Quote from: NazgulMaybe the Imperium will show up and Virus Bomb Aldis and save us all the trouble.

Thread over.
   
"Brother-Captain, the xenos have sent forth a quadruped!  We have incoming!"

"Ravenwing to intercept!  Devastators concentrate fire on their centre!  Assault teams, prepare your cleansing flame!  Sing the malediction!  For the Emperor!"

(Explosions and shit.  Someone is playing a lute.)

Quote from: jhkimWell, what's the point of that hypothetical?  My point was a comparison to the politics of Aldis in Blue Rose.

OK, suppose a bad king comes to the throne of Aldis. Let's say he has enough support that toppling him is a non-trivial matter. The PCs are in a position to take a leading role in the rebellion. Their choice is:

1: Fight. Drag Aldis into a civil war. Cause lots of death, potentially far more than the evil king ever would have if an uneasy peace had been maintained. Wreck the kingdom and make it ripe for takeover by the outside powers.

2: Wait it out. In a few dozen years the Golden Hart will return and pick a new True King, at which point the old king's support will crumble. (Nobody, not even the worst kind of villain, would adopt a "Fuck the Hart" policy if they came to power in Aldis. It's got too much cultural momentum behind it). Conserve their resources, protect the people from the king's excesses, but otherwise wait it out and don't do anything too dramatic which might lead to kingdom-wrecking incidents like #1. Let's face it, as bad as the evil king is, he's still going to have to defend Aldis from the outside regimes - unless he's a client of one, in which case this ain't an option at all.

The thing is, for me at least option #2 is boring. It's passive inaction, waiting patiently for someone else to fix the problem. Sure, the PCs could still do fun stuff like jailbreaks and Robin Hood banditry and whatnot, but the Big Push is going to come at someone else's behest. At the same time, the unavoidable negative consequences of option 1 are so great that, unless there are overridingly good reasons why waiting isn't viable, option 2 is the only real choice. As such, the presence of a Deer as a safety valve, even in the absolute worst case scenario, is going to encourage passivity.

On an additional level: the designers of Blue Rose have said that they intentionally designed Aldis's culture so that it would vaguely resemble 21st Century values which readers of romantic fantasy are a) used to seeing espoused in their reading anyhow and b) able to get behind as a cause worth fighting for.

The culture of Aldis includes what is effectively the Divine Right of Kings.

If you think that isn't a big deal, read up about the English Civil War sometime.

Quote from: WarthurOK, suppose a bad king comes to the throne of Aldis. Let's say he has enough support that toppling him is a non-trivial matter. The PCs are in a position to take a leading role in the rebellion.

Look, you're stretching ridiculously.  Yes, if you decide to center your whole campaign around the succession of kingship in Aldis, then the Golden Hart would be relevant and there would be some plotlines from other political systems which wouldn't work -- though there would be plenty of other possibilities for adventure.  

By the same token, D&D throws a monkey wrench in certain classic plotlines like having the high priest of a church slide unintentionally into corruption and evil -- since as soon as his alignment changes, the god will take away his powers.  

Quick question: How many of your last five campaigns centered on the PCs leading a rebellion to topple the sovereign of their own country?  Is it so much of a stretch to think that maybe you could think of adventures that aren't centered on this?

Quote from: jhkimLook, you're stretching ridiculously.  Yes, if you decide to center your whole campaign around the succession of kingship in Aldis, then the Golden Hart would be relevant and there would be some plotlines from other political systems which wouldn't work -- though there would be plenty of other possibilities for adventure.

The kingship of Aldis is fundamental to its political system, and the political system of a country is going to have massive effects on every aspect of life. You can't gloss over it. Either you never make it an issue - in which case you presumably have a good King which the Hart would approve of in charge all the time, which is going to shape people's view of the nation - or you make it an issue, in which case the Hart makes it more difficult.

QuoteBy the same token, D&D throws a monkey wrench in certain classic plotlines like having the high priest of a church slide unintentionally into corruption and evil -- since as soon as his alignment changes, the god will take away his powers.

And that is equally shitty and objectionable, and I don't support that for a second. Why do you assume that I am defending other games based on the failures I perceive in other games?

