TheRPGSite

Or in this case, "chick with grail". Seems like the same thing to me. Some supernatural protector of a country determines who may be King, yet there has been no hue and cry over if like there was over Blue Rose, and I wonder why.

[Disclaimer: I have no particular aversion to the magic deer in Blue Rose. There are other aspects of the setting I don't care for, such as why Jarzon is still so fundamentalist after all this time when Aldis is a buffer between them and Kern. You'd think with time and distance their memory of the threat would have faded. Now if they were the buffer state, the set-up would make a whole lot more sense to me.]

Cause WHFRP is NOT diabetes waiting to happen? Cause you don't get to be Noble by just knowing how to read? Cause Chaos Knights are an actual threat?

In the world of WHFRP, it's grim, gritty and brutishly short.(your life that is) Dangers about and no place is full of fluffy cutesy bunnies with angle wings.

I haven't seen the RPG stuff for Bretonnia, but I don't recall the Lady of the Lake doing anything besides being the object of of the Grail Quests in the TT version. (It's been a long time since I read it though).

I remember all outside influence being done by the Grail Maidens (the Bretonnian 'wizards').

Quote from: NazgulCause WHFRP is NOT diabetes waiting to happen? Cause you don't get to be Noble by just knowing how to read? Cause Chaos Knights are an actual threat?

In the world of WHFRP, it's grim, gritty and brutishly short.(your life that is) Dangers about and no place is full of fluffy cutesy bunnies with angle wings.

I haven't seen the RPG stuff for Bretonnia, but I don't recall the Lady of the Lake doing anything besides being the object of of the Grail Quests in the TT version. (It's been a long time since I read it though).

I remember all outside influence being done by the Grail Maidens (the Bretonnian 'wizards').

You have to be a Grail Knight to be King, and you only get to be a Grail Knight if the lady shows up and gives you a drink from the grail (your quest for the grail was successful), and she has her standards. Not just anyone gets to succeed.

(P.S. fluffy cutesy bunnies with angel wings = mutants.:D )

Plus the Lady is an elf who is using this shtick to manipulate and control the stupid humans.  They steal human children who show magic ability.  The girls come back as servants of the Lady.  Nobody knows what happens to the boys.  Still sound warm and fuzzy?

It's just not as key to the setting is it?  WFRP has one country with a magic deer, and a country that is not the main focus of the supplements.  Blue Rose has the country PCs are supposed to come from ruled by the magic deer.

It's just a much bigger element in BR.

Hell, I own WFRP2e and I was wholly unaware of this aspect.

Quote from: mhensleyPlus the Lady is an elf who is using this shtick to manipulate and control the stupid humans.  They steal human children who show magic ability.  The girls come back as servants of the Lady.  Nobody knows what happens to the boys.  Still sound warm and fuzzy?

1. That's a possible interpretation, but by no means a necessary one. The book is very clear about not making a definitive statement.

2. The original objection to the magic deer in Blue Rose was tangential to any "warm and fuzzy" impression one may have towards the setting. If it's the idea that some outside agency is making these decision for Aldis that's the problem, the same argument would apply to Bretonnia.

This is in the country where basically you have a 1% noble class with all the money, and then a 99% peasant class with zero money toiling in shit all day. Right?

-O

Quote from: obrynThis is in the country where basically you have a 1% noble class with all the money, and then a 99% peasant class with zero money toiling in shit all day. Right?

-O

If:

Supernatural entity that selects societies leadership (White Hart) + Shiny happy people setting (Blue Rose) = bad,

and,

Supernatural entity that selects societies leadership (The Lady) + grim, gritty and brutishly short lives setting (WFRP) = good,

then:

since "Supernatural entity that selects societies leadership" is constant in both cases, we can eliminate it from both formulations and are left with Blue Rose = bad, and WFRP = good.

So the question is: is there anything inhenrently objectionable about the idea of "Supernatural entity that selects societies leadership", or is it just the setting (namely Blue Rose) that is being objected to? If the former, why is the objection not being made towards Bretonnia as well?

Quote from: BalbinusIt's just not as key to the setting is it?  WFRP has one country with a magic deer, and a country that is not the main focus of the supplements.  Blue Rose has the country PCs are supposed to come from ruled by the magic deer.

It's just a much bigger element in BR.

Hell, I own WFRP2e and I was wholly unaware of this aspect.

I just got the Bretonnia supplement, and that's what triggered this. If you're setting your game in the Empire, it won't be much of an issue, but if you decide to play a Bretonnia game (and with Knights of the Grail you can), it might be an issue if the idea bothers you in the first place.

That was some awfully simplistic math, Apparation.  

IF you accept the constant of 'supernatural agency' as neither good nor bad, then the variable nature of the society that forms from it MUST be taken in consideration, not ignored outright.

It is the addition of 'supernatural agency' to 'shiny happy people' that makes Aldis offensive, thus Blue Rose Bad.

It is the Supernatural Agency + Shitastic lifestyles of the poor and downtrodden that makes Brettonia interesting, thus "good".

Never mind the fact that 'Magic Deer' was only one, minimal aspect of what made Blue Rose so terrible a setting.

Quote from: apparition13So the question is: is there anything inhenrently objectionable about the idea of "Supernatural entity that selects societies leadership", or is it just the setting (namely Blue Rose) that is being objected to? If the former, why is the objection not being made towards Bretonnia as well?

Um, I think you're using my quote to make an argument I'm not making.

I don't give a crap about Aldis.  I think Pundit's off his gourd, and I find his obsession with magic deer pretty sad.  I have a soft spot for romantic fantasy novels, and I think Blue Rose is pretty okay.  Not my style of gaming, mind you - but I definitely don't find it's existence somehow offensive.

-O

Cause everyone likes King Arthur?

The lady of the lake only grants the blessing to those who complete the grail quest. Questing for the grail is a major challenge.

After serving as a squire you become a Knights Errant. After doing that for a while you become a Questing Knight. IF you can manage to complete that Quest,(and it's not easy, many don't) Then you become a Grail Knight.

It takes years of training and 'proving yourself worthy' to become a Grail Knight.

You have to earn it.

Some watery tart does not throw a scimitar at you.... um, yea....

But seriously, a Grail Knight earns it. Not some deer just poking you in the head with it's antlers.

Also, the Lady doesn't choose the King(unless they changed something in the editions since I've read it), she just chooses all the Questing Knights who are worthy to become Grail Knights.

Quote from: apparition13So the question is: is there anything inhenrently objectionable about the idea of "Supernatural entity that selects societies leadership", or is it just the setting (namely Blue Rose) that is being objected to? If the former, why is the objection not being made towards Bretonnia as well?

It's the way the portrayal of the former's (the Magic Deer) effect on the latter (Aldis) which people object to in Blue Rose. Blue Rose more-or-less states outright that the Magic Deer is a Very Good Thing, and that part of the reason the setting has so many shiny happy people is because the Magic Deer is there. As far as I know, the Bretonnia supplement in WFRP doesn't say anything about whether the Lady's shenanigans are good or bad: it's just a thing that happens, and whether it's actually helped or hindered the lot of the common man in Bretonnia is debatable.

Personally, the type of utopia presented in Blue Rose is something which I struggle to get my head around. The idea of a fluffy, liberal, tolerant society with progressive and open-minded 21st century attitudes about race, gender, sexuality and whatnot arising from what is essentially the Divine Right of Kings is something I find bizarre.

Quote from: WarthurPersonally, the type of utopia presented in Blue Rose is something which I struggle to get my head around. The idea of a fluffy, liberal, tolerant society with progressive and open-minded 21st century attitudes about race, gender, sexuality and whatnot arising from what is essentially the Divine Right of Kings is something I find bizarre.

