Tempted to Run Blue Rose backwards

[Afrodyte]

So, what are you doing in this thread?

Nisarg

I do not have to justify myself to you.

If you find it so hard to believe in a place where people are basically honest, respectful, and deserving of whatever fame or wealth or power they have, that is your business. However, I do think that, despite the portability of the mechanics, they work best if you stick to the romantic aspect of romantic fantasy. I don't care whether you decide to run with this idea or not, but the fact of the matter is this game is designed for romantic fantasy. Romantic in Blue Rose is about more than just relationships, but something in the attitude of the setting and the characters. In general, the assumption is that the world and its inhabitants are basically good, though they can be led astray. Certain actions (practicing sorcery) and attitudes (hatred, intolerance, chauvinism, etc.) tend to lead to this pretty often. It's more like a risk than an irredeemable trait. Just like doing heroin risks overdosing or disarming bombs risks getting blown up, doing certain things or having certain attitudes risks becoming corrupt. You can't afford not to pay attention to it (The history of Aldis proves this much). You also can't go around hating them, since that risks you becoming corrupt. This is not something that is particularly new or liberal or neo-pagan. You find it in the good old New Testament.

Changing this basic perspective means that some aspects of the game will have to be redefined or revised to allow for a greater degree of ethical complexity. Heck, the D&D alignment system is a bit more complex than that of Blue Rose, but nowhere nearly as interesting IMO.

 

[Afrodyte]

I don't care to be put upon for demands of chapter and verse, but does the book not say that anyone who tries to stop the coronation gets a hoofmark to the skull, and subsequent Exile from Aldis?

Nisarg

No, it does not.

 

[Nisarg]

Changing this basic perspective means that some aspects of the game will have to be redefined or revised to allow for a greater degree of ethical complexity. Heck, the D&D alignment system is a bit more complex than that of Blue Rose, but nowhere nearly as interesting IMO.

You could supplant it with the Law/Balance/Chaos alignments from the Dragon Lords of Melnibone book (best thing about that book IMO).

As for the rest of what you wrote, you still fail at your basic definition of what is good. Its all fine and dandy to say "we should be tolerant", "we should be caring", "we shouldn't hurt ourselves"; but as soon as you take that out of the personal level and into the governamental level, it quickly turns into a twisted hypocritical authoritarianism ("you WILL be tolerant", "You WILL be caring", "You WILL NOT BE ALLOWED to hurt yourself in any way, even if you want to").
Even moreso if the people who define that "good" are self-proclaimed authorities answerable to no one, as they are in Aldis.

Its funny tha some would present Blue Roses' vision as "liberal"; I don't see what's particularly liberal about an authoritarian aristocracy. But then, I guess many people who think of themselves as "liberal" really aren't, just as many who think of themselves as "tolerant" are really anything but. Its those hypocrisies that would make running Blue Rose Backwards such a pleasure.

Nisarg

 

[Nisarg]

No, it does not.

Yes, it does. Page 28. Checkmate.

Nisarg

 

[Afrodyte]

Yes, it does. Page 28. Checkmate.

Nisarg

That's not stop. That's harm. A very different connotation.

Anyway, I see that you are not really interested in having a real discourse with people. You just want to argue, and I'm not particularly interested in trying to get you to understand that there is no mandate in Aldis to be tolerant, caring, and what not, except for nobles and other civil servants.

I'm sorry I even bothered to post to this thread.

 

[Gomez]

As for the rest of what you wrote, you still fail at your basic definition of what is good. Its all fine and dandy to say "we should be tolerant", "we should be caring", "we shouldn't hurt ourselves"; but as soon as you take that out of the personal level and into the governamental level, it quickly turns into a twisted hypocritical authoritarianism ("you WILL be tolerant", "You WILL be caring", "You WILL NOT BE ALLOWED to hurt yourself in any way, even if you want to").