QuoteQuick question: How many of your last five campaigns centered on the PCs leading a rebellion to topple the sovereign of their own country?  Is it so much of a stretch to think that maybe you could think of adventures that aren't centered on this?

I notice how you keep ducking the issue of the fundamental incompatability between "let's give Aldis nice progressive values which 21st century readers of romantic fantasy can get behind" and "let's have Aldis believe in the Divine Right of Kings".

Every inch of the Blue Rose concept - the descriptions in the rulebook, the way the game world is set up, the horrible nations threatening Aldis - say to me, show to me, scream to me that the "core story" of a Blue Rose game is having a bunch of folk find a threat to the enduring progressive values of Aldis, and have to defend their heartfelt beliefs and tolerant society from the forces that would corrupt or destroy it. While I can think of plenty of internal threats that don't stem from there being an evil king, what's the point of taking the "evil King" option away from me in the default setting?

Quote from: WarthurThe kingship of Aldis is fundamental to its political system, and the political system of a country is going to have massive effects on every aspect of life. You can't gloss over it. Either you never make it an issue - in which case you presumably have a good King which the Hart would approve of in charge all the time, which is going to shape people's view of the nation - or you make it an issue, in which case the Hart makes it more difficult.

Yes, it is indead fundamental. The setting is based around the idea of romantic fantasy, and that means a quasi-medieval society with modern, "progressive" values. It also means Kings and Queens and Princes and Princesses and Knights and Nobles. The only way a medieval state with "progressive" values is going to survive is if those values are fundamental to the population, and especially to the political leadership. As Aristotole pointed out, while one can argue that a benevelont autocracy (which he calls monarchy) is the best system, it is also the most unstable system since it is so easy to slip into tyranny. In order to prevent this, in order to make the setting possible at all, and remember, the fundamental goal of the setting in the first place is to emulate romantic fantasy, you have to do something to ensure that your benevolent monarchy remains benevolent and doesn't turn to tyranny. The option Green Ronin chose was the Hart. Nobody's glossing over it. Without the Hart choosing good rulers, Aldis is impossible, and a romantic fantasy game is impossible.

QuoteI notice how you keep ducking the issue of the fundamental incompatability between "let's give Aldis nice progressive values which 21st century readers of romantic fantasy can get behind" and "let's have Aldis believe in the Divine Right of Kings".

There is no fundamental incompatability. The god's of Aldis support "progressive values which 21st century readers of romantic fantasy can get behind", the Hart is proof of that. We aren't talking about 21st century earth here, it's a fantasy setting where the gods are real, active, and have agendas that include "progressive values which 21st century readers of romantic fantasy can get behind".

QuoteEvery inch of the Blue Rose concept - the descriptions in the rulebook, the way the game world is set up, the horrible nations threatening Aldis - say to me, show to me, scream to me that the "core story" of a Blue Rose game is having a bunch of folk find a threat to the enduring progressive values of Aldis, and have to defend their heartfelt beliefs and tolerant society from the forces that would corrupt or destroy it. While I can think of plenty of internal threats that don't stem from there being an evil king, what's the point of taking the "evil King" option away from me in the default setting?

Firstly, since the game is aimed at fans of romantic fantasy, the idea that those fans as players would like to play games wherein act out the parts of characters like those in their favorite books, and defend values that they agree with, seems completely reasonable. Not setting things up that way would make things difficult for the very audience Green Ronin was targetting.

Secondly, this,

Quotewhat's the point of taking the "evil King" option away from me in the default setting?

is patently ridiculous. You sound just like the people who complain about Forgotten Realms because it's impossible to accomplish anything significant since Elminster etal. will deal with any major problem. My answer to them is the same as my answer to you: If you are GMing a game in the setting, and you don't like some piece of setting canon, fucking change it. Don't like the Hart? It never existed. Think progressive values make more sense in a democracy (even if a democracy doesn't make much sense in a large medieval state)? Aldis is a democracy. Done.

Hell, if you want to run a canon Aldis game, and have an "evil King" option, have him resist being deposed.

