Jinx in Hell
Part 8: A Short Walk to Mother
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.
Jim Vassilakos (jimv@uia.net)
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
4
http://www.miramax.com/cityofgod
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 how rich and powerful we are, and they
See my comments to Brian Misiaszek in this
issue, especially my conversation with Louis
LaMancusa.
6 China, you have to understand, is ruled by
http://homepage.powerup.com.au/~vampire/thi
ng/thing.htm
7 who they want to rule, and the party, as a
See my article in A&E #298.
8
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-know-
what). 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
might very correctly ridicule us for how soft
and stupid we are, but they don't love us.
"Communist" Party officials who choose
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/4-12-
30/25320.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 gimmie-
gimmie, 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/5-1-
7/25560.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 over-
arcing 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:
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
(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 <bang>).
• Advance team from a pharmaceutical
megacorp. We check out unpopulated,
sparsely populated, or just relatively
unexplored worlds for flora and fauna
 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,
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.
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 Post-
Soviet 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.
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 fast-
paced 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 5th-
8th 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 grown-
ups 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, scene-
hogging 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 program holds all the data of what's in a
often only makes people say what they think ship's stores and what is being consumed
the torturer wants them to say. As for over the course of a voyage, and that might
politics, I think we've effectively illustrated be the best solution, but how many players
that the use of torture damages our are going to want to fire up a computer in
credibility as the "good guys" and only order to keep track of their cargo and
serves to turn people and nations against us. supplies? I'd be curious as to your thoughts
I think the Bush administration's pursuit of on this.
this is a great embarrassment and terribly
short-sighted, and I fully understand why Marco Subias: Don't worry about
somebody would vote against Bush for this contributing a certain number of pages.
reason alone (never mind everything else he There are plenty of A&Eers who don't
did wrong). contribute at all, and I take no offense to
I think that part of the problem is that there them. Lurking is a perfectly respectable
is a general perception in many parts of the profession. I would be a lurker myself,
military and government that drastic times except that once I get to talking, I don't quite
call for drastic measures, but, unfortunately, know when to shut-up.
this argument can be used to justify just The election was a bother, I agree.
about anything. The trick, I think, is in Fortunately, the people I've talked to have all
knowing when the use of drastic measures been very nice, even my Mom who
are really in one's best interests and when, as threatened to disown me. I actually spoke to
is often the case, the unintended a fundamentalist minister from Texas who
consequences will end up being worse than was decidedly anti-Bush specifically
the original problem. And for this to be because he didn't like the cross of church
considered as seriously as it must, the and state (sort of like adding sugar to
decision-makers must have a firm grasp of manure; it doesn't hurt the manure, but the
history. They must understand what mistakes sugar sure tastes awful).
we've made in the past so that we don't end In any case, it's over. No matter what
up repeating them. I wonder if, perhaps, the happens now, it's out of our hands, barring a
holding of political office should be limited revolution or somesuch, which I actually
to history PhDs. wouldn't put past some of the people I've
This brings up an interesting idea which talked to.
Andy Rooney had a few weeks ago. In his Oh well. Life goes on, I guess.
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