The Gaming Den

No Gods, Only Man Product is up for free at this Magpie Games link.

Ah, good ol’ humans. Aside from their versatility, short lifespans, and lack of a monoculture, they don’t really have any signifying traits which make them stand out in fantasy gaming. In a way, this is to be expected. Humans are a baseline species in Dungeons & Dragons defined more by their particular civilization or nation than their race as a whole. Attempts to make and define humanity in sourcebooks usually end up with vague characteristics which sound empty, usually some variation of “humans are too varied to make any sort of generalization, but they do have ambition.”

Additionally, players’ familiarity with humanity serves as a form of measuring stick to provide contrast to the more exotic civilizations. Many gamers feel that standard humans are bland, not possessing any distinct characteristics. John Wick is one of these people. As part of his “Wicked Fantasy” series where classic races are reinvented, the Reign of Men re-imagines humankind as an ancient and prosperous civilization which draws heavy inspiration from ancient Athens and Imperial Rome. Humans are the oldest race, and their cities are centers of learning and home to the oldest civilizations, and they have a fierce love for democracy.
Part One The book opens up with a mantra espousing the values of the Reign of Men. It paints a picture of a glorious land, where people are free to choose their own destinies without lords or gods and the ability to succeed and fail upon their own merits.

Among the elves, dwarves, and others, humans are known as the Old Race, because they have existed for as long as they can remember. The ancient kingdom of humanity (now known as the Reign of Men) was once ruled by warlords and autocratic noble families with sharply drawn class distinctions. Within the last 500 years it underwent drastic social change as learned scholars and philosophers argued for greater autonomy and that the citizens should choose for themselves how to be ruled. The newly-crowned monarch, derisively called the “Philosopher-King” by critics, was inspired by this movement and chose to enact laws granting citizens the right to elect their leaders. And thus democracy was born.

Human culture hews closely to the ideals of individualist autonomy. Humans should not beholden themselves to gods, and have the right to elect new leaders who fail to represent their interests. Humans believe that latent potential comes from within, and external sources of empowerment are ultimately empty paths. Through training, education, and sheer willpower, a human can become more than they are and achieve their greatest dreams. Although this unlocked ‘potential’ commonly takes on traits which can only be described as magical, humans insist that it’s not supernatural but a form of power believed to be held within every member of their race. Human Clerics and Paladins (known as Philosophers and Palatines) draw their magic from this inner strength. The text contradicts itself in saying that Palatines are granted their special powers by the Senate (the Reign’s governing body), which would effectively make it an external power source.

Interestingly, the text tells us that to be human means to be part of something larger than oneself. Humans are expected serve the Reign, and that what’s good for the Reign is good for all because it provides them the happiness and freedom they so desire. This stands at odds with the individualist rhetoric of earlier, although the flavor text does not acknowledge this and says that too many humans today are selfish and have lost sight of this ideal. Honestly I don’t mind cultural contradictions, but it feels that the author is unaware of this.

What then follows is a brief overview of an average human’s life in the Reign. Every town has a local university to ensure that all its citizens are well-read. Most parents train their children to be either be a scholar, soldier, or tradesman, and the child is pretty much locked into learning the trade for 10-12 years. Scholars attend prestigious universities of the ten cities and spend years studying about various sorts of academic lore. Unfortunately, all but the wealthiest families can hope to afford a scholarship. Adults usually live with their parents in family homes which are passed from one generation to the next. The elderly are expected to leave home and join universities in order teach new generations, especially if their family cannot provide for them any longer. Universities often double as poor houses, hospitals, and nursing homes given the lack of churches in the Reign.

Care for senior citizens (or the lack of it) is a huge problem. Although earlier the text mentioned that the elderly are "taken care of in the most humane way possible" by universities, most of them do not have the resources to care for them and are overcrowded as a result, leaving many of the old and infirm to die in the streets (perhaps the author meant "most humane way possible given the limited resources"). Senators who propose increased funding are shouted down by the militarists who would much rather use the money to guard against supposed hostile foreign powers (even though the nation is enduring a time of peace and lacks significant foreign threats).

Afterwards we get a rundown on the government. The Senate is comprised of elected representatives from the ten major cities running on 10-year terms. The city-states are supposedly independent but must obey all laws passed by the Senate. Each of the ten cities also elect their own Governors on 6-year terms; in addition to maintenance of their cities, Governors have the power to recall Senators with a 50% popular vote. The Senate also controls the military and elects a General on a lifetime position. The Reign also has a King who is elected by a 10-year term (which makes me wonder why they still use the title), and he can veto Senate laws (which is overturned by a 3/5ths vote) and introduce laws to them, much like the role of a US President. The King also has the power to form his own knightly orders (which are not part of the military). Also, humans don't like it when the other races call their nation a Kingdom.

We get a brief run-down on some local currency, holidays, and the city’s guilds, which are corrupt as hell (pulling on the purse strings of elected officials and intimidating voters).

Initial Thoughts: So far I find this revision of humans interesting, if a little contradictory in several areas. I find the idea of them being beholden to no deities interesting, a possible reason for why there’s no “God of humans” in most settings. The talk of ‘human potential’ initially came off as sort of the generic ill-defined ‘humans are special’ tripe, but making it a unique magical power source which leaves the other races in confusion is something I like a lot (we'll be getting into the game mechanics of this later).

