So one-horned nepotism good, two-horned benevolence baaaad.

Quote from: jhkimSomehow, I didn't take this constitutes a real-world argument for rule by magical animal selection of a sovereign and take offense.

:lol:

That reminds me oh so much of the classic....

"Listen. Strange women lyin’ in ponds distributing 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, member of the anarcho-syndicalist commune

Quote from: jhkimSomehow, I didn't take this constitutes a real-world argument for rule by magical animal selection of a sovereign and take offense.

I think this about sums it up:

Quote from: DennisListen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing 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.

EDIT: Dammit, Blakkie beat me to it!!!!

Dennis: You can't expect to wield supreme power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
Arthur: Shut up!
Dennis: I mean, if I went 'round saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!

I may be trying to mind-read here, but I think the rub is that utopian fiction, with its ideal societies, is usually assumed to represent the real world political desires of the authors. Thus, if a fictional ideal society has an autoritarian structure, then the authors of that fiction, and those who admire that fiction, actually desire an authoritarian structure for the real society in which they live. This argument has been made against the fantasies of Middle Earth, "Star Trek"'s Federation, "Star Wars"' Republic, etc. Because the fictional worlds have elitist tropes like hereditary rulers, divine guidance, social conditioning, etc. this implies that the creators and fans of those settings are more likely to favor such elitist tropes in the real world.

It has also been charged by some critics that these fictions, because of their implied utopian/ divinely inspired heroes and heroic societies, are actually a subtle (or blatant) form of propaganda. For example, some critics have charged that "Star Trek" is squishy soft liberalism, a 'friendly fascist' wet dream, promulgated by liberals to indoctrinate fans to further a liberal social agenda.

Of course, my group laughed at "Blue Rose" because they thought it looked queer.

Arthur: Shut up! Will you shut up?! [Grabs Dennis and shakes him]
Dennis: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system!
Arthur: Shut up!
Dennis: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! HELP, HELP, I'M BEING REPRESSED!
Arthur: BLOODY PEASANT!!
Dennis: Oh, what a giveaway. Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about! Did you see him repressing me? You saw it, didn't you?

You know, I once gave the book to a group of female gamers at the gaming pub. Every single one of them rejected the setting, and couldn't even bring themselves to read the rules (even when I told them they were very good).

Quote from: Leo KnightThus, if a fictional ideal society has an autoritarian structure, then the authors of that fiction, and those who admire that fiction, actually desire an authoritarian structure for the real society in which they live. This argument has been made against the fantasies of Middle Earth, "Star Trek"'s Federation, "Star Wars"' Republic, etc. Because the fictional worlds have elitist tropes like hereditary rulers, divine guidance, social conditioning, etc. this implies that the creators and fans of those settings are more likely to favor such elitist tropes in the real world.

Actually it's been levelled at other fictional worlds, too. The Draka of S.M. Stirling's books are so efficient, and the books go to such lengths to illustrate how well treated the serfs really are and how if it weren't for the Draka they'd be living in mud huts and eating rats that you really have to wonder if the author - consciously or not - started to buy into the rationale behind the Draka's supremacy.

Quote from: JongWKYou know, I once gave the book to a group of female gamers at the gaming pub. Every single one of them rejected the setting, and couldn't even bring themselves to read the rules (even when I told them they were very good).

Back to the drawingboard for pickup lines then, huh? :hehe:

EDIT: I doubt I'd get into the setting myself. I find any world or organization written up as something utopian as more than a little creepy. Leo's list is a good start. Toilken Elfs just flatout give me the willies. Although I'll say to Star Trek's credit ST:NG, for example, had at least a few episodes focusing on political rot at the core of Federation.  But then this is just me, there are people out there that eat up that utopian fiction. Of both genders.

Quote from: blakkieBack to the drawingboard for pickup lines then, huh? :hehe:

"Hey, Babe, wanna go back to my place and play some "Blue Rose"? Romantic fantasy?" Wink, wink, nudge, nudge. "You look like this girl in the artwork here. How do you feel about wearing chainmail and a cloak? With suede thigh high boots?" SLAP!

I once knew a girl with a chainmail bikini [EDIT:bikin top that was, brown suede leather skirt and kneehighs]. No cloth underpadding. She looked good in it.

Quote from: Leo KnightI may be trying to mind-read here, but I think the rub is that utopian fiction, with its ideal societies, is usually assumed to represent the real world political desires of the authors. Thus, if a fictional ideal society has an autoritarian structure, then the authors of that fiction, and those who admire that fiction, actually desire an authoritarian structure for the real society in which they live.

As RPGPundit has pointed out in his blog, there is a very good reason to think that this is the case here:  http://www.xanga.com/RPGpundit/545826431/item.html (which contains a link to John Snead's blog).

Quote from: blakkieBack to the drawing board for pickup lines then, huh? :hehe:

Jokes aside, two of them looked to me like a perfect match for BR, at least on paper--hell, they even read romantic fantasy. And still, they despised it.

Quote from: RPGPunditYes, but its generally pretty fucking rare to suggest that these Kingdoms are the only possible Good that can exist and that anyone who believes in liberal democracy is objectively Evil.

I mean, your comparison isn't apt.  It would be apt if, say, some overzealous SCA member or reaaaallly old-school Catholic wrote a game setting where he tried to argue that rule by the Divine Right of Kings and a Feudalist system of government was the literal and objective definition of "goodness" and that to even object to this system (say, by an uppity serf who didn't know that he was being governed by wise christian rulers appointed by Jesus) was objectively Evil.

RPGPundit

Such as, say, Norman Arminger of Dies the Fire?

Quote from: JongWKJokes aside, two of them looked to me like a perfect match for BR, at least on paper--hell, they even read romantic fantasy. And still, they despised it.

For what it's worth, my group is majority female (5 out of 7), and we just about all liked Tamora Pierce (generally regarded as a romantic fantasy author).  However, when it came to selecting campaigns, Blue Rose still didn't generate any interest.  The closest was some interest in using the Blue Rose rules for a game set in Pierce's Tortall universe -- but that still lost out to other preferences.  

However, that doesn't mean that whatever negative bullshit anyone says about the game is true.  I don't think it's all that great a setting, but the shit being set about it is just ridiculous.

Quote from: jhkimHuh?  Do you have any idea what you're talking about?  As I've mentioned last time,

The Golden Hart is the divine or semi-divine force which by tradition chooses the sovereign in the kingdom of Aldis. Its direct intervention is almost exclusively in choosing and crowning the new ruler.  It has  appeared at three other times in the history of Aldis. It aided the original rebellion which formed Aldis by conferring immunity to sorcery to all those within sight of it. It has also appeared twice in the 300 years since to depose a ruler of Aldis. It does nothing to enforce the sovereign's rule, however.  

Yup, everything you wrote there is pretty well correct. However, it does nothing to address the real point, that the issues with the Magic Deer are just symptomatic with the deeper issues of a game where they have classified collectivism as objectively good, and liberalism/libertarianism as objectively evil; the deer is just a cherry on top of a Deus Ex Machina that MAKES SURE no uppity players could EVER possibly change the situation.

QuoteThe Blue Rose setting descriptive text does have flowery language about how good the Hart's choices of people is and so forth.  Somehow, I didn't think this constitutes a real-world argument for rule by magical animal selection of a sovereign and take offense.

No, its just a real world argument for rule by a special elite of social workers and sanctimonious politically correct beaurocrats. The deer is a metaphor for Orwell's "boot stepping on a human face, forever".

RPGPundit