354vas - Jinx In Hell 08 - A Short Walk To Mother

Jinx in Hell Part 8: A Short Walk to Mother Jim Vassilakos ([email protected]) After Jinx takes her leave of Nethrys, she traces her steps back through the Halls of Special Postponement and Inquiry1, toward what she expects will be the security chamber with the twin symbols of pain standing guard. The way is not an easy one, however, and soon she becomes confused, wondering if perhaps the passages are magically swapping intersections as might a living maze. Then, suddenly... "Hello." Jinx turns around, only to see Lilis smiling at her, all serene and matronly, leaning back in a corner Jinx had passed only a moment ago when it then appeared inconspicuously empty. "I trust you are finding your way around?" "More or less," Jinx replies. "Perhaps a little less than more? It is most common among newcomers," she explains, "but if you're looking for Baalzephon, I'm relatively certain I can assist." Lilis followed us, Jinx thinks to herself. "I don't wish to bother her unnecessarily," she finally replies, realizing in the same breath that if Lilis knows which cell they visited, it won't take her very long at all to interrogate Nethrys and discover most everything she could wish to know about Jinx including enough to guess at her mission. Definitely, not good, but there's not much that Jinx can do about it either. "Baalzephon is very busy," Lilis agrees. "She has all sorts of interesting secrets in desperate need of safe-keeping." "And I suppose you know them all." "Really, do you think I have nothing better to do than occupy myself with useless trivia?" "You're here, aren't you?" Lilis makes a thin smile, "You are very bold." "I apologize if I overstep." "No need. Bold amuses me." Just then there is a noise from down the corridor, and as Jinx turns to look, she sees Biffant rounding the corner. "Ah, once again I find myself blessed with two visions of loveliness," he smiles, bowing ever so humbly. "My lady liege, whatever are you doing here?" "I was wandering about and became lost," Lilis lies. "Then I bumped into Jinx, and she graciously offered to lead me out of this idiotic labyrinth." Biffant blinks for a moment, at first not 1

These, of course, are not to be confused with the Reformatories for Beleaguered Souls, the Stockades for the Stupendously Obtuse, or the Dungeons of the Deliciously Uncontrite. Most of the Hells are prisons, after all, and all of them are if you were to ever stop to think about it.

quite sure how to reply, then he quickly paints on a smile. "I shall escort you both, if you would permit me the honor." "Lead the way, Lord Provost," Lilis nods approvingly. Soon they come to the security chamber, Biffant deactivating the barrier before they pass through. His eyes are upon the former ArchDuchess for a long moment afterward, fully cognizant that she could not have passed this way by accident. "I shall retire to my chambers," she remarks once they are through and the barrier has been reactivated. "If you must," Biffant bows. Then she is gone. For a long moment he seems to stare longingly at the empty space she'd only just occupied. Then he turns to Jinx, his mood somber and collected. "Your interrogation was briefer that I expected." "I will continue it tomorrow. For now, Nethrys should have time to consider my arrival and what it bodes for his future. In the meantime, I have a party for which to prepare." "Baron Esoto's, I presume?" Jinx nods. "Is there anything I should know of these parties in advance?" "Indeed," Biffant grins, "but it would be uncouth of me to spoil your surprise." "In that case, if it is of no inconvenience, I would like to see where my mother is being kept." "You wish to see her?" "No. I just want to know where she is." He looks at Jinx strangely for a moment, but then nods understandingly. "You wish to see her, but you don't wish to be seen." "Precisely." He motions for her to follow. In a few minutes, and after passing through not a few magical portals, they arrive at yet another cell block, but this one is strangely misty and deathly silent. No guards lurk about making idle chit-chat or scheming in their lower ranks. And rather than being entered by heavy iron doors, the individual cells here lay physically open; their entries are encloaked by dark shrouds of oily fog. Jinx notices, as they approach one in particular, that even the heels of her boots upon the floor emanate no clicking noise as is common elsewhere in the tower; instead, they seem almost to glide upon the black mist along the dark iron floor. With a peculiar wave of his hand and a whispered command, subsonic in frequency to the very border of telepathy, Jinx sees Biffant part the fog at the door. Inside the cell a column of the same fog stretches from

floor to ceiling, and within that, held there floating by the inky mist, is the sleeping form of Jinx's mother, Malarea. "She sleeps?" Jinx whispers. "Until we command it otherwise," Biffant replies. "So she has no way of knowing how long she's being held. What if her soul should try to dream-explore?" 2 "The mists ensnare her soul as well as blocking both sound and vision. They even guard her manifestation." Her body, Jinx imagines him meaning. Rather than carry on what is a rather pointless conversation, however, she merely stares at her mother, sleeping silent, seemingly entranced. "You are thinking either of two things," Biffant posits with a smile. "You are thinking either 'I love her' or 'I hate her.'" "I'm thinking both."

IgTheme: Favorite Movies Strangely enough, although I enjoy both fantasy and science fiction, my favorite movies don't fall into either category. Probably my all-time favorite film is "Fandango" 3, a rather ignored movie about some college-age groovers in the late 1960s. Of course, it's always hard to explain exactly why a film strikes us in a certain way. For myself with respect to this movie, it was probably a combination of many things: fear of the future (Vietnam is an ever-looming presence in the script), strained friendships, skirted responsibilities, personal remorse, and even some small measure of redemption through a strange combination of conniving wit and selfless generosity. And, also, there are certain magical moments, such as when a small flock of birds seem to dart off precisely on queue, or when fireworks crackle over a grassy cemetery, life and laughter intermingling with death and dismay, all together in the same, exact instant. And that, of course, is to say nothing of the parachute lesson. Movies like this are a sort of rare treat, a bizarre trek into a magical place where magic, as it were, is kept at arm's length, where a reality that truly was (and, in large measure, still is) interposes itself into the 2

In this setting, dreaming souls have been sometimes known to stretch and coil beyond their earthly vessel, particularly while under magical influence. 3 http://www.alexmusson.com/fandango, incidentally, the DVD will finally be coming out February 2005, and you can bet your sweet ass I'm getting me a copy.

lives of the characters like a constant, immovable threat. And yet still they manage to find the time to have some fun before it all must inevitably come to an end. To describe this movie in a word: it's bittersweet. Happy but sad. A brief, final moment of sunshine before the storm. Another more recent movie I took great interest in watching was "City of God". 4 It's about a group of kids growing up in the slums of Rio de Janeiro and about the drug culture which plays such a pervasive role in their lives, shaping all of their relationships and generally resulting in a great deal of needless sorrow. I think what struck me the most about the movie was the fact that it's essentially a true story, and being that the plot was formed as the natural result of economic and social conditions were are pervasive amongst much of the industrializing world, it is likely a tale that has been repeated many times with only minor changes in the details and the characters. Likewise, it's a tale that is repeating itself even today, and which will do so over and over again well into the future, and as I got to thinking about it, I really started to worry about the world's future. If children can become so corrupted as they were shown to be in this movie, is there really any hope for humanity whatsoever? In that sense, I'd have to say that it is very likely the most depressing movie I've ever seen, but, very entertaining and, at times, quite hilarious. But it's also true. Bizarre, sad, and true. I sometimes wonder why fantasy or science fiction can't seem to reach the level of Fandango or City of God. Clearly, Star Wars was a momentous film, and clearly the Lord of the Rings series was also great (I should admit that I haven't seen the last movie of either of these two series yet), but, at least for myself, they simply can't compare. They don't have the same character depth or development. Moreover, they aren't real, and they have no place in our history. Any social comment they wish to make applies only within their own small universe. Granted, Tolkien wrote LotR as a sort of historical allegory, but was he really successful? I'm not sure you can compare Mordor to Nazi Germany in any meaningful way. Likewise, Star Wars speaks to the evils of Empire, but it does so in such a juvenile, almost comic-book fashion that the message is almost entirely suppressed by flashy special-effects and goofy-looking aliens in monkey-suits. Let's face it: Star Wars is a space fantasy, and Lord of the Rings is pure fantasy. Neither carries the impact of real life. Neither draws real insight into what we're doing right now. They are ultimately little more than expensive diversions, entertaining, sometimes well-acted, rather