Upon further review, the write-up does have a bit of Special Snowflake-itis, and I have to wonder if the civilization of the Reign is meant as some kind of Author Tract. The societal flaws and contradictions make me think otherwise, but it's possible.

Wick's humans come off like Arrogant "Enlightened Elves" in places. What makes them different than the "Our Elves Are Better" trope is that their society has some genuine flaws (guilds can influence elections, no social safety net for the elderly, etc).

I think that the human arrogance might be intentional. They don't like it when other races refer to the Reign as a Kingdom, and yet they elect a King (the text mentions that the term is "both accurate and misleading"). And their divine magic is obviously supernatural (still counts as spells by the game mechanics), yet they deny it.

Food for thought: John Wick (the author) is a Libertarian, and from what I've heard his works tend to have that political strain emerge at times. I can see this popping up in his human write-up, and I haven't read the whole thing yet. I can't tell if he's trying to make them idealized political clones or not (the nationalist collectivist angle of 'serving the Reign' throws that theory for a loop).

Next Time: the City-States!

Part Two In addition to the many small villages and towns, there are 10 major Cities in the Reign of Men. Each city has its own dialect, history, and customs. "To be human is also to be from a City," the text says. "Just as men are proud of their heritage, they are doubly proud of their native City."

Except that many humans live outside these cities. What about them? Do they not count?

Apparently not. Only the cities have the power to elect governors and senators, and the Senate laws do not extend to the towns.

Each city has two related Skills which represent the ideals and character of the city. For example, the merchant city of Tomkin has Handle Animal and Profession (Merchant). Humans who have an aptitude with these skills get in-game bonuses (which we'll discuss in the next chapter).

Nevernare is the capital of the Reign and home to the Senate. The bureaucracy is choked with paperwork, and legal morass and government incompetence leads to loopholes, corruption, and urban decay. Most Senators are greedy politicians, which only adds to the problem.

Ajun is the Reign's center of learning, a cosmopolitan town with students traveling in from all corners. As a tradition, every weekend the teachers leave the universities to debate no-holds-barred "real philosophy" in the city's taverns, hoping to be challenged as equals outside the dry academic context of the classroom. This is probably the most complicated and roundabout excuse I've ever heard of getting smashed.

Ashcolm is nick-named the City of Shadows for its numerous assassinations and sinister sorcerer families.

Shavay is located in the Reign's geographic center and is little more than a glorified post office, as the city is used as a commerce hub and waypoint for messengers.

Wave hello to the Invisible Hand of the Free Market when stopping by in Tomkin! Trade is managed all by women called "Aunties," and the woman in charge of them is also the city's governor. Governor Rose ran on a platform of getting rid of laws she saw as useless and over-regulatory until there was only one remaining: "protect each other." She won the election.

So Tomkin is supposedly a Libertarian paradise where people aren't overburdened by those dumb legal restrictions and home to happy merchants plying their trades! It's also the most free of all the cities. And yet the person in charge of the government is also in charge of the market, technically making it by the standards of Libertarianism...



Socialism! AAHHH!!!

The "one law" idea is dumb on so many levels. What does "protect each other" mean? Does it apply to everyone within the city, or just its residents? If the former, does that mean that you forsake this right upon setting foot outside? If the latter, are people who are not citizens free pickings for the criminal element?

In contrast to the opening mantra and the incompetent government at the capital, I'm definitely seeing a pro-Libertarian bias crop its head up.

Vanta is a martial northern City where only soldiers are allowed to vote (everyone's required to be a soldier), and frequently fend off orcs, trolls, and other such "lesser races" across the border. They look down upon their southern neighbors for pursuing art and culture, and always elect the most hawkish officials. Wait a second, the text mentioned earlier that the Reign is largely peaceful and doesn't have to worry about hostile foreign neighbors!

Tamerclimb is a spartan mountain City where all the Palatines are trained. The place is also home to a race of sapient horses known as the Uffred, who choose riders worthy enough to carry them (in other words, Paladin Mounts). The text mentions that the city is not suited to visitors, with "no elegant taverns for travelers, no theaters, and no brothels."

When I think of swinging tourist hot spots, I don't think about the destination's overall safety, its entertainment, or its climate; the prostitutes are where it's at.

Most of Millford stands in ruins, ravaged by the horrors of the wastes. Many citizens sought to reclaim it, and they're a hardy, tough lot.

Vinnick is renowned for its fine wines and wizard's colleges. Most of the city's economy revolves around servicing arcane spellcasters and their needs, from magic item shops to apprenticeship training.

Jinix is a city of thieves, where organized crime syndicates run the show. The Governor's a figurehead, and it makes most of its money exporting drugs and illegal goods.

There is still a noble class in the traditional sense (rule by bloodline), but they have no real power beyond the small villages and hamlets they still control. Most humans who live outside the cities are pretty much living on their land, and they don't get to vote for representatives or who rules them. So much for its claims at liberty and democracy; "to be human is to belong to a city," indeed.

Thoughts so far: Arguably the weakest part of the book. The Reign's vaulted ideals fall short in this part, and there's potential conflict in disenfranchisement of non-City dwellers. The antiquated nobility is a sharp contrast from democratic values, but is sadly underutilized here. This could be played straight as examples of flawed ideals, but the text does not come off that way. The town of Tomkin also left a bad taste in my mouth, too.

Next Time: Open Content, and a new, revised Human race!