Yea, you'd think they'd have a democracy or republic, being so open and progressive and all.....

But then you couldn't be a pretty princess then, could you?

Quote from: SpikeIt is the addition of 'supernatural agency' to 'shiny happy people' that makes Aldis offensive, thus Blue Rose Bad.

It is the Supernatural Agency + Shitastic lifestyles of the poor and downtrodden that makes Brettonia interesting, thus "good".

I am skeptical that the supernatural agency has anything to do with the expressed dislike of the setting.  If Aldis had had the same tone and culture but different politics, would the same critics really have changed their mind?  My impression is that if it had instead been a political democracy, the same would blast it for being anachronistic / revisionist.  If it had been a hereditary monarchy, then the critics would be calling it a cliched, childish fairy tale.  

While Blue Rose had many faults, I think what the most vocal critics are really complaining about is the concept.  As RPGPundit puts it:

Quote from: RPGPunditThe Romantic Fantasy genre plays to the twisted world-views typically held by teenage girls, using literary and political concepts that only teenage girls or the mentally defective could possibly find satisfying.

YES, I did just say that anyone who actually finds the ideas in Romantic Fantasy readably pleasant or appealing or realistic is mentally defective; in the sense that if you are anything other than a 15 year old girl, you have clearly failed to develop reasoning, intellect, or life experience beyond the adolescent level of maturity.

I think everything else is all just fallout of some people's dislike of the perceived "girly" tone of the setting.

Jhkim:

My specific point was to address the wonky math used by Apparition, where he subtracted the 'Magic deer' from each setting, but handwaved away the actual setting to come to his 'conclusion'.


The presence, or lack, of a magic deer does not make a setting good or bad in and of itself.

Quote from: NazgulCause everyone likes King Arthur?

The lady of the lake only grants the blessing to those who complete the grail quest. Questing for the grail is a major challenge.

After serving as a squire you become a Knights Errant. After doing that for a while you become a Questing Knight. IF you can manage to complete that Quest,(and it's not easy, many don't) Then you become a Grail Knight.

It takes years of training and 'proving yourself worthy' to become a Grail Knight.

You have to earn it.

Some watery tart does not throw a scimitar at you.... um, yea....

Exactly. Arthur the squire pulls the sword from the stone; he didn't do anything to earn it. Yet no one objects to Arthur because he was chosen.

QuoteBut seriously, a Grail Knight earns it. Not some deer just poking you in the head with it's antlers.

Also, the Lady doesn't choose the King(unless they changed something in the editions since I've read it), she just chooses all the Questing Knights who are worthy to become Grail Knights.

She may not choose the King, but she hand selects all the candidates. It's effectively the same thing.

Quote from: WarthurIt's the way the portrayal of the former's (the Magic Deer) effect on the latter (Aldis) which people object to in Blue Rose. Blue Rose more-or-less states outright that the Magic Deer is a Very Good Thing, and that part of the reason the setting has so many shiny happy people is because the Magic Deer is there. As far as I know, the Bretonnia supplement in WFRP doesn't say anything about whether the Lady's shenanigans are good or bad: it's just a thing that happens, and whether it's actually helped or hindered the lot of the common man in Bretonnia is debatable.

Personally, the type of utopia presented in Blue Rose is something which I struggle to get my head around. The idea of a fluffy, liberal, tolerant society with progressive and open-minded 21st century attitudes about race, gender, sexuality and whatnot arising from what is essentially the Divine Right of Kings is something I find bizarre.

What I would find bizarre is the idea that an iron age agricultural society could be a "progressive utopia" without divine intervention.

Quote from: SpikeThat was some awfully simplistic math, Apparation.  

IF you accept the constant of 'supernatural agency' as neither good nor bad, then the variable nature of the society that forms from it MUST be taken in consideration, not ignored outright.

What I'm saying is that what's important is the "variable nature of the society" (the setting as a whole), and not the "supernatural agency". How you respond to the supernatural agency is entirely dependent on how you respond to the setting, and therefore the "supernatural agency" can be ignored outright. Aldis would be just as offensive without the magic deer.

This is pretty much what jhkim also said.

Now if you want some actual simplistic math:

Chaos = physical manifestation of "evil" = corruption,
Chaos wastes (north) = geographic reservoir of "evil" = Kern (north),
The Empire = Fundamentalist state obsessed with preventing corruption = Jarzon,
Bretonnia = comparatively peaceful, "ideal" monarchy with "magic deer" = Aldis (-sexism),
therefore,
WFRP = Blue Rose.

:D

Quote from: SpikeJhkim:

My specific point was to address the wonky math used by Apparition, where he subtracted the 'Magic deer' from each setting, but handwaved away the actual setting to come to his 'conclusion'.

If you subtract away the "magic deer", all you have left as the determining factor to reach your evaluation is the setting.

QuoteThe presence, or lack, of a magic deer does not make a setting good or bad in and of itself.

I agree, which is why I wonder why there was all this complaining about the "magic deer" in Blue Rose.

Quote from: apparition13I agree, which is why I wonder why there was all this complaining about the "magic deer" in Blue Rose.

Ah, but I suspect the use of the Magic Deer to insult Blue Rose was merely a shorthand for everything that was wrong.

And I find it hard to believe that you think a five line 'this=that' to be 'simple math. :D

Quote from: jhkimI am skeptical that the supernatural agency has anything to do with the expressed dislike of the setting.  If Aldis had had the same tone and culture but different politics, would the same critics really have changed their mind?  My impression is that if it had instead been a political democracy, the same would blast it for being anachronistic / revisionist.  If it had been a hereditary monarchy, then the critics would be calling it a cliched, childish fairy tale.

Personally, for my part I would be more interested in Blue Rose if the Magic Deer were taken out but the tone were left the same. Not much more - the romantic fantasy genre doesn't especially appeal to me - but at least it wouldn't hurt my suspension of disbelief as much as it does.

Any of two approaches would have worked for me:

- Making Aldis a classic hereditary monarchy with a Good and Wise King and emphasising the fairytale-like aspects of the romantic fantasy genre. The Zorcerer of Zo gets plenty of kudos after all...

- Making Aldis a democracy and coming up with a decent reason for that to be the case. The idea of democracy is far older than the Middle Ages and at the time various Italian city states flirted with it.

As it is, though, the Blue Rose designers seem to have decided that they want to have a king and queen and princes and princesses who are active in society, but at the same time want a progressive and vaguely egalitarian society, and at the same time want to come up with an in-setting rationale as to why this is the case rather than throwing their hands up in the air and saying "It's a cultural thing. This is how Aldis is. It's a fragile eggshell and that's why the PCs need to protect these values with their utmost." I am not sure all three of those goals could be achieved at once.

Y'know I get the same facepalm when I think of how the Queen of Naboo is democratically elected, and they selected a 14 year old for the job, even with two four year terms as the limit.

Dude. If you want a young queen, make her a god damn queen, if you want democratic values, make a fucking democratic state.  

Aldis: egalitarian monarchy by way of venison.

Buh?

Quote from: WarthurPersonally, for my part I would be more interested in Blue Rose if the Magic Deer were taken out but the tone were left the same. Not much more - the romantic fantasy genre doesn't especially appeal to me - but at least it wouldn't hurt my suspension of disbelief as much as it does.

Any of two approaches would have worked for me:

- Making Aldis a classic hereditary monarchy with a Good and Wise King and emphasising the fairytale-like aspects of the romantic fantasy genre. The Zorcerer of Zo gets plenty of kudos after all...

