405vas - Jinx's Vacation - An Argument Against Complacency

Jinx’s Vacation An Argument against Complacency Jim Vassilakos ([email protected]) “It is true,” Jinx replies. “This plane has presented little in the way of serious challenge so far, however, it is still a big world out there, and from what I’ve heard from the locals, we are in somewhat of a backwater.” 1 “Only by virtue of the fact that Rallu and Tula have distracted themselves by waging war upon one another,” Zarith2 qualifies. “Who knows how long we shall enjoy this golden opportunity? Yet, even protected by their abuse of one another, I’m concerned that as we continue to expand our operations, one or both will eventually notice us. Once that happens, we’ll no longer have the luxury of anonymity. We will be perceived as a threat, and they will send ships to deal with us, a first a few, then… when they come to understand the power that we represent… entire fleets. The ultimate direction of this we cannot control. In due time, we’d likely be forced to say goodbye to this plane. You know this as well as I.” 1

As I mentioned to Joshua in #394, Jinx’s vacation is taking place for the most part in the old Judges Guild world in the southeast quadrant of campaign map 12, however the politics as outlined in this installment of the write-up occurs mostly outside that map. For those who care to look up the geography, Rallu and Tula are both on map 17, Rallu in hex 0404 and Tula in hex 0832. Carintoos, also described to some degree in this installment of the write-up, is on map 17 as well, and it resides in hex 2425 [See Judges Guild’s Wilderlands of the Fantastic Reaches, (1980)]. One thing about this early version of the setting was that very little was provided in terms of the politics and historical background, so GMs were required to devise their own political and historical details, which is what I did. A few years after we played out this section of the campaign, the 2005 Necromancer Games version of the Judges Guild campaign setting was published. If I were to GM this setting again, I’d likely make use this newer resource, but at the time, being that it didn’t yet exist, I was pretty much left to my own devices. 2 Zarith is a Half-Charonadaemon (see the AD&Dv1 Monster Manual 2, p29, although we modified this) as well as a 12th level Necromancer who Jinx befriended during her early phase of interplanar exploration.

“You make the situation sound so desperately hopeless.” “Oh, it’s far from hopeless. There’s just a limit to how far we should push… unless, of course, you have a better idea.” “Subtlety,” Jinx suggests. “Meaning…?” “Meaning that it’s not the size of your army; it’s how you use it. Tell me of this conflict between the two cities. I assume you’ve captured sailors from both sides.” “No, only from Rallu. They’ve already destroyed most of Tula’s ocean-going fleet.” “So what’s keeping Tula in the war?” “Mainly the home port advantage. Tula still has a large standing army, anti-siege weapons, and lots of small, fast boats useful for taking down enemy warships. Every time Rallu tries to land troops or affect a blockade, they are greeted by a swarm of Tulans in oared longboats as well as a sky full of flaming balista bolts fired from the shore.” “So, in other words, there’s no end in sight?” “I wouldn’t say that, either. From what I’ve come to understand, war between the two cities was sparked six years ago over a small trade dispute? It was over wine, really.” “Wine?” “Magical wine,” Zarith licks his lips, “the very best of reasons to go to war, don’t you think?” “Explain.” “Well, have you ever heard of twin towers wine?” “Should I have?” “When I get my hands on a bottle, we shall try it. I am to understand that it has a certain, indefinable quality. Apparently it comes from a place called Twin Towers Isle, so named for the two towers at the gates of the Port of Carintoos.” “Go on.” “The island is ruled by a college of alchemists who specialize in the art of brewing, and the population at large helps in this regard, working the vineyards as well as the presses.” “One big happy family.” “Well, they apparently keep sailors happy. The port is a favorite stop for ships of all nations, and the brothels of

Carintoos are purportedly legendary. But, like I said, the main attraction is the wine. It is magically imbued in a place called Falsimier’s Gantry, named for the master of the island. From what I’ve heard, a man drunken on this wine will hallucinate his wildest, most secret, most decadent fantasies. Some even try to act them out and end up having to be restrained. In short,” Zarith grins somewhat wistfully, “Carintoos is one never-ending party of the most hideous debauchery imaginable.” “So what’s this have to do with Tula and Rallu?” “Well, the admiralty at Tula didn’t like its sailors disgracing themselves at Carintoos, and so they issued a standing order that none of their captains should visit the twin towers. Nor did they want hallucinogenic wine entering Tula by any means, so it became a crime to transport the stuff. Well, this put the price for twin towers wine through the roof, as you can well imagine, and so smuggling became a problem. Rallu, of course, is famous for its smugglers, so you can see where this is going.” “You’re saying the war was started by smugglers?” “Actually, it’s even better. Rallu is run by merchant princes. Some of their ships ended up in Tula’s harbor with holds full of the wine in question. Apparently, the fleet admiral felt that because his ships were flying the colors of Rallu, they were technically off-limits to boarding. The port authority, meanwhile, felt that because these ships were in Tula’s harbor, boarding was a necessity. So fighting erupted, and the war will soon be entering its seventh year. As for whether or not it will continue, I have my doubts. Tula is exhausted from the conflict and would like nothing more than to see it end. Rallu, meanwhile, can’t continue sending ships indefinitely. It would make far more sense for them to sign an advantageous peace and be done with the war. At this point, they could easily dictate concessions.” “I’d been hoping things were a bit more even,” Jinx frowns. “Why is that?”