Part Three

Open Content: All material starting on page 22 to the end of the book is Open Content. All other material is ©2012 by John Wick. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced without permission from the author. All characters and situations presented in this work are fictional. Except for John, Jess and Jill. They are as real as you. Aaron and Mauro, however, are entirely fictional and should be treated as such.

Now this is where we get into the real meat of game mechanics. From what I hear, it's typical in the Wicked Fantasy series to give the races a mechanical makeover with more distinctive advantages, such as Cleave as a bonus feat (as opposed to a "+1 to Diplomacy").

Here it is, the Wick-ified Human!

Human Racial Traits
• +2 to Strength, Constitution or Dexterity and +2 Intelligence, Wisdom or Charisma
• Medium: Humans have no special bonuses or penalties due to their size.
• Movement: Base speed of 30ft.
• The Will of Men: Gain +1 racial bonus to all Will Saves. At 5th, 10th, 15th and 20th character level, gain an additional +1 bonus. Men are creatures of will; their will carries them through a harsh world of politics and physical dangers.
• Improved Teamwork: Humans count every member of their party as having the same Teamwork Feats they have. No matter size of the group, humans know how to work with others, even if they aren’t human.
• Rally: Whenever a human threatens a critical on an attack roll they can make a Charisma Check DC 10 + CR of target. If successful, all allies within 30ft gain a +1 rally bonus to attack and damage for the next round. For every consecutive threatened critical during the same combat, add +1 to the bonus. Humans can drive others to new heights of determination through shouts of inspiration and encouragement.
• Skillful: Choose one skill that permanently counts as a class skill. Additionally, gain a +2 racial bonus to that skill. The bonus gains an additional +1 every four character levels. Humans pursue a wide range of careers and live in a multitude of conditions, and as a result learn to excel in many different skills.
• Hometown: Humans pick one city in the Reign to be their hometown. Each hometown has two “city skills.” If a human has a bonus of at least +4 in one city skill, they gain one bonus feat. If they have a bonus of at least +4 in both city skills, they gain two bonus feats. Check sidebar for which skills are related to cities. Every city in the Reign is known for producing a certain kind of person. When a human matches up with the ideals of their hometown they start with a leg up.
• Hometown Advantage: When humans are in the city they were born in they gain a +2 racial bonus to all Social rolls. Additionally humans gain +2 Favored Terrain (Hometown). Humans know their hometown like the back of their hand. Every street, every common merchant and all of the people are easily recalled from days of childhood. Language: Humans begin play speaking Common and Human
(Hometown Dialect). Humans with high Intelligence scores can choose any languages they want (except secre languages, such as Druidic).
• Hometown : Humans pick one city in the Reign to be their hometown. Each hometown has two “city skills." (see pg. 15)

The standard Pathfinder Human has +2 to one ability score of the player's choice, an additional skill point at each level, and a bonus feat at 1st level. Wick-ified Humans get a net +4 to ability scores, an extra class skill which can get up a +7 racial bonus, and two potential bonus feats (which can be taken at any point and not just 1st level) for as little as a 2 skill point tax!

The Rally trait is way too weak to be worth it. Not only must you threaten a critical hit (30% at most with a specialized build and weapon), but you must roll a successful Charisma check (which you won't make against higher CR enemies unless you pump up the ability). And then the bonus lasts for only one round. An optimized character built around it can probably stack up bonuses in combat, but there are easier ways to make an "inspiring" character build.

The Improved Teamwork trait essentially gives free feats to the other PCs. I'll talk about it later, under the feats.

In comparison to the Pathfinder Core races, this Human is powerful, really powerful. Overpowered, even.

Now for the feats:

Human Knowledge Feats

Love of Knowledge
You pursue philosophia, the love of knowledge.
Prerequisites: Human, any Knowledge skills 4 ranks total.
Benefit: You may make untrained Knowledge skill checks, even if you do not have any ranks in the Knowledge skill, regardless of the DC of the skill check. Once per day per four character levels (minimum of once per day), you may ruminate on a subject for 2 minutes in order to take 20 on a Knowledge skill check. As usual, you may only take 20 if you are not under stress or threat and have uninterrupted time to consider the question.
Normal: You may only make untrained Knowledge skill checks if the DC is 10 or less. You may not take 20 on Knowledge skill checks.

Flavorfull feat, but the Bard's class features make this ability superfluous.

Human Teamwork Feats

Human Tactics
Humans know how to fight well with others, and in time, they can teach others to fight well with them.
Prerequisites: Human, Profession (Solider) 5 Ranks
Benefit: As a standard action, you can grant one teamwork feat to all allies within 30 feet who can see and hear you. Allies retain the use of this bonus feat for 3 rounds plus 1 round for every two character levels you possess. Allies do not need to meet the prerequisites of this bonus feat. You can do this a number of times a day equal to you Wisdom Bonus.

This is the only teamwork feat listed, but if there are others it would still be useless. Because Improved Teamwork effectively grants the character's teamwork feats as bonus feats to other party members. Human Tactics does the same thing, but on a limited duration. Maybe it's meant to be used for people not part of the party, although "party" is really broadly defined.

Human Rally Feats

Saving Rally
Some humans can inspire more than just inspire a better attack.
Prerequisites: Human, Diplomacy 6 Ranks or Intimidate 6 Ranks
Benefit: When you threaten a critical hit, instead of using the Rally ability you can use the Saving Rally ability. Saving Rally affects an ally who has failed a Will saving throw during the encounter and is still under the effects of the failure. Make either a Diplomacy or an Intimidate Check; the result counts as a new saving throw result for the ally against one effect; your choice of which effect to attempt the save against. This cannot be used on yourself.