"You think you can get rid of me that easily, you fucking deer? I've got my ducal army, more sorceres than you can imagine, and 40,000 mercenaries bought and paid for with by the Aldean treasury. By the time this is over, everyone here will either be dead or on their knees before me, and your antlered  head will be on the wall of my throne room."

Enjoy your civil war.

Quote from: apparition13Yes, it is indead fundamental. The setting is based around the idea of romantic fantasy, and that means a quasi-medieval society with modern, "progressive" values. It also means Kings and Queens and Princes and Princesses and Knights and Nobles. The only way a medieval state with "progressive" values is going to survive is if those values are fundamental to the population, and especially to the political leadership. As Aristotole pointed out, while one can argue that a benevelont autocracy (which he calls monarchy) is the best system, it is also the most unstable system since it is so easy to slip into tyranny. In order to prevent this, in order to make the setting possible at all, and remember, the fundamental goal of the setting in the first place is to emulate romantic fantasy, you have to do something to ensure that your benevolent monarchy remains benevolent and doesn't turn to tyranny. The option Green Ronin chose was the Hart. Nobody's glossing over it. Without the Hart choosing good rulers, Aldis is impossible, and a romantic fantasy game is impossible.

Why not just have heroes like the player characters defending the values of Aldis and occasionally overthrowing bad rulers? Why take out a perfect and blindingly obvious basis for a campaign by adding the Hart?

QuoteThere is no fundamental incompatability. The god's of Aldis support "progressive values which 21st century readers of romantic fantasy can get behind", the Hart is proof of that. We aren't talking about 21st century earth here, it's a fantasy setting where the gods are real, active, and have agendas that include "progressive values which 21st century readers of romantic fantasy can get behind".

Self-determination for humanity? Secularism? Separation of church and state? These don't sound progressive and liberal to you?

QuoteYou sound just like the people who complain about Forgotten Realms because it's impossible to accomplish anything significant since Elminster etal. will deal with any major problem. My answer to them is the same as my answer to you: If you are GMing a game in the setting, and you don't like some piece of setting canon, fucking change it. Don't like the Hart? It never existed. Think progressive values make more sense in a democracy (even if a democracy doesn't make much sense in a large medieval state)? Aldis is a democracy. Done.

Aaaaand here comes the cop-out argument.

Of course I can change the setting. It's easier than changing a system, even. I do it all the time.

That I can remove Elminster from the Forgotten Realms setting doesn't mean that the DEFAULT Forgotten Realms setting isn't ruined by his inclusion. That I can remove the Hart from Aldis doesn't mean that the DEFAULT Blue Rose setting isn't weakened by the presence of the Hart. I am talking about the game-as-published, not the game-as-I-would-run-it.

QuoteHell, if you want to run a canon Aldis game, and have an "evil King" option, have him resist being deposed.

"You think you can get rid of me that easily, you fucking deer? I've got my ducal army, more sorceres than you can imagine, and 40,000 mercenaries bought and paid for with by the Aldean treasury. By the time this is over, everyone here will either be dead or on their knees before me, and your antlered  head will be on the wall of my throne room."

Enjoy your civil war.

The Magic Deer is cited as having single-handedly turned the tide of a horrible Aldis-engulfing war from "utter defeat" to "victory for Aldis!" With all the good characters getting behind the Deer's candidates, and the self-preservation minded evil characters thinking twice about their choice of candidate (remember, "evil" in Blue Rose is defined as "selfish and self-serving"), that evil king is going to lose support in spades.

Quote from: WarthurI notice how you keep ducking the issue of the fundamental incompatability between "let's give Aldis nice progressive values which 21st century readers of romantic fantasy can get behind" and "let's have Aldis believe in the Divine Right of Kings".

That's because there isn't any issue there as far as the game goes.  As a reader of romantic fantasy, I can get behind the Aldean system -- just as I can get behind supporting Aragorn's kingship in Lord of the Rings.  Now, you've claimed some statements about what the author(s) of Blue Rose have said, and maybe they said something disagreeable.  I don't particularly care -- it's irrelevant to my games of Blue Rose.  