amusing and certainly well-polished, but diversions nonetheless. Not that there's anything necessary wrong with that, except insofar as it is sociologically expensive. 5 When I look to fantasy or science-fiction films that really grabbed me, I find myself hard-pressed to find candidates worthy of honorable mention. There are a few, however, which come pretty close. John Carpenter's "The Thing" 6 : This movie is about a team in antarctica which finds a flying saucer buried in the snow. It is a classic horror/science-fiction movie, however, it is set on Earth during the modern period, and the characters, most importantly, all manage to come off as real people facing a real crisis. Nobody is particularly, mind-boggingly stupid, which seems to be the common failing of many horror scripts, and the ending is strangely satisfying in a rather fatalistic sort of way. As for why I liked it, however, I'm not really sure. Perhaps I was simply intrigued by the movie's alien which seems to exhibit intelligence, although in a completely alien manner. It's hard to describe, but the movie's conflict, to me, almost seemed less like man vs alien than man vs nature with nature having a sneaky upperhand. Likewise, this strange lifeform posited by the script makes for an interesting if horrific solution to Fermi's paradox. 7 "Strange Days" 8 is a cool romp through an alternate and somewhat futuristic last days of 1999. The big techno-gimmick is a memory recorder, which, just as in "Brainstorm", can record everything a person sees, hears, and feels while they are wearing the device. An underground memory-market has resulted, and the story ends up being a mystery/techno-thriller with a sort of cyberpunk feel. Ultimately, I think, the theme is about coming to terms with one's past as well as seeing people for whom they truly are, even 5

See my comments to Brian Misiaszek in this issue, especially my conversation with Louis LaMancusa. 6 http://homepage.powerup.com.au/~vampire/thi ng/thing.htm 7 See my article in A&E #298. 8

4

http://www.miramax.com/cityofgod

http://www.hundland.com/scripts/StrangeDays. txt

when love gets in the way of logic, and it raises interesting questions about the true function of human memory. "Memories were meant to fade," one character posits. "They were designed that way for a reason." And when you hear it, you know it's true. I like movies that don't pull their punches, ones that surprise with dialogue rather than special effects. Granted, good special effects rarely hurt a film, but they don't make one either. Lord of the Rings, "The Two Towers", actually, had a very good script. It was everything you could realistically ask from a fantasy movie. Great saga. Save the world. But, I guess I like films about smaller conflicts with characters who seem real, who seem approachable, who seem like people one might actually meet. I've currently begun watching Battlestar Galactica, the new version, and I have to say that it is very well written so far. Aside from that minor detail about water supposedly being hard to find in space, it's been absolutely great. And, of course, the blonde in yummy. Let us not forget what's truly important.

China Of late, I've become increasingly concerned about China. The idiotic alarmist in me screams: "Watch Out! That thing coming at you this time is no longer Communism. It's a fiend that you've fought before, and only won after much effort and blood. This time, the consequences of irreconcilable differences will be far worse, so beware the enormity of the chance you are taking by aiding your natural enemy." "Oh," you say. "But the USSR fell, so it must be okay to get in bed with the big, bad chinaman (and his itsy-bitsy you-knowwhat). After all, we can all make more money that way, and after all, isn't money everything?" There, of course, is also the argument: "Well, if they have money, they'll all become nice people like us! Duh!" Oh, and my favorite: "Engagement is worthwhile, because to know us is to love us." I've got news for everyone (or at least all the Westerners reading this). They don't love us. They might understandably envy us for how rich and powerful we are, and they might very correctly ridicule us for how soft and stupid we are, but they don't love us. China, you have to understand, is ruled by "Communist" Party officials who choose who they want to rule, and the party, as a whole, basically does whatever it wants, and the people don't have the freedom to amend

this situation. Just as one example, which I hope you find as egregious as I do, the government is officially and rather evangelically atheist. Now, I have no problem with atheists. I was one for the vast majority of my life, and perhaps I still tinker with the notion from time to time. After all, we're only human. If we can't doubt, then there really isn't much left, when you think about it. Because what is doubting if not thinking? But the problem isn't that they're atheists, but that they expect everyone else to be also. Now, apparently there's this movement in China, and it's called the Falun Dafa, also known as Falun Gong. And what they believe is incredibly stupid. You're gonna laugh. What they believe is basically the Chinese version of Christianity, except without Christ and the Romans and that wooden plus-sign that became so important to everyone. Actually, it's sort of funny. Their cross turns out to be the swastika. Oh, and they think illness is caused by evil spirits. These guys are wacky. Oh, and the best part. It's brand new. Only been around for ten years. The leader's name is "Master Li". I shit you not. In any case, the Chinese government is not happy about these guys. One might say that they are most unhappy. See: http://www.falundafa.org/eng/index.htm http://www.falundafa.org/eng/faq.htm If you go here, you can find about how these poor idiots are getting themselves tortured and executed. It's actually fun reading. So why is China so angry, you wonder. I mean, these people are ignorant but mostly harmless. I think it's because the Chinese government doesn't believe in harmless, and most of all, I think, because they can't control it. They view this new religion as a spreading cancer, and it is. I mean, all religion is like a cancer. It gets too powerful, and then you have to push it back down again. It is the nature of religion to get in the way of thought and reason, even to get in the way of right and wrong, basic morality, for morality without thought is just wicked ignorance. Nothing more. And many religions, no matter how well conceived originally, have devolved into just that. But so too can the state become too powerful, and Chinese government has drawn a line without the will of its people. There are no general elections. There is no political freedom whatsoever. No freedom of speech. No freedom of assembly. No freedom of belief. If you operate a society in this way, but still give people the right to own property so long as they still do what their national leaders tell them to do, that's called fascism, and it has proven a very capable form of government, both economically and well as militarily.

China is fast becoming a fascist autocracy, and we in the United States are actively helping them become a successful one. There was recently produced a rather long document called "The Nine Commentaries on the Chinese Communist Party" 9, which was produced by a privately held media outlet called "The Epoch Times", which, I grant you, seems to be publishing from a pro-conservative agenda. 10 These guys are predicting the demise of the Communist Party in China, which I don't necessarily think is incredibly likely. They recently held a forum on China at the National Press Club in Washington D.C., and among the speakers were two particular gents who I think are worthy of mention. One is William Murray, Chairman of the Religious Freedom Coalition, who talked at length about why the Communist Party in China probably would not fall any time soon. 11 His central theme was that they're too rich to drop off the face of the Earth like the Communist Party of the USSR. And they're rich because we're making them rich. This should not be a point of contention. I mean, Wal-Mart goes there constantly. How do you think its prices are so low. And, of course, they're not the only ones. Our trade deficit with China is enormous. We buy from them everything from clothing to Christmas lights. They may be devoutly atheist, but they have no problem selling us our Christmas tree lights. Figure that one out. The Soviet Union collapsed because it was bankrupt (of so I've heard). They didn't have some massive swelling of conscience and suddenly decide that they'd been bastards all these years. They were broke. They needed money. Murray tells of visiting the USSR, and of military officers trying to sell their service medals to tourists for hard currency. He told some stories about how nothing worked in Moscow. The state-run economy was a joke. The only economy worth a damn was the black market. Nothing else functioned. And, of course, either it's all a big exaggeration, and Communism is this beautiful ideology that brings peace and joy into people's lives, or perhaps the idiots on 9

http://www10.epochtimes.com/9pingdownload /English/9ping_en.pdf 10 I'd be curious to learn who owns them. Originally, I was worried that they might be a propaganda arm of the Taiwanese government or perhaps even the U.S. government, but I was unable to turn up evidence of such affiliations. The Chinese government, meanwhile, steadfastly maintains that The Epoch Times is a propaganda arm of the evil cult Falun Gong. I'm so glad that we have the Chinese Communist Party to protect us from evil cults. 11 http://english.epochtimes.com/news/4-1230/25320.html

