Tempted to Run Blue Rose backwards

[Nisarg]

Er, no it's not. I love me some "Red Star," but it's hard to think of a comic book series and setting that takes itself MORE seriously.

It would probably behoove you to read the series before saying something like this. There is absolutely good and evil in the Red Star universe, and as it's divided along mostly political lines, it certainly makes sweeping statements about Afghanistan, Chechnya, the Soviet Union and post-Soviet Russia.

Hmm, ok. Well, I could be wrong. If that's the case I'd condemn red star just as much; maybe it hasn't met with the same resistance because its just not as immediate to our western world and reality. communist utopia is so removed from the typical modern western mind's realm of plausibility as to be absurd, in a way a propaganda piece in favour of some kind of religious theorcacy-utopia or feminist neo-pagan - utopia are not. Either of the latter are more likely to get people's hackles raised because the agenda is more real.

If the guy who did red star really has an agenda of saying a communist paradise in the modern world would be a good thing, he's really just a loon or terribly outdate, or amazingly visionary; whichever, but basically he's irrelevant.
On the other hand if the people who do romantic fantasy fiction have an agenda of saying feminist nanny-state "paradise" in the modern world would be a good thing, its something that more immediately impacts the current political environment; just as a popular sci fi author writing a book with thinly-veiled metaphors describing christian theocracy as the ideal system of government would have a more immediate impact.

Nisarg

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

It has nothing to do with who sets the principles down, its the principles themselves: theocracy, be it of a monotheistic patriarchal father-god or of a nanny caretaker feminist earth mother goddess, or of a golden deer, or a lion, is never the ticket to utopia; its the ticket to social repression.

So what? Who said that a fantasy roleplaying supplement was was supposed to offer up a perfect and good society, even if they themselves claim it in the setting? Our world is full of societies that have claimed to be just that, and it's been clearly untrue.

And those who believe that stories about a theocratic patriarchal father-god lion or a nanny caretaker feminist earth mother goddess golden deer represent values that would be good to apply in the modern world are deeply ignorant and troubled people.

Are you TRYING to get this thread locked? No one's said that they think that a magical animal should take over in real life. We're talking about a game, but your inability to seperate talking about the setting and real life may point to why this thread has gotten so nasty.

NO ONE HERE IS ADVOCATING MAGICAL ANIMALS TAKING OVER THE WORLD.

But please, continue to say others on this thread are "deeply ignorant and troubled people" because that doesn't constitute an unbelievably insulting flame.

Good fiction doesn't, IMO have to have realistic events, but it does have to have realistic characters.
If the humans in a novel all act like robots, or zombies, or parrots, or are completely unidimensional, then that is what we in the hallowed halls of academia call "a bad novel".

You should probably stop playing RPGs, since even the best NPCs act in ways that aren't realistic. A realistic RPG would feature players doing a hell of a lot of nothing, since it's a sucker's game risking your life all the time for a chance at reward instead of sitting home and becoming the best darn smith you can be.

Again, this is a highly selective objection. And since you've now announced that you believe the people arguing with you genuinely want to live in a benevolent dictatorship, all I can assume is that your objections are grounded in political axe-grinding and not, say, deciding whether or not this is more or less implausible than, say, Waterdeep.

 

[Nisarg]

So what? Who said that a fantasy roleplaying supplement was was supposed to offer up a perfect and good society, even if they themselves claim it in the setting? Our world is full of societies that have claimed to be just that, and it's been clearly untrue.

The difference is that in our world, and in good RPG settings, those claims CAN be untrue.

In BR, not only are they not presented as untrue, but they are presented as ABSOLUTELY AND OBJECTIVELY TRUE.

Nisarg

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

communist utopia is so removed from the typical modern western mind's realm of plausibility as to be absurd, in a way a propaganda piece in favour of some kind of religious theorcacy-utopia or feminist neo-pagan - utopia are not.

Also not what "Red Star" is about.

If the guy who did red star really has an agenda of saying a communist paradise in the modern world would be a good thing, he's really just a loon or terribly outdate, or amazingly visionary; whichever, but basically he's irrelevant.

Could you PLEASE stop projecting what you imagine onto other people and products and then attacking your strawmen?

On the other hand if the people who do romantic fantasy fiction have an agenda of saying feminist nanny-state "paradise" in the modern world would be a good thing

WHO? WHO'S SAID THAT?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

In BR, not only are they not presented as untrue, but they are presented as ABSOLUTELY AND OBJECTIVELY TRUE.

They're presented as being enforced by a nearly omnipotent magical being. Absolutely enforced and objectively true aren't the same thing, unless there's something specific you'd like to object to.

 

[Nisarg]

WHO? WHO'S SAID THAT?

People who can't seem to understand why so many people would be fairly disgusted with the "utopia" aldis represents.

Nisarg

 

[Nisarg]

They're presented as being enforced by a nearly omnipotent magical being. Absolutely enforced and objectively true aren't the same thing, unless there's something specific you'd like to object to.

The MAGIC DEER is the embodiment of all that is good and true. If you oppose the magic deer you are by default either evil or ignorant.