Extended Rally
The more intense your words the further they can reach.
Prerequisites: Human, Saving Rally, Base
Attack Bonus +10, Diplomacy 10 Ranks or Intimidate 10 Ranks
Benefit: You can extend the range of the Rally ability to 60ft. If you use the Saving Rally ability instead you can affect a number of extra targets equal to your Charisma Bonus.

Sorcerer’s Rally
Hearing the right words can help the magically gifted to new heights.
Prerequisites: Human, Extended Rally, Spellcraft 5 Ranks, Diplomacy 13 Ranks or Intimidate 13 Ranks
Benefit: When you threaten a critical hit, instead of using the Rally ability, you can use the Sorcerer’s Rally ability. Sorcerer’s Rally allows you to select one ally with caster levels and make a Spellcraft Check DC 10 + their Caster Level. If successful, add your current Rally Bonus * 2 to their caster level for the next round.

Inspirational Rally
With the right words, people can be called to act.
Prerequisites: Human, Sorcerer’s Rally, Diplomacy 17 Ranks
Benefit: When you threaten a critical hit instead of using the Rally ability you can use the Inspirational Rally ability. Inspirational Rally allows you select one ally and one enemy they can attack without moving within 60ft of yourself. Make a Diplomacy Check DC 10 + CR of the selected enemy, if successful the ally makes an attack against the enemy. They gain a moral bonus to attack and damage equal to your current Rally Bonus * 3 for the attack. Melee, Ranged, Touch and Ranged Touch attacks can be used with the power.

Menacing Rally
The terror you can inspire in your enemies is frightful.
Prerequisites: Human, Sorcerer’s Rally, Intimidate 17 Ranks
Benefit: When you threaten a critical hit instead of using the Rally ability you can use the Menacing Rally ability. Menacing Rally allows you to make a Intimidation Check DC 10 + CR of your target, if successful all enemies within 60ft take a penalty to all attack and damage equal to your current Rally Bonus * 3 for the next round. Penalties from Menacing Rally do not stack; only use the highest current penalty.

The Triumph of Men
Men are Exceptional and do Exceptional Deeds.
Prerequisites: Human, Inspirational Rally or Menacing Rally, Diplomacy 20 Ranks or Intimidate 20 Ranks
Benefit: When you threaten a critical hit instead of using the Rally ability you can use The Triumph of Men ability. The Triumph of Men allows all humans, including yourself, who are allies to regain ¼ of their maximum hit points + your current Rally Bonus * 4 and removed any conditions that they wish to remove. This can only be used once per day.

The Sorcerer's Rally is potentially abuseable with its increased Caster Level, and Inspirational Rally can apply for some action economy shenanigans; the whole 'threaten a critical' makes the usage of Rally feats unreliable.

Human Hometown Feats

Home Away From Home
While a human may have been born in one city, it’s possible they grew up or have lived a long time in a different city.
Prerequisites: Human, Knowledge (Chosen City) 7 Ranks, own home in the Chosen City
Benefit: You gain the benefits of Hometown Advantage in the Chosen City. This feat can be taken multiple times but only Cities in the Reign of Man can be your Chosen City.

Not impressed.

Next we get the alternate Cleric and Paladins.

Philosphers are like Clerics, only better. They have 5 skill points per level, and instead of using a holy symbol or radiating an alignment aura, they have an object of sentimental value known as a focus which grants +1 to DC of all spells cast as long as it's on their person.

Cleric loses holy symbol, can't cast spells. Philosopher loses Focus, and his +1 DC bonus to spells. Fair trade, I think not.

Philosophers can also select any two domains of their choice regardless of alignment restrictions. They also get two new domains, Humanity and Philosophy, which grant a bonus Orison per day per domain chosen.

Also, Philosophers and Palatines don't call their magic "spells;" they're "meditations," with Orisons being "Insights."

Palatines are focused on justice and honor and crusade against evil, yet they can be of any alignment. They also get two Knowledge skills not in Pathfinder (Law, and Senate), which sound way too specialized and can easily fall under Knowledge (Nobility & Royalty). They're pretty much the same as normal Paladins, albeit their heavy horse mounts (not warhorses) are treated as a Druid's animal companion, and their Divine Grace applies only to Will but affects allies close by as well. Divine Health is renamed Man's Vigor, they channel positive energy like a cleric instead of laying on hands, and their capstone ability grants bonuses to allies instead of banishing evil outsiders.

Our product ends with a list of approved classes for humans. They can be any class in the Core Rulebook except Cleric and Paladins (because they don't worship gods) or the Monk. I'm confused about this last ban, as the class is all about self-improvement and discipline. They can't be any of the Advanced Player's Guide classes except for the Cavalier. There are no explanations for these restrictions, either.

The verdict: Innocent. The book promised us an original, interesting, and new take on humanity. John Wick also promised in the inside forward a "darker lens" of the Wicked Fantasy races, although he did not deliver on this part when it came to Humans. However, the product overall delivered on its promise, so it's innocent.

I do think that these Humans are too idealized and their flaws too downplayed. With a few alterations and a "down to earth" re-imagining of their society, their nation could make an interesting addition to a game.

