Quote from: CRKrueger;822809You mention "belief in community" and "general good" not being political.  Only problem is, those are your words, not Blue Rose's.  What BR actually says is "Generally, the Light-aligned believe in community and the good of all over mere self-interest. They seek peace, harmonious coexistence, and the general good; although, there is sometimes disagreement as to what exactly is the best for everyone." You replace Light-Aligned with Liberal, you've got NPR ad copy.

Quote from: RPGPundit;823026Aside from the point that you change the literal text descriptions of the alignments in BR (which someone else already covered), there's no question that there is a VALUE JUDGMENT going on in the very name of the alignments.
Saying "Light", "twilight" and "shadow" is suggesting fundamental flaws in individuals who do not support Collectivism.

What the fuck are you two talking about?  

The text that CRKrueger posted is exactly the same as the text that I myself included in my post #85. Here is the goddamn link:

http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=822802&postcount=85

We both posted the exact text of the alignment. In my discussion of this, I later refer back to "the Light-aligned believe in community" as "belief in community" and "the good of all" as "general good". Since I posted the exact text just before, I don't see how this can be seen as twisting anything.

As I said, belief in community (specifically the phrase "the Light-aligned believe in community") is quite vague and does not specify Collectivism versus nearly any other philosophy. For example, there could be someone who is libertarian, and yet one could still truthfully say about them that they "believe in community".

Quote from: Dan Davenport;822906Every game setting is going to have a certain point of view; however, if that setting explicitly states that my real-world point of view is inherently, objectively wrong? Sorry, not interested.

That said, I don't begrudge anyone liking such games, so long as they don't consider me a bad person for not liking them. Let the market decide, sez I.

To be fair, I think that largely depends on the point of view the game is slapping down. Game disses you because you vote small-government Republican? We can talk. You object to a game because it's unfair to the Nazis and states that the Holocaust was real? I'm probably having second thoughts about you.

Incidentally, what was your specific beef with Blue Planet?

Quote from: Warthur;823073To be fair, I think that largely depends on the point of view the game is slapping down. Game disses you because you vote small-government Republican? We can talk. You object to a game because it's unfair to the Nazis and states that the Holocaust was real? I'm probably having second thoughts about you.

Incidentally, what was your specific beef with Blue Planet?

The first edition explicitly stated that the one-world government, the GEO, remained the best hope for the world. So, if you happened to believe that a one-world government would be horrific, then in terms of the setting, you were a Bad Guy. The second edition -- IIRC, in part because I pointed this out -- changed this wording.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;823039Although I did toy with the idea of reworking the setting to make Jarzon the generally good folks and Aldis the well-intentioned but decadent and complacent foil ...

Yeah, me too - even though I suspect I'd probably prefer living in Aldis than Jarzon myself, SJWing just gets my goat (or my deer).

Quote from: Dan Davenport;823080The first edition explicitly stated that the one-world government, the GEO, remained the best hope for the world. So, if you happened to believe that a one-world government would be horrific, then in terms of the setting, you were a Bad Guy.

The second edition -- IIRC, in part because I pointed this out -- changed this wording.

I haven't seen the first books, but I do have the 2nd Edition: I never found the right time to run a campaign, but the idea of mixing Shadowrun, Waterworld, Avatar and the Wild West keeps it in my mind...

I'm cool with politics as setting. Makes for great friction. It's from the chafing & bleeding (either IC PC or OOC player) that lubricates the fun.

Hell, I'd even CosPlay the whole thing if we can end up looking like some of those book covers. I choose accenting warm pastels over long, flowing ecru.

Quote from: jhkim;823069What the fuck are you two talking about?

John, you quote the text from the book early on, but later, when you are trying to dismiss the political aspects you generalize down to "belief in community" and "general good". Heck you just did it again, saying a Libertarian would have no problem with a "belief in community", but would a Libertarian "believe in community and the good of all over mere self-interest?"  I think that would depend on how you define "mere" in that sentence.  I'm pretty sure a lot of Libertarians would read "mere self-interest" as "freedoms of the individual" at least in part.

