Tempted to Run Blue Rose backwards
- Thread starter Nisarg
- Start date
- Status
WmRAllen67
First Post
Sounds like the mechanics are a hit at least-- I'm looking forward to browsing through it...
One way of approaching it would be that the game doesn't have an "agenda" as much as the setting "shares the world-view of the literary genre." Now, if there was no way to use the rules outside the setting, then maybe...
RPG's themselves tend to reflect elements of late 20th/ early 21st century social values in any case-- it's unavoidable given the audience they're written for, us late 20th/ early 21st century folks. Some of what seems to be happening here is that people are having a hard time applying those social values to the "medieval" setting of Blue Rose, where if they were considering a more modern, "Urban Arcana" type setting there might not be so much mental dissonance.
One way of approaching it would be that the game doesn't have an "agenda" as much as the setting "shares the world-view of the literary genre." Now, if there was no way to use the rules outside the setting, then maybe...
RPG's themselves tend to reflect elements of late 20th/ early 21st century social values in any case-- it's unavoidable given the audience they're written for, us late 20th/ early 21st century folks. Some of what seems to be happening here is that people are having a hard time applying those social values to the "medieval" setting of Blue Rose, where if they were considering a more modern, "Urban Arcana" type setting there might not be so much mental dissonance.
WmRAllen67 said:
If it was a modern "urban arcana" type setting where nanny-state mentality and neo-paganist feminist social engineering produced a utopia, I would find it equally unbelievable.
The issue isn't with the context, its with the premise itself; namely that a kingdom like Aldis could actually function without being hypocritical or an authoritarian nightmare.
Nisarg
I don't see what the big deal is. I wouldn't even call it an agenda, its genre emulation. Its made to emulate these romantic fantasy novels. That's not an agenda, that's trying to make the game play like certain kinds of books. Would anyone say that Eden has a pro-feminist, pro-pagan agenda because it publishes the Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG? I've never heard that. Those elements are there, because they're in the Buffy TV Show (by the creator's admission). It doesn't mean that Eden is pushing any such agenda, they are just making an RPG that simulates that genre of fiction. Same thing for Blue Rose.
If you find the egalitarian society led by divinely mandated monarchs to be distasteful, then that's because you don't like the genre. Its like complaining about the Star Wars because you don't think that a bunch of sorcerers and mystics would be considered wise advisors in a sci-fi setting. You should probably play Traveller or something.
If you find the egalitarian society led by divinely mandated monarchs to be distasteful, then that's because you don't like the genre. Its like complaining about the Star Wars because you don't think that a bunch of sorcerers and mystics would be considered wise advisors in a sci-fi setting. You should probably play Traveller or something.
maddman75 said:
Funny you'd mention star wars; in my long-running Star Wars campaign I did run the Jedi as an obviously "good" group that nevertheless, in the dying days of the republic, were mostly responsible for their own because their authoritarian tactics for the sake of the "good" (like the forced removal of force-sensitive children from their parents, and the hunting down of "rogue jedi", ie. force-users who would not follow the dictates of the order) led them to become hated by the common man, who came to welcome the Empire's subsequent anti-jedi pogrom.
Nisarg
WmRAllen67
First Post
Nisarg said:
I can't disagree with you-- I think it would be unrealistic as well...
It's possible that the unsaid subtext of all the discussion is how the setting interacts with your own ideas of "what society should be." Everyone's personal "Utopia" is different-- certainly what I would want from society is different from what Thomas More wrote, or from the "City on the Hill" of the Pilgrims...
And that's about as close to a political discussion as we can get, I suppose... but I still propose that the setting has no "social aspects" not found in other D&D/ D20 settings, given who the game is written for-- modern gamers. They're just more clearly stated.
WmRAllen67 said:
Well I suppose for me its the case that I don't really believe utopia is possible for humanity at this point in our evolution...
And given that GR is actually emulating a genre, and does a fantastic job of doing so in BR, my issue is really with the genre itself, which presents a highly naive concept of reality. I have no problem with the concept of a nanny-state monarchy determined by a farcical woodland ceremony if said state was actually full of internal conflict from the many, many, people who would be unhappy with that kind of "government"; its the fact that said state is presented in the setting as being utopian, and all who object to it as being inherently evil or ignorant that chafes me... but like I said, that's the nature of the genre. I just know that if I ever actually play BR, I would play it against type just because I would find it infinitely more interesting and entertaining.
Nisarg
WayneLigon
Adventurer
Nisarg said:
There are factions that conflict with the soveriegn. In fact, her chief noble beleives that he should have been chosen instead, for perfectly good reasons - he's trained his entire life to serve the kingdom and wants nothing more than to do that. But this outsider was chosen instead of him. Several of the Queen's advisors are upset with her more controversial policies, such as allowing the study - though not practice - of sorcery. One of the Council members thinks the Queen is just a trifle naive and often votes against her. There are a number of merchants that chafe under the laws of the kingdom and would not mind seeing someone more... malleable on the throne. The Hart is not an infailable judge, though seems much more so than any human. Two rulers have been repudiated by him at later dates when they proved to be evil or mad. There are Shadow- and Twilight-aligned Nobles. (They have to be Light-aligned when elevated to the nobility - nobility is not inherited by anyone - but they can - as real people do - change later. And Light-aligned is a very broad catagory. And everyone has both a Light and Shadow nature).
I don't think 'many many' people would be unhappy with a nation that values diversity, acceptance of differences, the right of privacy, has a criminal justice system that doesn't concentrate on punishment, grants basic education is free to anyone within the borders, and welcomes any non-Shadow-aligned religion. Most Aldins don't think the other nations are evil so much as they pity them their ignorance and hope they will eventually grow up.
Last edited:
- Status
