Jinx’s Vacation
An Argument against Complacency
Jim Vassilakos (jim.vassilakos@gmail.com)
“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 so-
called 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
(p.7) their “reputation was earned by the
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)
“Seeking refuge outdoors from their Brutality, in fact, did not occur
furnacelike quarters, the poor lay in merely due to the personal inclination
the alleyways and streets.” (p.12) of some officers but was even, to a
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
virulent they were flammable.” (p.43) enforcement that jobs in the NYPD
“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.” Comments on A&E #404
(p.142) Even educational credentials
were no guarantee of quality, as many Comments Regarding Ty & Louis,
schools of the age were merely Freedom of Speech, and Ways of
diploma mills. “These diploma mills,
Expressing Displeasure
the result of ‘fusion, fission and
spontaneous generation,’ were
Lee Gold asked, “Why did you tell us
manned largely by ‘professors’ who
that Ty wanted to offend?”
had graduated from similar
What I wrote to Eugene in #403 was
institutions.” (p.142). Nursing,
that “...the effect he wants is partially
likewise, was not what it is today.
to offend.” Later in that same comment,
“The title ‘nurse’ implied no
I added, “You may, if you wish, look
professional training… (…) Patient
upon it as a performance by a
care was a common occupation for
professional, for that is perhaps what it
drunken women, who were permitted
is.” And later still, I added,
to work in a hospital in lieu of serving
“Regardless, if this is truly the voice
a prison sentence.” (p.147)
that resides within, then he is called
The sick were often packed together
upon to share it with us—it is his duty
“as crowded at times as the lowliest
to do so…”
tenement.” In some of these
Given all of this, I thought I had made
“hospitals” the “air (was) so vitiated
myself clear insofar that I didn’t know
it was hardly bearable to the
to what level he intended offense,
healthy.” (p.147) But as deplorable as
however, I can see how a selective
was the treatment for the physically
reading of my comment might be
ill, it was far worse for the mentally
confusing. Likewise, stating that he
ill, who were often, essentially,
wanted, even partially, to offend was
inmates for life in a chamber of
presumptuous on my part and possibly
horrors.
an error, and so I apologize for this
Of course, magical healing is
confusion. The reason I presumed that
relatively commonplace in fantasy
he wanted partially to offend is that he
campaigns, so much of this section
must have known from past experience
may be ignored if it is common in
that there are those who find political
yours, but you’ll need to decide how
opinion, particularly when strongly
common as well as to what extent the
worded and contrary to their beliefs, to
underlying causes of illnesses are
be offensive. That is not to say that
understood.
these people are right to be offended. It
is only to say that it is unfortunately
I’m leaving out a great deal of material,
commonplace.
particularly in the sections on rural life,
Lee pointed out, “If someone wants
work, travel, education, and leisure, not
(even partially) to offend, they
to mention all sorts of details on the
shouldn’t be surprised or annoyed if
standard of care for the insane (which
people find them offensive; they should
was, ironically, insane). If you’re
be pleased.”
interested in learning more, there are
This, I think, is an excellent point.
numerous used copies of this book
Perhaps he is pleased. I, however, am
currently available on amazon.com for
not, but I do not blame him. I blame
just a penny plus shipping.
those who he purposely upset, because
Finally, I’m aware that many people
even though it was in their nature to
don’t necessarily want an over-
become upset and even though he
abundance of reality in their RPGs, and
preyed on their weakness in this regard,
I also realize that in a fantasy RPG, or
they were, in my opinion, wrong to
at least one with fantastic elements,
react as they did, and, furthermore, Ty
magic might be employed to alleviate
had every right to test them… even a
or even cure many of these problems,
test that he expected they would fail.
and I further acknowledge that
Now, one might naturally ask, why
Bettmann might, at times, be
test such people? Isn’t that sort of like
overstating or exaggerating his case. I
dangling a red cape before a bull or
don’t know; I wasn’t there. Regardless,
taunting monkeys at the zoo? Wouldn’t
any comments along these lines or
it be more polite for Ty to simply walk
others are, of course, welcome.
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, but from the standpoint of
thoughts and ideas so that others acceptance or agreement?” whether controlling what they believe is
needn’t be troubled by them? You’re right insofar that this can be a important to me, I assure you, it isn’t.
Yes, that would be more polite, but difficult and annoying situation. There Why should I try to convince them of
Ty wasn’t trying to be polite, and in the are definitely people, I would agree, to my way of thinking? So that to hear it
realm of political speech or, for that whom it is better not to discuss politics parroted back to me would fill me with
matter, speech concerning any sort of if only because they will end up venting some perverse sense of satisfaction?
philosophical or moral ideas, he has no all their political frustrations upon you, What people believe is what they
duty to restrain himself unless, of and that can be both annoying and believe. I have neither the interest nor
course, there is such a duty imposed interminable (as I think I have the energy to try to influence what they
upon him by the forum’s moderator. illustrated in some of my own think politically.
