Quote from: Christopher Brady;903746Modern Anime is actually an outgrowth of another more recent medium, the Disney Cartoon (As per the father of Astro Boy, Osamu Tezuka once mentioned in an interview), and occurred after American values of freedom and free speech were imposed on Japan after the latter's defeat in the Second Great War (AKA World War 2), but historical evidence suggests (or perhaps was imposed, as History is always written by the 'winner' which may not always be as obvious as the conquering force would like to imply), that in the Far East as it was once romantically named that individualism and free thought were frown on.

Still are frowned on to some extent today. Japanese culture has a much lower score on individualism than do countries like the USA or Germany. Which is what makes their anime heroes so interesting.

Hofstede is well known in this area. Here's a comparison for Japan, USA, and Germany.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]182[/ATTACH]
You can go here and run your own comparisons.

QuoteSo for ME, this whole 'realistic aristocrat' thing in an RPG, especially one what uses Conan, Robin Hood, Knights' Errant and other individualistic characters from any medium you wish to claim, needs to be tempered with freedom of choice.  Not all Aristocrats are controlling pricks, but on the other side, if you're going to use some of the feudal states caste system, you need to allow for some structure and order to settle.

But lots of RPGs don't use the smorgasbord of individualists approach. The one that does that a lot is D&D. Though to be fair, Star Wars would also be a good example of rugged individualist PCs. But I don't think many people have ever asked, how can I plan a more realistic Old Republic or Imperial aristocrat?

When someone says they want to play a realistic aristocrat, my assumption is they are running a setting where the PCs are members of their society not eccentric outsiders or dangerous outcasts.

QuoteIn other words, some times, Adventurers are not welcome everywhere, but they are welcome somewhere.

Frontiers, far away missions of exploration, and in the midst of war, especially a civil war, would be my three top choices for where those sorts of people are most welcome. Throne rooms, judicial courts, and peaceful churches/temples would be three of my lowest choices.

Quote from: dragoner;903686where being 30 was old

This statistical misunderstanding comes up SO OFTEN that I suggest it may be a glitch in the Matrix.  You didn't quite get the bonus points for suggesting you believe that people in their 40s in these societies literally have the physical signs of aging that we see in septuagenarians today.

If you want to see a population with a a life expectancy of 44, go to an Australian aboriginal community. Instead of 20 people out of 100 being over 70, there are only half a dozen, but they are still the elders, not the 40 year olds.

Quote from: dragoner;903754Then you can stay out of conversations for grown ups.

Fear the flaming wrath of the mighty dragoner!


Grownups? :rolleyes: Great Ghu you are funny.

Quote from: Bren;903759Fear the flaming wrath of the mighty dragoner!


Grownups? :rolleyes: Great Ghu you are funny.

I would say I'm still waiting for you to make any sort of rational or intelligent counter argument, but I don't want to wait forever. The fact is that you could only make things up.

Quote from: The_Shadow;903757This statistical misunderstanding comes up SO OFTEN that I suggest it may be a glitch in the Matrix.  You didn't quite get the bonus points for suggesting you believe that people in their 40s in these societies literally have the physical signs of aging that we see in septuagenarians today.

It was hyperbole, however ... dying in your 50's and 60's wasn't uncommon just last century, needless to say, the medieval era would have been worse. It is sort of like talking about teeth, people may have not have had as many cavities, but then they had rickets from lack of vitamin C. Another interesting comment is about "modern sensibilities" which means what again? People back then were, if given the right conditions, smarter than people are today, just to survive, they needed to be. People today, as some posters fully demonstrate, are complete idiots, they don't think because they don't have to think.

Quote from: Bren;903759Grownups? :rolleyes: Great Ghu you are funny.

Dragoner, when the pee hole is tongued.

Quote from: dragoner;903762I would say I'm still waiting for you to make any sort of rational or intelligent counter argument, but I don't want to wait forever. The fact is that you could only make things up.

You claimed peasants were constantly revolting. You are wrong.

Your support for your claim was a list of revolts on Wikipedia. That list showed that (among other things) in France in the entire 14th century there were only three revolts for a total of 5 years duration in Flanders, 1 year the Oise valley north of Paris, and 1 year in the city of Rouen out of 100 years. The rest of France e.g. Languedoc, Provence, Auvergne, Dauphine, etc. were revolt free for the entire century and even in the three areas that did experience a revolt at least 93% of the time they were at peace.

The rational and intelligent counter argument is for you to look at your own data which proves you are wrong. Revolt was not constant. Revolt was sporadic. You can whine, bitch, moan, swear, and flame all you want. None of that supports your claim. None if it makes you look like an adult. And it certainly isn't going to persuade anyone that you aren't some idiot in a dragon suit.

