Things I'd like to know about Paragon

[HK-87]

Kind of, yeah. But Seeing Like a State is a book of historical examples of how utopian high modernism and central planning have, consistently throughout history, created unlivable societies because some variable the planner didn't account for or took for granted turned out to be vital and/or squelched by the way the variables that were planned for received primacy.

Ah, the "Rapture needs plumbers" problem. Sounds like something I should look into.

[Stephen Lea Sheppard]

Well the guy has been ruling for quite a while, who's to say that he hasn't already made those mistakes? Perhaps a large part of what makes it so effective is the advantage of time that he has had to fuck up over and over again and make those necessary changes.

Historically, the powerful work first to insulate themselves from the consequences of their mistakes. Once so insulated, they cease to learn from them.

That said, the emphasis on magical power, whether from sorcery, thaumaturgy, or geomancy, could perhaps fill in some of those gaps. At least going forward, I hope the place won't require as much suspension of disbelief to include in the setting going foreward.

Because Creation is totally a place where magic fixes the unintended consequences of your actions, yes. *nod*

Ah, the "Rapture needs plumbers" problem. Sounds like something I should look into.

It's really interesting but a bit dry.

[Stephen Lea Sheppard]

Actually that's a simplification. It's more like, the powerful work first to insulate themselves from the consequences of their mistakes, and then cease to consider those mistakes as mistakes once they no longer suffer consequences for them. The economic decision that necessitates closing a factory and ending 1,200 jobs doesn't count as a mistake to the CEO who makes it if it doesn't affect his life, and doesn't count as a big mistake to him if it affects him in only a small way, even if it counts as a huge mistake to 1,200 suddenly-unemployed people.

So, think about how the Perfect might be running his society, taking that into account. Keep in mind that social mismagement resulting in massive death and misery usually results in the problem correcting itself via social upheaval and rebellion, and then remember the Perfect can kill anyone who even thinks about rebelling.

[Black Paper Moon]

Well the guy has been ruling for quite a while, who's to say that he hasn't already made those mistakes? Perhaps a large part of what makes it so effective is the advantage of time that he has had to fuck up over and over again and make those necessary changes. That said, the emphasis on magical power, whether from sorcery, thaumaturgy, or geomancy, could perhaps fill in some of those gaps. At least going forward, I hope the place won't require as much suspension of disbelief to include in the setting going foreward.

That's... not how things work. A tyrant's first priority is keeping himself in power; the measure of a successful nation (to the tyrant) is one which will acknowledge his authority. Most totalitarian regimes use brutality to keep people in line and, as long as they themselves and their key backers (usually armed forces) are wealthy, are fine with the majority of the population being poor and ignorant. This shouldn't be a surprise, since an underfed and uneducated population finds it much harder to form in organised opposition against the tyrant. While a couple of dictatorships in the 20th century have resulted in ordered societies and economic progress (e.g., Singapore, Chile), most of them have only left a legacy of murders and misery. I should also note that even a "successful" dictatorship like Chile's produced a death toll of over 2,000 people covertly murdered by the government.

[Isator Levi]

I'm suddenly reminded of The Last King of Scotland; the scene where Idi Amin is ranting about how James McAvoy's character should have told him not to exile the Asians from the country, and he exasperatedly says that he did, and Amin dismisses him with "but you did not persuade me".

I'd also say regarding the "the Perfect has had time to learn from his mistakes" line is that, while his control is significant, it is not quite absolute. The juxtaposition of this could easily lead to him angrily denouncing all failures and setbacks as a result of people not fulfilling his commands properly. I can only imagine the delightful rants of him complaining about how he only has the people's best interests at heart and if they'd just stop even mildly resisting him and just do as they were told!

And then he fixates on getting the Orb, because he imagines that all he needs to do is have a means to reward them and they finally will embrace him fully, and he can get even more twisted up when that fails to work.

And that reminds me of Brazil, probably the most stark and disturbing example of myopic administrative incompetence ever committed to film.

[Chejop Kejak]

"Give one authoritarian dude as much power as is required to enact his will absolutely" is not, historically, a scenario that results in utopia. I am unsure why people continue to want a Perfect who's just so awesome he can make that scenario work to everyone's advantage.