The verdict, for realsies: Not guilty. The book does deliver on a reinvented human race, providing them with an overarching culture and unique traits and abilities. Unfortunately, its execution leaves much to be desired: the society feels too idealistic, and what flaws there are are either unintentional or played down. The hidden potential within all humanity is merely just class-based divine spellcasting, and it feels like a waste that only two of the classes can obtain it; I would've made it a series of human-only feats. It's also too connected to a specific setting and history, minimizing its applicability to other settings (although I guess this is to be expected when hyper-focusing humans).

In short, great idea, poor execution. It could have been a lot more.

Humans in D&D settings seem like 1700's Age of Exploration white folk, and the demihumans are different eras of orientals like celestial inscrutable mongols or savage horde mongols

This is not what I expected when I read the title of the thread.

When the first John Wick movie came out, I was totally confused because I thought people were talking about this guy and it made no sense to me. The John Wick movies are awesome, and I had forgotten this guy existed, so when you posted this review I was again confused.

In any case, I find the idea of kings voluntarily abdicating in favor of democracy just because they think democratic philosophy is awesome to be completely out to lunch. That has never happened and will never happen.

There are even peaceful transitions to democracy you could have. Like, you could imagine a king who had no sons and instituted an electoral succession to hold he realm together. You could imagine a king who hated his son or who for some other reason definitely wanted to pass the realm on to a popular duke that he was sure would win an election. But no monarch in the history of the world has ever or will ever accepted the reduced status of their social class just because they thought things would be cool with more equality. That rings hilariously false.

British kings did not allow parliament because they wanted it, it was imposed by the magna carta after a successful revolt threatened to drown Prince John in a river. British kings did not allow for parliament to hold primacy over the monarch, there was a civil war and King Charles got his head cut off.

Waving it off as saying 'democracy happened because the king was awesome and liked democracy' is not only implausible, it trivializes the effort people actually take to make democracy be a thing in the real world.

-Username17

FrankTrollman wrote: In any case, I find the idea of kings voluntarily abdicating in favor of democracy just because they think democratic philosophy is awesome to be completely out to lunch. That has never happened and will never happen.

I might be mistaken but I think it was the case in Bhutan,

Blade wrote:

FrankTrollman wrote: In any case, I find the idea of kings voluntarily abdicating in favor of democracy just because they think democratic philosophy is awesome to be completely out to lunch. That has never happened and will never happen.

I might be mistaken but I think it was the case in Bhutan,

The Bhutan monarchy did institute a constitutional monarchy after the abdication of the previous king in 2006. I don't have any special knowledge of the subject, but I suspect that it might have been influenced by the violent overthrow of the monarchy of neighboring Nepal by a Maoist insurgency the same year.

The Bhutanese monarchy gets a pretty good deal under the new system, keeping most of the benefits of rulership while leaving much of the governing to an elected parliament. It's very obviously patterned on the British system, which is unsurprising. Certainly a better deal than the Nepalese monarchy got - as their royal properties all got nationalized by gun toting communists.

I'm not actually sure if the monarchs just honestly thought they'd get a better deal as constitutional monarchs than as actual tyrants or if they were afraid of being overthrown by the nearby anti-royalist peasant army or both. Certainly Bhutan does have an insurgent communist party that is banned by law and conducts some amount of direct military action against the Bhutanese state. I don't honestly know whether they were considered a credible threat to the monarchy between 2006 and 2008.

-Username17

FrankTrollman wrote:The John Wick movies are awesome, and I had forgotten this guy existed, so when you posted this review I was again confused.

I was in precisely the same place. Was looking forward to a modern setting full of freelance assassins and other crime for hire.

I'd like to apologize for the confusion regarding the title. I figured a tongue-in-cheek joke about the contents would be more eye-catchy than the default title "Reign of Men."

I'm unfamiliar with this John Wick and was very confused by the title. The click bait worked.

FrankTrollman wrote: I had forgotten this guy existed

I have no time for any of his RPG output but I am regularly reminded of his existence on FB as he is always buying Ken St. Andre lunch. Not sure if it's libertarian lunch, but at least it's something in Wick's favor.

Libertad wrote:The "one law" idea is dumb on so many levels

Yes. I was immediately reminded of a DW supplement I looked at recently, The Green Law of Varkith, which is explicitly said to be inspired by Planescape and the Bas-lag series. As dumb as Bearworld is Varkith was at least kind of interesting as it presents the loophole shenanigans of supposedly inviolable laws a la Asimov. Not sure if that says something about the comparative levels of self-awareness in Libertarianism vs Anarcho-capitalism (or whatever Mieville's inspirations end up being) but that's as far as my mushy brain is going to let me think.

This actually got me thinking more about a topic I've been mulling over for a while. Doesn't your typical D&D-style "gank dudes, steal their shit, gank stronger dudes" setup lend itself towards the bootstraps fantasy a lot of libertarians subscribe to? If I, as a single individual, can walk into the nearest seat of power and stab that guy in broad daylight, then kill his army, and the only people who can stop me is a plucky band of unnaturally powered adventurers, then doesn't that prove that might actually does make right within the context of that world?