“My plan was to turn the war in favor of Tula.” “For what possible reason?” “Proximity and politics. If Tula were to take the advantage, Rallu might have to call upon her neighbors for assistance. This would, no doubt, anger Foundation and her sister cities who have received absolutely no assistance from Rallu during their recent struggles.” “And so an exhausted Rallu would fight a two-front war in order to reinstate her supremacy? I think not. They’d sooner sign a peace with Tula, and then go after the northern cities. And then we and our so-called allies would have to fight a single-minded enemy: not a pretty thought, and not a war they would likely support.” “So long as we incite Rallu to anger her allies, the stage will be properly set. Their actions will invite reprisal, and by turning them back or perhaps even destroying them utterly, we will have made a statement.” “What sort of statement?” “A statement about who rules,” Jinx replies, “…a statement without words but with profound meaning. We could rule this region without ever telling anyone that we rule, and who then would see fit to challenge us?” “Oh,” Zarith ponders, “I’m sure that some fool would try eventually.” “Which is precisely why we must never grow complacent, Zarith.” “Is that the point to all these grand schemes… to ward off complacency?” “For you, perhaps. For myself, I think of it as practice.” “Practice?!” Zarith laughs. “We’ve seen enough practice, Leana. The dangers that you and I have faced… and that we’ve lived to speak of… it’s no small feat. But how many times must one roll the dice and risk one’s neck, simply to ward off complacency?” “Many times,” Jinx replies. “Look at how far we’ve come?” “All the way from the prison plane,” Zarith nods.3 “The difference is that now we roll dice from a distance.” “One doesn’t fight dragons from a distance,” he replies. “Remember Ligam and his undead monstrosities? There he was on a little known world, in a backwater region, in a seldom trespassed 3

He means Tartarus (a.k.a. Carceri).

cavern, just hiding out from the blood war, minding his own business as it were. Almost killed us, as I recall. And now you say you want to go and take out a whole nest of Reds. Forgive me if I seem overly complacent, but there is no way to roll those dice from a distance. You take a war to the dragons, and the dragons will bring it right back to us.” “You sound like Cedric, Nybotha’s uncle.” “Well, I should very much like to meet him.” “You shall,” Jinx nods. “Look Zarith, I don’t intend to start anything that I can’t finish, and if worse comes to worse, we do have places we can go. Not too long ago, I was on a shadowplane adjacent to this world where I defeated another dragon, this one by myself. Now I wear its hide as my armor,” Jinx says, removing her cloak so that Zarith can better admire the translucent material. “How did this come about?” “It’s a long story. Suffice it to say that if things ever get too hot here, we can take over a small demiplane as our own. The problem with this world is that the native society is too large and too deeply ingrained. Once started, the fights would never stop, and if we push our luck too far, eventually, somebody or something will push us back, be it a sorcerer, a king, a demon, or even a deity. However, even deities die. I do not believe there is any challenge we cannot meet if we do it intelligently. But in order to do that, we must be cautious, and where it comes to these Red Dragons, I’ve been very cautious.” “I don’t question that,” Zarith shakes his head. “What I question is the impetus to do it at all. Once you check them out, assuming you don’t get caught, is it really worth whatever loot they have stashed to do this?” “It’s not about gold or even magic,” Jinx says. “Then what is it about?” Jinx looks at him for a long moment before pulling out the amulet that hangs from around her neck. “Do you recognize this?” “Hmm... something in Mabrahoring.” “It was given to me by Adramalech, Lord Chancellor of the Hells.” Zarith blinks, unable to say much of anything. “You probably thought I was off taking a vacation. Well, actually, there was that,

but I also decided to return to the planes of at least half my ancestry.” “Your wearing that thing breaks you down as devil property,” Zarith says. “In one form or another, everyone is property,” Jinx says. “This amulet signifies a contract made between myself and Adramalech’s master. That I was given to the Lord Chancellor is due to the fact that I went to the Hells freely and of my own will, and hence this is an honor for me to wear, not a punishment.” Zarith nods, “Why are you telling me all this?” “Because you asked me why I’m doing all this. The fact is I’m doing it for a number of reasons. What happened is that Adramalech sent me to carry out a mission on the plane of Dis. There, I bumped into some old friends, friends who were being imprisoned there. I freed them from their captor, a local Duke, and hence started an important relationship on a bad note.” “This Duke of Hell allowed you to live?” “His chief consort is my mother.” “Your mother,” Zarith’s eyes bug out a bit. “You never told me you had a mother.” “Well, I think we all do. Fortunately, mine owes me something of a favor related to that aforementioned mission, and so I’ve been able to buy a little time.” “Time? Time for what?” “Time to compensate this duke for the prisoners I set free. What better compensation then a family of red dragons?” Zarith nods, “Ah, now I know just how mad you truly are.” “Like I said, Zarith, this is practice. If we can pull this off, I’m sure they’ll want to use us again to do other stealth hits on the enemies of Hell.” “We’ll be knee-deep in the blood war,” Zarith spits with a sour grimace. “Hardly knee-deep. We’ll be a precision hammer, taking out the annoying nails, and doing it quietly and unobserved. We’ll go in with the best planning and the best recon available, and we’ll all be rewarded handsomely. And if you don’t want to go, Zarith, you don’t have to. This is an opportunity to be seized, not a drudgery to be avoided. I tell you all this now because of our history together, and because I trust you. All I’m asking is that you think about it.”

IgThoughts: We were Barbarians One of my friends and I have been having an ongoing series of political discussions (always polite, I assure you), and one of our chief differences derives from the fact that I am a devout pessimist, always viewing society as being on a road to hell, whereas he’s a devout optimist, always viewing us as being on a road to ever-improving conditions.4 In any case, understanding this difference between us, he recommended a book that he’d read back in high school (or perhaps it was junior high) that he said was instrumental in influencing his views. The book is The Good Old Days— They Were Terrible! by Otto L. Bettmann, and eager for an uplifting experience, I tore into it with wild abandon. So the thesis is that we were barbarians… and this was not all that long ago. Bettmann is talking primarily about the period of time from the civil war to the turn to the century, the socalled Gilded Age which culminated with the Gay Nineties, and what’s he’s saying, in a nutshell, is that the Gay Nineties sucked dick.5 The reason I bring all this up is that when reading this book, it occurred to me that a lot of what’s in here could easily be applied to RPG settings, not merely ones set in the late 1800s but also urban fantasy settings which often tend to exist in a sort of carefree haze where the PCs generally don’t have to worry about the quality of their food and water, where law enforcement is presumed to be professional if not perfect, and where a whole host of things that we more or less take for granted can be more or less taken for granted. Hence, I’m going to share with you a brief list of what Bettmann found so terrible, just things to consider when running your next fantasy RPG… or, for that matter, one set in the latter part of the 19th century. Horses: Healthy horses produce 20-25 pounds of manure each day. (p.3) “During dry spells, the pounding traffic refined the manure to dust, which blew ‘from the pavement as a 4