Historically, nothing results in utopia. There have been, by my last count, exactly zero utopias. (Utopiae?)

And I cannot speak for others, but I want Paragon to have trains that run on time, so to speak, even though history might advise otherwise because I find it more dramatically compelling. The Perfect exists, to my mind, as a question for any world-shaking PCs: is security worth giving up all happiness and self-determination? Can you justify fighting this man when he protects his people and spurns slavery? Is your own society better? Do the people you've allowed to die care that you gave them choices, or would the Perfect's way have been better?

I don't need him to be another example of how power corrupts and societies tend not to live up to their ideals because Exalted is spoiled for those. Paragon can raise different issues.

[Stephen Lea Sheppard]

Historically, nothing results in utopia. There have been, by my last count, exactly zero utopias. (Utopiae?)

And I cannot speak for others, but I want Paragon to have trains that run on time, so to speak, even though history might advise otherwise because I find it more dramatically compelling. The Perfect exists, to my mind, as a question for any world-shaking PCs: is security worth giving up all happiness and self-determination? Can you justify fighting this man when he protects his people and spurns slavery? Is your own society better? Do the people you've allowed to die care that you gave them choices, or would the Perfect's way have been better?

I don't need him to be another example of how power corrupts and societies tend not to live up to their ideals because Exalted is spoiled for those. Paragon can raise different issues.

I'm more interested in examining all the ways that freedom vs. security has proven to be a false dichotomy than examining freedom vs. security itself.

[Crumplepunch]

I don't need him to be another example of how power corrupts and societies tend not to live up to their ideals because Exalted is spoiled for those. Paragon can raise different issues.

While this is true, I think Paragon could stand to be less... well, perfect.

Consider that, without the Orb, the Sceptre's method of absolute control is "do what I say or suffer and die". This is no different than any number of autocracies across history and the modern day, except that it is more efficient, the secret police replaced with omnipresent magic.

Consider that, even if they have every reason to do so, people in such societies do not work efficiently.

Even without the failings of petty human despots, the Perfect is bound by the imperfections of his methods.

[Stephen Lea Sheppard]

(Not sure the Orb is really necessary. The Perfect's staff works remarkably well as "Unnamed First Age artifact of considerable power, origin unknown.")

[BrilliantRain]

Yeah pretty much.

"Give one authoritarian dude as much power as is required to enact his will absolutely" is not, historically, a scenario that results in utopia. I am unsure why people continue to want a Perfect who's just so awesome he can make that scenario work to everyone's advantage.

I think it's that people want to believe in the idea that "Oh, if I only had absolute power to enact my vision for society, then I could make everything better and fix all these obvious mistakes." I'm fairly certain that's why some people play Solars, so they can become ideal storybook kings. Having the Perfect around helps them believe that it's possible.

There's also the aspect that he got hold of a mind control device (effectively). A lot of us would like to believe that there's someone out there who would use that in a noble way to create a better world, instead of using it like, well, most people actually would.

In any case, creepy False Utopias are pretty classic and, as currently written, Paragon could easily be viewed as such. So I think it needs to stick around in one form or another.

[Crumplepunch]

(Not sure the Orb is really necessary. The Perfect's staff works remarkably well as "Unnamed First Age artifact of considerable power, origin unknown.")

I think the Orb is interesting for two reasons.

First, it's a nice story hook for Paragon games. The Perfect wants it badly, and a cunning and unscrupulous character might use it as leverage or directly against Paragon. You can spin all manner of stories out of its discovery by the players or an NPC.

Second, it adds another dimension to Paragon's story. Using the carrot as well as the stick, can Paragon be a happier place despite its methods? Is it any more moral to lead with magically-enforced joy than magically-enforced fear? Will the new factor make things worse? What will be the influence of whoever attunes to the orb?

And of course, nothing is lost by its inclusion. If you don't want to use it, it can just stay lost.

[Isator Levi]

Historically, nothing results in utopia. There have been, by my last count, exactly zero utopias. (Utopiae?)

There's a reason that the word is a pun based on what can alternately be read as "good-place-land" and "no-place-land".

