Powered by Jitbit .Net Forum free trial version.

HomeFallen London » Election

A place for in-game political discussion.

Election 1896: A Winner Announced! Messages in this topic - RSS

Zack Oak
Zack Oak
Posts: 205

7/5/2018
millea wrote:
I feel like you're making a very big and potentially controversial point but ultimately backing out from giving any sort of meat to back up what you're saying. Without including at least a link to feminist gender analysis theories, you're not providing a base from which to support your argument that gender is a factor.

While I appreciate that you're interested in learning more about how gender presentation is a factor in how characters are perceived, I made it pretty clear that this is a large topic in and of itself. If you would like me to help you out with this, I'd be happy to DM you some resources on the subject, but you'll have to forgive me for not going into this with debate notes and links. I didn't think it was necessary to demonstrate that sexism and bias exists.

millea wrote:
I feel like boiling the comparison between Feducci and the Princess' appeal to just their perceived gender traits is... ultimately missing the point, even if it isn't the crux of the argument. To add to that, the question of "why didn't Feducci supporters vote for the Princess" is hard to answer when we are seriously lacking any kind of data to work off.

I don't want to be nitpicky, but you straight-up quoted me saying specifically that I wasn't boiling the comparison down to that. Nor did I say feducci supporters don't support the princess. Identifying a factor in it is just that. I'll also note I in no way asked about Feducci's supporters not throwing their lot in with the Princess; I brought up fan reception, and I really don't know how you got that out of what I said. But! I'm thrilled that you're engaging in detailed analysis of their characters and taking a look at what makes them both villainous and fascinating in their own right. And that's what I was hoping for, too. That's getting into the actual meat of what makes these characters fantastic and dynamic, rather than just writing these traits off immediately.

So let's talk about it!

I'm especially interested in your bringing up red honey, because there's some great details about it you can find stretching to the fall itself, including a painting of the royal family when the Princess was a baby, where the Redundant Heir is seen holding a goblet of gaoler's honey. It clearly didn't begin with her, as evidenced by that and its presence outside London in games like Sunless Sea. It's definitely worth asking how the trade came to be and what role the current royal family plays in its distribution, along with the high society of London you find in the chambers of the heart, and even the Isle of Cats far off to the Zee. It's a very interesting topic, and I'd love to find out how it all came to be.
edited by ZackOak on 7/5/2018
edited by ZackOak on 7/5/2018

--
Roland Banning, The Ambitious Operative (Profile)
Tumblr RP Account
Ask me about the Delicious Friends RP group!
Open for social actions (no cats or photographers, please. Currently taking a break from K&C.)
0 link
Anne Auclair
Anne Auclair
Posts: 2221

7/5/2018
millea wrote:
To continue on the topic of their main vices, the big 'thing' that people mention while discussing Feducci's evils is him running a slaving ship. The disdain is entirely warranted - but we also have to remember that those actions were taken during a time as tumultous as war, and at the time he wasn't a citizen of London. His reasons for doing so aren't stated, perhaps he did it for entertainment, perhaps for a different reason altogether. Meanwhile, the Princess' red honey habit has no purpose or value to anyone besides her - she does it purely for the enjoyment, even when a less actively harmful and much easier to obtain alternative exists in the form of regular Prisoner's Honey.

We actually know as little about the Princess's motivations for taking red honey as we do Feducci's for running the slave ship. The Princess's reasons aren't stated either. Perhaps the Princess takes red honey purely for entertainment or perhaps she has additional motivations. Perhaps she perceives red honey as benefiting London by bringing fantastical visions of far away things to the court, visions few will ever see directly: the sights of the interior Elder Continent, the islands of the Far East, the Sunlight of the Surface, the vast reaches of the High Wilderness... Perhaps she uses red honey for intelligence gathering, learning of the far world beyond the Palace and beyond London, in order to better govern her empire. Perhaps she uses it escape from a difficult family situation and an empty life that feels lacking in adventure and personnel fulfillment by diving into other people's minds. Perhaps she's such an addict that she couldn't even stop if she wanted to.