The Adventurer's Almanac wrote:This actually got me thinking more about a topic I've been mulling over for a while. Doesn't your typical D&D-style "gank dudes, steal their shit, gank stronger dudes" setup lend itself towards the bootstraps fantasy a lot of libertarians subscribe to? If I, as a single individual, can walk into the nearest seat of power and stab that guy in broad daylight, then kill his army, and the only people who can stop me is a plucky band of unnaturally powered adventurers, then doesn't that prove that might actually does make right within the context of that world?

An entire fantasy heartbreaker called Hoard the Spoils was made about this. Although instead you're hiding your wealth from evil government knights who are trying to make you pay your 'fair share' in taxes.

Libertad wrote:(no social safety net for the elderly, etc).
[/b]

It's still special snowflake by Libertarian standards since for many of them a lack of a social safety net for the elderly is just seen as being more practical than us softies. There are demonstrably libertarians and conservatives out there who dismiss the value of any public medical spending that does not result in the sick returning to work and paying off their debt. That such an approach categorizes grandma's hospice care as an expensive boondoggle is something most of them like to avoid thinking about but sometimes you can find an edgelord or two who will admit to it.

FrankTrollman wrote:

Blade wrote:

FrankTrollman wrote: In any case, I find the idea of kings voluntarily abdicating in favor of democracy just because they think democratic philosophy is awesome to be completely out to lunch. That has never happened and will never happen.

I might be mistaken but I think it was the case in Bhutan,

The Bhutan monarchy did institute a constitutional monarchy after the abdication of the previous king in 2006. I don't have any special knowledge of the subject, but I suspect that it might have been influenced by the violent overthrow of the monarchy of neighboring Nepal by a Maoist insurgency the same year.

The Bhutanese monarchy gets a pretty good deal under the new system, keeping most of the benefits of rulership while leaving much of the governing to an elected parliament. It's very obviously patterned on the British system, which is unsurprising. Certainly a better deal than the Nepalese monarchy got - as their royal properties all got nationalized by gun toting communists.

I'm not actually sure if the monarchs just honestly thought they'd get a better deal as constitutional monarchs than as actual tyrants or if they were afraid of being overthrown by the nearby anti-royalist peasant army or both. Certainly Bhutan does have an insurgent communist party that is banned by law and conducts some amount of direct military action against the Bhutanese state. I don't honestly know whether they were considered a credible threat to the monarchy between 2006 and 2008.

-Username17

Best example I can think of is King Carlos I of Spain, who was very definitely instrumental in the transition of Spain to a free democracy (up to and including defusing a coup that intended to dismantle the democracy and return more power to him).

However, he didn't transition Spain to a republic and he maintained the throne until 2014, when he abdicated in favor of his son.

FrankTrollman wrote:In any case, I find the idea of kings voluntarily abdicating in favor of democracy just because they think democratic philosophy is awesome to be completely out to lunch. That has never happened and will never happen.

After getting to meet enough libertarians, I long came to the conclusion that if there's something all libertarians have in common besides their flawed ideology is their complete lack of touch with reality. They ramble about The Invisible Hand as if it was still a thing (or had ever been, for that matter). Magical Thinking at its worst.

...so, of course a libertarian would write such incoherencies.

I thought a lot of libertarians splintered off into nazis and monarchists? Some people really do make the political leaps into thinking we should have the divine right of kings again. Maybe the weird fetishization this game has going on is related to that sentiment.
Of course, I could just be getting trolled.

The Adventurer's Almanac wrote:I thought a lot of libertarians splintered off into nazis and monarchists? Some people really do make the political leaps into thinking we should have the divine right of kings again. Maybe the weird fetishization this game has going on is related to that sentiment.
Of course, I could just be getting trolled.

I recall that Mises was in fact of some whackjob ideas, so the whole 'split' may not be so recent.

But you are right in that lots of libertarians such as Stefan Molyneux realized that jerking off the 1% and science-fiction ideas like seasteading can only get you so far in the culture wars. So instead, they devoted their time to blaming economic woes on Jews/feminism/degeneracy/immigrants which polls a lot better with alienated white guys unsure of their future.

Of course, there was also the Goldwater and Neo-Confederate types whose FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BAD Galaxy Brain takes meant including opposing even sensible solutions like...preventing Klansmen and cops from attacking black voters and interracial couples. So it was only a matter of time, really.

There are some Libertarians who are horrified by white supremacy, although they seem to be more and more in the margins as of late. I do not know what political views John Wick has now (this book was made around 5 years ago), but I can only recall 3 at the moment:

Brianna Wu, that feminist game designer and anti-GamerGate spokesperson, was a Libertarian, and actually got some fan backlash over that along with the fact her rich parents helped her fund her video game career. This was a while ago so I don't know what her present ideology may be.

So is Maggie McNeil, a pro sex worker rights advocate, although from what I've read of her she doesn't seem keen on examining the underlying socio-economic problems that many sex workers face which laissez-faire capitalism fails to solve (like housing prices and healthcare services).

And there's Popehat of that legal blog of the same name, who used to have an alt-right crank guest-write on his blog before he worn out his welcome. His social media posts are definitely anti-Trump, for what that's worth.

Much of Libertarianism is just a stalking horse for Fascism. The core belief being that there must be two classes of people before the Law: those the law binds but does not protect, and those that the law protects but does not bind. Thus, all discussions of 'liberty' are really just arguments for authoritarianism.

