Legends of the Round Table - Card-based RPG

[rusty_shackleford]

learning that french canadians can barely speak english was wild, they have an entire sub-population that is catered to as hard as ***** in USA are with all the **** language ********
except most second generation ***** can speak english, french canadians purposely don't learn english

[1998]

Fair. Sadly the devs are french so I'm not sure if they would listen.

"French" aka Canadian

Quebeckers don't see themselves as "Canadian" though. They remain in the country because of the free gibs and because their own are in power (i.e Justin Trudeau). Quebec almost exclusively votes for the Bloc party as well, a party made by Quebeckers and who are in it to serve Quebec only. They get preferential treatment constantly, at the expense of every other province (literally and figuratively). They even get less immigrants coming in, because they want to protect the Fr*nch language.

Interesting, so release when?

[1998]

learning that french canadians can barely speak english was wild, they have an entire sub-population that is catered to as hard as ***** in USA are with all the **** language ********
except most second generation ***** can speak english, french canadians purposely don't learn english

If you think that's wild, go to Brussels...

[rusty_shackleford]

After looking at the game again, I have to say that there's far too many games which focus on the late medieval era, rather wish there were more early medieval-based fantasy RPGs without any of the later-medieval romance elements. i.e., LotR

[TheFumblingKnight]

The game seems high-medieval, which IMO is the right call: Chretien de Troyes wrote in the 12th century and most of the foundational poems and stories of the Arthurian Cycle were made in between the 12th-13th centuries, leaving Mallory aside. Personally I am glad (leaving aside the possible pozzed ****) that it's adapting the legends rather than yet another cringe "historical" Arthur with britons and saxons fighting over mudhuts.

[rusty_shackleford]

The game seems high-medieval, which IMO is the right call: Chretien de Troyes wrote in the 12th century and most of the foundational poems and stories of the Arthurian Cycle were made in between the 12th-13th centuries, leaving Mallory aside. Personally I am glad (leaving aside the possible pozzed ****) that it's adapting the legends rather than yet another cringe "historical" Arthur with britons and saxons fighting over mudhuts.

the french myths of king arthur were a mistake

[TheFumblingKnight]

the french myths of king arthur were a mistake

The french myths are King Arthur at this point. If we only take the british/saxon sources, we only have Badon Hill and Mordred's betrayal.

[KnightoftheWind]

Arthurian legend is timeless, values such as honor, chivalry and faithfulness never expire. It's why most attempts to subvert King Arthur fall flat and come off as juvenile more than anything. Did you know that Thief was originally supposed to be a subversive version of Arthurian legend, where Arthur is evil and Guinevere is a lesbian?. Guess the sorts of individuals involved with Thief and other Looking Glass titles (Ken Levine and Warren Spector).

[rusty_shackleford]

the french myths of king arthur were a mistake

The french myths are King Arthur at this point. If we only take the british/saxon sources, we only have Badon Hill and Mordred's betrayal.

Right, so you'd have to make use of known contemporary folklore and fill in the blanks as you go. It would give you a lot more room to maneuver instead of just taking existing stories then tacking on whatever narrative you wanted to add.
Speaking of which,


[edit]
Also, you could draw from non-Romance sources like e.g., the Mabinogion which is much more focused on things like valor and heroics.

[rusty_shackleford]

Arthurian legend is timeless, values such as honor, chivalry and faithfulness never expire. It's why most attempts to subvert King Arthur fall flat and come off as juvenile more than anything. Did you know that Thief was originally supposed to be a subversive version of Arthurian legend, where Arthur is evil and Guinevere is a lesbian?. Guess the sorts of individuals involved with Thief and other Looking Glass titles (Ken Levine and Warren Spector).

"Arthurian legend" is itself a subversion of celtic/anglo folklore by inserting romantic elements where they don't belong.