Now, if rule by semi-divine animal appointment was some sort of hot-button issue in the real world, then maybe I would feel differently.  However, to me at least, it's pretty clear that's it is pure fantasy.  I have zero concern that this will, say, teach a dangerous moral lesson to me or other players.  

Quote from: WarthurEvery inch of the Blue Rose concept - the descriptions in the rulebook, the way the game world is set up, the horrible nations threatening Aldis - say to me, show to me, scream to me that the "core story" of a Blue Rose game is having a bunch of folk find a threat to the enduring progressive values of Aldis, and have to defend their heartfelt beliefs and tolerant society from the forces that would corrupt or destroy it. While I can think of plenty of internal threats that don't stem from there being an evil king, what's the point of taking the "evil King" option away from me in the default setting?

By your logic, every game's home country should have an evil king, because doing otherwise means that they're taking away the "evil King" option for adventure.  I think that's ridiculous.  There are infinite ways for there to be threats to Aldis other than having an evil king.  There are the hordes of undead and other monsters next door, evil sorcerers, crime syndicates, corrupted nobles, ancient evil relics, and so forth.  

Further, all of the romantic fantasy novels that I can think of have had a good king -- so I think it's a feature of the genre.  

In general, I think it's rather telling that the people complaining here say things like "Well, I don't like romantic fantasy, but here's what I think is wrong with the setting."  Would you find it sensible if someone stated they didn't like horror, then complained about a horror game setting by saying things like "It's too dark" or such?

By the Magic Deer!!!

For post after post you guys go on and on about the fucking Deer!.

I've said it before: The Deer isn't the Problem. It's a symptom, and it's shorthand for everything else, but it is NOT THE FUCKING ROOT of the problems with the Blue Rose setting.

It IS amusing how the writers of Blue Rose had to jump through hoops to make their political system work around the stupid fucking thing and still allow court intruiges et cetera.  I'm reasonably certain that not every single fucking Romantic Fantasy book they included in their list of 'sources' include meddlesome game animals in appointing kings.  It was stupid, heavy handed, and could have been left out just as easily as not, and it might have made some of their other ideas easier to write.

Do you want a laundry lists of ills OTHER than the fucking Hart?

Quote from: SpikeDo you want a laundry lists of ills OTHER than the fucking Hart?

It would sure make this thread less boring.

Quote from: jhkimBy your logic, every game's home country should have an evil king, because doing otherwise means that they're taking away the "evil King" option for adventure.

Except not. Most games where there's a monarchy, you can put in an evil King fairly trivially if there isn't one by default. Aldis has the Hart making this much more difficult - if you want an evil King you need to re-engineer the entire basis of their society.

As Spike pointed out, there's a wealth of romantic fantasy novels which have had good kings without falling back on the Hart. Make the king of Aldis good by default because it's a feature of the genre, by all means. But let's not pretend that there's no scope in the romantic fantasy genre for bad kings, and let's not jump through metaphysical hoops to add features to the setting which make no sense to people who aren't familiar with romantic fantasy, and are transcendentally unnecessary to people who enjoy romantic fantasy.

Quote from: WarthurWhy not just have heroes like the player characters defending the values of Aldis and occasionally overthrowing bad rulers? Why take out a perfect and blindingly obvious basis for a campaign by adding the Hart?

Because it's one of the conventions of romantic fantasy?

QuoteSelf-determination for humanity? Secularism? Separation of church and state? These don't sound progressive and liberal to you?

Secularism and the separation of church and state makes significantly less sense when the gods are real. Fortunately for Aldis, their gods have progressive values, so it's all good.

QuoteAaaaand here comes the cop-out argument.

Of course I can change the setting. It's easier than changing a system, even. I do it all the time.

That I can remove Elminster from the Forgotten Realms setting doesn't mean that the DEFAULT Forgotten Realms setting isn't ruined by his inclusion. That I can remove the Hart from Aldis doesn't mean that the DEFAULT Blue Rose setting isn't weakened by the presence of the Hart. I am talking about the game-as-published, not the game-as-I-would-run-it.

Cop-out argument #2 (you've heard this one before): other people have played canon FR and Blue Rose games without this being an issue, so it's obviously not a problem intrinsic to the settings, and must all be in your head.