There are some people for whom Libertarianism is an actual position rather than just an attempt to repackage views that are otherwise morally indefensible. It still is fundamentally immature and incoherent as an ideology. Every freedom 'from' necessarily limits a freedom 'to' and vice versa. Your freedom to sleep easily trods on my freedom to play loud music at night. Your freedom to participate in civil society trods on my freedom to refuse to serve black people at my lunch counter and so on and so on.

For the committed Libertarian there must always be a hidden set of assumptions of which freedoms are 'important.' All ranting about axioms and non-violence and crap really come from a fundamental belief that people everywhere basically want to do what the Libertarian in question wants to do - and thus that people being 'free' to make any choices would still fundamentally conform to societal norms the Libertarian would find acceptable. The loudness of music that the Libertarian does not like which counts as violence against bystanders is lower in their mind than the loudness of music that they do like. The belief that the police have the right to shut off that rap music played by the other and the belief that they should be allowed to play their rock music as loud as they want exist hand in hand.

Making an ethical argument for why I should be free to do something that another person does not want me to do or why I should be free from being imposed upon by the actions another person wants to do is actually really hard. Where religious freedom to discriminate against out-groups ends and the freedom of minorities to not be discriminated begins is not something that has easy answers. Sincere Libertarians are only able to exist because they haven't done the heavy thinking about those issues. They think there are easy answers because they have given flippant answers.

-Username17

@FrankTrollman: I don't think you, Libertad, Almanac, or Dogbert actually know what you're talking about. Lots of straw-manning going on here, big oofs, many laughs.

The fundamental traits I have identified amongst libertarians (besides whiteness) is education without critical thinking ability. Libertarians are fond of presenting thought experiments and grand ideologies but every single one of them I've ever been met with breaks apart completely when you ask a single question of it. The idea that their worldview is based on flippant answers really does seem to be a big part of it.

The immediate example that occurs to me is when they go on about minimum wage and how Sally can generate $30 worth of benefit to an employer per hour but Bob can only generate $5. And that by making a $10 minimum wage you are removing Bob's ability to be employed. That sounds like an ok argument if you have literally no filter on incoming information or follow up questions like "Wouldn't Bob have become homeless and died on a $4 an hour job? Isn't removing a position that would kill people good?". Any questions that require their ideas to be explained above a grade school level of complexity irreparably break their models and that says something about how deeply they think about the ideologies they are repeating.

Also that their belief system fundamentally requires a belief in magic or magical beings and most won't even acknowledge that.

Let's break it down:

FrankTrollman wrote:"Much of Libertarianism is just a stalking horse for Fascism."

A claim or opinion? Not sure what evidence you have to back this up, and your following arguments don't support this.

"The core belief being that there must be two classes of people before the Law: those the law binds but does not protect, and those that the law protects but does not bind."

Nope. Not sure where you got this 'fact' from, but the Law, relegated to its proper purpose and sphere, applies to everyone equally.

"Thus, all discussions of 'liberty' are really just arguments for authoritarianism."

Uh... because the people who want the smallest possible Govt and maximum possible personal freedom are also arguing for the largest possible Govt and it having huge reach and control over peoples personal lives? *BIG OOF*

"There are some people for whom Libertarianism is an actual position rather than just an attempt to repackage views that are otherwise morally indefensible."

Hey, that's me! But if the principles of Liberty are to be upheld, it does imply some actions that some would consider morally indefensible. But then, if we follow their logic to its end, we would see that their view is even more morally indefensible.

"It still is fundamentally immature and incoherent as an ideology."

Uh... no, it's not immature, quite the contrary. The strain of Libertarian thought can be traced back to Socrates. It is coherent because it operates from first principles. It is concerned with how humans operate and should operate given the human condition. It encompasses all human affairs, and gets as close to (real) justice for all as any philosophy could do.

"Every freedom 'from' necessarily limits a freedom 'to' and vice versa. Your freedom to sleep easily trods on my freedom to play loud music at night."

See, this gets at the root of the misunderstanding you and these others seem to have: when Libertarians talk about 'freedom' they're talking about freedom from violence, coercion, force - that is, physical harm on a person or his property.

"Your freedom to participate in civil society trods on my freedom to refuse to serve black people at my lunch counter and so on and so on."

This touches on the "invisible hand" idea, which is a metaphor. It's the idea that there are always forces at work in the realm of human activities such that wants and needs will be met accordingly. It also touches on the idea of private property, which by definition is synonymous with exclusive property. On your property, you are absolutely free to refuse to serve black people, or any other race, creed, ethnicity, or whatever. Don't want handicapped people in your establishment? You're free to refuse service. But what this means is that those people will take their business elsewhere - you will lose out on their $ and your business may develop the reputation of being intolerant or hyper-exclusive, and so your business may suffer even more.

"For the committed Libertarian there must always be a hidden set of assumptions of which freedoms are 'important.' All ranting about axioms and non-violence and [...] the belief that they should be allowed to play their rock music as loud as they want exist hand in hand."

Again, you misunderstand what is meant by 'freedom'. When we talk about freedom, we mean: free from coercion, force, violence, etc. There is no hierarchy of 'freedoms' in which some are deemed more important than others. There is just: "does this assertion, assumption, claim, etc. hold up to the 1st principles at its core?"

Making an ethical argument for why I should be free to do something that another person does not want me to do or why I should be free from being imposed upon by the actions another person wants to do is actually really hard. Where religious freedom to discriminate against out-groups ends and the freedom of minorities to not be discriminated begins is not something that has easy answers. Sincere Libertarians are only able to exist because they haven't done the heavy thinking about those issues. They think there are easy answers because they have given flippant answers.