How does the Sorcerer of Zo do this?

Quote- Making Aldis a democracy and coming up with a decent reason for that to be the case. The idea of democracy is far older than the Middle Ages and at the time various Italian city states flirted with it.

There have been good and wise kings in history, sometimes even a series of them, but you inevitably have a loser and things go to hell. Divine intervention means you always start out with a good and wise king, though given the Hart had to depose a couple of them it doesn't mean you'll end up with one.

With the exception of the Roman Republic, which proved fragile and was replaced by the Empire, historic democracies have overwhelmingly been city-states (as was Rome prior to its expansion). It isn't until modern times, with market economies, oceanic trade and industrialization that large-scale democracies have become common.

QuoteAs it is, though, the Blue Rose designers seem to have decided that they want to have a king and queen and princes and princesses who are active in society, but at the same time want a progressive and vaguely egalitarian society, and at the same time want to come up with an in-setting rationale as to why this is the case rather than throwing their hands up in the air and saying "It's a cultural thing. This is how Aldis is. It's a fragile eggshell and that's why the PCs need to protect these values with their utmost." I am not sure all three of those goals could be achieved at once.

I think the "fragile eggshell" idea makes the setting more interesting from a gaming standpoint. "What do the PCs do?" is answered by setting, namely protect the "fragile eggshell" from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

(Re: Naboo. I'm with ya Spike, I didn't get that at all.)

EDIT:  Hot damn but I am a pissy drunk.

Not 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

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

Actually, Pundit has a point here, I had forgotten but there was a hell of a lot of complaint about the changes to Brettonia.

Quote from: apparition13How does the Sorcerer of Zo do this?

Off the top of my head, I'm not sure since I've not read it; I just used it as an example of an RPG which draws heavily on fairytales for children whilst at the same time getting plenty of props (from what I've seen online).

QuoteThere have been good and wise kings in history, sometimes even a series of them, but you inevitably have a loser and things go to hell. Divine intervention means you always start out with a good and wise king, though given the Hart had to depose a couple of them it doesn't mean you'll end up with one.

However, this also robs the player characters of a fascinating adventure opportunity. As I understand it, Blue Rose is set up such that player characters are going to be fighting to protect the progressive and enlightened values of Aldis from dark forces, whether these be foreign powers or enemies within. A bad king comes to the throne? Wonderful! That means the PCs get a chance to strut their stuff and battle to get a righteous leader onto the throne and save the values they hold dear. Except wait, oh shit, the Deer has just done that for them.

Part of the reason I object to the Deer is that it's doing something in the setting which, really, ought to be left up to player characters to succeed or fail at as they may.

QuoteWith the exception of the Roman Republic, which proved fragile and was replaced by the Empire, historic democracies have overwhelmingly been city-states (as was Rome prior to its expansion). It isn't until modern times, with market economies, oceanic trade and industrialization that large-scale democracies have become common.

Historically speaking, yes, but magic - and especially magical means of communication - could make a larger democracy viable in a fantasy setting.

Here's an idea: Vote Spheres. Magic spheres which get distributed to all the towns and villages come election day. You go in the voting booth, picture an image of the person you want to vote for in your head, the image appears in the Vote Sphere to note that your vote has been registered and then the sphere clouds up again, ready for the next person. The spheres are all attuned to a central sphere, which at the end of election day displays an image of the person who won the election.

Not exactly flavourful, my idea, but it's one way a viable democracy could be set up in a fantasy world.

QuoteI think the "fragile eggshell" idea makes the setting more interesting from a gaming standpoint. "What do the PCs do?" is answered by setting, namely protect the "fragile eggshell" from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Exactly! Like I said, the Magic Deer acting as protector of the values of the realm is filling a niche which PCs really should be able to fill themselves.

My objection to magic deer etc. is that it denies people an effective voice in how they are led. The magic deer selects the leader, and the people have to accept that choice. We are a social species, we need to communicate with others. We need to let people know how we're doing, where things are going good, and where things are going badly. We need to have a say in how things are done. Most of the time we'll go along with whatever our leaders want to do. But, it all goes better when we can have our say. We don't get our say, even when what we have to say can be only advisory, things don't go as well as they otherwise could. Magic deer mean we have no input on how things are done, not in any real sense. Better we make our own mistakes than live perfect lives with no way to infuence how our leaders act.

Quote from: mythusmageMy objection to magic deer etc. is that it denies people an effective voice in how they are led. The magic deer selects the leader, and the people have to accept that choice. We are a social species, we need to communicate with others. We need to let people know how we're doing, where things are going good, and where things are going badly. We need to have a say in how things are done. Most of the time we'll go along with whatever our leaders want to do. But, it all goes better when we can have our say. We don't get our say, even when what we have to say can be only advisory, things don't go as well as they otherwise could. Magic deer mean we have no input on how things are done, not in any real sense. Better we make our own mistakes than live perfect lives with no way to infuence how our leaders act.

It is startling to me that people are so picky about the politics in a game world.  

You really can't fight bad guys unless it's for a participatory democracy or equivalent where your character has his fair share of input in the governmental system?  

It 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.

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

You really can't fight bad guys unless it's for a participatory democracy or equivalent where your character has his fair share of input in the governmental system?  

It 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.

What if the gods reliably and predictably step in to resolve the situation if things get too bad though? Wouldn't it suddenly become less fun for a great many people to play paladins if the paladins had supernatural nannies making sure that the consequences of failure were never too bad?

Quote from: WarthurWhat if the gods reliably and predictably step in to resolve the situation if things get too bad though? Wouldn't it suddenly become less fun for a great many people to play paladins if the paladins had supernatural nannies making sure that the consequences of failure were never too bad?

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

Aldis doesn't have any sort of supernatural agency which resolves any situations, much less doing so reliably and predictably.  It has the Golden Hart -- but the Golden Hart only intervenes once every few dozen years, and only does a single thing -- mark a chosen person, whom the people by tradition recognize as sovereign.  By comparison, D&D gods invest hundreds of clerics, provide them with power, and constantly police all of them for alignment shift, which is far more interventionist.

Maybe the Imperium will show up and Virus Bomb Aldis and save us all the trouble.

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)) 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.

Regarding the Golden Hart not being the problem -- well, obviously I agree with that.  I think the complaints about the Golden Hart are silly.  If you (Spike or others) have other complaints about the setting, then they might make a refreshing change.  

Quote from: Warthur

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. I think that's ridiculous.

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.

So you're saying that the virtue of other settings is that you can more easily fix them by inserting an evil king.  However, that's not denying my point that you feel that evil kings are necessary for a good adventuring setting.  

I don't feel that is true.  I think there are tons of adventure possibilities without having an evil king.  Consequently, I don't think that it is problematic to include good kings.  

Quote from: WarthurMake 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.

Note that I didn't say that there is no room for bad kings anywhere in romantic fantasy -- I simply said that I don't consider it necessary for the king of the PCs country to be bad.  

Now it seems like you've backed off from saying that it causes problems for romantic fantasy adventures to saying that it's unnecessary. I think that sounds more reasonable.  I'd agree that it isn't necessary.  I don't have any particular attachment to it, and I personally think that if it were cut out of the setting, it would be no great loss.  

Quote from: John MorrowIt'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.

While Blue Rose does have an alignment system, the Golden Hart is not a part of it.  Its values are extremely abstract.  It reportedly chooses good sovereigns, but it has no philosophy or expressed values.  Its only clear actions were that it fought against the demonic Sorcerer Kings.  

For comparison, I ran several Star Trek campaigns, and there we certainly questioned the Prime Directive.  Heck, the Prime Directive was frequently broken in the show itself.  Just because it is a law or feature of the home country's culture doesn't mean that playing in that setting inherently espouses that value.  

