The holiday hangout will go online tomorrow! If there's anything in the regular subforums that you're going to want to access over the holidays, copy it now while it's still accessible.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
The ruckus about the Royal Wedding weirds me out. It weirds me out because I ended up watching it. I too had to know what type of dress the bride wore! Oh I had my reasons for that line of inquiry, but they feel invented - like, secretly, I wanted to watch the pomp and circumstance of the Royal Family in England.
It also makes me wonder about a larger question: do we still yearn for a King?
Now, King is a loaded term. It's rightly, literally interpreted as a leader who is created by either succession or circumstance, and who's successor is created by familial relation. But in many respects, the idea of a King seems to pervade through to our wider consciousness -
"What this country needs is a dictator" --> "Musolini made the trains run on time" --> Is a King not a despot but with well-defined succession?
The way we seem to talk about the English Royal family seems to have a particular yearning for a King, the way we talk about the US president seems to almost want King-like powers, the way I watch HBO's Kings finds me at time thinking "hey, this is great, things are getting done".
So the question I'm asking, D&D, is do you think that this whole concept of democracy, is obvious and forever? Or do you think that it would not take too unrecognizable changes for us to flip back to having a King, or some minor variant thereof?
EDIT: To be clear - obviously - from an enlightened perspective, both women and men could command the type of absolute power I'm referring to, but from a Western perspective "proper power" is encompassed by the "masculine" pronoun. I have an internal crisis over how to refer to it - do I use the singular pronoun i.e. "sir" being used for male and female captains (ala Star Trek Voyager, where I might know it from) or do I acknowledge a distinction? Why shouldn't the commander of absolute power simply always be "King"?
It is of course, also a literary strategy - everyone "gets" the idea of a King.