[KnightoftheWind]

Arthurian legend is timeless, values such as honor, chivalry and faithfulness never expire. It's why most attempts to subvert King Arthur fall flat and come off as juvenile more than anything. Did you know that Thief was originally supposed to be a subversive version of Arthurian legend, where Arthur is evil and Guinevere is a lesbian?. Guess the sorts of individuals involved with Thief and other Looking Glass titles (Ken Levine and Warren Spector).

"Arthurian legend" is itself a subversion of celtic/anglo folklore by inserting romantic elements where they don't belong.

Arthurian lore is an idealised depiction of the Middle Ages, rather than a tragic one. Arthur is a heroic figure because he strives for goodness and upholds Christian ideals and piety. He is a figure much more appealing and suitable for the more developed age he originated in. It is natural that the stories a culture creates would progress in such a manner, as medieval cities and civilisation developed further. Yes you could say it was a product of the age of Charlemagne and a post-schism Catholic Church, but I feel these tales hold a lot of truth even divorced from any politics.

[TheFumblingKnight]

Right, so you'd have to make use of known contemporary folklore and fill in the blanks as you go. It would give you a lot more room to maneuver instead of just taking existing stories then tacking on whatever narrative you wanted to add.

I rather have Chretien de Troyes and Mallory writing the setup and half of the plots for these devs rather than letting them do another clumsy attempt at bringing forth an early-medieval "celtic" Arthur that will inevitably be cringe, edgy and pseudo-historical at best.

"Arthurian legend" is itself a subversion of celtic/anglo folklore by inserting romantic elements where they don't belong.

Celtic folklore, and there's no subversion: While some of the romantic elements might be questionable, Chretien de Troyes, Wolfram von Eschenbach and Mallory all wrote uplifting stories of heroism, honor, love and deep tragedy. They are genuinely fascinating portrayal of medieval ideals, vices and virtues, almost a microcosm.

[rusty_shackleford]

Arthurian legend is timeless, values such as honor, chivalry and faithfulness never expire. It's why most attempts to subvert King Arthur fall flat and come off as juvenile more than anything. Did you know that Thief was originally supposed to be a subversive version of Arthurian legend, where Arthur is evil and Guinevere is a lesbian?. Guess the sorts of individuals involved with Thief and other Looking Glass titles (Ken Levine and Warren Spector).

"Arthurian legend" is itself a subversion of celtic/anglo folklore by inserting romantic elements where they don't belong.

Arthurian lore is an idealised depiction of the Middle Ages, rather than a tragic one. Arthur is a heroic figure because he strives for goodness and upholds Christian ideals and piety. He is a figure much more appealing and suitable for the more developed age he originated in. It is natural that the stories a culture creates would progress in such a manner, as medieval cities and civilisation developed further. Yes you could say it was a product of the age of Charlemagne and a post-schism Catholic Church, but I feel these tales hold a lot of truth even divorced from any politics.

It was taking established characters & folklore then reinterpreting it through a new lens, what am I to call that if not subversive?
Do you consider Ubisoft's treatment of their latest Assassin's Creed to be subversive or not?

You liking something does not mean it is not subversive.

[TheFumblingKnight]

It was taking established characters & folklore then reinterpreting it through a new lens, what am I to call that if not subversive?

Subversive in its common usage refers to the undermining of the established cultural, religious and social order by different means, one of which is media and stories. There was no attempt of doing such a thing by de Troyes, Wolfram or Mallory. They rather encapsulated the ideals already present in their respective cultures.

[rusty_shackleford]

It was taking established characters & folklore then reinterpreting it through a new lens, what am I to call that if not subversive?

Subversive in its common usage refers to the undermining of the established cultural, religious and social order by different means, one of which is media and stories. There was no attempt of doing such a thing by de Troyes, Wolfram or Mallory. They rather encapsulated the ideals already present in their respective cultures.

You liking it does not mean it is not subversive.

There were zero romance elements in the original Arthurian legends. The Welsh triads, Culhwch and Olwen, etc., focus on heroic exploits and adventure.