This is sort of what I was talking about. Feducci's crimes are given the most sympathetic reading possible (we don't know his reasons, it was a time of war, etc.), while the Princess's crimes are given the most malign readings imaginable (she does it simply because she's a sadist).

Of course the true answer is that both are equally culpable for slavery and torture when it suits their desires. But one gets the minimizing excuses, while the other doesn't...even though they're both doing the same thing.
.
edited by Anne Auclair on 7/5/2018

--
http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Anne%20Auclair
+6 link
Zack Oak
Zack Oak
Posts: 205

7/5/2018
Anne Auclair wrote:
This is sort of what I was talking about. Feducci's crimes are given the most sympathetic reading possible (we don't know his reasons, it was a time of war, etc.), while the Princess's crimes are given the most malign readings imaginable (she does it simply because she's a sadist).

Of course the true answer is that both are equally culpable for slavery and torture when it suits their desires. But one gets the excuses, while the other doesn't...even though they're both doing the same thing.

I wish I could upvote this more than once. It's unfortunately something that happens a LOT in fandom (e.g. Pearl, Rey, Cersei Lannister) where the traits fans might celebrate in male counterparts or give detailed metatextual analysis about, it just... never seems to go beyond the most malign reading, like Anne said. It's sad, because there's so much cool stuff we could be talking about, things we could be exploring about how and why the Captivating Princess is what she is, what living through the memories of others is about, how that relates to her evolution from what happened to the rest of the royals... I mean geez, this is cool stuff that's worth looking at, it's far more interesting and fun to discuss than just writing her off as a sadist because we can't and won't look past bias in reaction.
edited by ZackOak on 7/5/2018
edited by ZackOak on 7/5/2018
edited by ZackOak on 7/5/2018

--
Roland Banning, The Ambitious Operative (Profile)
Tumblr RP Account
Ask me about the Delicious Friends RP group!
Open for social actions (no cats or photographers, please. Currently taking a break from K&C.)
0 link
millea
millea
Posts: 45

7/5/2018
ZackOak wrote:
While I appreciate that you're interested in learning more about how gender presentation is a factor in how characters are perceived, I made it pretty clear that this is a large topic in and of itself. If you would like me to help you out with this, I'd be happy to DM you some resources on the subject, but you'll have to forgive me for not going into this with debate notes and links. I didn't think it was necessary to demonstrate that sexism and bias exists.

I am not arguing against the existence of sexism in the world, please don't misunderstand me. But I feel like if you're unwilling to engage in discussion for the issue you mention nor prove it exists in this context, what is the point of bringing it up? It's just bait and switch.

Anne Auclair wrote:
This is sort of what I was talking about. Feducci's crimes are given the most sympathetic reading possible (we don't know his reasons, it was a time of war, etc.), while the Princess's crimes are given the most malign readings imaginable (she does it simply because she's a sadist).

I feel like comparing what I said - "we don't know whether Feducci enjoyed slaving or not" to the increasingly unlikely and headcanony explanations you are thinking up for the Princess is a bit... strange? Nobody here is giving Feducci a dark and tragic past just for the sake of making him more likeable to the public - most of his fans take what he does at face value and like him for that, whereas it seems like you have to imagine a lot to make the Princess likable.

--
Elvira Blake, the Pariah's Doctor. ༺⚜️༻ Anne Meredith, the Disfigured Captain.
+3 link
Kalamari
Kalamari
Posts: 17

7/5/2018
It's an utter disaster that the Princess didn't win. One of the great tragedies in this setting I think is the utter weakening of the Royal Family. It's part of the decay of London, of course, showing that a leader as powerful as Victoria is reduced to an utter ghost of herself, and the effect that the dealings of the Bazaar and it's Masters have on people and nations as a whole. The Princess represented a sort of hope for the future, I think. Utterly ahistorical and unique, removed from the context of history books and saved from countless speculation on who she could be from the Surface. She embodied what the New London in her spirit, showing how if an individual could adapt and take what she pleases from the dark Hades that is the Neath, the Empire could do the same, leading into a bright and glorious future under-