Blue Rose may be in part Romantic Fantasy, but it's also a political screed in setting form - sexual, religious and social.

Again, I don't see anything wrong with that any more then I see anything wrong with Shadowrun, 40k, Eclipse Phase, or any other setting that has something to say about serious topics.  

But to say those political viewpoints aren't present (and in the case of Blue Rose, moved front and center affecting just about every aspect of the setting) is so obviously, completely false, it begs the question as to how you arrive at your argument.

Quote from: Dan Davenport;823080The first edition explicitly stated that the one-world government, the GEO, remained the best hope for the world. So, if you happened to believe that a one-world government would be horrific, then in terms of the setting, you were a Bad Guy. The second edition -- IIRC, in part because I pointed this out -- changed this wording.

Been a loooong time since I read Blue Planet, but if you're talking specifically about saving a world on the brink of ecological collapse, I think the concept was, only a government or some regulatory body with global reach is going to have the authority to do that.  So far, environmental concerns haven't really been addressed at all by Realpolitik except when regulations on pollution are part of unfair trade practices.

One World Government can be a nightmare, so can other forms of government, but I think specifically in terms of the global environment, the most gains can come from a global government, of course the meat of such a setting comes when you ask yourself "at what cost"?

As a Utopian setting, Blue Planet didn't think there could be much down side.

But hey, speculative Utopian and Dystopian settings based on all the religious, social, political ideas we don't talk about directly is one of the things Fantasy or Science Fiction is for.

Quote from: CRKrueger;823103Blue Rose may be in part Romantic Fantasy, but it's also a political screed in setting form - sexual, religious and social.

Again, I don't see anything wrong with that any more then I see anything wrong with Shadowrun, 40k, Eclipse Phase, or any other setting that has something to say about serious topics.  

But to say those political viewpoints aren't present (and in the case of Blue Rose, moved front and center affecting just about every aspect of the setting) is so obviously, completely false, it begs the question as to how you arrive at your argument.

My main point is, if you were to sit down and actually play a game of Blue Rose that I was running, for example, I don't think it would be any different than sitting down to a D&D game that I was running as far as politics is concerned. We'd interact with some NPCs, solve some mysteries, and fight some shadowspawn.

Most of the things you are going on about, are just nitpicking rather than serious differences in a real game of Blue Rose. For example, I think that if we switched out the Blue Rose "Light" alignment definition for the D&D "Good" alignment description - it would make essentially zero difference to the game. Likewise, the succession of the monarchy in Aldis makes virtually no practical difference to a game.

I would agree that there is politics to be found in all of Shadowrun, 40K, D&D, and Blue Rose - but I don't think that any of them should be called political screeds. Sure, if in a game, the closest Christian-analogues are lawful good paladins who fight demons - that has pro-Christian political implications. Likewise, if the closest Christian-analogues are an intolerant theocracy, that has anti-Christian political implications. I don't think either of these choices make the game into a political screed, though.

Quote from: CRKrueger;823103John, you quote the text from the book early on, but later, when you are trying to dismiss the political aspects you generalize down to "belief in community" and "general good". Heck you just did it again, saying a Libertarian would have no problem with a "belief in community", but would a Libertarian "believe in community and the good of all over mere self-interest?"  I think that would depend on how you define "mere" in that sentence.  I'm pretty sure a lot of Libertarians would read "mere self-interest" as "freedoms of the individual" at least in part.

I would think they'd read "mere self-interest" as "self-interest". It seems a stretch to me to read "self-interest" as "freedoms of the individual".

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;823039I was just speculating a bit on why the setting was so negatively received. My own disinterest in the setting is largely the same as Dan Davenport's, albeit probably from a different perspective. "Traditional Christian (with serial numbers filed off) = misguided or willing servant of Darkness" is not something I want to support. I was willing to bracket or rework Aldis' sexual libertinism, but what I saw of Jarzon was a bridge too far.

I read Jarzon as a fundamentalist theocracy with more in common with the Empire in 40k than any real world analogue, though if it were a real world analogue it would be Iran, which is an actual fundamentalist theocracy.