I’d say heaven, but aside from being a devout optimist he’s also a devout atheist. 5 Now, where do I claim my prize for this issue’s most inappropriate pun?

sharp, piercing powder, to cover our and in the end they gravitated to clothes, ruin our furniture and blow prostitution and crime.” (p.44) up into our nostrils.’” (p.3) Horses Youth gangs were also a problem. “created steamy cesspools around the “Some gangs could muster up to a hitching posts, where flies plagued thousand before sallying forth ‘on man and beast and a vile order their mission of pillage and death.’ abounded. (…) After a rainfall, the Particularly ruthless were the flashy streets were filled with a yellow- New York Bowery Boys, whose brown ooze.” (p.17). One city territory no policeman would enter “reported a morass on its Main Street without a partner—and then only 18 inches deep in which the wooden during the day, never at night.” (p.90) sidewalks formed a ‘sort of raft,’ an “Child alcoholics were not ideal nest for rats. This mess seeped uncommon” (p.132), and in New into pools to be pumped up as York City, saloons “outnumbered drinking water so putrid ‘it made churches ten to one” (p. 129), making liquor drinking a virtue.’” (p.17) the bar the altar of choice. As for a Brutality toward horses was drinking age, “liquor and beer was commonplace. “Underfed and sold to anyone tall enough to hook his nervous, this vital brute was often chin over the counter.” (p.132) flogged to exhaustion by pitiless drivers.” (p.23) Police Corruption: In 1857, the entire municipal police force of New York Garbage: “What garbage pickup did City (or police farce as it was also exist was capricious and inept.” It called) was fired by the state included, “kitchen slops, cinders, coal legislature, which considered the city dust, horse manure, broken “too corrupt to govern itself.” They cobblestones and dumped replaced it with a new force, and the merchandise.” Bettmann notes, result was “a pitched battle in front of “there was hardly a block (…) that a City Hall” between the two police pedestrian could negotiate without forces, the State Guard finally being climbing over a heap of trash or, in called in to settle the matter. No doubt rain, wading through a bed of slime.” there were many good policemen, but their “reputation was earned by the (p.7) great number of police who were No A/C: Heat waves killed both people inclined toward brutality and always and livestock by the thousands. eager for a handout.” (p.93) Brutality, in fact, did not occur “Seeking refuge outdoors from their furnacelike quarters, the poor lay in merely due to the personal inclination of some officers but was even, to a the alleyways and streets.” (p.12) degree, institutionalized. “Rookies Slums: About half of New York’s were reprimanded when they brought population lived in the slums, as in evildoers ‘unmarked,’ since it was many as eight people (and normal procedure to give arrestees a occasionally far more) sharing a beating so the cop would ‘have bedroom. The cellar dwellers, the something to show in court.’” (p.94) bottom of the slum class, often shared Higher up on the food-chain, officials quarters with goats and pigs. Those benefited from graft, “handling better off dwelled with such common payoffs received from two sources: problems as “vile privies, (…) slop legitimate businesses, for oozing down stairwells, (…) [and] ‘nonharassment’; and organized plumbing pipes pockmarked with crime, for protection.” (p.97) So holes that emitted sewer gases so lucrative was the business of law enforcement that jobs in the NYPD virulent they were flammable.” (p.43) “could be bought at a definite scale of Slum Children: “Disfigured by the prices—from $100 for a patrolman to brutality of home, thousands of $1500 for a captaincy.” (p.97) urchins wandered the streets, (…) cunning, predatory, with an instinct Prostitution: The laws against the for survival that rivaled an alley cat’s. world’s oldest professional were They slept under doorways, in basically a public joke. “Prostitution discarded boxes and barrels; they entrepreneurs offered services for all fought, blasphemed, begged and stole; classes and pocketbooks.” In some

areas, “the girls were especially brazen,” one man recalling how he was propositioned “by a prostitute ‘caked with dirt… with the brashness that a Grand Central hackman asks you to have a cab.’” (p.98) Food: Lacking refrigeration, meat tended to rot as soon as it was put on display. One newspaper complained, “The city people are in constant danger of buying unwholesome meat; the dealers are unscrupulous, the public uneducated.” (p.110) “Many people shopped for their dinner at the secondhand food market—where they could select from leftover groceries and castoff trimmings and bones from butcher shops.” (p.109) Milk, meanwhile, was commonly diluted with water, and “to improve the color of milk from diseased cattle they frequently added molasses, chalk or plaster of Paris.” (p.114) And this diseased state of the animals was apparently not all that rare, as cows might be fed a city’s garbage or even, in some cases, “distillery wastes, producing what was called ‘swill milk’” and which was known to make “babies tipsy.” (p.115) Butter, likewise, was adulterated or outright forged in a variety of creative ways. Known as “bogus butter,” it might include the “fat from hogs along with every conceivable animal part.” Aside from gypsum, gelatin fat and mashed potatoes, “bleaches were blended into the mix to give the product the appearance of real butter.” (p.117) Health: It’s still well known that our ancestors knew nothing of germs, and so a great many plagues which might have been fought and brought under control were allowed to fester for lack of basic sanitation. Likewise, it is also still commonly known that surgical anesthesia amounted to a bottle of whiskey, and that if the operation itself didn’t kill the patient, infection might finish the job. What is less often recalled is the general inadequacy of care. “The lack of education and proper licensing exposed the sick to hordes of ignoramuses masquerading as doctors. More a trade than a profession, medicine attracted not the sons of the elite—who preferred law or theology—but mediocrities who