HELLO LET ME TELL YOU WHY THIS IS WRONG

I believe the greatest factor in the lack of a win for the Princess (beyond her being the Princess) is the fact that she's gone a pretty drastic personality change. I will admit the Princess of old was only ever really experienced by me in the Feast of the Rose, when you have the chance to invite her to your Salon, and when she restores you to Court. My perception is colored by my lack of fate content involving her. But the thing I saw there was enticing, and inhuman. As her text description stated, she wore scandal like a Parisian gown. You got an idea of her from these encounters, of how she was feared more than loved. After all:

"She's a marvellous example to us all. A marvellous, marvellous example. No-one has a bad word to say about her. And don't you forget it.

You already need to have met her and see how far and dangerous her hungers go; in a sense, you got a personal, intimate connection with her, you got to see the monster beneath the mask. What you see in the Salon option is the public face; how people hover around her and how distant she is from the rest of them. London knows she is something magnificent and intimidating, but they don't know the truth you know. The idea of an Evil Aristocrat is an old one, and the old Princess was a refreshing take on it; she went without subtly yet without going into a cartoonish extreme. It was a look built on dignified appearances and a barely contained monstrous truth. Her reputation grew with the Gift, which I still hear recommended as one of the best and most horrifying exceptional stories there is.

There was a build up of a reputation of menace around her, and she failed to live up to it in her new incarnation. The Princess we see in the Election/Skies seems almost vapid and detached from the setting, working as a much more obvious character. Her logo of "Make London Magnificent for Me." throws what little subtly she had out the door, wearing her colors on her chest even more prominently than she had before. Her actions during her campaign did little to make her seem worthy of the aura of mystique she had around her, with petty actions such as banning journalists and planning to demolish Spite. This is a bit of a turn off for fans of the older model; in all honesty, the idea of someone so monstrous having such an airy, almost dreamlike way of viewing the world and interacting with it is very interesting. But it doesn't feel like the Princess. I see hints and glimmers of it the old her still there, what with the collection of previous lovers, but in general, I'm isolated from her because what aspects of her I liked are turned to 11 or just gone entirely.

In short, I was expecting a Wolfhound, and got a Chihuahua.

--
http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Kalis%20Amar Main account, zailor and monster hunter extraordinaire! Open to all actions except Seeking and other negative ones.

http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Rebecca%20Bhatt Alt account, poet and thief, tries to stay out of danger. Open to peaceful actions.

http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Herbert%20Phillips%20West Second alt, seeker in the making. Will take any punishment.
+9 link
Zack Oak
Zack Oak
Posts: 205

7/5/2018
millea wrote:
I am not arguing against the existence of sexism in the world, please don't misunderstand me. But I feel like if you're unwilling to engage in discussion for the issue you mention nor prove it exists in this context, what is the point of bringing it up? It's just bait and switch.

I really don't appreciate being accused of bait and switch for not teaching you a 101 class on media critique when google is free and you've shown no desire to engage with what I'm saying in the first place.

--
Roland Banning, The Ambitious Operative (Profile)
Tumblr RP Account
Ask me about the Delicious Friends RP group!
Open for social actions (no cats or photographers, please. Currently taking a break from K&C.)
0 link
Passionario
Passionario
Posts: 777

7/5/2018
The Princess is a 34-year old woman who looks like a 18-year old girl, talks like a 5-year old child, and acts like a 55-year old man accustomed a position of wealth and power...

...she's pretty much Alia Atreides, isn't she?

--
Passionario: Profile, Story, Ending
Passion: Profile, Appearance
+3 link
Diptych
Diptych
Administrator
Posts: 3882

7/5/2018
Woah, now, folks, this isn't the place to argue. Keep it chill!

--
Diptych, the Emancipationist Esotericist. Lord Hubris, the Bloody Baron.
Juniper Brown, the Ill-Fated Orphan. Esther Ellis-Hall, the Fashionable Fabian.
0 link
Dudebro Pyro
Dudebro Pyro
Posts: 765

7/5/2018
I thought the Elections forum was literally a place for arguing about the elections.