the right were right after all. Perhaps Communism really sucks, not just economically, but all the way around. Perhaps it's a social poison of such malevolence that even religion has to take a back seat (and that, unfortunately, is saying an awful lot). And yet we support China. Why are we doing this? Because they are embracing capitalism? Because, capitalism is, after all, our holy savior? Give me a break. Capitalism is about as evil a system of social manipulation as I can imagine, but it works. Yet there's nothing in there about real freedom. Economic freedom isn't freedom at all. It is no more freedom the placation of lust at the service of infatuation is love. Capitalism is essentially the freedom to be as greedy as you like. Great motivator, but not freedom, not true freedom. True freedom is political freedom. It's is freedom of speech, of association, and of belief. In short, real freedom is freedom of religion, because it's all right there. The freedom to proselytize your personal stupidity. The freedom to associate with other stupid people. The freedom to believe whatever nonsense you want to believe. That's what freedom is! We in the United States call our country the Land of the Free, and we thank our creator for bestowing his blessings upon us, and then we buy a bunch of often pointless presents using material objects as the expression of our love, we put up a tree (a pagan symbol which had been incorporated into Christianity), and we buy lights to decorate it, lights probably made in China and purchased at Wal-Mart at discount, celebrating the day of Christ's birth by elongating the slavery of those little people across the big, blue pond. Now you probably think I'm a religious wacko, and…well, I'll plead guilty to the wacko part…but there's just something a tad bit wrong with this picture. But, of course, it gets worse, because we're not just supporting them with our consumer dollars. If it were only that, I'd probably just let the whole thing slide. But no, we're actually actively helping the Chinese government to exert even greater control over their people. Oh yes, because American capitalism knows no bounds. We'll be a friend to anyone with cash in their pocket, and seeing as how the Chinese are milking their people for every last drop of the old gimmiegimmie, those Communist Party officials have a ton of cash. Heck, they're buying up property around the world just in case things go south. If there's a revolution, Canada and the United States and other countries around the world will be home to former Chinese government officials. But, of course, that's because they are incredibly cautious. Most likely, they're not going to have to move any time soon, because they've got us helping them. China and the West are in business, or to speak in

business terms, our two civilizations are effectively in bed together. Ethan Guttman, author of Losing the New China, also talked at the aforementioned conference. 12 He talked about how, specifically, America in particular is helping the Chinese Communist Party. And is Bush at fault? Yes, Bush is at fault. Is Clinton at fault. Yes, absolutely. This isn't a republican versus democrat issue. This is about capitalism. It's about money. Basically, China's first and best chance for political change was, unsurprisingly, the Internet. The goal of every totalitarian regime is to control the people, and to do that you have to control the press, political dialogue, even political thought. You have to control information and perceptions of history. Sometimes you have to stretch the truth. Sometimes you have to outright lie. But with the Internet, the lies were being exposed. The Chinese government very wisely decided that it had to do several things. They needed to censor the Internet. They had to stop Chinese citizens from finding sites with political content, so that meant searching for these sites to shut them down, killing off all the proxy servers and so forth, and stopping their people from accessing western media. Secondly, they had to monitor what their people are doing, what websites they are visiting, what sort of emails they are sending each other. Third, they had to begin using technology to aid the police, so that if somebody was arrested for something, that person's political history and associations would be right there, accessible by an individual officer of the state. Finally, they had to prepare for the possible eventuality of a cyberwar, essentially a war of computer viruses aimed at crippling an enemy's technological/informational superstructure. And, of course, we were all too eager to help them on all counts. Cisco designed a firewall box for the Chinese government which effectively blocks the forbidden web on a national scale. Cisco says, "Hey, we're just trying to make a buck. The U.S. market has been a little soft lately." Oh, you poor dears. I understand completely. Go, go make a buck. Screw an entire nation as well as the entire free world, but go ahead and make your precious dollar! And, to be perfectly fair, it's not just Cisco. Yahoo and AOL have been perfectly compliant as well. "You want us to censor? Okay, we'll censor. We're just here to make a buck." Neutrality. Gotta love it. Around the year 2000, Motorola, Siemens, Nortel and Nokia jumped in with all sorts of surveillance systems. Yeah, it's not just the American firms. When I say "The West", 12

http://english.epochtimes.com/news/5-17/25560.html

we've got to include Japan. Any nation which survives on caffeine and porn has got my vote for "Western". But then I'd better let Paul Mason speak to this. Even Microsoft, IBM, GE, Honeywell, Lucent, and Sun Microsystems got into it. Big brother Internet here we come. It's all being implemented in China. And, to top it all off, Network Associates (McAfee), Norton Anti-virus and Trend Micro of Japan donated 300 computer viruses to the Chinese government, presumably to upgrade their security against hackers. One can only wonder what the Chinese military is doing with these specimens. This is so wrong, what we're doing, and in the meantime, China is getting stronger and stronger, not the people, but the government and the military they control, and while they hopefully won't attack us (that wouldn't be very smart on their part), they certainly aren't going to fold up and blow away like the Soviet Union. I think if there is any hope, it will be from the next generation of Chinese leaders. In the youth there is always hope. But in the meantime, the persecutions will continue, the surveillance of the entire society will continue and it will continue to grow more intense. As China's power grows, and Western power wanes, there will be significant conflicts of interest. In the meantime, we keep buying our Christmas lights, hoping that perhaps God will intervene on our behalf, even while we make a mockery of our religion as well as our national soul, all in the

name of our one true deity, the almighty dollar.

Comments on A&E #353: Paul Cardwell: One page of comments and you devote half of it to me. Well, I feel blessed. Unfortunately, like you, I also smell something fishy, and it's not the meat you're peddling. Yes, I've heard a little about these odd discrepancies between the exit polls and electronic polling places. Your comment was the first I'd heard of this, but I did some fishing around, and I'm worried that you might be on to something. In short, our recent election might well have been stolen, but the problem, of course, is that without a paper trail, it can never be proven. This is disturbing, to say the least. Somewhat interestingly, I saw some guy appear on Fox News trying to make the case that the election was fixed. He appeared on

Hannity and Colmes, but he was never given the chance to state his evidence. They basically brought him on to make fun of him, and when he accused Colmes of being in the pocket of Fox News (which is, on the face of it, undeniable), Colmes spent the rest of the interview railing against this guy, arguing that Fox was providing a pulpit for him to state his charges, no matter how perverse or unfounded. This guy stated to both of them that he'd be happy to briefly enumerate his evidence, but he was never given the chance, and so at the end of the interview, I was left more confused than when the interview began. Since Fox News is so "fair and balanced", I guess I shouldn't be too surprised by their tactics, but strangely, none of the major networks seem to be covering this story, and it's a really big story. They're all acting like nothing untoward happened and that anyone who claims otherwise is some conspiracy nut. It's all very grim, and I don't honestly know what else to say about it. Regarding your comment about Congress lazily allowing the president to declare war on his own, that was also interesting. It was, I guess, technically legal, although the way it was done seemed somewhat, um... surreptitious? Regarding capital punishment, I again have to agree with you. If anybody hurt my parents or my wife, I would like to decapitate them with my bare hands and perhaps a dull spoon, but I agree with you, capital punishment is wrong for many reasons. Regarding the so-called Patriot Act, you're preaching to one of the converted. Regarding the backdoor draft, again, I agree. Damn, Paul, why do you have to bring up so much stuff that we agree on? I mean, yeah, I voted for Bush, so I guess that signals that I must agree with something he's doing, right? And I outlined that in #352. I don't really want to go back over it again. Suffice it to say, it was a hard vote to cast, but my gut-instinct told me that we weren't going to reach the point, as you said, where the yellow crescent joins the pink triangle. This is still America, and Americans, no matter how lazy and greedy and ignorant we are, we still know something about right and wrong when it's staring us in the face. And, in any case, there's always the ACLU you can rely on, God Bless their litigious souls. As for your final statement, that we can't impose democracy on people because we are no democracy: I think if we lose in Iraq, it won't be because of Bush. He probably make further mistakes along the way, but at least he's trying. As for Kerry, it was never his war. He had no political interest in winning it. The question, I guess, is whether you think victory is possible, and if it isn't, then voting for Kerry was the right vote. Better to get out and lose face than continue stabbing ourselves in the gut.