[KnightoftheWind]

It's not "subversive" in the modern jewish sense. Nobody is taking some celtic figure of folklore and turning him into a black ******. Arthur was a genuine expression of the genuine culture that existed in it's age. Not some cynical, corporate effort by Ubisoft.

[TheFumblingKnight]

There were zero romance elements in the original Arthurian legends. The Welsh triads, Culhwch and Olwen, etc., focus on heroic exploits and adventure.

Subversive refers to the open undermining of the present social order, unless the late medieval poems were writen with such an intention in mind, I find no basis to call them "subversive". What culture they subverted exactly? Celtic pagan culture, that was already dead? Saxons, already christianized? The irish, also firmly medieval and christian at that point in time?

[rusty_shackleford]

There were zero romance elements in the original Arthurian legends. The Welsh triads, Culhwch and Olwen, etc., focus on heroic exploits and adventure.

**Subversive refers to the open undermining of the present social order**, unless the late medieval poems were writen with such an intention in mind, I find no basis to call them "subversive". What culture they subverted exactly? Celtic pagan culture, that was already dead? Saxons, already christianized? The irish, also firmly medieval and christian at that point in time?

https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=subverting

3. To cause to serve a purpose other than the original or established one; commandeer or redirect

Adding romance elements was subversive, it is not true to the original mythos. It is no different than saying Hades is subversive to Greek Mythology. Inserting contemporary views into something that exists is explicitly subversive.

[TheFumblingKnight]

https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=subverting

3 of the 4 definitions present in that dictionary refer to attempts to destroy, undermine, render ineffective, mislead or betray. Only one limits itself to changing the purpose of a thing, and the example put forth is one of a virus with DNA. I must ask again: What culture or society the late arthurian legend subverted? What people they were made to destroy?

If you want to run with this definition, then scandinavian mythology is subversive by definition: Odin and his exploits are completely atypical in the indo-european cultural complex, to the point that some assume he was a sort of usurper, more recent deity that displaced Thor.

[rusty_shackleford]

What culture or society the late arthurian legend subverted? What people they were made to destroy?

When you think of King Arthur, do you think of the Celtic Britons or the French?

[A Chinese opium den]

What culture or society the late arthurian legend subverted? What people they were made to destroy?

When you think of King Arthur, do you think of the Celtic Britons or the French?

I think of the welsh.

[TheFumblingKnight]

When you think of King Arthur, do you think of the Celtic Britons or the French?

When I think of King Arthur I think of the french mythos, yes. But thing is, the celtic pagan britons you are attempting to defend were already dead by that point in time, replaced for the most part by the saxons and the few left christianized completely. The definition of subversive you gave us defines the thing as malicious attempts to undermine or render something ineffective: What culture the arthurian cycle "rendered ineffective" or undermined? There was none of it left, and the cycle wasn't made to "undermine" something that I can assure you the late authors didn't even knew about (beyond some stories they stole from). It was an organic result of high medieval culture.

[rusty_shackleford]

What culture or society the late arthurian legend subverted? What people they were made to destroy?

When you think of King Arthur, do you think of the Celtic Britons or the French?

I think of the welsh.

I wish that were so, but the french made him gay

[rusty_shackleford]

. But thing is, the celtic pagan britons you are attempting to defend were already dead by that point in time

So that means we aren't supposed to respect them because they're gone?
Is this the basis people use for raping Greek mythos? Putting black Samurais in historical Japan? Near every Netflix ''adaptation''?

---

I think that makes me hate the Romance stories even more, because that means there was malice behind it. They're gone, so we can do with it as we wish!

[TheFumblingKnight]

Is this the basis people use for raping Greek mythos? Putting black Samurais in historical Japan? Near every Netflix ''adaptation''?