I want Paragon to have trains that run on time

"but they don't go anywhere."

even though history might advise otherwise because I find it more dramatically compelling. The Perfect exists, to my mind, as a question for any world-shaking PCs: is security worth giving up all happiness and self-determination? Can you justify fighting this man when he protects his people and spurns slavery? Is your own society better? Do the people you've allowed to die care that you gave them choices, or would the Perfect's way have been better?

I'm gonna be honest, the 'question' of "is enlightened despotism worth it" fails to compel me not just because I ultimately find it to be kind of infantile, but because it's a really done-to-death kind of infantilism. It's so often the first thing every cynical youth who grows disillusioned with democracy but doesn't yet have much experience with people goes to, and it's just so dull.

I don't need him to be another example of how power corrupts and societies tend not to live up to their ideals because Exalted is spoiled for those. Paragon can raise different issues.

See, it's not about corruption. It's about how people and societies are complex and difficult and it's really ultimately just not possible to beat them into a desired shape so that they'll start working and responding mechanistically.

I mean, really, it's the sexbot problem writ large; the idea that, since it's difficult to accommodate human beings, you're just better off having something calibrated to do and say everything you want unconditionally. At best, it shows a contempt for humanity (especially if one is adopting the morally bankrupt position of trying to turn already existing people into it), and really, anybody who could actually be satisfied in that kind of relationship is really just a skeevy weirdo.

Paragon is a bunch of familiar pulp fantasy motifs examined with some actual anthropological and sociological awareness. That's what makes it contrasting and interesting, not "is there something worthwhile in watching the Perfect try to turn people into toy soldiers that he can masturbate over".

(Just to note: I have a ready Green Sun Prince character idea who basically does want to create a society where everybody is a toy bent to his will that he can get off over. He's about as fun as the usual decadent bastard, but I'd be uninterested in trying to examine if there was anything worthwhile or sustainable in him doing it)

In short, societies are interesting. They stop being so when you conspire to remove every disparate aspect that makes them difficult, and what's more it's impractical to the point of being impossible, so I see no value in trying to contrive moralistic examinations of a place where you've managed to do so, because honestly, I don't want to look at them.

The Bikini Witch of social depictions.

[BrilliantRain]

I'm more interested in examining all the ways that freedom vs. security has proven to be a false dichotomy than examining freedom vs. security itself.

Could you expand on this a bit more?

[Isator Levi]

I'll also note, I can see a really clear point of connection to how Exalted fans have historically looked on Exalts, Solar Exalted in particular, as effortlessly bending society at large to their will and how moralistic questions concerning this should be a priority, and difficulty with seeing what the Eclipse Caste is for. The potential of Eclipses is just far too interesting to invalidate by trying to make the idea that you can feasably beat complex societies into marching to the same beat into a thing.

[Iozz-Sothoth]

Historically, nothing results in utopia. There have been, by my last count, exactly zero utopias. (Utopiae?)

And I cannot speak for others, but I want Paragon to have trains that run on time, so to speak, even though history might advise otherwise because I find it more dramatically compelling. The Perfect exists, to my mind, as a question for any world-shaking PCs: is security worth giving up all happiness and self-determination? Can you justify fighting this man when he protects his people and spurns slavery? Is your own society better? Do the people you've allowed to die care that you gave them choices, or would the Perfect's way have been better?

The question would, I think, be more compelling from a dramatic standpoint if it's being asked about a society that actually makes sense, which as it stands Paragon doesn't. It's the sociological equivalent of an overcomplicated philosophical thought experiment (like a fat man on Twin Earth armed with a disentegrator ray standing on a bridge above a runaway trolley about to collide with a comatose violinist hooked up to a kidnap victim) -- it bears so little resemblence to reality that the appropriate response to any moral or dramatic question it poses is 'So what?'

I think those questions can probably be raised in a more useful fashion by pointing to societies where not only can the case for the trade off be argued, but that are inhabited by people who act in a recognisably human manner.

(Incidentally, the hilarious thing about trains running on time is that the Italian Facists were, in fact, pretty terrible about being able to get the trains to run on time...)