It all comes down to faith and reason, I guess, but, at least in my opinion, there's no way to really know for certain which choice was the right one. Myles Corcoran: Rather than reply to anything in your zine of #353, I'm going to instead return to your previous potential IgTheme: "Player or GM? What draws you more to one role or the other?" as well as my counter-question: "How do you think you might be different today if you had never been exposed to RPGs?" I'm going to have to think about this a great deal more, but my guess is that if I hadn't gotten hooked into RPGs, I probably wouldn't have gotten interested in writing simply for pleasure. What little writing ability I have would probably have withered. Also, I became interested in programming, but if you look at my early programs and even most of my later ones, they're almost all somehow RPG-related, so it's possible that I might not have gotten into programming. What's that leave? Well, I suppose it leaves going to the gym and working out. It leaves chasing women (or being chased by them on the all-too-rare occasion). It's really hard to say what would have captured my interest. I would have had a great deal of time to fill, and I would have filled it somehow, but I'm not altogether sure that imagination would have become a large part of my life. I might have become a stamp collector or something equally pointless. It's really imagination that lured me into RPGs, and this whole notion of creating a world and an impromptu story lured me into GMing. It was amazing. What an amazing idea that Gygax and Arneson had. Not perfectly executed, but a damn fine job. It was revolutionary, and I'm glad I was here to take part in it. Michael Cule: RYCT on China vs the United States, see my essay on China. I wrote that for you and for Paul Mason who asked me why I think the world is so dangerous. And it's 2:30 in the morning right now, so I hope that at least one of you decides to read it. Regarding revenge and the natural hatred of invaders: Agreed. Regarding the battleground over which the U.S. and China might one day fight: I'll give you a hint. My wife is Taiwanese. Of course, I think the U.S. would probably trade Taiwan for something, perhaps Iran, before it would go to war in defense of the small island nation. And that, of course, is very sad, but it's my current guess. As for an Arab Union, I agree that it seems unlikely, but nuclear terrorism is still a possibility, and if that happens, what will the response be on the part of the United States? I can't even imagine. Robert Dushay: RYCT me regarding

politics: I'd be eager to read your detailed analysis if you ever find the time to write it. As for what you wrote so far, I'm not terribly fluent in many of the issues you mentioned, and I'd be curious to read more about each. For example, regarding Israel and Palestine, so long as Arafat was in the picture, I'm not sure what could realistically be done to promote peace beyond Israel's plan for unilateral disengagement. Now that Arafat is gone, maybe there's a chance. I don't know. I just don't know enough about it to comment with even the slightest degree of confidence. You go on to mention Liberia, Haiti, Venezuela and Darfur, asserting that the President has been on the wrong side of every issue. I don't know enough to make a detailed analysis, so I'd be curious to hear more about your views on each. Taking just one, Darfur, I'm under the impression that the whole conflict is really a political one. It's a rebellion, essentially, and the civilians in the Darfur region have been getting hit because of their cooperation with anti-government forces. Of course, the whole problem stems from the fact that the government is a corrupt, totalitarian regime (somebody please correct me if I'm wrong in this assessment). So the question then becomes, what do we do? We've got a corrupt, totalitarian regime in a fight for it's very survival, and in the process it is committing what appears to be genocide. What do we do about it? If I were President of the United States, my first inclination would be to drop leaflets saying "democratize or else," and then a month or two later, after they've failed to heed warnings, drop a bunch of bombs on their government buildings. But to do so would necessitate that we be the world's police. What would the world say about this? Probably nothing particularly nice. In the end, unless we were to put massive numbers of troops on the ground, we probably wouldn't be able to effect the change we're seeking. I suppose we could go to the rebel leaders and say, "We'll aid you with air strikes if you do the rest and promise to democratize the nation upon your victory." This might work, but in the end, it's going to take a massive political upheaval to solve the problem, and do we have the resources to do that? If we were to institute the draft and perhaps go to a system of resource rationing, then yes, we could effectively double or even triple our military. If we get real, meaningful cooperation (or, at the very least, moral support) from our so-called allies, then yes, we'd be on a much better political footing. But are either of those things going to happen? No. Of course, not. Everybody hates us. My point is that American policy is hypocritical for a reason, and that reason is that we can't (or, at least, we believe we can't) do everything we'd like to do. I wish it

were otherwise, but given present circumstances, I don't see how we can realistically step in to solve this problem. I think the problem is also compounded by the fact that there are ineffective international organizations already passing the buck. The United Nations has refused to step in, for example, and although the African Union did finally send peacekeeping troops, they haven't been given the authority to actually keep the peace. There was an incident recently where Sudanese forces were attacking a refugee camp, intent upon killing escaping civilians from Darfur. From what I understand, armed African Union forces were on the scene. They were right there, in place, with their weapons loaded, and they did nothing. Their commanders forbade them from engaging the Sudanese forces in order to protect the civilians, and so it turned into a massacre. Now, when you have a situation where this is occurring, and an international force from the African continent is right there at the right time with weapons and everything they need to make a stand, and still they don't do it, where the U.N. is doing nothing and Europe is (as usual) doing nothing, and then Americans are crying for us to get involved even while deriding the President over his campaign in Iraq, I can't help but wonder if the world hasn't gone completely crazy! Yes, our policy is hypocritical. We have finite resources. We have to choose our fights. As you continued your comment, you talked about HIV, population control, Saudi Arabia, and even Rome. You mentioned Bush's incompetence with respect to the economy, education, foreign policy, environment, human rights, law, abortion, religion, national divisiveness, and energy policy, and all in the same sentence. How am I supposed to reply to all this? It's not a discussion. It's a hurling of venom. And maybe you're right. For what it's worth, I know many people who I consider to be very intelligent who agree with your assessment whole-heartedly. But that doesn't equal a discussion. I don't learn anything new from venom. Bush may be the worst President we've ever had, but simply saying so doesn't add anything substantive to the debate. It doesn't add anything to my knowledge of politics or society or history. So, instead of continuing on in this way, let us actually discuss. I like to think that I'm open-minded enough to listen to reason. I should add that whether we ultimately come to agreement on Bush or American politics in general is completely irrelevant. People have different points of view because people are people; none of our minds work exactly the same, and that's all part of the fun. What's important is that we try to educate each other and ourselves on our different perspectives, because regardless of whether or not we agree, we'll both come out the wiser for it. In any case, I look forward

to reading more of your arguments in greater detail. Lee Gold: RYCT Paul Cardwell regarding religion being a major factor in who supported who in the recent Balkan war, and Orthodox Greece supporting Orthodox Serbia while the Catholic nations tended to support the beleaguered Croats: Yes, I remember being in Greece several years ago around the time that all this was taking place, and a boyfriend of one of my cousins was telling me that our U.S. foreign policy was rather idiotic. He'd been born in Egypt and lived much of his life there, but he hated the Arabs. He would tell me stories about how at certain times of the day, some idiot would start screaming praises to Allah, and the entire city of Cairo would grind to a halt for several minutes, all the cars coming to a stop so that people could get out and prostate themselves in the direction of Mecca. Meanwhile, he said, corruption was rampant. Beggars were literally starving on the street as the rich people would drive around in their mercedes. Lack of sanitation was always a problem. If you walked along the street in the morning, you had to watch out for flying sewage, as people would just dump the contents of their piss-pots into the street from whatever floor they happened to be living on. In short, aside from religion, they was no community-spirit whatsoever. Of course, he may have been exaggerating, but his main point was that Islam was a curse upon the world, and that if the Serbs had reached their limit and finally achieved the will and determination to push the Muslims from their midst, we should not stand in their way. It was, in his opinion, not merely a question of survival of the fittest, but also a moral imperative that Christian countries not take sides with Muslims against Christians, because, ultimately, these two religions would eventually end up locked in a death struggle. To try to forestall this struggle was only to put one's head in the sand and make the final outcome even more difficult. That, at least, was his opinion, and it was this thought of his which came to mind when Slobodon Milosovich said of the United States some years ago that the reason for our interference is that we hadn't yet experienced the Muslim problem, but that we would eventually, and then we would finally understand why that war was a necessity for Serbia. Of course, I do not personally subscribe to any of these opinions. In my article of issue #352, I called the United States intervention a just cause. However, since the events of 9/11, I'll admit that I have begun to wonder if this conflict which my cousin's boyfriend spoke of is not, in fact, inevitable. Sometimes civilizations do clash. In a world of finite resources and seemingly infinite hatred and suspicion, can this nightmare