--
Dudebro Pyro, eccentric scholar

Spare Starveling Kitties always welcome. I collect them.
For that matter, send me your unwanted cat boxes too.
+6 link
Sara Hysaro
Sara Hysaro
Moderator
Posts: 4514

7/5/2018
You can have a friendly debate, and you can discuss the election. Once it turns into an argument, however, it stops being friendly and fun.

--
http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Sara%20Hysaro
Please do not send SMEN, cat boxes, or Affluent Reporter requests. All other social actions are welcome.

Are you a Scarlet Saint? Send a message my way to be added to the list.
+2 link
Dudebro Pyro
Dudebro Pyro
Posts: 765

7/5/2018
Fair enough. I, for one, find arguments - even heated and passionate ones, as long as they remain civil and to the point - very friendly and fun, and I believe (or like to believe) I'm not alone in this, but I can see why you'd take a stance against that on the forums.

Zack Oak wrote:

I'm especially interested in your bringing up red honey[...] It clearly didn't begin with her, as evidenced by that and its presence outside London in games like Sunless Sea. It's definitely worth asking how the trade came to be and what role the current royal family plays in its distribution, along with the high society of London you find in the chambers of the heart

Worth mentioning that there are literal red-honey-dens e.g. in Veilgarden. Or at least one. Where the only requirement for entry is a proper sum of money and a promise of secrecy (and the knowledge that it exists in the first place), and otherwise they're just open to the public. I'm not arguing for anything, just bringing up some info.

Anne Auclaire wrote:

We actually know as little about the Princess's motivations for taking red honey as we do Feducci's for running the slave ship. The Princess's reasons aren't stated either. Perhaps the Princess takes red honey purely for entertainment or perhaps she has additional motivations.

Let's see:
Perhaps she perceives red honey as benefiting London by bringing fantastical visions of far away things to the court, visions few will ever see directly: the sights of the interior Elder Continent, the islands of the Far East, the Sunlight of the Surface, the vast reaches of the High Wilderness...

Perhaps she perceives that as benefiting London, but it's still basically entertainment. I don't necessarily agree with the arguments excusing Feducci's slaving past, but one could make some argument about being forced to do it. Your description basically claims "she's doing it because she likes the pretty sights, and thinks her seeing the pretty sights helps London". I highly, highly, highly doubt she would ever keep going if she saw the job as a chore that she had to do for the good of the city.
Plus, how does her seeing those visions benefit London? Election aside, of course, since we're talking about the pasts and backgrounds.

Perhaps she uses it escape from a difficult family situation and an empty life that feels lacking in adventure and personnel fulfillment by diving into other people's minds.
Literally entertainment. "Perhaps Feducci took up whipping chained slaves for fun because he felt personally unfulfilled and had family issues."
Perhaps she's such an addict that she couldn't even stop if she wanted to.
Entertainment gone wrong, that she continues cultivating instead of trying to get help for. You're saying "she couldn't stop if she wanted to", but addict or no she clearly doesn't want to.
Perhaps she uses red honey for intelligence gathering, learning of the far world beyond the Palace and beyond London, in order to better govern her empire.
The only somewhat valid justification, even though it doesn't quite fit with her victim selection (surely it would be a whole lot more methodical, with spy agencies likely involved, if the purpose was to extract strategically useful memories; as opposed to the current scheme of attracting lovers she fancies).

For the record, I don't think Feducci has any justification for what he did. He was clearly motivated by a never-ending bid for more power, or for lesser stuff simply by his idea of fun. But I don't think cheapening your (otherwise pretty good) arguments with wild conjectures that stretch plausibility is a good way to convince Feducci supporters of that.
edited by Dudebro Pyro on 7/5/2018

--
Dudebro Pyro, eccentric scholar

Spare Starveling Kitties always welcome. I collect them.
For that matter, send me your unwanted cat boxes too.
+5 link
Wilhelm Leibniz III
Wilhelm Leibniz III
Posts: 63

7/5/2018
When will the Feducci Mayor card be replaced with the Contrarians?