Now I know dragoner isn't going to understand, much less accept, that they are wrong. So here is something dragoner might understand.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]183[/ATTACH]

Quote from: dragoner;903694Where are his sources? The only sources are mine. He is engaging in fucking idiocy is what he is doing. Parsimony of science explains that the most simple of answers is usually true, was the system stable? No. Proof? It no longer exists.

Hmm... I had no intention of pissing you off.  I didn't know you were so emotionally invested your belief.  I wasn't engaging in "fucking idiocy," I was trying dispel some myths and clarify the truth about a topic I know a quite a bit about.  Medieval peasant society was not "bucolic" and daffodils, I never said it was.  I'm not sure if there is a reason to continue here because it is clear that you are going to misconstrue my argument, put words in my mouth and then call me names for arguments that you dreamed up and assigned to me.  It's not very conducive to a rational historical conversation.   Some people are interested in the truth, and some people will stick to their beliefs, no matter the cost, and shout and scream as if they are personally being attacked.  I never said anything against you and I'm not sure why you chose to make it personal. But then again, you did kinda call me out.

Anyway, I provided one academic source that is a landmark in medieval studies and the starting point of social history. I showed how your source works against your argument. If you don't like the source I picked but want to stick to universally lauded, peer-reviewed, seminal academic literature (as opposed to wikipedia), try Feudal Society (both volumes are fantastic) or French Rural History by Marc Bloc.  If you are tired of Frenchmen, try R.W. Southern: The Making of the Middle Ages, or Norman C Cantor: Civilization in the Middle Ages. If the reading is too hard for you try Francis and Joseph Gies:  Life in a Medieval Village.  It doesn't really address peasant revolts but that is because it wasn't really part of peasant life.  To understand when peasant revolts became a thing, look at Ferdinand Braudel: The Structures of Everyday Life: Civilization and Capitalism, 15th-18th Centuries.[/I] If you don't want to wade through medieval history to understand how it worked and just want the history of peasant revolts see Yvers-Marie Berce (sorry most of the great medievalists are French - products of the University of Paris) History of Peasant Revolts: The Social Origins of Rebellion in the Early Modern World.  If you really want to understand the stability of medieval society you need to familiarize yourself with what historians call The Longue Duree.  I can't point you to single seminal book here, but you could start with the ongoing work for the UN on World Systems Analysis. If you are a Marxist and believe that history is driven by class conflict, you might note that Friedrich Engles specifically used the class stability of the middle ages as a contrast to modern society. That is a pretty good stack of peer-reviewed academic monographs of the highest caliber for you to peruse.   Of course, you could grab almost any volume of Speculum: The Journal of the Medieval Academy of America, and you will see arguments about the stability of the feudal order, the realities of peasant life, medieval life expectancy, tooth health, and class conflict - however, I'm not going to do any more research for you - and I can't teach you to read or change your beliefs.

So yeah, I can get kinda pedantic.  Sorry.  You can yell and scream all you want.  It doesn't give you an argument and kinda makes you look like an idiot - which is something that could have been avoided by simply by saying "hmm... that's interesting.  Maybe I overstated my case."

Nope didn't say that, though I'm beginning to think you might be retarded, so never mind.

Quote from: Madprofessor;903767Hmm... I had no intention of pissing you off.

Fucking Christ. You didn't, I am laughing at you little dnd'ers falling all over yourselves. basically even you agreed. now you are talking where? I don't care, the statement stands, and the logic behind it, as well as the wiki as proof, which is all you are worth. why would you think otherwise? I will say, it appears you are emotionally invested in your little fairytale bullshit. c'est.

lol Cute little pictures and bolded names do not mean anything, maybe if you expanded your knowledge base ... which is improbable, yes, you might learn something. I still think you guys are idiots, but so what?

Quote from: Madprofessor;903767Medieval peasant society was not "bucolic" and daffodils, I never said it was.

NOBODY did.  This has degenerated into a bunch of people standing around watching Dragoner shit himself repeatedly in public.

Dragoner, when his mouth flatulates.

People are always turning history into a pissing contest around here.

Quote from: Madprofessor;903767...Ferdinand Braudel: The Structures of Everyday Life: Civilization and Capitalism, 15th-18th Centuries.

That is a wonderful book, but boy can it be a slog to work through the entire thing.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;903774NOBODY did.  This has degenerated into a bunch of people standing around watching Dragoner shit himself repeatedly in public.

Dragoner, when his mouth flatulates.

Gronan, when he screeches "Get off my lawn!" instead of writing that book he has been saying he will write for three years now but never has. Then he tops it off with an overused Star Trek meme to show that he is still hip and relevant instead of just being an old geezer.