saw a chance to get rich quickly.” (p.142) Even educational credentials were no guarantee of quality, as many schools of the age were merely diploma mills. “These diploma mills, the result of ‘fusion, fission and spontaneous generation,’ were manned largely by ‘professors’ who had graduated from similar institutions.” (p.142). Nursing, likewise, was not what it is today. “The title ‘nurse’ implied no professional training… (…) Patient care was a common occupation for drunken women, who were permitted to work in a hospital in lieu of serving a prison sentence.” (p.147) The sick were often packed together “as crowded at times as the lowliest tenement.” In some of these “hospitals” the “air (was) so vitiated it was hardly bearable to the healthy.” (p.147) But as deplorable as was the treatment for the physically ill, it was far worse for the mentally ill, who were often, essentially, inmates for life in a chamber of horrors. Of course, magical healing is relatively commonplace in fantasy campaigns, so much of this section may be ignored if it is common in yours, but you’ll need to decide how common as well as to what extent the underlying causes of illnesses are understood. I’m leaving out a great deal of material, particularly in the sections on rural life, work, travel, education, and leisure, not to mention all sorts of details on the standard of care for the insane (which was, ironically, insane). If you’re interested in learning more, there are numerous used copies of this book currently available on amazon.com for just a penny plus shipping. Finally, I’m aware that many people don’t necessarily want an overabundance of reality in their RPGs, and I also realize that in a fantasy RPG, or at least one with fantastic elements, magic might be employed to alleviate or even cure many of these problems, and I further acknowledge that Bettmann might, at times, be overstating or exaggerating his case. I don’t know; I wasn’t there. Regardless, any comments along these lines or others are, of course, welcome.

Comments on A&E #404 Comments Regarding Ty & Louis, Freedom of Speech, and Ways of Expressing Displeasure Lee Gold asked, “Why did you tell us that Ty wanted to offend?” What I wrote to Eugene in #403 was that “...the effect he wants is partially to offend.” Later in that same comment, I added, “You may, if you wish, look upon it as a performance by a professional, for that is perhaps what it is.” And later still, I added, “Regardless, if this is truly the voice that resides within, then he is called upon to share it with us—it is his duty to do so…” Given all of this, I thought I had made myself clear insofar that I didn’t know to what level he intended offense, however, I can see how a selective reading of my comment might be confusing. Likewise, stating that he wanted, even partially, to offend was presumptuous on my part and possibly an error, and so I apologize for this confusion. The reason I presumed that he wanted partially to offend is that he must have known from past experience that there are those who find political opinion, particularly when strongly worded and contrary to their beliefs, to be offensive. That is not to say that these people are right to be offended. It is only to say that it is unfortunately commonplace. Lee pointed out, “If someone wants (even partially) to offend, they shouldn’t be surprised or annoyed if people find them offensive; they should be pleased.” This, I think, is an excellent point. Perhaps he is pleased. I, however, am not, but I do not blame him. I blame those who he purposely upset, because even though it was in their nature to become upset and even though he preyed on their weakness in this regard, they were, in my opinion, wrong to react as they did, and, furthermore, Ty had every right to test them… even a test that he expected they would fail. Now, one might naturally ask, why test such people? Isn’t that sort of like dangling a red cape before a bull or taunting monkeys at the zoo? Wouldn’t it be more polite for Ty to simply walk on eggshells and convey his opinions in the nicest, most political-correct manner possible, and if that were not

possible, then to simply withhold his silence is interpreted as tacit thoughts and ideas so that others acceptance or agreement?” needn’t be troubled by them? You’re right insofar that this can be a Yes, that would be more polite, but difficult and annoying situation. There Ty wasn’t trying to be polite, and in the are definitely people, I would agree, to realm of political speech or, for that whom it is better not to discuss politics matter, speech concerning any sort of if only because they will end up venting philosophical or moral ideas, he has no all their political frustrations upon you, duty to restrain himself unless, of and that can be both annoying and course, there is such a duty imposed interminable (as I think I have upon him by the forum’s moderator. illustrated in some of my own Speaking personally, however, if we are comments, from time to time). to continue in the absence of such However, what I have done when I moderation or even a pronouncement as didn’t wish to discuss such matters was to what is expected, I hope he returns to either to not respond or to simply leave. deliver his political sermons on a Those with the least degree of regular basis, because I very much sensitivity will usually understand the enjoy them. But, of course, I may be former, and if they somehow lack even alone in this regard, and therefore you the least degree of sensitivity, then I see may be justified in creating some sort no reason not to implement the latter. of limit on what some may perceive as Hence, I suppose, if there was someone language that is unnecessarily in A&E who I found to be “a boor” or antagonistic. Have you ever tried this in whatever, I would probably not force the past, and if so, what were the results? myself to read their entire zine. Perhaps To be perfectly honest, I’m of mixed I would just pick through it for feelings with respect to this idea. On whatever might be comment-worthy. I the one hand, rules for discourse might don’t think I’d necessarily announce obviate the desire for members to try to this or even announce that I am not enforce competing standards. For announcing it, but I’d probably skip my instance, many members are opposed to way past whatever they happened to be strongly-worded political speech; I, on ranting about, unless, of course, it the other hand, see no problem with it happened to draw my interest. but am simply opposed to members This, essentially, was how I behaved attacking each other. Hence, if you for many issues when I first began were to have made a pronouncement in contributing to A&E. While others this regard, it might have helped us to discussed politics or history or resolve the matter without the seeming whatever, I concentrated on my own necessity for a little war of words. But, contributions rather than becoming on the other hand, perhaps a little war embroiled in the latest debate. In real of words is the best way, because it life, of course, talking politics with allows the conflict to find its natural friends and work associates is part of resolution, and even though we may what we do, and likewise, there are lose contributors as a result of this, it some people whose thoughts I relish was ultimately a contributor’s own and others whose rants are so forceful decision to depart. Nobody forced them and easily aroused that I’ll often get the to leave, even though, perhaps, a clique feeling that I’m talking to a bit of an may have teamed up to attack them extremist. In print, I do not mind so until they did leave. I’m not sure if this long as they are as personally respectful is what you want or even if you’ve to me as I to them, but in person, I thought about it to any degree of detail, sometimes do mind, if only because I but if so, I’d be curious as to your can’t simply turn the page and make thoughts on all this, as you have been them go away. Am I right to draw this dealing with it now for… well… for distinction between print and spoken much longer than I have. conversation? I think so, but if you do not, I would be curious to learn your Patrick Riley posited the situation of reasoning. one happening upon a family member Here’s the thing, I suppose. When I who is “going off on some rant” and am talking to someone about politics, asks, “If you think he’s full of shit, do whoever they may be, it really doesn’t you tell him so? Or do you shake your matter what they think in terms of their head, walk away, and risk that your own personal politics. It matters from the point of view that I might learn their