future seemingly being thrust upon us truly be averted? Or is it, as he said, inevitable? It seems to me that the only way to fix things for the better is to do the impossible: to change the way that vast numbers of people think, to instill in them a sense of community responsibility, not merely to God but to each other. What we need, in effect, is a new religion, which goes back to my article of issue #351. In short, I think perhaps we all need to start listening to Bob. RYCT Jonathan Nichols regarding executives and stars playing "Keeping Up with the Joneses" with each other: I think you're right. I think about my own situation, and quite honestly, I have everything I really want. But then I look at friends who have done well, and I find myself thinking that it would be nice to own a home. If I'd known how crazy the housing market would get, I wouldn't have waited so long. But, you know, if I didn't have friends living in big houses, then having a house probably wouldn't even be a thought. In this way, I think that perhaps pride is the root of greed. The question, of course, is how much is too much? I recently began reading Arianna Huffington's book, Pigs at the Trough.13 She talks a great deal about pride and greed gone to extremes, and it is such an indictment of our society, I can't help but feel captivated and simultaneously sickened by it. But what's the solution? Raise the tax on rich people until you reach 100% beyond a certain level of income? I don't know if I would support that. I also ask myself why we are repulsed by displays of wealth? It is about wasted resources, or jealously, perceptions of unfairness, or is it just because, deep in our hearts, we all know the wealth and pride rot the soul, and to watch people knee-deep in their own excesses is something akin to watching a fat kid stuffing his face with candy? Perhaps we should just check "(E) All the Above" and get on with some policy that puts an end to it. I just don't know. RYCT Spike regarding Curtis LeMay: Is this the same LeMay who Kennedy butted heads with during the Cuban Missile Crisis? Wow, I had no idea. I just looked him up on the web. One page says: "His very first war plan, drawn up in 1949, proposed delivering, 'the entire stockpile of atomic bombs in a single massive attack.' That meant dropping 133 A-bombs on 70 cities within 30 days. He argued that, 'If you are going to use military force, then you ought to use overwhelming military force. Use too much and deliberately use too much. You'll save lives, not only your own, but the enemy's 13

http://www.ariannaonline.com/pigs

too.' " Yikes! This guy was a bad-ass and a nut. Y'know, he'd sure as heck make for a great NPC! Spike Jones: RYCT Lee Gold regarding shopkeepers living above their stores in the not-so-olden days, I almost wonder if perhaps zoning laws ought to be such that more housing is built within commercial centers simply as an attempt to cut down on commuter congestion. RYCT Mike Kubit regarding your suspicion that Hasbro/WotC will abandon the OGL/d20 license: To do so might create an opening for another company to swoop in and scoop up market share. If Hasbro were to rescind the OGL, I would hope that financial punishment would soon follow. RYCT Brian Rogers regarding the news media and their so-called story-of-the-day: that's rather interesting. It makes the reporters sound rather lackadaisical about their work. I wonder if perhaps there is a juicy story here, or would reporters never rat each other out by talking about this publicly? Regarding your comment about the President only speaking to those who agree with him: That is rather disturbing. Apparently, he's already made his major decisions, and he just wants experts to lend his economic policy some academic credibility. It actually strikes me as odd that after so many years of studying the economy to learn how it works, economists still can't seem to form an overriding consensus on basic matters of public policy. RYCT me regarding Bush, the election, and politics: Do tell me more about Bush v. Gore. Regarding Bush's blindness with respect to Putin: I'm afraid you are probably right. It's bizarre that his advisors aren't telling him that he's being an idiot. What do they have to gain at this point by pretending the problem doesn't exist? Regarding Clinton and Bosnia: I was just repeating what I heard. I don't know if Hillary had anything to do with it or not, but that was a story I had heard somewhere.

I just spent an hour online trying to see if I could get google to conjure the story, but no luck. I'm going to have to keep a record of where I hear things from now on. You know, what would be really great would be an historical search engine, one where you could define the characters, the region, and the time-period, and the subject of policy you want to isolate. Regarding monotheism: You're right that what was of critical importance to our culture was the religious message. If we'd all ended up worshiping an all-powerful Sun God who espoused a message of obedience to authority and mercilessness in conflict, I think things would have turned out quite differently for us. The true miracle, I feel, is that the Gospels were able to flourish. True, the Romans tried stamping them out over a period of many decades, and it strikes me as impossibly bizarre that they were unsuccessful. That's one of the things about the history of Christianity which I find really difficult to reconcile. How was it able to survive at all? Or have the stories of persecution been exaggerated for political reasons? I feel another conspiracy theory coming on. Paul Mason: RYCT Brian Misiaszek regarding imazine and your reason for stopping it (because you were worried about being a crank or a bore): Hey, I liked imazine! I always thought the articles as well as the discussions were great. Likewise, Brian's idea for a retrozine might be a good one after all, seeing as all the old games have been seemingly forgotten. RYCT me regarding why I regard the world as a very dangerous place: I don't mean this precise moment, but rather the nuclear age in general. When I say "this time in history" what I'm really referring to is everything from Hiroshima onward. Sorry. It's obvious to me now that I should have been somewhat more explicit. My thoughts boil down to this whole notion of civilizations with nuclear and biological weapons clashing over finite resources, and it's more than mere civilizations... it's mainly about free peoples, collectively powerful by virtue of the economic development that freedom seems to bring, but reticent to enter armed conflict, unwilling to free their oppressed neighbors, the liberal-element of our society apparently under the seemingly reasonable supposition that the oppressed people are collectively responsible for the state of their own society. This is, of course, to argue that the serfs of Europe or the slaves of Rome were responsible for the actions of their rulers. Collectively, yes, you can make that argument, but we are not collective creatures. We are individuals. We collectivize for our individual interests, and

very often the nature of that collective ends up subverting those very interests. In my overly-simplistic view of the world, history has been one great clash between freedom and oppression. From the battle of Marathon all the way to the battle over Iraq, it has been about free peoples versus those who wish to oppress. And this conflict will not magically disappear. It will go on as long as

dictatorship is permitted to exist. And as long as we turn a blind-eye to oppression, we ourselves are part of the problem. That, I think, is what George Bush meant when he said there are no neutral parties. "You are either with us or against us" was, perhaps, an unfortunate phrase, but just like his characterization of Saddam's Iraq, the Mullahs' Iran, and that cocksucker in North Korea as the "Axis of Evil," he was in a rather limited way absolutely right (in my opinion). The evil he spoke us wasn't these individual countries or even their rulers. The evil is autocracy itself, something which I imagine my ancestors fighting thousands of years ago at Marathon, and which is still being fought today. To deny this conflict as being dangerous or characterizing its supposition as some cynical attempt at Goebbelsesque demagoguery is, in my not-so-humble opinion, nothing short of a wholesale betrayal of humanity. Granted, there is an overarching emotional component to this entire discussion which has the tendency to cloud our reason, and, granted, there's no way of knowing which of all our possible courses of action is the best. But the physical threat emanating from this conflict is, at least to my mind, undeniable, and it is foolish as well as morally perverse to ignore it. Critical thinking and the questioning of authority are good, but it seems to me that there is a vague point somewhere in the foggy haze of political discourse where right and wrong cease to have any real meaning, and it's that point that I see as being of amoral absurdity. One can certainly argue quite effectively