As another parallel -- in Tamora Pierce's Tortall novels, there are ostensibly good gods who appear and meddle in the lives of mortals.  These gods are good, but their methods can certainly be questioned -- and indeed are by the characters.

Quote from: mythusmageAldis' 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.

WTF are you going on about?
Any character can fall to corruption, I don't see how that's not being allowed to fail or protected from the consequences of your actions.

QuoteBlue 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.

How are you treated as an imbecile child?

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

The only thing the Hart does now is choose the King. By doing so it ensures that you at least start with a good ruler, though that can and has changed. That's certainly no more deprotagonizing than "the eldest of the King inherits". The only thing the Hart did then, was help a rebellion that had already happened. After it's arrival, it still took twenty years to clear out the sorcerer kings, and they weren't able to complete the job, Kern survived. So the gods sent help to people already in rebellion, and in spite of that help it still took a generation and countless lives to throw off the sorcerer kings. Doesn't sound very pawn-like to me.

QuoteThat 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.

Easy to say, not so easy to do. Take it up with guy under my name.

I think we can safely invoke Sturgeon's Law now.

(EDITED FOR SPELLING)

G'night everybody!

Quote from: apparition13Argument 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.

And at this point we can't meaningfully discuss things anymore.

While I agree that it's the game that I personally experience which is, for me, the more important, I'm of the opinion that you can only meaningfully discuss the game-as-written online, simply because people can resort to the texts and so forth. I'm less interested in actual play threads, because they are always going to be filtered through the perceptions of the people posting, and there's no way to consult an objective record of what actually happened in the game.

So I am going to stop arguing with you. Because we're working from entirely different approaches.

Quote from: jhkimSo you're saying that the virtue of other settings is that you can more easily fix them by inserting an evil king.  However, that's not denying my point that you feel that evil kings are necessary for a good adventuring setting.

I don't feel that is true.  I think there are tons of adventure possibilities without having an evil king.  Consequently, I don't think that it is problematic to include good kings.

God fucking damn it.

I never said having good kings was a problem. Societal mechanisms which make it impossible to have a bad king - or at least make the most reasonable solution to a bad king "wait it out until the Deer sorts things out" - are the problem, especially when those mechanisms are so closely tied to the society's raison d'etre. (Aldis WOULD NOT EXIST without the intervention of the Hart, in the setting-as-written).

QuoteNote that I didn't say that there is no room for bad kings anywhere in romantic fantasy -- I simply said that I don't consider it necessary for the king of the PCs country to be bad.

Nor do I. But I consider it WILDLY UNNECESSARY to take the option away in the defualt setting.

QuoteNow it seems like you've backed off from saying that it causes problems for romantic fantasy adventures to saying that it's unnecessary. I think that sounds more reasonable.  I'd agree that it isn't necessary.  I don't have any particular attachment to it, and I personally think that if it were cut out of the setting, it would be no great loss.

It's unnecessary, and it's a restriction. Unnecessary restrictions chafe.

QuoteWhile Blue Rose does have an alignment system, the Golden Hart is not a part of it.  Its values are extremely abstract.  It reportedly chooses good sovereigns, but it has no philosophy or expressed values.  Its only clear actions were that it fought against the demonic Sorcerer Kings.

Ah, come on. The values of the Light are meant to be inherently good and coincide with the values of Aldis. The Golden Hart is the patron deity-in-all-but-name of Aldis, which founded the nation and gives its rulers legitimacy. The link between the Hart and the alignment system is implicit if not explicit.

QuoteFor comparison, I ran several Star Trek campaigns, and there we certainly questioned the Prime Directive.  Heck, the Prime Directive was frequently broken in the show itself.  Just because it is a law or feature of the home country's culture doesn't mean that playing in that setting inherently espouses that value.

If the majority of folk in a culture don't espouse a value, it can't really be said to be a feature of that culture.

Quote from: WarthurI never said having good kings was a problem. Societal mechanisms which make it impossible to have a bad king - or at least make the most reasonable solution to a bad king "wait it out until the Deer sorts things out" - are the problem, especially when those mechanisms are so closely tied to the society's raison d'etre. (Aldis WOULD NOT EXIST without the intervention of the Hart, in the setting-as-written).



Nor do I. But I consider it WILDLY UNNECESSARY to take the option away in the defualt setting.



It's unnecessary, and it's a restriction. Unnecessary restrictions chafe.

So address the little scenario I threw out in post 42. King goes bad (it's happend before in the setting), King knows the Hart has deposed Kings before, so makes preparations to prevent that. King finds means to defeat Hart (there is nothing in the Blue Rose canon that says this is impossible). There isn't anything in the Blue Rose canon that explicitly says what the Hart is, either. It could be an agent of the gods, it could be the collective unconcious of Aldis, it could be the product of a ritual, it could be an elaborate scheme by Kern to get rid of his rivals [this last is somewhat unlikely], it could be many things, many of which would be vulnerable in one way or another. (Heck, if it's the product of a ritual, maybe the people doing the ritual have gone bad.) If you are GMing, and you get the sense that your players would like to do a "King turns evil" scenario, and you want to avoid the spectre of the Hart trotting into town to save the day, keeping that from happening without violating canon shouldn't be that difficult. Personally I like the "wack it over the head with the sceptre" idea, it has a certain synchronicity to it. If the end result is the players saving the day and turning Aldis into some sort of republic, cool. If they fail, and the end result is Aldis getting ravaged by the rest of the world, you're no longer playing a Romantic Fantasy game, but if everyone is onboard with that, also cool.

Finally, looking over mythusmage's post again, I get the sense that neither of you likes what you percieve to be "unnecessary restrictions". How do you feel about Pendragon? It has a magic deer, it has a good king, and it has an ending that is going to happen, no matter what the players do. Seems a mite more restrictive than anything Blue Rose suggests, yet it gets no complaints. Why not? If magic deer selecting the good king is bad, why is the sword in the stone okay? If a setting where the king cannot go evil is bad, why is Camelot okay? If Blue Rose is bad because it limits the players, why is Pendragon okay?

Quote from: apparition13Or in this case, "chick with grail". Seems like the same thing to me. Some supernatural protector of a country determines who may be King, yet there has been no hue and cry over if like there was over Blue Rose, and I wonder why.

[Disclaimer: I have no particular aversion to the magic deer in Blue Rose. There are other aspects of the setting I don't care for, such as why Jarzon is still so fundamentalist after all this time when Aldis is a buffer between them and Kern. You'd think with time and distance their memory of the threat would have faded. Now if they were the buffer state, the set-up would make a whole lot more sense to me.]

I can only speak for myself when I say that I don't own, nor do I plan to own, WFRP. I also don't have plans to own or play Pendragon. So, when I bitch about the magic deer, it's because I do own BR and hate the magic deer. It sounds to me like I'd hate the similar aspects of those other games as well, probably never going to know for sure. I won't go into why I hate the deer here because I've expressed that before in other threads, along with what I'm doing to fix it IMC.

Quote from: WarthurI never said having good kings was a problem. Societal mechanisms which make it impossible to have a bad king - or at least make the most reasonable solution to a bad king "wait it out until the Deer sorts things out" - are the problem, especially when those mechanisms are so closely tied to the society's raison d'etre. (Aldis WOULD NOT EXIST without the intervention of the Hart, in the setting-as-written).

I can't see how the hypothetical matters.  Let me try to break this down, because I'm failing to see how this isn't a problem with good kings.  Let's consider two possibilities:

1) A country has had a succession of good kings, and the present king is good.  The successor is appointed by the present king.  