Aldis is the kingdom of "light": If you oppose the values Aldis and the MAGIC DEER represent, you are at best "twilight", or at worst "shadow".

Spin it any way you like, according to the standard of the game there is no way to play a character who is ethically opposed to the "values" Aldis represents without that person being either stupid, deeply ignorant, or just plain evil.

In fact, if I recall correctly light and shadow are divided specifically by the distinction that light values the collective will above individual freedom. Doing what's "good for society" over being a free human being, expressing individual genius, or self-advancement.

Nisarg

 

[takyris]

Hey, this has convinced me that I might be interested in running Blue Rose as it is. Through his powerful rhetoric, Nisarg has moved me from "Interested in idea of setting, but don't really have the right group for it," to "Wow, I'm totally interested in playing whatever kind of game is the exact opposite of Nisarg's!"

Seriously, guys. If you're not the target audience, you're not the target audience. If you don't like the concept of a being with absolute moral righteousness, and if you can't imagine a world in which a creature has absolute moral righteousness (and is established as having such by the conventions of the game) -- and uses it not to rule but simply to give the okay to the human, possibly flawed people who will rule -- as anything other than the overlord of a horrible repressive society... well, you've obviously got your own personal issues.

I'm quite comfortable saying that there is no creature like that in this world, but in the hypothetical world where one did exist, it could quite easily form a good society

Actually, now that I think about it, doesn't the line of political reasoning Nisarg is using sound a bit like the reasoning of the paranoid military guys who are always trying to shut down Superman?

Military: You're a menace, Superman! You don't answer to any authority! Nobody elected you!

Superman: Uh, I don't hold any position of power. I don't rule people. I obey the laws of the country. I just stop bad guys who are hurting people.

Military: Today, sure. But what if tomorrow you turn evil?

Superman: Listen, I have to go rescue a small village from an erupting volcano. Can we do this some other time?

Military: And anyone who disagrees with you is exiled, right?

Superman: Um... Batman disagrees with me, and I haven't kicked him out of the Justice League. Lex Luthor isn't even up on criminal charges in half of my parallel comic worlds.

Military: The United States doesn't have room for people who don't answer to the government, Superman... we'll be watching you.

Superman: Right, right. I'll remember that next time I'm saving the White House from lava robots.

Or maybe it's not the political stuff. Maybe it's the flavor of a world in which a magical creature gives the potential ruler its blessing. That's gotta be a pretty fluffy, twee, my-little-pony kind of world, right? Like that bastion of romantic lighthearted fantasy... Amber.

 

[takyris]

The MAGIC DEER is the embodiment of all that is good and true. If you oppose the magic deer you are by default either evil or ignorant.

I'm not sure what your point is here. The magic deer creature isn't espousing a political philosophy. The magic deer creature is essentially walking around with a permanent Detect Evil going.

Are you really saying that you think it's unfair that Aldis doesn't like murderers and rapists -- people who are going to tick off the deer's evil-radar? Or are you saying that people should be allowed to walk around saying that they think the deer shouldn't interfere in people's lives? The latter, at least, seems completely legal, although in the mind of most citizens, this would be the equivalent of being in a science fiction world and saying, "I think it's unfair to do psych profiles on potential starship captains or have automated defenses and weapon detectors that prevent people from killing the captain and taking over the ship."

In fact, if I recall correctly light and shadow are divided specifically by the distinction that light values the collective will above individual freedom. Doing what's "good for society" over being a free human being, expressing individual genius, or self-advancement.

No idea if you recall correctly, but based purely on me following these threads, it looks a lot like you're inferring things that aren't necessarily there.

 

[Nisarg]

Or maybe it's not the political stuff. Maybe it's the flavor of a world in which a magical creature gives the potential ruler its blessing. That's gotta be a pretty fluffy, twee, my-little-pony kind of world, right? Like that bastion of romantic lighthearted fantasy... Amber.

Since I presume you know Amber is both one of my favourite RPGs and fantasy series, I think that pretty much clears up the possibility that my issue is with it merely being a magical animal that generates the monarch.. (for those who don't know, at the end of the first series of Amber novels, the Unicorn which is both the ancestor and the "divine figure" of the Amber family, determines who their next king will be).

It is specifically in the differences between something like Amber and something like the BR setting that you can see what my issues with romantic fantasy settings like this are:
In Amber, the Unicorn gives the crown to one of the family, to prevent a complete massacre for it, because the Amberites (who by the way are the godlike immortal descendents of the guy who created the entire multiverse) are all such total bastards that they're willing to lie, cheat, steal and kill for the sake of Amber's crown.

In Amber, the Unicorn is also NOT the absolute standard of good, in later novels its made clear that the Unicorn's choice is not due to its goodness or the goodness of its candidate, but rather because of the Unicorn's own selfish conflict with the Dragon of Chaos, and its using the Amberites as chesspieces to try to get the best possible advantages.

In Amber NO ONE is presented as absolutely good or evil, right or wrong. In other words, the gods themselves are realistic human characters.

Nisarg