thoughts, but from the standpoint of whether controlling what they believe is important to me, I assure you, it isn’t. Why should I try to convince them of my way of thinking? So that to hear it parroted back to me would fill me with some perverse sense of satisfaction? What people believe is what they believe. I have neither the interest nor the energy to try to influence what they think politically. After all, there are millions upon millions of us voters. Even if I could convince everyone in my circle of relationships of everything that I believe, it would make absolutely no difference. My power to change the outcome of even a single election for national office is effectively nonexistent. So why care what people think? We are individually powerless before the might of the GM or fate or whatever. What happens happens, and we’ll just have to deal with it. Fortunately, we can say what we want to about it. At least we have that… at this particular moment in history… and that, in my opinion, is the most important thing our society has ever achieved. Joshua Kronengold wrote, “My opening comment was actually that Louis’s zine was much better than it usually was (…), which he, being a disagreeable individual, took the wrong way. My comment about his zine being as dull as dishwater was after he became abusive.” Oh, my. You’re actually going to tell me that you didn’t mean offense? That your insult was accidental? Or that it wasn’t an insult at all? Is that honestly what you want to say to me? For even if your fingers somehow slipped and you accidentally typed something that you did not mean to type, or even if you were just very angry for a moment and you let your temper get away from you, which is not unpardonable, because we have all done this at one point or another (it is a human quality that we must forgive if we wish for it to be forgiven in ourselves), even then you should have been able to look over what you wrote and, seeing the wrong in it, apologize. That is what I have been talking about… not that you necessarily have to accept what you see as wrong, but rather simply that you pursue your notions and ideas the right way rather

than the wrong way. If you hate politics in A&E, and you can’t stand the thought of someone going on for two pages per issue, then let us petition Lee for a tighter limit. If you hate seeing certain political or religious figures being attacked, say Moses, or God, or (dare I mention the holiest of holies?) President Obama, then perhaps you could suggest a rule so that we could all follow it. At least then, we would have something to point to as newcomers arrive, forewarning them as to what is expected. Of course, as I said last month, I am also somewhat opposed to this notion (this one of which I am also somewhat in favor) that Lee effectively police us, separating fair from foul, so that A&E might take her own character rather than every-so-often degenerating into a needless, ugly squabble, of which, in her, I have seen little tendency, but in others, I have now seen too often. True, she was a tiny bit harsh with me that one time regarding the Warcraft game that I bailed from, but ultimately, I think, perhaps a tiny bit of harshness was called for, although, of course, I didn’t quite think so at the time.6 In any case, my reason for this opposition I have now given her, and if you wish to read it, you may, but so long as she is reasonable and fair in her own mind, I think that is all that anyone could ask, and, in any case, I trust her and I think she has more than earned the right, but it sort of saddens me that I now think such a rule on quality of speech might be of benefit. It means that I’ve all but given up on the notion that we can sufficiently control ourselves to be trusted to fight fairly, putting our best ideals above our petty animosities. I don’t want Lee to have to be our mother. We should by now be mature enough to not require a mother looking over our shoulder every moment to see whether or not we are misbehaving. Likewise, it means that, at least from my point of view, we’ve allowed our petty opinions to matter more than each other, and that even after sufficient time for reflection, we are still too prideful to apologize, and so there comes this unhealable rift, and we are divided. I think that’s sad when this happens, but I cannot fix it. But, of course, you could if you wished, but not only do you not

wish to but you even deny the simple recognition of even the smallest sense of culpability. Now, once again, here is what you wrote to Louis in A&E #391 regarding his contribution to A&E #390: “Could your zine be any more dull? Please spend more time on gaming and less on political trivia. At least the joke was funny, rather than, as usual, unfunny and offensive.” I went back to Louis’ zine in A&E #390. He’d been having a political discussion regarding the right to bear arms with Patrick, and it must have turned heated, as he was accusing Patrick of becoming increasingly inflammatory. 7 Also, Louis’ comment to Spike, the part about Baltimore, was probably not helpful, 8 and I suppose you could have called him out on this; I would have taken no exception to you doing this. As for the rest, Louis’ comment to Michael Cule was thoughtprovoking, his praise for Michael Todd was justified, the part about intelligence was interesting but questionable, his joke, a bit sillier than usual, but all-inall it was a decent zine. Note, I didn’t say perfect…. but it certainly was not deserving of what you said, because what you said was not simply a correction, nor was it even a castigation; it was an outright assault. And, not have emptied all of your rage, you followed it up in #393 with, “Skipped your zine. Expect I will in the future, too.” Is this really who you want to be? Is it how you wish to be remembered, and more to the point, do you honestly, truly expect me to believe that you cannot see the wrong in your words… that you find yourself justified, on account that your disagreeable victim, dull as dishwater, just took your comment the wrong way? Please, I’m begging you… please stop with the excuses. For Christ’s sake, be a human. If you wish to stop discussing it, I’ll stop discussing it, but do not so casually toss me these pathetic, outrageous, ignoble excuses as though I