2) Another country has had a succession of good kings, and the present king is good -- and there is a mechanism to ensure that the king is good.  

Now, it seems to me that in practical terms for the game, there is no difference between these two cases unless a bad king comes to the throne.  Sure, in #1 there isn't a mechanism to reject a bad king, but that's irrelevant to the action of the game unless there is actually a bad king.  

My point, which you seem at times to agree with, is that there are tons of possibilities for adventure with a good king.  If this is true, then hypotheticals about "Well, what if there were a bad king instead" are irrelevant to normal play of the game.  

Quote from: WarthurAh, come on. The values of the Light are meant to be inherently good and coincide with the values of Aldis. The Golden Hart is the patron deity-in-all-but-name of Aldis, which founded the nation and gives its rulers legitimacy. The link between the Hart and the alignment system is implicit if not explicit.

Whether it is the patron deity or not, the point is what moral lessons can we learn from the Golden Hart?  Well, it helped fight the Sorcerer Kings.  And it's picked a bunch of people as sovereigns.  But it never talks; it has no expressed ideology, and there is nothing said about anything in common between its choices for sovereign.  If it is the patron deity, its religion is purely token.  

To take a contrasting example, let's consider the kingdom of Kanday in Harn.  Kanday's patron deity is Larani, Lady of Paladins.  She has an actual religion, which has a priesthood and tenets and so forth.  It is different than, say, the religion of Peoni, the peaceful Goddess of the Harvest even though both gods are considered good.

Nuke. Orbit. Be sure.

apparition13,

The restrictions in Blue Rose are restrictions on growth. You are to be protected from your own actions and the consequences thereof. Has nothing to do with going bad, it's about striving against adversity. Real adversity. Not some touchy-feely crap where you explore how you felt before mommy and daddy saved you from yourself.

It's stifling, it's paternalistic, and I say it sucks. The worst part is, it makes you dependent. It makes you a complaisant compliant little drudge following the rules because you haven't the initiative to look for another way. It is disempowerment and deprotaganization of the worst sort. In the name of the individual it degrades the individual, making each person nothing more than a cog in some great machine. It's pathological environmentalism applied to humanity.

I've known tyranny. I've seen the would-be tyrants of right and left spout off on their pet causes, on their desire to see everyone living the way the tyrants want them to. I've known tyranny, and the magic deer is probably the worst.

:what:

Dammit, I'm pretty sure I already said "G'night everybody!" What's this doing still on?

Quote from: apparition13Finally, looking over mythusmage's post again, I get the sense that neither of you likes what you percieve to be "unnecessary restrictions". How do you feel about Pendragon? It has a magic deer, it has a good king, and it has an ending that is going to happen, no matter what the players do. Seems a mite more restrictive than anything Blue Rose suggests, yet it gets no complaints. Why not? If magic deer selecting the good king is bad, why is the sword in the stone okay? If a setting where the king cannot go evil is bad, why is Camelot okay? If Blue Rose is bad because it limits the players, why is Pendragon okay?

Pendragon is about roleplaying as part of the Arthurian myth-cycle, which has a very defined beginning, middle and end (although in the Great Pendragon Campaign Stafford points out that GMs should expect events to go a little differently as a result of the PCs' actions). The restrictions in Pendragon are necessary in order to present the Arthurian myth-cycle as opposed to just some generic fantasy game.

Blue Rose is about roleplaying in the romantic fantasy genre. The Hart is a restriction added to the game to add the sort of explanation for the fantasy society most romantic fantasy authors don't find necessary.

See the difference?

Quote from: mythusmageapparition13,

The restrictions in Blue Rose are restrictions on growth. You are to be protected from your own actions and the consequences thereof. Has nothing to do with going bad, it's about striving against adversity. Real adversity. Not some touchy-feely crap where you explore how you felt before mommy and daddy saved you from yourself.

It's stifling, it's paternalistic, and I say it sucks. The worst part is, it makes you dependent. It makes you a complaisant compliant little drudge following the rules because you haven't the initiative to look for another way. It is disempowerment and deprotaganization of the worst sort. In the name of the individual it degrades the individual, making each person nothing more than a cog in some great machine. It's pathological environmentalism applied to humanity.

Okay, I'm still having a WTF reaction, but not nearly as strong. I think I'm tantalizingly close to getting what you are trying to say, but I suspect that there is still some disconnect in worldviews working against us. How about we try to go around it, and see if that helps. What would you need to change, and how, to make Blue Rose empowering and conducive to growth?

Quote from: WarthurPendragon is about roleplaying as part of the Arthurian myth-cycle, which has a very defined beginning, middle and end (although in the Great Pendragon Campaign Stafford points out that GMs should expect events to go a little differently as a result of the PCs' actions). The restrictions in Pendragon are necessary in order to present the Arthurian myth-cycle as opposed to just some generic fantasy game.

Blue Rose is about roleplaying in the romantic fantasy genre. The Hart is a restriction added to the game to add the sort of explanation for the fantasy society most romantic fantasy authors don't find necessary.

See the difference?

I see not just rails, but a glass tunnel in the  Great Pendragon Campaign. I see characters who can have no appreciable impact on the way the Arthur story plays out. Guenevere and Lancelot will have their fling, Arthur will fight Mordred, and sail off to Avalon in the end, the dream of Camelot dead. If the characters could prevent that, it might be worth doing, but if the intent going in is to play out the myth, no thanks.

I see the difference, but I don't see "the players don't get to choose the King or Queen" as much of a restriction, particularly when, as I gave an example of above, you can find ways to eliminate that restriction without violating canon.  

Quote from: WarthurWhile I agree that it's the game that I personally experience which is, for me, the more important, I'm of the opinion that you can only meaningfully discuss the game-as-written online, simply because people can resort to the texts and so forth. I'm less interested in actual play threads, because they are always going to be filtered through the perceptions of the people posting, and there's no way to consult an objective record of what actually happened in the game.

I'm not talking about actual play, but about implementation (so maybe "when the hypothetical dice hit the hypothetical mat" would have been better). Your players come to you and say "this blue rose thing looks kind of interesting, can we do a few sessions to see what it's like?", how would you implement the setting?

Let's review some of the problems with Blue Rose that are only tangental (if even that...) to the Magic Deer.

One: Very VERY preachy about it's take on sexuality... so much so that even outspoken pro-gays can, and did, find it offensive and 'treacly'.  But only one specific type of 'gay' is canon, as someone else pointed out.  Sure, it's Genre. I know, I've read a few. But this goes far enough out there to squick. At least in the average 'genre' novel, its only squicky when they put the actual scenes on the page, here the setting does the job for you! Huzzah. I don't play RPG's for the freaky sex I get from them.

Two: Every freaking animal in the world is psychic! And playable! Including the god damned DOLPHINS! Look, leave aside the annoyance of a world where you are either a vegitarian or a potential cannable (expanded out to include consumption of any sentient life), I've long come to realize that any game the is not explicitely set in a watery environment that makes fish a playable race is Ass. Period, no exceptions.  That one player that... for some reason always waits until everyone else has made a character, that choses to play a fucking dolphin just shat on the game. Don't give them ammo. Unless you are shooting it at them.

Three: Aldis is surrounded by two hostile nations, some barbarian nomad horde types (who, ironically, are not hostile... wtf? Touchy feely barbarian nomads?) and an open body of water.  Now, the only thing keeping Aldis from being overrun by the undead feinds is that it's easy to hold the mountain passes. Despite the fact that the undead are immune to frostbite, say.  The only thing keeping the fundy fanatics (oh... THAT"S good characterization.) from attacking them is a magic swamp.