Yeah, there is nothing in current laws of the land to prevent people from being intolerant or hurting themselves. Right?.......

Ok, you got me on the Caring part!

Even moreso if the people who define that "good" are self-proclaimed authorities answerable to no one, as they are in Aldis.

They are answerable to the MAGIC DEER!

I don't care to be put upon for demands of chapter and verse, but does the book not say that anyone who tries to stop the coronation gets a hoofmark to the skull, and subsequent Exile from Aldis?

I heard that trying to stop the coronation of the King/Queen of England is only a 20 pound fine.

 

[Nisarg]

That's not stop. That's harm. A very different connotation.

Anyway, I see that you are not really interested in having a real discourse with people. You just want to argue, and I'm not particularly interested in trying to get you to understand that there is no mandate in Aldis to be tolerant, caring, and what not, except for nobles and other civil servants.

I'm sorry I even bothered to post to this thread.

I think its a safe presumption to say that anyone trying prevent the coronation has no recourse. Its not a democracy. THE MAGIC DEER HAS SPOKEN.

As such, your only option is to be a good little slave of the MAGIC DEER, or engage in active resistance against tyranny; the end result of which is a kick in the head by the MAGIC DEER and exile for you!

Nisarg

 

[Nisarg]

Yeah, there is nothing in current laws of the land to prevent people from being tolerant or hurting themselves. Right?.......

Ok, you got me on the Caring part!

Its those "current laws of the land", and the degrees which they lead to either hypocrisy or authoritarianism which lead me to conclude the impossibility of the Aldisian Utopia.

Nisarg

 

[Gomez]

All this talk of governments and Magic Deer reminds me of a quote of one of my favorate movies.

I hope this lightens the mood around here.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
King Arthur: Old woman.
Dennis: Man.
King Arthur: Man, sorry. What knight lives in that castle over there?
Dennis: I'm 37.
King Arthur: What?
Dennis: I'm 37. I'm not old.
King Arthur: Well I can't just call you "man".
Dennis: Well you could say "Dennis".
King Arthur: I didn't know you were called Dennis.
Dennis: Well you didn't bother to find out did you?
King Arthur: I did say sorry about the "old woman", but from behind you looked...
Dennis: What I object to is you automatically treat me like an inferior.
King Arthur: Well I am king.
Dennis: Oh, king eh? Very nice. And how'd you get that, eh? By exploiting the workers. By hanging on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
King Arthur: I am your king.
Woman: Well I didn't vote for you.
King Arthur: You don't vote for kings.
Woman: Well how'd you become king then?
[Angelic music plays... ]
King Arthur: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. THAT is why I am your king.
Dennis: [interrupting] Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis: Oh, but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis: Oh but if I went 'round sayin' I was Emperor, just because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis: Come see the violence inherent in the system. Help, help, I'm being repressed

 

[drnuncheon]

I don't care to be put upon for demands of chapter and verse

If you're going to make broad sweeping claims about a setting, it might be advisable to have something to back that up.

but does the book not say that anyone who tries to stop the coronation gets a hoofmark to the skull, and subsequent Exile from Aldis?

That's a far cry from "ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH THE MAGIC DEER IS EXILED." More like "Anyone who commits treason is exiled" which is probably the nicest thing that is done to traitors.


Now, as for the shiny happiness accusations...I've read some Lackey - apparently unlike a lot of the people who are so fervently against her - and the entire kingdom is not shiny and happy or even full of tolerance. There's prejudice and brutality, and that's in both commoner and noble social circles. I'm thinking the Vanyel books, here, where his father basically had his arms master try to beat the gayness out of him, to the point of breaking bones.

Now, I'm not saying Lackey's a great writer, but some of the accusations being levelled are unjust. And if BR is as Lackey-influenced as all that, and that kind of stuff is possible in her world, it makes me wonder if a lot of the accusations against Aldis for being too shiny-happy are also similarly exaggerated.

J