Speaking personally, however, if we are comments, from time to time). After all, there are millions upon
to continue in the absence of such However, what I have done when I millions of us voters. Even if I could
moderation or even a pronouncement as didn’t wish to discuss such matters was convince everyone in my circle of
to what is expected, I hope he returns to either to not respond or to simply leave. relationships of everything that I
deliver his political sermons on a Those with the least degree of believe, it would make absolutely no
regular basis, because I very much sensitivity will usually understand the difference. My power to change the
enjoy them. But, of course, I may be former, and if they somehow lack even outcome of even a single election for
alone in this regard, and therefore you the least degree of sensitivity, then I see national office is effectively
may be justified in creating some sort no reason not to implement the latter. nonexistent. So why care what people
of limit on what some may perceive as Hence, I suppose, if there was someone think? We are individually powerless
language that is unnecessarily in A&E who I found to be “a boor” or before the might of the GM or fate or
antagonistic. Have you ever tried this in whatever, I would probably not force whatever. What happens happens, and
the past, and if so, what were the results? myself to read their entire zine. Perhaps we’ll just have to deal with it.
To be perfectly honest, I’m of mixed I would just pick through it for Fortunately, we can say what we want
feelings with respect to this idea. On whatever might be comment-worthy. I to about it. At least we have that… at
the one hand, rules for discourse might don’t think I’d necessarily announce this particular moment in history… and
obviate the desire for members to try to this or even announce that I am not that, in my opinion, is the most
enforce competing standards. For announcing it, but I’d probably skip my important thing our society has ever
instance, many members are opposed to way past whatever they happened to be achieved.
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. Joshua Kronengold wrote, “My
but am simply opposed to members This, essentially, was how I behaved opening comment was actually that
attacking each other. Hence, if you for many issues when I first began Louis’s zine was much better than it
were to have made a pronouncement in contributing to A&E. While others usually was (…), which he, being a
this regard, it might have helped us to discussed politics or history or disagreeable individual, took the wrong
resolve the matter without the seeming whatever, I concentrated on my own way. My comment about his zine being
necessity for a little war of words. But, contributions rather than becoming as dull as dishwater was after he
on the other hand, perhaps a little war embroiled in the latest debate. In real became abusive.”
of words is the best way, because it life, of course, talking politics with Oh, my. You’re actually going to tell
allows the conflict to find its natural friends and work associates is part of me that you didn’t mean offense? That
resolution, and even though we may what we do, and likewise, there are your insult was accidental? Or that it
lose contributors as a result of this, it some people whose thoughts I relish wasn’t an insult at all? Is that honestly
was ultimately a contributor’s own and others whose rants are so forceful what you want to say to me? For even if
decision to depart. Nobody forced them and easily aroused that I’ll often get the your fingers somehow slipped and you
to leave, even though, perhaps, a clique feeling that I’m talking to a bit of an accidentally typed something that you
may have teamed up to attack them extremist. In print, I do not mind so did not mean to type, or even if you
until they did leave. I’m not sure if this long as they are as personally respectful were just very angry for a moment and
is what you want or even if you’ve to me as I to them, but in person, I you let your temper get away from you,
thought about it to any degree of detail, sometimes do mind, if only because I which is not unpardonable, because we
but if so, I’d be curious as to your can’t simply turn the page and make have all done this at one point or
thoughts on all this, as you have been them go away. Am I right to draw this another (it is a human quality that we
dealing with it now for… well… for distinction between print and spoken must forgive if we wish for it to be
much longer than I have. conversation? I think so, but if you do forgiven in ourselves), even then you
not, I would be curious to learn your should have been able to look over
Patrick Riley posited the situation of reasoning. what you wrote and, seeing the wrong
one happening upon a family member Here’s the thing, I suppose. When I in it, apologize.
who is “going off on some rant” and am talking to someone about politics, That is what I have been talking
asks, “If you think he’s full of shit, do whoever they may be, it really doesn’t about… not that you necessarily have
you tell him so? Or do you shake your matter what they think in terms of their to accept what you see as wrong, but
head, walk away, and risk that your own personal politics. It matters from rather simply that you pursue your
the point of view that I might learn their 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 comments to Louis in #389 show only a
if you wished, but not only do you not
6
I already mentioned this in my comment to just as well, as I’m not sure that Louis
you in #397.
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 thought-
provoking, his praise for Michael Todd
was justified, the part about intelligence
was interesting but questionable, his
joke, a bit sillier than usual, but all-in-
all 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
7 I admit that I have wondered if he
Having personally felt the flames of
Patrick’s wrath, I cannot say that I find this truly believes everything that he has
terribly surprising, although a perusal of his
mild disdain compared to that of which I
know he is capable.
8
Spike apparently took no offense, which is
meant any.
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.”
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 single-
parenthood, 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
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.
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