-- An adventure where the environment is a danger to the common people (such as a festering swamp) but the “talking animals and neo-pagan girls” are dead-set on defending it anyway.

-- Run a typical “misfit girl comes to town looking for friends and acceptance” adventure… Only to discover that there was a GOOD REASON this girl was an outcast!

-- Run an adventure where the big-bad-prejudiced-male actually turns out to unexpectedly “save the day” due to his irrational suspicions.

You see where I’m going with this… Basically, keep the setting as it is, but remove the “objective” clear right/wrong element. Now THAT could be interesting…

At any rate, the mechanics continue to amaze me.

 

[barsoomcore]

I like unclear good guys and bad guys because it gets my players really THINKING about the decisions they have to make and who to support and how to proceed. I'm no longer feeding my players plotlines -- they're making up their own story based on what they THINK is the best thing to do, not by figuring out who I think are the good guys.

I honestly don't know who the bad guys and the good guys are on Barsoom right now. Everyone's got a point of view that's got some merit. Most of them are completely nutty, but not without some merit. My players spent the last hour and a half of last night's game trying to piece together bits of evidence collected over five years of gaming, so that they can decide what to do next.

It's fun.

Um, what's Blue Rose like? What are these mechanics you speak of?

*waves*

Hi, everyone. Nice thread.

 

[CountPopeula]

There's a bit more real-world parallel involved, but I don't see how running Blue Rose backwards would be an more creative or pleasurable than running a Greyhawk game with PCs who worship Hextor, or a game of Star Wars about what your good-aligned Storm Troopers do when a group of evil, militant radicals come out of no where and bomb your barracks.

When the PHB came out, I don't remember anyone chomping at the bit to take Hextor's side against Heironeous or a group of Orcs defending their lands from intolerant elvish invaders. Obviously, it's the idea that it's the society that most resembles modern religion being the bad guy that rubs people the wrong way. But the idea is that the people of Jarzon think Jarzon is good, but that a society that commits attrocities in the name of the greater good has still commited attrocities.

The funny part is that Jarzon reminds me of the way I always hear people want to play Paladins, as upstanding servants of their religion who unblinkingly smite anything that blips on their evildar. That paladin is more manly than the wussy, wishy-washy paladin who wants to bring criminals in to stand trial. When this is extrapolated into practice, it's suddenly propoganda.

There doesn't seem to be any fun in changing the circumstance. It seems almost like buying a cd from a band you don't like, playing it on random, and then calling the artist and saying "I'm familiar with your new CD, but not in the order you want me to be familiar with it." Like you're really trying to show GR a lesson about how much you hate Romantic Fantasy by giving them $20 and perverting their ideas for the 10 people in your gaming group. It just doesn't mke any sense to me.