Cop-out argument #3 (you've heard this one before): You think a setting is ruined by the inclusion of some element =/= the setting is ruined by the inclusion of some element, it just means the setting is ruined for you, at least until you change it. I hate jazz (and I do) =/= jazz is awful music, it means jazz is awful for me.  For an RPG example, I hate the setting for Dogs in the Vineyard =/= the setting is stupid, it just means it isn't for me. (Transport the basic premise of the game to "witch-hunters in the empire" or "inquisitors in the imperium" and it sounds pretty interesting.)


Argument 4: we're talking about an RPG setting here. "The game-as-published" serves as inspriration for "the game-as-I-would-run-it"; it's the latter that's important. It's not until the dice hit the mat that a setting comes alive. Before that it's like a script, maybe good to read, maybe not, but you don't know what you have until actors and directors and production crews do their thing with it. Romeo and Juliette's double suicide can make no sense, or perfect sense, depending on the production.

QuoteThe Magic Deer is cited as having single-handedly turned the tide of a horrible Aldis-engulfing war from "utter defeat" to "victory for Aldis!" With all the good characters getting behind the Deer's candidates, and the self-preservation minded evil characters thinking twice about their choice of candidate (remember, "evil" in Blue Rose is defined as "selfish and self-serving"), that evil king is going to lose support in spades.

1. The hart turned the tide of the revolt because it, and those near it, became immune to sorcery. It didn't make anyone immune to weapons, darkfiends or undead. If the sorcerer kings had relied more on their physical assets and less on their magic on the battlefield (their sorcery would have still been potent anywhere the Hart was not), they may well have survived. Kern did.

2. The Golden Hart played a role in deposing a couple of the Aldean kings who went bad or mad. Given that our supposed rebel king knows this has happened before, plans will take this eventuallity into account.

3. The question of "what is the golden hart" is an unanswered one, it's one that each GM will have to answer for themselves. We know the Hart is invulnerable to sorcery, but nothing has been said about weapons.

So...

The King has a son, who he believes to be noble and just (setting rats on fire? just a pecadilo), and whom he believes will succeed him. Unfortunately, when the son comes of age to take rulership of the King's duchy, he fails the test of the sceptre. This is, of course, impossible, since he is such a good boy; it must be the sceptre that is evil. If that is so, then the Hart cannot be what it is thought to be either. Knowing what has happened to some of his predecessors, the King decides that in order to ensure his succession the way he wishes it to go, the Hart must die. He looks into the matter, finds the truth, and discovers a way. Fast forward...

The King's son is the Duke in all but name, Rezean mercenaries, brought in ostensibly to help in an invasion of Kern to drive out the last of the sorcerer kings, are everywhere, and the King is acting unlike a King of Aldea should. Rumors are flying, and in a public meeting he says something about the sceptre being a tool of evil and tries to break it. The Hart must come any day now, and it does. The PCs are in the group that enters the throne room to arrest the King, but it seems the King has been waiting for them. Mercenaries and guardsmen attack the PCs and their allies, and while they are engaged in combat the Hart is lassoed and brought to ground. The King advances on it, grabs it by the antlers, whispers something and then, using the sceptre as a mace, crushes it's skull. There is an explosion of light, and when the light fades the Hart is dead (or alternatively, in place of the Hart is the body of someone dressed in the robes of a priest of light, I'm not sure which I prefer at this point), the sceptre has turned black, and the King stands triumphant. As the PCs try to regroup a little later, the Rhy cat amongst them (or an NPC, if necessary), says it heard the King say something about "the fellowship of the Hart" and "the temple of the rose" before he struck down the Hart (or they recognize the robes worn by the dead priest as those of a certain monastary, and it is there that they find the above mentioned clues). As Aldis decends into civil war as the dukes take sides, as Jarzon mobilizes for a crusade to cleanse the evil from their neighbor, as Kern capers with glee in his citadel, now that the only thing holding his magic back has been destroyed, as the King and his mercenaries sets about crushing the resistance, a company of heroes parts ways; some staying behind to divert attention while a small band makes it's way to a remote area, following the footsteps of "the fellowship of the Hart", searching for "the temple of the rose", knowing if they fail, no one will know, but hoping that should they succeed in discovering the secret their predecessors did they may be able to usher in a restoration.