am so malleable that I would simply accept them without challenging them with the evidence that you have so generously provided. You decided to attack him, Joshua. You wrote on my blog… I’m not going to repeat what you said there, but you know what you said, and you know that when asked for evidence as to your opinion, you had none. I don’t wish to remain cross with you, but I do wish that you would recognize that you could have behaved a little bit better. We all make mistakes, if not mistakes in fact then mistakes in judgment, and in neither case does it mean the end of the world. I have made a ridiculous number, I assure you; I am a veritable expert when it comes to making mistakes, and so I give it to you on good authority that it is far better to simply admit this than to make excuses, forever trying to hold on to the notion that we are always right and it is always someone or something else that must be at fault. Sometimes, we are at fault, and when this inevitably happens, the best thing is simply to make amends. Joshua continued, “Louis is a special case—since he’s not, AFAICT, interested in gaming.” You’re wrong about this, but like many of us he has multiple interests, and like regrettably few of us, he has the means and the energy to indulge them, so yes, only one of his interests happens to be gaming, but I can tell you for a fact that he is definitely interested in gaming. How I know this, among other reasons, is because I’ve seen some work he’s done in terms of writing up his Ergodika RPG9, and let me tell you that nobody goes to the thought, effort and expense of putting something like this together unless he has a serious and long-term commitment to gaming. Louis is just very old-school, which is cool as far as I’m concerned, but to say he has no interest in gaming is demonstrably false. Joshua continued, “Ty Beard draws disagreement and flamewars wherever he goes. If you don’t think he does this deliberately (…), you’re delusional.” I admit that I have wondered if he 7 Having personally felt the flames of truly believes everything that he has Patrick’s wrath, I cannot say that I find this

terribly surprising, although a perusal of his comments to Louis in #389 show only a mild disdain compared to that of which I know he is capable. 8 Spike apparently took no offense, which is 6 I already mentioned this in my comment to just as well, as I’m not sure that Louis you in #397. meant any.

9

The version that I have is a 96-page affair with a glossy cover showing a hot chick with a big gun. Rules read a bit retro, which some people will find cool but others may find off-putting. Deliberately no metaplot, but lots of intriguing details. Good stuff!

written, but whenever people have strong opinions, particularly with respect to politics, I almost inevitably wonder this. As you know, or at least as I have mentioned on numerous occasion, I am not given to certainty. I think that perhaps I project my own personal hesitation on to other people, and so when I hear or read a very strongly worded statement, I might momentarily wonder if the other person is making the statement for some reason other than my educational benefit. This, perhaps, is a good thing in the sense that I tend not to personalize political arguments, and, actually, I’m not given to particularly care whether or not a person even fully accepts what they are saying. The fact is, somebody out there probably does, and, in any case, the idea itself, whatever they are expressing to me, is perhaps worthy of being analyzed and dissected regardless of its source. So if this makes me delusional, then I suppose I’m delusional. (Bellevue, come and get me and don’t forget to bring a straitjacket.) Beyond this general sentiment that I have is the knowledge that Ty is a lawyer. What do lawyers do for a living? They argue. They’re professional debaters. The profit incentive tells them what side to argue, and both sides do their jobs with splendid vigor, if they are doing their jobs, that is. So that is what Ty has been doing, in my opinion. He’s anointed himself a conservative republican, and he’s arguing their agenda. So what? Does this constitute a flame war? What’s the matter? You’re worried that President Obama can’t survive Ty’s onslaught? It doesn’t matter what Ty says. It doesn’t matter what any of us say. None of it matters. We are, all of us, insignificant… grains of sand on an endless shore. Joshua continued, “Can’t tell at the moment whether you’re trolling for a discussion on this topic or just running on momentum, but I don’t respect your right to invite boors to tramp all over my playground, and while you may welcome them, I certainly never will.” I’m not precisely sure what you mean by “trolling for a discussion” or “running on momentum.” What I want, actually, is some sort of solution, as crazy and unrealistic as that probably sounds. (I realize it won’t happen, but I feel it’s my duty to try just for the sake

of having tried, and, in any case, what I am saying, I think, ought to be said.) As for my “right to invite boors,” I didn’t invite them, but I don’t view either of them as boors. As for you referring to A&E as “my playground,” I think your possessiveness of the APA and your apparent attitude that you must protect it from all those who you feel don’t belong here is at the root of our disagreement on this particular matter. I want to add that I think that what you are trying to do is noble, in a way… I mean, at least you care. That’s a good thing, and I don’t want you to lose that. Furthermore, I believe that you believe that you’re doing the right thing insofar that you see yourself as ridding A&E of unwelcome pests. However, I think it’s perhaps just a tiny bit presumptuous of you to call A&E “my playground” as though it belongs exclusively to you. If A&E belongs to anyone, it belongs to Lee. I prefer to think that it belongs to all of us, but even this is presumptuous, as until Lee indicates otherwise, who precisely gets to play here is for her alone to determine. So far, she has exercised incredible restraint in allowing us to police ourselves, but I think that if we do this, we should take care to do it with the utmost responsibility and with a heart that is wide open to all points of view. I realize that’s much more easily said than done, but I think we should exercise the utmost care when criticizing people for their beliefs and for correcting them when they step over some imaginary line between what is appropriate and what isn’t (if such a line is, indeed, merely imaginary, and since we’re without clear rules…). I was talking to this very nice lady who I work with who happens to be what I would call a practicing Christian (regular churchgoer and so forth), and she said that what people fail to realize is that Christians criticize the sin, not the sinner (aside from heretic burnings & such). I think this is what we should do with respect to political beliefs and matters of discourtesy. One can say that they disagree with an idea or with the tenor or someone’s comment without necessarily being rude or saying that so-and-so should leave. You do see the difference, don’t you? I mean, look at Myles’ comment to Ty in #396 versus what Steven Warble wrote to me in #402. They’re