--
Wilhelm Leibniz III, Glassman, Hearts Desire
0 link
Dudebro Pyro
Dudebro Pyro
Posts: 765

7/5/2018
Sorry, Feducci blew up the Contrarian's card.

--
Dudebro Pyro, eccentric scholar

Spare Starveling Kitties always welcome. I collect them.
For that matter, send me your unwanted cat boxes too.
+10 link
Mulligan
Mulligan
Posts: 128

7/5/2018
Though I'm a little late to the party, I thought I'd just pop in to say that I, personally, am very happy that the Jovial Contrarian won. Not necessarily because I agree with his politics, but because he seems like a really nice person based on the information I've seen around. Even if he is a contrarian, a position which can become quite grating for a lot of people, I get the feeling that he takes that role because he wants to encourage a greater level of thought and consideration.

Of course, I missed the first election so there might be something I'm missing but otherwise I believe that he'll make a rather nice mayor even if he isn't able to accomplish much due to the Masters interference.

--
Jean Morel, waiting for December.
More than happy to help with menaces.
Licentiate for hire, will murder for Rostygold.
+2 link
Gul al-Ahlaam
Gul al-Ahlaam
Posts: 238

7/5/2018
I would argue that the underlying assumption in a lot of posts is that being more or less overtly villainous correlated with having fewer or more supporters, and I don't think that's true.

Not all players have characters whose decision making matches up with or even has much of a relation to the standards and ethics of the real world, whether in politics or in other aspects of their lives. Gul makes decisions based on their own complex code which is based on aesthetic principles and emotional resonances, and is utterly unlike my own.
Not all players take the role-playing aspect very seriously either, and many just vote for whichever candidate seems most interesting to them (which is what I actually do, and then make up a justification for Gul to vote for them afterwards).
Many players really like highly motivated villainous characters, and are far more likely to vote for them than for anyone who seems too ordinary (myself included).

I also think millea makes a very good point about characterization.

Feducci's expanded character in the election built very fluidly from what we already knew about him and what was implied through his actions and dialogue. In contrast, the Princess seems to have put on a new public persona, complete with an entirely new face, which while strategically and practically a good choice does distinguish her from Feducci in a very interesting way.

I would argue that she used to have much more of a Feducci-esque badass, outwardly sinister vibe, at the Feast of the Rose, in Destiny: Appetite, in The Gift, and in The Marriage of Feducci (where Feducci claims that she's just like him). Her confession two Hallowmases back added a lot of pathos to her character as well, but in a way that didn't contradict her surface-level image, in a way similar to Feducci's confession.
Her characterization in Sunless Skies is explicitly fake, she's intentionally disguising her nature, motives, and actions from everyone, including the player, and there are hints of the personality we know underneath. Her story can't be finished yet, so who knows how it will end, but so far she's been ruthlessly conniving for power and knowledge, leaving trails of corpses in her wake, and covering it up with a glamorous façade.

Her character in the election, in both personality and appearance, suggests a sort of trial-run for this disguise. It's not as complete, and she's not as comfortable in it, but she's clearly trying to come off as innocent and charming. Still, beyond the most superficial level, it's clear she's still the same character we know and love.

  • Still, that overtly sinister, monstrous aspect was something a lot of people really liked about her, and while being willing and able to disguise yourself so thoroughly, and to then try and bulldoze that disguise through people's objections in a city where everyone's already abjectly terrified of you is pretty interesting, in that it's exactly the kind of calculated image-control move that every candidate in the election made, it's not necessarily the kind of interesting that people found compelling about her in the first place.



    But if we are going to talk about villainy, explicit vs implicit villainy, and how that might interact with their changing characterizations and people's perceptions of them, I'd be happy to jump on board.