That's right. A magical fucking swamp.

Wait. What about all that open water?  Apparently no one has invented the concept of BOATS. Other than the Aldeans apparently.  Every fucking thing in this setting is a lame cliched characterization,a  caricature.  The Aldeans are too happy go lucky to survive, so the world takes care of them. The Sorcerer King, despite being thousands of years old and the only survivor of his evil kind, can't think to march around to the relatively undefended plains that are HIS neighbors to attack those dreaded aldeans.. no, he has to go through the mountains.  The less said about the truly one dimensional fundy kingdom the better.

Four: The alignment system is bollocks.  Good is defined by feel good nanny-statism socialism. Evil is objectively defined as individualism with a dash of selfishness thrown in for good measure.  Never mind that the ONLY magic item in the game (AFAIK) is the god damn alignment detecting scepter, which for plot reasons only works on a given person ONCE.  Uh.. Dude, if the scepter is that broken of an idea, then why not... you know... leave it out?

Five: the deer, which is really far down the list as its no more than a personification of the way the entire universe seems to smile down at this massive hippy commune, what with magical swamps, absolute idiot enemies, and fucking Dolphins.  Never mind that it's track record is abyssmal. Out of 11 kings chosen, TWO have gone horribly horribly wrong. Not a little wrong, not a bit selfish and out to put their own children on the throne, damn tradition and the Hart... not, bugfuck crazy evil. Child eating monster evil.  Out of eleven kings you managed to squeeze elizabeth bathory and Vlad Tepes in there! Way to GO Magic Deer!!! Woot!  


Which, when all added up makes for a seriously 'WTF' suspension of disblief breaking game of absolute shit. I won't even list the governmental/economic woes they should be suffering from... or the godlike unicorns that are only there to make the 13 year old girls happy. What no fucking fairies?  Or did I miss them when I wiped the tears of blood out of my eyes?

Spike -- I'm not going to address all the complaints here, but I'd first make a few factual corrections.  

Quote from: SpikeOne: Very VERY preachy about it's take on sexuality... so much so that even outspoken pro-gays can, and did, find it offensive and 'treacly'.  But only one specific type of 'gay' is canon, as someone else pointed out.  Sure, it's Genre. I know, I've read a few. But this goes far enough out there to squick. At least in the average 'genre' novel, its only squicky when they put the actual scenes on the page, here the setting does the job for you! Huzzah. I don't play RPG's for the freaky sex I get from them.

There is nothing about the act of sex in the Blue Rose book.  There is background material about marriage practices, and various couples are portrayed as NPCs.  However, that's about it.  It seems to me that having, say, a merchantman and his wife appear as NPCs is fine -- but if a homosexual couple appear, then its "squicky" and all about "freaky sex".  

Now, if one does have the reaction that having homosexual couples appear in the game is freaky and twisted -- then probably this is not the game for you.  But let's be clear what this is.  

Quote from: SpikeTwo: Every freaking animal in the world is psychic! And playable! Including the god damned DOLPHINS! Look, leave aside the annoyance of a world where you are either a vegitarian or a potential cannable (expanded out to include consumption of any sentient life),

This is simply false.  There are rhydan versions of a handful of ordinary animals (cat, wolf, horse); but most are not.  So there are a few rhydan horses that have magical powers, but the vast majority of horses are ordinary animals.  This is pretty much the same as in Tolkien, where there were a few intelligent versions of animals like worgs and eagles.  

There are another handful of creatures which are always rhydan, including griffins, unicorns, and yes, dolphins and whales.  In all, there are 11 types of rhydan, of which 4 are given stats for use as PCs -- namely horses, wolves, cats, and dolphins.  

I also felt it was odd to include stats for including dolphins as PCs.  My impression is that they included all the rhydan which were 0 ECL.  In general, though, I would have preferred that they provide more options for PCs (like D&D3 with ECL and monsters-as-PCs or Fantasy Hero's open design) rather than further restricting options.  

Quote from: Spike(Re: the Golden Hart)    Never mind that it's track record is abyssmal. Out of 11 kings chosen, TWO have gone horribly horribly wrong. Not a little wrong, not a bit selfish and out to put their own children on the throne, damn tradition and the Hart... not, bugfuck crazy evil. Child eating monster evil.  Out of eleven kings you managed to squeeze elizabeth bathory and Vlad Tepes in there! Way to GO Magic Deer!!! Woot!

Again, false.  It's true that the Golden Hart twice appeared to remove a sovereign from the throne, and the sovereign was considered to have gone insane.  However, you have simply made up out of whole cloth the idea that they were child-eating monsters.  

For the record, King Valin destroyed a demonic gateway in battle but in the process was psychically exposed to a demon.  As a result, over the next two years he became increasingly paranoid and started replacing nobles with those personally loyal to him, and sidestepping the councils.  This caused unrest which nearly erupted into civil war when the Hart appeared to choose another.  Queen Larai, always eccentric, slowly slid into dementia in her old age after decades of rule.  She talked to imaginary people and neglected her duties, but didn't do anything violent.  

So -- true that these two were insane (paranoia and dementia, respectively) and were removed.  However, false that they were baby-eating evil.  Also, neither of these particularly reflects on the Hart's original choice, I would say.

Spike gets extra points for fitting "bugfuck" into a sentence.

My gripe with Aldis would be that it just doesn't interest me as much as other happy, shiny settings.  Uresia seems pretty A-Ok with different sexualities (at the Uresia I've encountered) or adventures that could come from Saturday morning TV.  It's also largely free of holy wars for and against its use as a setting.

This thread will now segue into discussion of S John Ross and his anime opus.

Please?

I still don't get the controversy...

I mean, it's romantic fantasy.  It's cool if it's not your bag, but the setting is far from abnormal for the genre.

Bitching about monarchs being selected in a non-traditional way is like bitching about investigators going insane in Lovecraft, or spellflinging wizards in D&D.

-O

Can anyone point me at the best example of "romantic fantasy"?  For the most part I haven't read any fantasy published after LotR, which makes fantasy subgenres totally alien to me.

Quote from: apparition13I'm not talking about actual play, but about implementation (so maybe "when the hypothetical dice hit the hypothetical mat" would have been better). Your players come to you and say "this blue rose thing looks kind of interesting, can we do a few sessions to see what it's like?", how would you implement the setting?

I wouldn't. I don't have a bunch of people who are "my players", I have a bunch of roleplaying friends and acquaintances who get together to run games when some GM says "hey, I'm going to run a campaign of this". Restricting yourself to a single gaming group which remains constant for years makes no sense in that context.

And even if I did have such a setup, I wouldn't do command performances. I'd say "Well, I'm not really interested in GMing it, but if one of you guys wants to run a few sessions I'll play if it looks fun."

Quote from: obrynI still don't get the controversy...

I mean, it's romantic fantasy.  It's cool if it's not your bag, but the setting is far from abnormal for the genre.

This whole thing makes me think that romantic fantasy isn't suited for roleplaying games - or at best, only for games which focus nigh-exclusively on the romantic/slashy elements, and in which all the players agree to focus on those areas.

That most romantic fantasy kingdoms make no sense is irrelevant to most readers of romantic fantasy, because they want to read about a romantic relationship, not criticise the culture it's set in. However, if you're in an RPG then there's next-to-no way of making sure nobody knocks over the cardboard sets unless all the players make a conscious effort to avoid drawing attention to such things. Because you're playing an RPG, you're thinking "okay, my character lives in this world, it's set up in this way... what happens when I do this?" This sort of experimentation is all very well in a setting which is reasonably consistent, but in a setting where consistency and well-thought-out societal structures aren't really a consideration, it's going to show up the cracks in the scenery.