essentially arguing from a similar point of view, but look how differently; one is emotion, the other logic; to the one, there is no reply but in kind, to the other, there is opportunity for discourse, and with discourse, possibly consensus. Jinx’s player told me about having majored in English, and he’d gone through some literature classes with various other students, and he described how, when the instructor would question the class on their opinion of some book they had read, many students would be able to give an explanation for what they thought, citing evidence from the text and giving a rationalization for why they interpreted the book in a certain way. Others (very few others, fortunately) were seemingly only capable of responding with the most general of sentiments, either “I thought it was good,” or “I didn’t like it,” but as for explaining why in a manner sufficient for discussion, they were either disinclined or simply unable. I mean, I think that if you’re going to criticize someone, at least have the courtesy to criticize them in a manner that tells them exactly what you think it is they did wrong or said wrong and which allows for a civilized response. Do you think I am wrong in saying this? Finally, I noticed on my blog that you proposed moving this discussion outside of A&E, perhaps hoping that this reply could appear there instead of here. Because your attack on Louis was in A&E, and because this discussion concerns A&E, and also because your comments to me last issue were in A&E, and finally because you did not respond on the blog to my question, I thought it appropriate to write this reply to you in A&E. However, I’m fine with moving this discussion outside of A&E if that’s your preference, and I’ll try to respond wherever you choose to address me. And, if you wish to drop the discussion altogether, that’s also your option. I just want to make it clear that I’m not trying to attack you or get even with you for what you said to Louis. I’d just like for us to find a solution that we can all live with so that this doesn’t have to happen again and again and again, whenever you or others decide that somebody, a contributing member, doesn’t belong here. In sum, we ought to seek a better, more civilized way of addressing this recurring issue.

On Homosexuality (again) Brian Rogers shared with us a list of his family’s significant-other relationships, sans genders, in order to quiz me on the social acceptability of each. I found this quiz somewhat strange, as it seemed to assume that I was a social conservative10 whereas the crux of my blog comments 11 on the topic was that I was tentatively in favor of extending the definition of marriage to cover same-sex relationships. I can only imagine that either Brian didn’t read these comments, thinking that he already knew my opinions, or perhaps he did read them but still didn’t understand what I was trying to convey.12 In any case, in response to the quiz, I would say that it is not my place to determine which relationships are socially acceptable or worthy of the term marriage. Brian went on to write, “Modern relationships are so tangled that I can’t see any standard that can grant some members of my family marriage while denying it to others.” It might also be worth nothing that modern relationships in the United States became tangled, at least historically speaking, before homosexual marriage was even seriously contemplated at the state level. In short, one cannot blame gay people for the numbers of straight people seeking divorce, or for singleparenthood, etc. Nonetheless, I think it would be equally absurd to think that this social journey that we seem to be on is necessarily something that we can easily control, and where it will all end is a matter upon which I think it is fair game to speculate. 13 Although, this is not to say that doing so will make us right. Too many variables, too many unknowns… but, nonetheless, it is all very interesting to discuss. Brian concludes with his own policy proposal: “My preference would be for the government to give everyone Civil Unions and let churches decide who gets Marriage sacraments, but I’m 10

I think it’s probably more accurate to classify myself as a fearful social liberal… that is to say a social liberal who is fearful of the potential consequences of social liberalism. See my zine in #356. 11 jim-vassilakos.livejournal.com/3745.html 12 Perhaps I am fucking impenetrable. 13 See my comment to Ty in #391.

equally comfortable with Marriage for all, so long as everyone is kept equal under the law.” That, certainly, would be fair, but if you’re going to change the rules, why not go whole-hog and really shake things up? I mean, since we’re just tossing around ideas, let’s make it interesting. So here, for the general amusement, is a counter-proposal. Everyone can get civil unions (if they want them), but you can only “marry” if you also adopt a child, because, after all, marriage should mean something beyond “we’re into each other for the time being.” Furthermore, you can only adopt a child whose parents have been together considerably less time than you’ve been with your significant other. In other words, prove your staying power, and then we’ll talk about marriage. Finally, and this is the bitch, parents who divorce out of marriage or civil union must give up custody rights in favor of couples that are keeping their shit together. This, of course, would never fly, and even if it might, it would involve all sorts of negative and unforeseen consequences, not the least of which is that very few of us would even want to get married, because to do so would entail additional responsibilities, which I think relatively few of us would be eager to sign on for. (To those who have adopted children, I think you are either living saints or insanely stupid.) In short, this is just a crazy idea, like most of my ideas perhaps, and the reason I mention it is not out of some meanness or disrespect toward people who’ve divorced. I’m well aware of the valid reasons that people separate. Nonetheless, there is this small issue regarding their children, and my guess is that if they both stood to lose them, perhaps both would try little a bit harder to not fuck things up. And why should I care whether or not they stay together? I don’t, but I’ll bet their children do, and even where divorce is truly for the best, as it often is, I still think both sides should try to their utmost capacity to avoid it, particularly in the case where children are involved. Why? Because breaking this commitment to one another pulls out the rug, creating a sort of wound that I doubt ever truly heals, and, I would venture to guess that this is ultimately destructive to society. But,

of course, I could also very easily be wrong. Hence, call me crazy (I assure you, I will not deny the charge), but since you quizzed me, let me now quiz you. What would you think of such a law? It treats everyone as equal, doesn’t it? Or is this not what you had in mind? But, before you answer this, let me just throw out a word of warning that A&E is perhaps not the best place for us to be discussing such matters, or so I’ve been told, and so let us please move this over to the blog where we can discuss it at length without being yelled at by people who would prefer us not to tromp all over their playground, not that I necessarily view what we’re doing as tromping, but it is often best to tread lightly in places where people have been known to explode from frustration and/or nausea.