  • Coming back to Feducci then, I think a lot of people, again myself included, disagree with the idea that he's outwardly "villainous" at all, since almost everything he does is easily characterized as just part of his job. He's a spy for the Presbyter, who has a well-established interest in Hell, to the point that there's multiple stories across multiple games that take the time to explicitly spell that out for us. He spends time in Hell, helps with their revolution and uses the goodwill he's earned to get a position on the Ship of Lights. The SoL, which is at one point during Feducci's term as its captain crewed by captured London prisoners of war, is as we already know primarily assigned to the rivers of death, and traveling the lands around the Far Shore, so being its captain is massively useful intelligence-gathering. This is barely subtext. His mayorship of London was even explicitly sponsored by the Presbyterate. So it's very easy to look past the immediate appearance of Feducci's actions and see him as just a somewhat ruthless man doing a difficult job, just like every great game agent and a significant portion of the player base.

  • The Princess is also, from where I'm standing, incredibly sympathetic, with a complex and difficult relationship with her family and her country, conflicting motivations and desires, and a significant tragic element to what she does. But it's on a surface level much easier to disconnect her motivations and backstory (lonely and neglected among the enormous weight of history, given tremendous responsibility but no real power other than that which she carves out for herself, envious of the opportunity her older sister has to live freely and happily away from the palace and the Neath but afraid of ruining their relationship, worried about caring for and raising her own little sister because she's afraid no one else will, ashamed of how her family has to hide their faces and live in catacombs despite being raised on tales of how important and amazing they're supposed to be, alienated from almost everyone in the world by the people's fawning adoration and terror, her siblings' dismissal, and her mother's seemingly compete disinterest) and her actions (she takes red honey and manipulates people and schemes for power in order to make her mark on the world).

  • While the link is totally understandable, it's easier to dismiss off hand (why doesn't she just do something else!) than the link between Feducci's motivation (he's a spy who loves adventure and freedom and self-determination, who lives for the thrills and the chance of failure) and his actions (he goes on undercover spy missions, fights in revolutions, schemes to gain information, and tries daring if sometimes impossible plans). If someone's going to be obnoxious and small-minded, it's not unlikely that they would sort the Princess into a "sympathetic villain" box and Feducci into a "badass antihero" box, depending on what they think about their respective goals and means. That's a reductive reading of the characters, but it's not uncommon.

  • And let's not forget that, as millea wisely pointed out, Feducci's actions never do harm to the player without their consent, and he's outwardly friendly and jocular with them. Now, if your character, like mine, has a very different concept of harm and compassion than most people do, that's totally irrelevant, but it's clear from peoples' posts in this very thread, among others, that they view the Princess as an oppositional character who would willingly harm them and their friends, and Feducci as a more neutral character, someone more likely to harm people they don't care about than people they do.

  • How important are any of these points? What effect did they have on how people voted and how they interpret the characters, proportionately? I have no idea. The voting information isn't out, and we don't know how many supporters of each candidate backed what other candidates in the past. Plus the forums make up such a tiny portion of the player base that making assumptions about how people feel about the characters based on the posts on here is like judging the full body of media criticism based just on what the people in your film studies class think.

  • EDIT: More legible formatting.

  • edited by Gul al-Ahlaam on 7/5/2018

    --
    The Uncanny Hierophant.
    The Jewel-Eyed Prince.
  • +9 link
    Kukapetal
    Kukapetal
    Posts: 1454

    7/5/2018
    Feducci was a "fun" evil candidate, the Princess was a "creepy" evil candidate. That's the difference.
    +2 link
    Sara Hysaro
    Sara Hysaro
    Moderator
    Posts: 4514

    7/5/2018
    They didn't completely ignore that element for her campaign, either - her promise to show London her true self was very ominous. Which, of course, was very compelling to me; I've always been a fan of horror. Feducci just wasn't my sort of character.

    --
    http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Sara%20Hysaro
    Please do not send SMEN, cat boxes, or Affluent Reporter requests. All other social actions are welcome.

    Are you a Scarlet Saint? Send a message my way to be added to the list.
    +3 link
    Jolanda Swan
    Jolanda Swan
    Posts: 1823

    7/5/2018
    The Princess we saw in the elections could have been an enitrely different Princess that the one we have been meeting so far.
    The Priness we knew was powerful, ruthless and very, very clever. The election Princess was childish, spoiled and had no idea of how people think (really? You do not know why doors are necessary?).
    The only glimpse of the Princess I knew came in other players' echoes, when she called them 'her creature'. Other than that, her mature charm was gone; only the caprice remained, and even that was diluted.