There was no "raping", no attempt to undermine, to defill, to denigrate or even to "adapt" in the modern sense of the word. You seem to be running with the assumption that the medieval authors discovered the pre-christian sources and then maliciously exploited the characters and magical elements for the sake of entertaining christianized noble snobs, as if these stories weren't themselves transmited orally for hundreds of years (into the christian medieval era) and mutated as the cultures that held them also changed.

Bringing back my old example: If you want to run with this definition, then scandinavian mythology is subversive and "rapes" whatever indo-european religious belief they held before Odin took over.

[Acrux]

Hehe, the new guy's first experience here is rustyposting!

[rusty_shackleford]

You seem to be running with the assumption that the medieval authors discovered the pre-christian sources and then maliciously exploited the characters and magical elements for the sake of entertaining christianized noble snobs,

They subverted the stories by re-interpreting them with Christian values, courtly love, etc., It's indisputable that they inserted what were then modern societal norms into the stories that did not originally exist or were ever part of the intent of the mythology. The stories were reshaped from the original pagan elements and heroic narratives to fit contemporary expectations.

Bringing back my old example: If you want to run with this definition, then scandinavian mythology is subversive and "rapes" whatever indo-european religious belief they held before Odin took over.

If they took existing mythos and presented their version as that, then yes.

[rusty_shackleford]

It's entirely fine if you like the later medieval/romance and are probably gay, I'm just not a fan of it. I'm a Beowulf(and by extension, LotR, which I consider to be a proper treatment of existing mythos) /Celtic faerytales fan, not a courtly romance fan. But to say it wasn't a reinterpretation and subversion of an existing mythos is just wrong.

[TheFumblingKnight]

They subverted the stories by re-interpreting them with Christian values, courtly love, etc., It's indisputable that they inserted what were then modern societal norms into the stories that did not originally exist or were ever part of the intent of the mythology. The stories were reshaped from the original pagan elements and heroic narratives to fit contemporary expectations.

If this is the definition you are running with, then every single pre-christian mythology is subverted and gay: There isn't a single example of an ancient religion that didn't changed its pantheon, values and theology at least once.

And again, they didn't "inserted" christian values in the same way a Hollywood writer takes some book from the 19th century and inserts a ****** in it. The remnants of the stories that reached the medieval era were themselves heavily influenced and changed by the culture around them,independtly from their pre-christian origins. There isn't "original" mythology at play here. and even the assumption that such a thing can be defined and captured, when we know the celts very likely also changed their own stories all the time, is questionable.

It's entirely fine if you like the later medieval/romance and are probably gay, I'm just not a fan of it. I'm a Beowulf(and by extension, LotR, which I consider to be a proper treatment of existing mythos) /Celtic faerytales fan, not a courtly romance fan. But to say it wasn't a reinterpretation and subversion of an existing mythos is just wrong.

Fair, fair, I don't have a problem with you disliking the medieval romances either: Is just that the definition of subversion you gave makes every single culture in the world, no matter the time period, subversive.

[rusty_shackleford]

They subverted the stories by re-interpreting them with Christian values, courtly love, etc., It's indisputable that they inserted what were then modern societal norms into the stories that did not originally exist or were ever part of the intent of the mythology. The stories were reshaped from the original pagan elements and heroic narratives to fit contemporary expectations.

If this is the definition you are running with, then every single pre-christian mythology is subverted and gay: There isn't a single example of an ancient religion that didn't changed its pantheon, values and theology at least once.

And again, they didn't "inserted" christian values in the same way a Hollywood writer takes some book from the 19th century and inserts a ****** in it. The remnants of the stories that reached the medieval era were themselves heavily influenced and changed by the culture around them,independtly from their pre-christian origins. There isn't "original" mythology at play here. and even the assumption that such a thing can be defined and captured, when we know the celts were very likely to also change their own belief all the time, is questionable.

But we can just contrast & compare the Mabinogion to the French interpretations that appeared shortly afterwards to see that it was not a natural evolution of the stories.
The french interpretation is a reinterpretation through a foreign lens, not a natural evolution of the mythos.