Other Comments Paul Cardwell: Though brevity may be the source of wit, the devil is in the details. Good point regarding racial alignment (that there should be none). Lisa seems to make this same point in one of her comments to Myles, and I tend to agree. Michael Cule suggested Davemas, as a holiday commemorating the life and contributions of Dave Arneson. Seems to me like a good idea, but then I’d be lying if I said that any excuse to enjoy Belgian chocolate thingies might be going too far. An interesting tidbit from Arneson’s final interview (see Kobold Quarterly #9) was that the seed for D&D came at the suggestion of one of his college professors who suggested role-playing historical figures. Never let it be said that college is worthless (and does anyone happen to know the name of this professor?). Also, I loved the fire story. I somehow find your life strangely fascinating, or perhaps it’s just the way you tell it. As for Lord Ferocity: good name and good speech. There’s nothing quite like announcing one’s villainous intentions simply as well-intentioned advice. And, by the way, I cannot help but wonder what the players suggested for a response. It must have been classic. Spike Jones, in his comments to Steven Warble, mentions having played

in and been influenced by a low-level Forgotten Realms campaign run by Ed Greenwood before the setting was released by TSR. Okay, I have to ask this. In addition to the issue of level progression, how did Greenwood’s campaign and/or GMing style influence you? Anecdotes, please…. Joshua Kronengold (on the topic of Interactive Fiction which I raised in my comment to Paul Mason in #401 regarding an observation Paul made in #400), asks “Have you tried Spider and Web or Anchorhead?” He also mentions something called a “SCUMM interpreter,” which I guess allows IF stories to be played on different operating systems. I tried Spider & Web online. Alas, I prefer roleplaying with a GM, but I have to admire the writer’s creativity. The truth of the matter is that I’ve found remarkably few of these games that I actually enjoy. I remember one called Chicks Dig Jerks 14 which basically starts out as a guy at a bar trying to score. I mean, the writing has to be really, really good, or I’m not going to get into it. The writing of Spider & Web was quite good, but Chicks had a whole something different going on. Spider & Web was really ingenious in terms of how it directed the player to jump through its hoops. The whole idea of playing it out as a series of flashbacks, I thought, was remarkable, and it sort of reminded me of an idea that I’ll hopefully get around to discussing at another, not-too-distant time. In any case, speaking personally, I need more conversation in a game, more dialogue, or I’m not going to be very tolerable of it. After all, to me the experience of roleplaying is essentially the experience of taking the part of a character, and unless we are able to experience that character’s reality as something that is substantial and explorable, not merely in terms of going from dungeon room to dungeon room or even, more generally, from one place to another, but also in terms of the relationships that are already there as well as those that have yet to be formed, we won’t then be able to restrain our mind from wandering away from the story/game 14

ifwiki.org/index.php/Chicks_Dig_Jerks

for long enough to learn and buy into that character’s reality. And when I say “we” at the end, here, I don’t mean all of us, of course. I only mean some of us… those most like myself, in fact. I mean, I’ve got a pretty short attention span when it comes to participating in a game that I’m just not into. This, to tangent off to another topic, is perhaps the central difference between “real” gamers, people who just love rolling dice, and those who are not gaming in this sense, but are rather trying to experience a new perspective. The former is concerned with his or her character “winning” whereas the latter is more concerned with experiencing the character as a person… what Paul Mason might have been referring to by his use of the term “immersion.” I am of this latter category, and in this sense, I am different from what I think is perhaps the mainstream of the hobby, but in this I may be overstating, as there are too many unexplored data points for me to competently or fairly generalize. Suffice it to say that like Paul Mason I’ve often experienced this “dislocation” that he spoke of, but the reason was not because I was asked to make a choice. No, the very action of making a choice was what would bring me back into the story. It also engaged me in the act of making a decision as though I were the character, so the more of these moments of decision the better. The ultimate goal, I suppose, would be to make the process continuous, to make virtual reality (or “virtuality”) into a giant… oh… never mind. 15 It’s pointless to bring up this idea right now. Let me just say that my dislocation, unlike Paul’s, comes from the lack of numerous, seemingly viable alternatives, particularly as relates to characterization and which even more particularly relates to conversation, and this lack inevitably leaves many of these games feeling to me like something of a straitjacket, at least when compared to the relative freedom one experiences with tabletop roleplaying, where the players presumably have a live-GM with whom to interact. And this may well be the reason, to some extent, why tabletop roleplaying became popular in the first 15

place… because it was able to attract different personality types to the same activity, getting them to creatively interact. Wargames, computer games, interactive fiction and so forth don’t seem to me to achieve this to the same degree, but this, of course, may be more or less stating the obvious. I will say that computer and interactive fiction games that were high on interpersonal conversation such as Wing Commander 3&4, Chicks Dig Jerks, and Star Control 2… what they all had in common, although each was otherwise very different, was that each had a lot of dialogue and within this dialogue at various junctures throughout were several options regarding different ways of carrying on the conversation, such that the conversations themselves were each a sort of maze that the player could explore. Likewise, each game employed humor to a varying degree, and I thought that all of them were, consequentially, much more interesting. I don’t know the techniques for programming this sort of thing, but I will say that when it comes to these sorts of games, this is the subcategory to which I find myself drawn. If you know of any other games that are like this or know more about the sort of programming that it takes to write them, I’d be curious to learn more, and I might also try checking out this SCUMM interpreter (and, presumably, language) that you mentioned. Write more on this if you are feeling so inclined. Brian Misiaszek told us about playing in William Pleyton’s The Maze, a homebrew campaign setting for D&D3e. First of all, how about getting William to become an A&E contributor or to at least put some of his setting notes online? This setting that you describe reminds me of one I began working on years back but which I put aside for some reason, one of the numerous projects that briefly excited me but then wandered, after a time, to the back/cold burner of my mind. I may try picking this up again for A&E. If nothing else, it would give me the chance to review, revise, and expand my notes. Marco Subias: I would have enjoyed

If Robert Dushay should ask, this is your international film class. Thanks probably what a half-formed thought for providing the reviews. actually looks like.