Quote from: apparition13Okay, I'm still having a WTF reaction, but not nearly as strong. I think I'm tantalizingly close to getting what you are trying to say, but I suspect that there is still some disconnect in worldviews working against us. How about we try to go around it, and see if that helps. What would you need to change, and how, to make Blue Rose empowering and conducive to growth?

The first step would be to get rid of the damn deer. Let the people of Aldis choose their leaders themselves. Let them make mistakes, and learn from them. A more balanced approach to human society would help too. Incorporate individuality and personal initiative on the Good side of the ledger.

I think you can have romantic fantasy and a more realistic world together, and I'd like to see somebody give it a try.

Quote from: fonkaygarryCan anyone point me at the best example of "romantic fantasy"?  For the most part I haven't read any fantasy published after LotR, which makes fantasy subgenres totally alien to me.

I'd say Mercedes Lackey's extensive Valdemar series is pretty much the genre's archetype.

-O

Quote from: WarthurThis whole thing makes me think that romantic fantasy isn't suited for roleplaying games - or at best, only for games which focus nigh-exclusively on the romantic/slashy elements, and in which all the players agree to focus on those areas.

That most romantic fantasy kingdoms make no sense is irrelevant to most readers of romantic fantasy, because they want to read about a romantic relationship, not criticise the culture it's set in. However, if you're in an RPG then there's next-to-no way of making sure nobody knocks over the cardboard sets unless all the players make a conscious effort to avoid drawing attention to such things. Because you're playing an RPG, you're thinking "okay, my character lives in this world, it's set up in this way... what happens when I do this?" This sort of experimentation is all very well in a setting which is reasonably consistent, but in a setting where consistency and well-thought-out societal structures aren't really a consideration, it's going to show up the cracks in the scenery.

I'd more say that you'd need to have a group of players who are into the genre, and who are down with its tropes.  I mean, if your group is the type who's going to talk about furries every time an animal talks, or start bar fights just to make the night exciting, they won't be into it.  They need to exercise more constraint in their own behaviors than in most other games.

Personally, I would have little interest in such a game.  It might be fun as a one-shot, or a 3-4 session adventure, but I can't imagine putting up with it for long.

I've read a few romantic fantasy novels - moreso when I was younger than now - and I can see how you could make a game around them.  I just don't know that it's a game that (1) I'd want to play/run, or (2) I could find players for.

-O

Quote from: fonkaygarryCan anyone point me at the best example of "romantic fantasy"?  For the most part I haven't read any fantasy published after LotR, which makes fantasy subgenres totally alien to me.

Well, Blue Rose is most closely modeled on the novels of Mercedes Lackey -- including most of her Valdemar novels, of which there are I think 21 (seven trilogies).  I haven't read most of her stuff, though I read Exile's Honor which was fair but kind of slow IMO.  It's about a veteran soldier, Alberich, from a conservative theocracy who is betrayed by his people, and is forced into neighboring liberal Valdemar where he becomes one of the heralds.  (The heralds are an elite force formed of those chosen by the Companions, who are psychic horses.)  

More generally, I haven't read enough to make any claims about what is best.  My favorite among what I have read is Tamora Pierce's Protector of the Small (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protector_of_the_Small) series, which is generally classed as young adult, but less juvenile than Harry Potter, in my opinion.  It's about Keladry of Mindelan, the first girl to openly train for knighthood in the Kingdom of Tortall.  I also liked Barbara Hambly's The Ladies of Mandrigyn (http://www.barbarahambly.com/hambooks.htm#ladies) -- which was about a warlord, Sun Wolf, and his lieutenant Star Hawk, who are hired by the women of the city of Mandrigyn to kill the sorcerer-king who had conquered the city and enslaved the men.  

Neither of these are on Blue Rose's list of recommended reading, but they fit in the general tone.  

In most of these, romantic relationships are pretty much absent, though the Hambly book does have a love story.  The term "romantic" in the genre refers primarily to the fanciful tone of the novels rather than love stories.  They have similar action to high fantasy - wars, fighting into the castle of a sorcerer-king, monsters, etc.  However, there is a bit more emphasis on culture and description along the way -- and there are more prominent female characters.  

Quote from: mythusmageThe first step would be to get rid of the damn deer. Let the people of Aldis choose their leaders themselves. Let them make mistakes, and learn from them. A more balanced approach to human society would help too.

Yeah!  Rise up against the Man!  They should join forces with Gondor to overthrow their King, and Aquilonia against their King, and... and...   Good god!!  All these fantasy worlds are filled with countries that aren't good, free-thinking liberal democracies.  What a terrible genre!!  Someone should do something about these horrible writers who trample on the inalienable rights of their own characters.   :rolleyes:

Quote from: jhkimYeah!  Rise up against the Man!  They should join forces with Gondor to overthrow their King, and Aquilonia against their King, and... and...   Good god!!  All these fantasy worlds are filled with countries that aren't good, free-thinking liberal democracies.  What a terrible genre!!  Someone should do something about these horrible writers who trample on the inalienable rights of their own characters.   :rolleyes:

Whenever people criticise Aldis, people say "But the designers were trying to make a game with values that readers of romantic fantasy can get behind!" This implies the liberal values which you yourself point out are espoused in the Valdemar series. On the other hand, because Aldis is founded on the Divine Right of Kings and doesn't care much for individualism it isn't actually as liberal and free as it is claimed to be. So it fails on the realism angle, *and* fails on the liberalism angle.

Tolkein never claimed, to my knowledge, that Gondor was meant to be a kingdom with modern values which modern-day people could get behind. Apples and oranges.

Quote from: WarthurWhenever people criticise Aldis, people say "But the designers were trying to make a game with values that readers of romantic fantasy can get behind!" This implies the liberal values which you yourself point out are espoused in the Valdemar series. On the other hand, because Aldis is founded on the Divine Right of Kings and doesn't care much for individualism it isn't actually as liberal and free as it is claimed to be. So it fails on the realism angle, *and* fails on the liberalism angle.

Tolkein never claimed, to my knowledge, that Gondor was meant to be a kingdom with modern values which modern-day people could get behind. Apples and oranges.

Yes, that's very unrealistic.

There are also talking animals and magic.

-O

Quote from: obrynYes, that's very unrealistic.

There are also talking animals and magic.

I'm using "realism" in the sense of "verisimilitude" and "internal consistency" as opposed to "realism" as in "resembling our world". As should be obvious in pretty much any roleplaying discussion.

The problems with Aldis is that firstly, it defines the most central traits of both modern civilization and the heroic story as "evil" by their standards. It makes objectively evil the qualities that most normal people consider to be good. And secondly, it creates an avatar to represent this fixed conception of good and evil in the form of the magic deer, that exists only to insure that any kind of change in the setting would be impossible.

RPGPundit

Quote from: WarthurI'm using "realism" in the sense of "verisimilitude" and "internal consistency" as opposed to "realism" as in "resembling our world". As should be obvious in pretty much any roleplaying discussion.

Actually, it's very germane.  This is simply a part of the setting - it's one of the tropes of romantic fantasy.  Non-hereditary monarchy (with the monarch selected by outside forces to make sure they have the good of the people in mind) is simply as much a part of romantic fantasy as talking animals.  It's perfectly internally consistent for the genre.

-O

Quote from: WarthurWhenever people criticise Aldis, people say "But the designers were trying to make a game with values that readers of romantic fantasy can get behind!" This implies the liberal values which you yourself point out are espoused in the Valdemar series. On the other hand, because Aldis is founded on the Divine Right of Kings and doesn't care much for individualism it isn't actually as liberal and free as it is claimed to be. So it fails on the realism angle, *and* fails on the liberalism angle.