Again, you misunderstand what is meant by 'freedom'. You're free to do whatever you'd like, provided it doesn't coerce, force, or harm another human being or his property. I may not like you playing your music super loud, but I cannot attack you for doing so. I may not want gays parading up and down my street in ass-less chaps with dildos in hand, but that doesn't mean I'm 'free' to attack them.

----------

But really, there is a lot that goes into this, like what Libertarian 1st principles actually are, briefly:

1.A) Human Rights: Contrary to popular belief, these are actually very few and enumerated: Every person has the rights to Life, Liberty, Happiness. Property is also a right, but it is included in 'Life': a person's body is his own property, and a person can make something his or her property by mixing his or her labor with raw natural materials, or an agreed upon (mutual consenting) exchange of established (previously created) properties. Happiness is pursuit of one's own gain, ventures, destiny, etc.
1.B) Liberty: One cannot violate the rights (as listed above) of another person (or his property, which as we said, was encompassed in the right of 'Life'). This is what 'Freedom' means: Any use of force, coercion, violence, etc. etc. violates said persons rights and is unjustifiable, except in one particular case: self-defense. This applies to groups as well as to individuals.
1.C) The Law: The true purpose of the Law is to ensure the above. The Law, relegated to its proper function is only as a tool of self-defense. Any other use of the Law is a perversion of justice.

Class dismissed.

Dean wrote:The fundamental traits I have identified amongst libertarians (besides whiteness) is education without critical thinking ability.

This fits the libertarian in my friend group so well. He's extremely well-read, and I know he's read stuff from other political ideologies because he keeps trying to bring up communist theory that I've never read (I recently quit my job to found a cooperative tech startup, so he thinks I'm this super radical-left person). Yet all his ideas about how the world works and should work are just uncritical parroting of the standard American myths about how capitalism works that fall over at the slightest scrutiny.

For stupid examples, he once told me that private ownership is necessary because the outsized rewards from it are the only reason anyone takes risks to start new businesses. And we're talking about economics in the first place because I'm starting a coop...

ArmorClassZero wrote:@FrankTrollman: I don't think you, Libertad, Almanac, or Dogbert actually know what you're talking about. Lots of straw-manning going on here, big oofs, many laughs.

Hey AC0, I saw you do a point by point breakdown for Frank, do me next!

As for how I arrived as my reasons, it's mostly due to what I've seen and witnessed firsthand along with what self-described Libertarian channels are popular.

I mentioned Stefan Molyneux before, but the guy self-identifies as an AnCap while defending the police treatment of Eric Garner (the dude selling untaxed cigs in NYC).

He also argued in favor of closed borders in regards to non-Caucasian countries.

This man is wildly popular on YouTube. We're talking over half a million subscribers.

Then there are Ron Paul's racist newsletters from the 1990s.

Steve Ditko was a Randian Objectivist as well; while a lot more mild, in one of his comic tracts in showing the problems with the world (Avenging World I believe), he had several newspaper backgrounds talking about "rioting mobs demanding special privileges and treatment" taking the side against the mob. One of these news titles detailed the 1965 Watts Riots. The riots which were brought on by Jim Crow racism and segregation. A violation of individual rights.

I will give Libertarians one thing; there were those who were terrified at militarized police forces during the 2014 Ferguson unrests, given it was quite literally Big Government fears come to life. I also like their position on decriminalizing drugs and being skeptical of government military ventures.

But there are now more self-defined Libertarians among the alt-right, and many Libertarian groups have not exactly done a good job of kicking them out. Reason Magazine tried to warn people of their ilk against the alt-right but got a lot of hate for it.

Looking in Libertarian circles they have viewed the GOP as the lesser of two evils, even during the Bush Administration which seemed...well, crazy given the disastrous Iraq War.

And racism is not just Stefan or Ron Paul. Ayn Rand herself was in favor of US military intervention in forcing Native Americans to give up their languages and religion, and also said that Israeli military action and settlement in the Palestinian territories was justified.

Spokespeople in the Ayn Rand Institute once argued in favor of bombing targets which would hurt the civilian population in Iraq, saying that we shouldn't care about civil rights of non-Westerners and that since the USA is so free we should be as brutal as possible to anyone who threatens said freedom.

Ayn Rand and her ideological inheritors have been quite consistently against individual liberty and small government when it came to darker-skinned people.*

*Yes I realize that many Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs come in a variety of skin tones, but Palestinians are not viewed as "white" in the USA, thus my point.

There were some Libertarian Party debates criculating on the Internet showing how just about every candidate said if they lived in the 60s they'd vote against the Civil Rights Act. Those who argued otherwised were booed vigorously. THe fact that the CRA had one thing which went against their ideology (forcing bigoted businessmen to serve minorities) was worth scuttling the many, many other things it did to safeguard individual liberty of minority groups from Jim Crow and segregation.

While I disagree with Frank's notion that Libertarian is necessarily a stalking horse for fascism (fascism is more specific ideology than just authoritarianism or racism in general) I on the other hand cannot really get my panties in a bunch when Libertarians have almost without exception sided on the wrong issues in regards to minority rights.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivi ... _primitive
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uHSv1asFvU
https://ari.aynrand.org/issues/foreign- ... terrorism/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4i9bnwZ7WO8
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4717023/ ... vil-rights