    I could see how one could vote for Fedducci, even if Joland did not; but while many people are drawn to danger, male or female, few are drawn to silliness.


    So no, it is not only a matter of feminine vs masculine villainy. If she was shown to be as conniving, as dangerous, as ruthless as we know her, she might have had a better chance. But a Princess who asks 'but why?' when told she needs a campaign manager, is no femme fatale. She displayed the naivete of Marie-Antoinette, and we all know how well that one went.
    edited by Jolanda Swan on 7/5/2018

    --
    Lover of all things beautiful, secret admirer of ugly truths, fond of the Parabola Sun... and always delighted to role play.
    http://fallenlondon.com/profile/Jolanda%20Swan
    +3 link
    Gul al-Ahlaam
    Gul al-Ahlaam
    Posts: 238

    7/5/2018
    Jolanda Swan wrote:
    The Princess we saw in the elections could have been an enitrely different Princess that the one we have been meeting so far.

    As I've indicated that interpretation isn't necessarily accurate. She's the same character, just trying to put on a more friendly face so she can win the popular vote. In Sunless Skies, she disguises her wolfish cunning behind the appearance and behavior of a fairy-tale princess, making cooing noises at birds and fluttering her eyelashes while also taking brutal and calculated steps to advance her own agenda. In the election, she's doing the same thing.

    Of course she knows that people need doors. She's starting the fire at the only exit so they burn alive. Her disguise is so much more transparent and ill-fitting than in Sunless Skies (where it's hardly masterful) that it's amazing real people are falling for it. It demonstrates either a disposition to read her actions in as unflattering a light as possible (and we've already discussed why that might be) or simply a superficial reading of the text as presented.

    EDIT: It's especially interesting because the Contrarian is also presenting his radical, unpalatable ideas behind a veil of ignorance and pleasantries, all but abandoning his aggressive, belligerent persona and taking on an impersonal, pedantic, conservative one, and is much less obvious about it than the Princess is.

  • edited by Gul al-Ahlaam on 7/5/2018

    --
    The Uncanny Hierophant.
    The Jewel-Eyed Prince.
    +7 link
    Anne Auclair
    Anne Auclair
    Posts: 2221

    7/5/2018
    Jolanda Swan wrote:
    The Princess we saw in the elections could have been an enitrely different Princess that the one we have been meeting so far.
    The Priness we knew was powerful, ruthless and very, very clever. The election Princess was childish, spoiled and had no idea of how people think (really? You do not know why doors are necessary?).
    The only glimpse of the Princess I knew came in other players' echoes, when she called them 'her creature'. Other than that, her mature charm was gone; only the caprice remained, and even that was diluted.

    Thinking about it, I just realized that all her really ditzy or "childish" actions were public actions. In private she's very commanding: "You're my creature", "Here's our Magna Carta", and "One day I will conquer a portion of the Unterzee and skin its inhabitants." Seeing as how those interactions where part of the group where the candidates revealed their true selves/agendas...

    And this did have one effect - it allowed people to argue she wasn't serious about some of her more overt evil deeds. Like, awwww, our Princess is blocking a tenement door with an extremely flammable poster - she probably just doesn't know any better. It worked on me and no one really caught on except Gul :P

    Jolanda Swan wrote:
    So no, it is not only a matter of feminine vs masculine villainy. If she was shown to be as conniving, as dangerous, as ruthless as we know her, she might have had a better chance. But a Princess who asks 'but why?' when told she needs a campaign manager, is no femme fatale.

    But she didn't need a campaign manager though... Her campaign was very well run, if a little whimsical. It involved, among other things, the mass coordination of body doubles. You never actually manage to upset her dignity after all.
    .
    edited by Anne Auclair on 7/5/2018

    --
    http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Anne%20Auclair
    +5 link




    Powered by Jitbit Forum 8.0.2.0 © 2006-2013 Jitbit Software