that our world is an amoral place. Even George Washington, who I personally revere (though he was far from perfect) as perhaps the greatest man who ever lived, was a rock-ribbed realist who felt that no treaty should be entered into or sustained when it opposed the interests of the nation. To him, I tend to believe, human beings were worthless, amoral dogs without an ounce of personal dignity, yet he still somehow, miraculously believed in the principles of democracy, that even we dogs could aspire to become more. And in so doing, he and his colleagues-in-treason pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their honor to the great task of creating a new nation dedicated to the idea that we dogs are worthy of freedom. 14 Ever since the Vietnam War and Watergate, however, there has been this element in our society which has reveled in seeing the worst in any form of national authority. Now it has reached the point where rap-artists are graffiting our culture with poisonous lyrics merely for the sake of personal profit, teaching the youth the joys of hedonism, hip-hop, and whores. And that's freedom. I disagree with it, but I wouldn't lift a finger to stop it. Why? Because I guess I'm essentially an anarchist at heart, and I believe that at some point it will all cave-in. The moral inanity of it will, I believe, eventually become so obvious and overwhelming, so inimicable to whatever small amount of goodness exists with the human soul, that a cultural backlash is inevitable. So call me a hopeless optimist, but this is what I think. A generation from now, people will look back on most of this drivel and laugh at it the same way my generation laughed at disco. Some of it will survive, of course, just as some disco continues to survive. Every genre of music has its classics, the enduring accomplishments which reach out to everyone regardless of whether or not one likes a particular genre. Rap will be no different in this respect, and whatever small part of it does rise out of its depths, those songs will have an honest, meaningful message. I hope it's something more akin to "I Can" rather than "Oochie Wally". 15 In any case, you can tell this is a typical Jim V reply, because I started talking about danger in the world and ended up talking about rap. As usual, I'm completely out of my element, but if you'll read my essay on China somewhere above, you'll find my thoughts on what I tentatively consider to be the second gravest threat to the future of 14

Sadly, we don't have Washington's letters. He ordered them burned. He didn't want us to know who he really was. I can't help but wonder what he really thought about many things, but most of all what he thought about humanity itself. 15 Both songs are by Nas, strangely enough, see http://www.wowlyrics.com/artist.php?artist=Nas for their lyrics.

freedom. It's probably a bit of a half-assed job, but I wrote it partly for you and partly for Michael Cule. Just something that's been percolating between a few sleep-derived and hence largely dysfunctional brain cells. Re: fuel efficiency: We are in agreement. Re: the apparent reversal of conservative realists and liberal idealists into what we now have…conservative idealists and liberal realists: Yes, I can see how this might be viewed as amusing. You raise the issue of whether the republicans were being deceptive about the likely aftermath of invasion, or if they were simply incompetent, and I tend to side with Napoleon on this one. 16 Re: North Korea: You indicate that it was headed toward reunification before Bush's Axis of Evil speech. Please, illuminate me. This is the first I've heard of this point of view. Re: Iraq and Ahmed Chalabi: Yes, I heard that theory, that he basically talked us into the war. I think there is probably some truth to that. I mean, I think the intelligence he was furnishing us with, which turned out to be bogus, may have been a reason for some of our seemingly ill-informed assumptions about the probable aftermath. Would Bush have gone in anyway, knowing everything he knows now? I can't even begin to answer that. Re: Strategy in Combat and the Jamie Test (the problem of vacillating players): I've never heard of the Jamie Test before. Tell me more, and please tell me who this "Jamie" is. My general solution to such problems is a time limit. If they player doesn't respond quickly, their character ends up using whatever strategy was used most recently. If it's the first round, and they can't think of what to do, then they just resort to whatever strategy is the most defensive. Combat is quick, so the time for strategizing should be short. Outside of questions to the GM, give them no more than five seconds. Re: Iraq, the U.S. and pliant dictators around the world: I admit (and lamented the fact at some length) that our track-record is something less than sparkling. Nonetheless, we did set up elections, no matter how flawed, in Afghanistan, and I see us doing the same thing in Iraq. Perhaps we're finally turning a corner. Re: Bremer and Rumsfeld versus the unexercised option of using U.K. officials in key administrative positions: I'm not sure of the administration's thinking on all this. I imagine that Bush probably thought that he could control Iraq, that the U.S. military won the fight, and that we could idly reap the spoils of war. Didn't quite turn out that way. I'm not entirely clear that Bremer was incredibly ineffective, however, or that any particular U.K. official might have done a better job, but you probably know more than 16

"Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence." -N.B.

I about all this. Nonetheless, I have to conceed that Abu Ghraib was a mistake of heroic proportions, and I don't think the British could possibly have embarrassed themselves so competently as we have, so I suppose your point has some inherent validity even disregarding the whole question over who the British would have placed in key positions. As for the hypocrisy of America "supporting a rogue nuclear terrorist state": I imagine that perhaps you're referring to Israel, but I'm not entirely sure why. I know this is no doubt a huge can of worms to be opening, so I'll leave it to your discretion. Re: making the Nazi's look like 2nd graders, again, I'm not quite sure what you're referring to here. Re: your comment about teamwork in combat: It strikes me that this is really key, and it's something I've never even considered! I'm an idiot. This is incredibly important, but it's something I've rarely seen handled in RPG rulesets. More thought necessary on this one. And, by the way, which Patrick Brady submission are you refering to? I want to go back and review it. Brian Misiaszek: Regarding your thoughts on Traveller and SF-literature, you make several points which I'll summarize as follows: (1) many if not most Traveller campaigns tend to degenerate into criminal enterprises, (2) classic SF-lit tends to be more heroic and are often detective stories at heart, and (3) perhaps part of the reason for this discrepancy is that all the hard-SF technical minutia ends up distracting the referee and the players from the actual story, hence leading to campaigns which, although technically realistic, are less about interesting plots with interesting characters than they are about an almost D&D-style acquisition of ever-increasing quantities of loot. In short, the game becomes no longer about story but rather about winning. You then offer a solution: provide "an overarcing organization" to justify the PCs being together and to steer the plot toward a more wholesome and interesting agenda. All this reminds me of a very brief (or rather aborted) Traveller PBeM which I almost got to play in back in 2001. I even saved the correspondence, originally assuming then that it would be a somewhat moderately-lived PBeM. After collecting a handful of players, the GM wrote us all, asking the following:

(ala Babylon 5) I'm trying to stay away from the Mercs/Marines-type of game because it doesn't really lend itself to the PBEM format, but if there's enough interest maybe we can work something out. I'd like to run something out on the Solomani Rim, simply because (a) I've got the SolRim book, and (b) I've never run anything out that way (variety is the spice of life), but I'm flexible. So...thoughts, ideas, opinions? High on caffeine, I replied in my usual verbose fashion: I'm up for anything. Last Traveller pbem I participated in was a merchant campaign, although it didn't last very long. Never tried a scout campaign, or a naval campaign for that matter. Both of those sound interesting. Other ideas since you asked: •

Archaeologists on an expedition to some ancients (or non-ancients) site. The ancients actually are getting sort of old. How about something pre-ancients? :-)

•

Nobles, all of the same family (or not), on an excursion to "see the rim" as it were... heh heh... Beavusius... you said rim. Or perhaps we're on a diplomatic mission.

•

Secret agents on a mission of national priority.

•

Top- cops tracking down a gang of criminals.

•

Famous, drugged & dysfunctional, musical performers on the concert circuit. Yes, we will destroy every hotel room we stay in even if we have to ram it with our private starship. Oh, and we're known for shooting missiles at members of the press who we don't like.

•

Industrial spies sent from one megacorp to check out a competitor (and steal technology while we're at it).

•

Interstellar insurance agents! And for some odd reason, terrible tragedy befalls those who don't sign up w/ us. Or perhaps we're legitimate, but we're claims investigators. Or perhaps we're Repo agents (I see you haven't been keeping up with your starship payments... naughty naughty ).

•

Advance team from a pharmaceutical megacorp. We check out unpopulated, sparsely populated, or just relatively unexplored worlds for flora and fauna

For starters, what kind of game would you all like to see? Ideas I've had so far: • • • •

Merchant Scout Crew of a small IN vessel, probably an escort ship (Gazelle, Chrysanthemum, Fer- de- Lance, etc.) Officers/staff of a mid-range starport

that may have unusual properties. Basically, we're scholars. Will need a biologist, a chemist, a geneticist, a botanist, etc... •

University students (or staff) aboard a floating university (i.e. starship) which is touring the Rim. Because of the obvious costs of such a school, the students would mostly be the offspring of the rich and famous

(and noble). Think of it as Yale meets the Love Boat meets Animal House meets Scooby Doo (hey, we've got to have at least one Vargr onboard :- ) •

Speaking of the Love Boat, this time we're the staff of a cruise liner (ala the King Richard of FASA fame). Of course, there are plenty of perks to be had, but whenever one of our VIPs gets in trouble with the local police, we have to find a way to bail them out.