I'm fairly certain nothing in that contradicts Blue Rose canon. (I also think killing the Hart with the Sceptre is completely obvious, once you point it out.) So there's your scenario; the evil King, the Hart out of the way, everything depending on the PCs, and everything within canon.

Does that work for you?

Quote from: RPGPunditNot to mention that if you think there hasnt been a protest about Brettonia's current incarnation, you haven't been looking hard enough.  Go read the Brettonia entry in the original 1st ed WFRP.  Then Go read 2nd Ed. Brettonia. They're two completely different countries!!

And let me tell you, 1st ed Brettonia is about 2000 times cooler. WFRP fans were EXTREMELY pissed about the whole "Lady of the Lake/Knights of the Grail" bullshit, its just that the whole fight over this happened BEFORE 2e came out, because it was actually WF Battles that changed the whole Brettonia thing (so they could sell more little knight figures, I guess).

The original Brettonia is more like corrupt, dirty and decadent france on the verge of the Revolution, than a medieval ultracatholic Malloryesque France.

RPGPundit

I actually like this change. Talk about your cliches, "it's a France analogue so it must therefore be France just before the revolution" is about as cliched as a cliche can get. There's much more to french history than the revolution (or musketeers, for that matter), and the fact that GW turned to "France, the flower of chivalry" is something I find refreshing.

Quote from: SpikeBy the Magic Deer!!!

For post after post you guys go on and on about the fucking Deer!.

I've said it before: The Deer isn't the Problem. It's a symptom, and it's shorthand for everything else, but it is NOT THE FUCKING ROOT of the problems with the Blue Rose setting.

It IS amusing how the writers of Blue Rose had to jump through hoops to make their political system work around the stupid fucking thing and still allow court intruiges et cetera.  I'm reasonably certain that not every single fucking Romantic Fantasy book they included in their list of 'sources' include meddlesome game animals in appointing kings.  It was stupid, heavy handed, and could have been left out just as easily as not, and it might have made some of their other ideas easier to write.

Do you want a laundry lists of ills OTHER than the fucking Hart?

Sure, feel free, but since "magic deer" is in the title of this thread, how about a new thread to more generally bash on Blue Rose?

Quote from: jhkimIt is startling to me that people are so picky about the politics in a game world.

It's not so much that it's politics, per se, but that it's essentially an alignment system.  The Magic Deer defines what good is for the setting and if you disagree with it, you are wrong, just as the D&D alignment system defines what's good for the setting and if you disagree with it, you aren't good.  It's also why the Prime Directive is an issue in Star Trek and the people debate about the values of the Jedi and Force for Star Wars.

Quote from: jhkimIt just seems bizarre to me.  I mean, sure, in the real world I believe in democracy and individual freedom.  I'm a card-carrying ACLU member.  However, in a game I'm perfectly capable of playing a paladin where the rules of his order are handed down by the gods and he has no say in them.

Would you really enjoy playing in a setting based on the writings of Ayn Rand where her etics were enforced by the gods such that the objective Good of the setting was objectivism or "enlightened self interest" such that the Paladins of the setting were depicted as paragons of self-reliance and personal success as demanded by the gods of Good while aiding the poor and hungry was something that the Evil neighboring empire was depicted as doing?

Aldis' real crime is, you're not allowed to fail. Not in any substantial way, any real way. You are protected from yourself and the consequences of your actions. And by this you are denied any chance to grow, to better yourself.

Blue Rose treats you as an imbecile child, incapable of learning, incapable of growth. In the world of Blue Rose you count for nothing, for everything is beyond you. Blue Rose is the best example of deprotaganization in RPGs ever published.

All you can be is a pawn in the machinations of the gods.

That is not for me. I am not one to let another live my life for me. As a man once said...

No matter how strait the gate
How charged with peril the toll
I am the master of my fate
I am the captain of my soul.

Better to be king in Hell than a slave in Aldis.