Tolkein never claimed, to my knowledge, that Gondor was meant to be a kingdom with modern values which modern-day people could get behind.

Maybe Tolkien did say that in some letter to his friend.  Maybe not.  I don't know and I don't give a shit.  It is irrelevant to what I think about his work.  

Similarly, you've asserted something about what the authors of Blue Rose intended.  Since there are many other statements made about Blue Rose which have been blatantly false, I take that with a big grain of salt.  But even supposing that one of the authors said something wacky somewhere sometime, it makes no difference to how my games of Blue Rose run.  

Now, that said, I missed what is your actual complaint about realism / verisimilitude is.  What would a "realistic" semi-divine hart be like as opposed to the one in Blue Rose?  Frankly, the tone which I've gotten from most of the realism complaints seems to be "Well, realism is manly things like dragons and demons -- not girly things like talking animals and unicorns."

Quote from: obrynActually, it's very germane.  This is simply a part of the setting - it's one of the tropes of romantic fantasy.  Non-hereditary monarchy (with the monarch selected by outside forces to make sure they have the good of the people in mind) is simply as much a part of romantic fantasy as talking animals.  It's perfectly internally consistent for the genre.

-O

What books in the romantic fantasy genre feature this? None of the ones I've read have, and I'd be interested to see where this feature of romantic fantasy was drawn from.

Quote from: SigmundWhat books in the romantic fantasy genre feature this? None of the ones I've read have, and I'd be interested to see where this feature of romantic fantasy was drawn from.

Seriously?  I'll name Valdemar again.  Every monarch had to be a herald selected by a Companion, thus guaranteeing their goodness of heart and whatnot.

-O

Quote from: jhkimMy favorite among what I have read is Tamora Pierce's Protector of the Small (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protector_of_the_Small) series, which is generally classed as young adult, but less juvenile than Harry Potter, in my opinion.  It's about Keladry of Mindelan, the first girl to openly train for knighthood in the Kingdom of Tortall.

This is actually a very good tetralogy. My favorite bit, Keladry's a "big strapping lass", I always picture her as somewhat Linsdsey Davenportish. She's bigger and stronger than many, if not most, of the males (who seem more like average in size for medieval, while she's about 6').

Avoid the two earlier Tortall tetralogies, there's some Mary Sueness, particularly in the first one.

Quote from: obrynSeriously?  I'll name Valdemar again.  Every monarch had to be a herald selected by a Companion, thus guaranteeing their goodness of heart and whatnot.

-O

Is there a particular trilogy in this series you would recommend?

Yes, BR is not so much emulation of the romantic fantasy genre as it is a cheap copy of the valdemar series, which itself has some themes that are contrary to what you typically see in other romantic fantasy series.  In the vast majority of romantic fantasy novels, the characters are not living in a socialist utopia, they are more often living in an oppresive patriarchal regime where they are misunderstood and discriminated against, and have to prove their worth through their heart and their values.  Blue Rose as written specifically can't run that.

RPGPundit

Quote from: apparition13Is there a particular trilogy in this series you would recommend?

Yes and no. :)  Honestly, I re-read one of the series about a year or two ago, and found that it was simultaneously annoying and compelling all at once.

They're annoying in parts.  There's random InWord CapitaliZation and strange terms for familiar stuff.  Oh, and characters who are just a bit off.  Still, on a certain level, they somehow work if you're in the mood for light, emotionally railroaded fluff.

Anyways, I think Lackey's Last Herald-Mage series (starting with Magic's Pawn) is a pretty strong independent series.  Warning, there's lots of teh gheyness inside, so if you are worried you'll catch it from reading the books, you likely won't like it as much.  I've pretty much cleared my bookshelves of all her books except for that trilogy.

-O

Quote from: RPGPunditYes, BR is not so much emulation of the romantic fantasy genre as it is a cheap copy of the valdemar series, which itself has some themes that are contrary to what you typically see in other romantic fantasy series.  In the vast majority of romantic fantasy novels, the characters are not living in a socialist utopia, they are more often living in an oppresive patriarchal regime where they are misunderstood and discriminated against, and have to prove their worth through their heart and their values.  Blue Rose as written specifically can't run that.

Pundit?  Are you really familiar with the vast majority of romantic fantasy novels enough to speak authoritatively about them?  This from someone who declared "anyone who actually finds the ideas in Romantic Fantasy readably pleasant or appealing or realistic is mentally defective".  

Yes, Blue Rose most closely emulates Lackey's Velgarth books.  Mercedes Lackey isn't the whole of the genre, but hers are seminal works which popularized it as a genre in the mid-eighties.  Many similar tropes appear in other books, such as Diane Duane's Tale of the Five where in particular bisexuality and polyamory are openly accepted.  

Also, there is nothing to suggest that Aldis is socialist.  It is a limited monarchy, and there is no mention of any government programs or support for the people.  People buy things based on their wealth without anything from the government unless you are a knight or envoy.  Aldis has an extremely powerful Merchant's Guild, which has a direct voice in the government. (This itself is a dangerous idea that diverges from the free market ideal, but it is hardly socialist.)  As far as I can tell, you have leapt from the description that Aldis has generally happy people who are accepting of homosexuals to the conclusion that it is socialist.

I believe the "Aldis = socialist" taunts are a product of the alignment system, and are based on two premises:

- Aldis is meant to be, broadly speaking, the most Light-based society in the game world. Which isn't to say it perfectly represents the qualities of the Light, but it certainly seems to strive to adhere to its principles as well as it can.

- The Light is associated with community spirit, selflessness, and generally acting for the good of all. The Shadow is about individualism, and pursuing one's own needs.

From a certain perspective, capitalism = individualism and socialism = collectivism, therefore the above two premises taken together lead a good many people (myself not included this time) to conclude that Aldis is, if not a socialist state, at least the sort of place which could happily adopt socialist values.

Quote from: WarthurFrom a certain perspective, capitalism = individualism and socialism = collectivism, therefore the above two premises taken together lead a good many people (myself not included this time) to conclude that Aldis is, if not a socialist state, at least the sort of place which could happily adopt socialist values.

Well, at least you don't subscribe to it.  To me, that's a amusingly convoluted chain of logic: light alignment means helping others and the community, Aldis seems kind of light-aligned, so therefore...  Aldis is socialist??

I've never been arguing about the economic system of Aldis; my beef has always been with:

A. The alignment system and its praising of real-life Collectivist values and demonization of individualism
and
B. the enforcement of that in Aldis via the Magic Deer.

RPGPundit

I'm thinking you need to stress that second part, Pundit. They don't seem to listen when you argue that collectivism is wrong.

Demonization of individuality is a serious issue, and I can't recall another game I've ever seen that suggested it, much less any thing else I'd consider interesting or worthwhile.

Quote from: RPGPunditI've never been arguing about the economic system of Aldis; my beef has always been with:

A. The alignment system and its praising of real-life Collectivist values and demonization of individualism
and
B. the enforcement of that in Aldis via the Magic Deer.

OK, thank you for clarifying that.  So you're just lying and making up bullshit when you call Aldis a "socialist utopia".  So given that you're lying about the socialist jab, let's examine the "demonization of individualism" in the alignment system.  

Let's compare two descriptions of evil:  

Quote___ are typically selfish and solely interested in satisfying their own desires and goals. Some justify what they want, but many don't bother.

Quote___ does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience.

OK, without peeking, which one of these is the Blue Rose villified individualism, and which one is a description of D&D evil?