•

Private investigator team from a highly respected interstellar agency. We have plenty of bribe money to grease the wheels of local bureaucrats, and we carry big guns in case that doesn't work. If you have a problem and you don't want to roll the dice with interstellar law enforcement, we're your guys. We take care of business without asking you a bunch of embarrassing questions.

Although the players expressed interest in some of these ideas, the GM ended up going with a starport-based campaign, but shortly after we submitted characters, the campaign died (as is, rather sadly, not all that uncommon amongst PBeMs). However, I always remembered this little aborted campaign because of this brainstorming exercise that it provoked. One thing that strikes me about Traveller is the sheer immensity of scope. Your imagination is literally the limit. Contrast that with Ragamuffin, which I've talked about in past issues of A&E, and there is no comparison. Ragamuffin supplies a good reason for the players to work together (the human race is, after all, under attack), but the scope is extremely limited by the very nature of the setting's central premise, and that's something that has always bugged me. RYCT me regarding "the gaming industry doing a great disservice by completely ignoring political and other important events of the real world by instead creating and detailing games that are set in ether the conveniently distant past, future, or some

parallel pseudo-medieval fantasy world": I agree with you wholeheartedly! I was actually discussing this via email with Louis LaMancusa 17, a neurologist and gamer who lives in Las Vegas. In any case, he made the point that some people view RPGs as a potentially destructive outlet, that there's a concern that "impressionable people will use the matrix of a RPG to glorify deviant or criminal behavior." And this statement made me think of your comment with respect to Traveller as well as your comment to me about this whole notion of the gaming industry doing us (and society) a great disservice by omission, that is by turning away from the real world. And so I replied to Louis as follows: Some might argue that this sort of outlet is a social safety valve, in effect. After all, if the worst we're doing is rolling dice and talking about committing crimes, we're less likely to take such exhibitions to the street. Of course, I could also see the argument that RPGs teach criminal behavior, but I've seen no statistical evidence of one being positively correlated with the other. Hence, I tend to view such claims in the same light as earlier claims that D&D leads to witchcraft and satanism, which, of course, conjures up images of ye olde Salem. Shall we start burning all the nerds? This whole discussion probably boils down to who is impressionable? What percentage are going to graduate from RPGs to bank robbery or human sacrifice? I'd imagine that's a pretty small percent. And what percentage of those, if not for RPGs, would have been swayed into deviance by something else (drugs, sex, rock & rap, gangs, urban blight, vorpal dustbunnies). I'd imagine that's a pretty large percentage. Weirdos don't really need an excuse to be weird; they just use whatever's handy. Nonetheless, you do bring up a valuable point. What is it that our current RPGs are teaching? And the answer, it seems, is very little of actual value. It seems to me that they could be teaching a lot more. For example, I would be interested in seeing a line of supplements on geopolitics during the past sixty years. Each book could cover a different region and talk about what's been going on there since WWII. I'm not just talking about facts and figures but more the story of the area. What events and people have shaped perceptions, fears, and desires in that area? That way, if I wanted to run a modern day espionage campaign, all the information I'd need would be right at my fingertips. Of course,

such books would also be highly educational in their own right. Why can't we see more of this on the gaming shelves? Is the real world not interesting enough? Hence, I tend to view the problem with RPGs today not in terms of what they're doing wrong but rather in terms of what they're neglecting to do right. They could serve a greater social purpose rather than merely relegating themselves to the status of pure escapism. Reading again these words, and recognizing the unique times in which we live, I wonder if perhaps in the future, somebody will open up the turn-of-the-millennium gaming literature to see if we were saying anything interesting about our times and our situation in history. What will they find? Dragons, magic, and guns, I'd imagine. Sadly, they will find nothing about Communist China, nothing about Iran, nothing about PostSoviet Russia, in short, nothing of any modern significance. How will they be able to reconcile that strange fact? They will be forced to conclude that while the world was undergoing unprecedented transformation, we were simply trying to escape from having to think about it, burying our heads in pure fantasy and discussing all the irrelevancies pertaining thereto. Shame on us. Shame on us all. Jonathan Nichols: RYCT me with respect to Ann Coulter: Actually, I recently saw her on TV in a pre-election debate on one of the nation's college campuses. I think she was debating the editor of a liberal college newspaper (are there any conservative college newspapers?), and they both came off quite well, although Ann, predictably, received the majority of boos from the audience. However, between her feisty nature and asbestos-armored panty-hose, she suffered through it with a smirk and the usual verbal retaliation for which she is so well-known. I must say, I found the whole thing rather enjoyable, which is to say that the verbal barbs were entertaining, but the discussion also went beyond that level, and I ended up learning more about each side's perspective. This all makes me think of a letter that my wife's sister's husband recently wrote to a local newspaper. His name is Carl, and politically-speaking he's essentially a libertarian, although he voted for Kerry in the last election.18 In any case, Carl and I tend to see eye-to-eye on just about everything except for America's involvement in Iraq. However, in his letter he railed against the dividing influence of the media.

17

Louis has written an RPG by the name of Ergodika (http://www.ergodika.com), and he's given me a few copies to spread around for purposes of review and to increase the game's exposure. Hopefully we'll see his first A&E contribution in this issue.

18

Speaking of which, I'd be very curious to learn how many people would have voted for neither Bush nor Kerry if our election system were revised to incorporate an instant run-off mechanism.

Since Jon Stewart's appearance on Crossfire, I think this has generally been accepted as a given, but even if it is true (something which you dispute), is the debate really hurting our country, as Stuart contended, or is it perhaps waking people up to international politics, something that we greedy, slothful Americans have always been reluctant to consider in as great a complexity as we ought? Sadly, our generation barely reads the newspaper, and those of us who do keep informed tend to allow our individual personalities to polarize us toward one extreme or the other, few recognizing the validity of arguments on both sides. I told Carl this, and as usual, he replied with something which I find rather insightful. He wrote: "As for the last part about Crossfire and public discourse, it's not the problem with debate, just Crossfire-type shows. The problem with the show is that it presents a Jerry Springer version of the debate tradition, where the spectacle is upheld above actual substantive critiques. What we receive instead is James Carvell and Tucker Carlson putting on a great show as they rant and insult each other without ever moving beyond the level of recycled talking points. Places like NPR have good debates because they move to a level of analysis that just doesn't work in the fastpaced MTV-style 'rapid fire' debates on Crossfire. The other major problem with all of the television debates is that it reduces every issue to two sides. As far as they're concerned there are only two sides for every issue, and if one has an opinion outside the box, they are ignored." So the problem, he contends, isn't Ann Coulter, per se, but rather the format of these television debates where there is no time for a lengthy, drawn-out analysis of the various issues. And, of course, the networks say that they produce these rapid-fire debates because that's what sells. That's what Joe Sixpack obviously wants. And my first instinct is outrage and to reply as follows: "Your job isn't to turn public debate into entertainment for Joe Sixpack. The public owns the airwaves. Hence, if you want us to renew you license, your job is to serve our interest, the public interest. Do it by improving the level of public discourse, or get out of broadcasting so that we can find someone competent enough to do the job right. There is too much at stake for this idiocy to continue." But, of course, there are several reason why this analysis doesn't quite work. First of all, the major broadcasters are no longer using the airwaves. They're mostly piped in via cable. As for prominent politicians complaining about the level of public discourse, that simply isn't going to happen, mainly because to criticize the media conglomerates would be political suicide. The politicians simply don't dare. So they have allowed big-money to commodify