Quote from: CRKrueger;823103John, you quote the text from the book early on, but later, when you are trying to dismiss the political aspects you generalize down to "belief in community" and "general good". Heck you just did it again, saying a Libertarian would have no problem with a "belief in community", but would a Libertarian "believe in community and the good of all over mere self-interest?"  I think that would depend on how you define "mere" in that sentence.  I'm pretty sure a lot of Libertarians would read "mere self-interest" as "freedoms of the individual" at least in part.

I read as it as mere selfishness. I can also read it as a critique of rational choice theory, but that's just me projecting.

I've spent too much time in this thread. Now I'm looking back on OD&D as a political screed in favor of libertarian  principles. From the character perspective it is by far the most self-interested RPG I've played or read.

Quote from: Dan Davenport;823042Again, I do not care that this game exists. Frankly? I think it does a good job of what it sets out to do, so in that sense, it's a good game.

That's my opinion.
Of course, whether you agree with what this game sets out to do is another story.

JG

Quote from: Bren;823117I've spent too much time in this thread. Now I'm looking back on OD&D as a political screed in favor of libertarian  principles. From the character perspective it is by far the most self-interested RPG I've played or read.

"Kill them and take their stuff."

Quote from: jhkim;823108My main point is, if you were to sit down and actually play a game of Blue Rose that I was running, for example, I don't think it would be any different than sitting down to a D&D game that I was running as far as politics is concerned. We'd interact with some NPCs, solve some mysteries, and fight some shadowspawn.

Probably, but I could play FATAL without using the anal circumference tables and play RaHoWa without engaging in RaHoWa.  That doesn't change why the games were written as they are. (Yes, I used extreme examples.)

Quote from: jhkim;823108For example, I think that if we switched out the Blue Rose "Light" alignment definition for the D&D "Good" alignment description - it would make essentially zero difference to the game.

Maybe, but people have been ignoring and throwing out alignment and moral systems in every game that's ever had one, while others use them as is.  Also I think you're deliberately obfuscatory in your attempt to hide the clear economic political overtones to the Light/Twilight/Shadow.  This is not by any stretch of the imagination Lankhmar's White/Grey/Black for example.
 

Quote from: jhkim;823108Likewise, the succession of the monarchy in Aldis makes virtually no practical difference to a game.

Assuming of course you enjoy roleplaying a character who has absolutely no opinion on the topic of human governance other than Divine Will made manifest, or completely agrees with the concept.

Quote from: jhkim;823108I would agree that there is politics to be found in all of Shadowrun, 40K, D&D, and Blue Rose

Ooo, you added D&D into the mix, is there a hidden colonialist "dark side of the hobby" argument in there trying to come out?

Quote from: jhkim;823108- but I don't think that any of them should be called political screeds.

Would you consider the book Starship Troopers a political screed?  If not, fair enough.

Quote from: jhkim;823108Sure, if in a game, the closest Christian-analogues are lawful good paladins who fight demons - that has pro-Christian political implications. Likewise, if the closest Christian-analogues are an intolerant theocracy, that has anti-Christian political implications. I don't think either of these choices make the game into a political screed, though.

Not in isolation, no.  However, in Blue Rose, it's not in isolation, is it?  It's choice after choice after choice after choice, which go beyond the genre conventions of Romantic Fantasy.

Which is fine, and in many cases done well, and maybe you don't care one bit for the embedded liberal politics, you're just a real big Mercedes Lackey fan, but don't tell me they're not there.  You may really like the gaming system for Eclipse Phase and want to use it for techno-fantasy, but why bother trying to put forth the argument that the setting isn't extremely pro-Transhumanist?  That's the part I don't get.

Quote from: jhkim;823108It seems a stretch to me to read "self-interest" as "freedoms of the individual".

Cues his Ronald Reagan tape (damn you for pushing me to this) "There you go again."

In the context of the actual entire quote..."believe in community and the good of all over mere self-interest?"...how would they take it? Honestly this time.