public discourse, and this is the natural result. We ought not be surprised. I think what we need is basically what you said, for people to take ownership in their country and really begin to complain about this problem. And Jon Stewart did exactly that. He pointed it out in a very public medium, right on the exact show most in need of a good ass-whupping, and God Bless him for doing it, for having the balls to go on there and say what he thought, that they are basically hurting the nation. But to whine about it is only the first step of solving the problem. How do we take back public discourse and shape it into something productive and useful for our society? Here's a brief idea: When I look at Crossfire, the O'Reilly Factor, and so forth, I think these shows do serve a purpose, but it's what I'd call a very low-level purpose. They basically inform the public to a minimalist level. They basically say: Here's the debate, these are the two sides, and in five or ten minutes, here is what both sides think. It's basically public discourse for 5th-8th graders. So we ought to show these shows to our 5th-8th graders. They are essentially children's shows, after all. Now, in 9th-10th grade, we bump them up to NPR, C-Span and C-Span 2. Book-TV is a wonderful program on C-Span 2. They show it during most weekends, and I highly recommend it for anyone who has an interest in really provocative discussions. We basically tell the students that those programs they were watching during the 5th8th grades are really for little kids. They're basically there to acquaint you with the issues and to perk your interest in matters of public policy, but to be an informed adult, you have to move beyond that level of analysis. Unless, of course, you never want to vote, which, if that's the case, fine. We don't want lazy, ill-informed people voting anyway. By the time 11th and 12th grade comes, we step it up again. History is to be taken seriously during these years, with a concentration on the last hundred years. The students should be reading political biographies and professional treatments of different social subjects, not boring textbooks. And when the teachers talk to them about voting, it should not be expressed as being a duty or even a right. It should be viewed by the students as a privilege of maturity, an expression that upon their 18th birthday we consider them to equals in our society, and so they are given a say, and if they choose not to use it, fine. Better that they shouldn't vote until they're really ready to grow up and use this power responsibly. When we talk about all the non-voters, we shouldn't lament the fact that most people don't bother to vote. We should say, "Yay! Thank God the grownups who are still children had the sense to stay home on election day!" In short, we should make the whole

process of social discourse a positive thing not by complaining about its commercialization and the resulting public apathy, but rather by ridiculing, in all seriousness, what it is we are currently seeing in our society, and then re-structuring our behavior to make the most of this situation. Lisa Padol: Nothing to write this time. You got the long one last time, so you're just going to have to suck it up and be strong.  Oh, but regarding your question to me: "How could you determine what would happen in Turn #15?" To be honest, the character being affected didn't come into the game until shortly before this turn. Hence, I was able to lay the groundwork for my little, devious scheme. We GMs like to think we're somewhat proficient at scheming, although I'll admit, more than often it's pure luck. Thank the RPG Muse, I guess. Simon Reeve: Many thank-yous for the historical information on monotheism, marriage, money and so forth. I asked, you answered, and you did a damn good job of it. I wish I had more knowledge of history. I recently picked up Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire while on a visit to Salt Lake City. By the way, right there in the middle of Mormon-country, I found the coolest new & used bookstore ever: Sam Weller's Books on 254 South Main just a short walk from Temple Square. It has got to be my favorite bookstore of all time. I could spend days and days and days in there. I could live in there. It's amazing. Dang it, I just wish I had more time to actually read. How the heck am I going to get through Gibbon? I wish there

was some way I could just stick information into my brain. Regarding George Lazenby in "On Her Majesty's Secret Service": Haven't seen it. Ditto for Glorantha. I am RQ-ignorant or perhaps just ignorant in general. RYCT Lisa Padol regarding the "reawakened" advantage in GURPS: Most interesting. RYCT Lee Gold on Greek legends & history: Your knowledge in these matters

amazes me. I covet your mind. Patrick Riley: RYCT Spike Jones regarding roleplaying awards being, actually, scenehogging awards: That's an interesting observation which I never really considered. I suppose it all depends on how the award is applied. In some AD&D games in the past, I would ask everyone at the end of the session what they thought they did to earn extra "roleplaying" experience. This would cause everyone to recount in detail everything their character did of even the vaguest consequence, and I think the exercise was a good one, not so much because it made the players into better roleplayers, but rather because it caused them to recall with glee whatever it was their character had been

doing, reliving the experience, as it were, and reinforcing it in everyone's memory. In so doing, I got to see what part of the game they enjoyed the most or what they considered to be the most noteworthy, and they got to experience that vicarious thrill a second time, tooting their own horn, as it were, but in a way that was called for by the moment. Hence, perhaps roleplaying awards aren't really about roleplaying so much as they are about highlighting the session. RYCT me on aliens where you ask why we really need aliens when we have plenty of strange human cultures to examine: That's an oft-asked question, and it's one that I have thought about somewhat. I guess my answer is that humans, as bizarre as we are, are still human. There is plenty about us that is interesting, but SF gives us the possibility to introduce completely alien beings, so why not take that and run with it? Why ignore it when you can play with it and generate some truly bizarre critters with cultures all their own? I guess my answer is that you don't necessarily need aliens in SF in order to add diversity, but it certainly doesn't hurt, and leaving them out seems to me like a wasted opportunity. RYCT me on the Bush administrations attempts to justify torture: I'm sympathetic to this point of view not merely for humanitarian reasons, but also on pragmatic as well as political grounds. Pragmatially speaking, torture is not an incredibly useful

means of obtaining accurate intelligence; it often only makes people say what they think the torturer wants them to say. As for politics, I think we've effectively illustrated that the use of torture damages our credibility as the "good guys" and only serves to turn people and nations against us. I think the Bush administration's pursuit of this is a great embarrassment and terribly short-sighted, and I fully understand why somebody would vote against Bush for this reason alone (never mind everything else he did wrong). I think that part of the problem is that there is a general perception in many parts of the military and government that drastic times call for drastic measures, but, unfortunately, this argument can be used to justify just about anything. The trick, I think, is in knowing when the use of drastic measures are really in one's best interests and when, as is often the case, the unintended consequences will end up being worse than the original problem. And for this to be considered as seriously as it must, the decision-makers must have a firm grasp of history. They must understand what mistakes we've made in the past so that we don't end up repeating them. I wonder if, perhaps, the holding of political office should be limited to history PhDs. This brings up an interesting idea which Andy Rooney had a few weeks ago. In his idea, each groups of academia (each science, each humanity) would elect a representative to form an advisory council. Only PhDs would be allowed to vote, and this council, although having no actual power, would issue public recommendations to the government on various matters it might see fit to consider. Of course, politicians would likely pick up these recommendations and use them whenever it might suit their purposes in order to bolster their arguments or help take down a political rival. Hence, the very opinion of the council might, eventually, become a sought-for commodity in politics. Perhaps it might inject some intelligence into the national debate. Best of all, such a body could be composed by that academia itself sans any immediate political support. Given email and internet conferencing, they wouldn't even have to meet in person in order to form a consensus. In short, it's something that the academia could do right now if it bothered to get itself organized. Thoughts? Brian Rogers: Regarding resource management in SF-RPGs, I've had similar qualms. In Ragamuffin, resource management will be necessary, but how to make it interesting and fun? How to make it easy? I've though about perhaps computerizing the whole thing, so that a

program holds all the data of what's in a ship's stores and what is being consumed over the course of a voyage, and that might be the best solution, but how many players are going to want to fire up a computer in order to keep track of their cargo and supplies? I'd be curious as to your thoughts on this. Marco Subias: Don't worry about contributing a certain number of pages. There are plenty of A&Eers who don't contribute at all, and I take no offense to them. Lurking is a perfectly respectable profession. I would be a lurker myself, except that once I get to talking, I don't quite know when to shut-up. The election was a bother, I agree. Fortunately, the people I've talked to have all been very nice, even my Mom who threatened to disown me. I actually spoke to a fundamentalist minister from Texas who was decidedly anti-Bush specifically because he didn't like the cross of church and state (sort of like adding sugar to manure; it doesn't hurt the manure, but the sugar sure tastes awful). In any case, it's over. No matter what happens now, it's out of our hands, barring a revolution or somesuch, which I actually wouldn't put past some of the people I've talked to. Oh well. Life goes on, I guess.