Jinx before Hell
Enemy Mine
Night crawls slowly but inexorably west
as she waits by the old oak, rubbing her
hands in the icy, predawn light.
“There they are, my lady.”
Nybotha looks in the direction of the
sergeant’s gaze. Sure enough, it is just as
the scout had told them. Six warriors
traveling in disputed territory. She takes
the looking-glass from her purse, putting
it to her eye, and suddenly the landscape
seems ablaze with light, each detail
popping out.
“They are drow,” she says, “four of
them, anyway. Either they are very
brave, or they are very stupid.”
“Or they are scouts. Should we let them
pass and wait for the main force?”
“No,” she shakes her head. “If they
were scouts, there would not be so many.
We’ll take them now. I want only one
survivor for questioning.”
“You heard her. Let’s go.”
Suddenly the quiet is broken by the
galloping hooves of twenty-five horses,
their riders wielding swords and axes as
they descend upon the plain.
“Looks like we have company,” Zarith
mentions to nobody in particular.
“Everyone spread out,” Jinx orders.
“Traia, go invisible, and make sure none
of them escape. Zarith, you take the right
side, I’ll fire left.”
Moments later, the night air is
screeching with a display of black
lightning, riders tumbling off their steeds
and into the dirt, dead even before they
hit the ground.
“Again!”
Then they are in the midst of battle,
more black lightning and sounds of limbs
being severed from bodies amidst
screams of anguish. Soon it is over,
almost as quickly as it began, two of the
horsemen riding off into the distance,
each apparently wiser for their
experience.
“Shit!” Jinx breaks into a sprint,
suddenly disappearing from view only to
reappear a few hundred feet distant in the
direction of their fleeing foes. She
crouches down; then springs as one horse
passes within a few yards. Both she and
the rider hit the ground, rolling one over
the other, until finally he is struck in the
Jim Vassilakos
eye with one of her daggers. He gurgles
momentarily, his horse turning about,
crazed and confused.
“Sorry, Leana. I missed the last one.”
Traia comes running out of the darkness,
bow in hand.
“Don’t worry, I’ve got him.” Jinx takes
a flying leap at her new steed, turning its
reins north once she’s firmly in the
saddle. “Giddyap!”
The chase proves to be a fruitless one,
however. Despite her insistent urging, the
warrior only puts distance on her, until
Jinx realizes that there is but one thing to
do if she truly wants to capture him.
“Sorry horse, but I need you to
evolve.” She bites her fangs into its neck,
putting her hand to her own wound and
then letting their bloods mix. In only a
few moments, they are off the ground,
sparks and foul fumes roiling from her
steed’s snout as his hooves seem to find a
ground that isn’t there.
‘Who summons me?’ a strange voice
echoes in her head.
“I did,” she replies. “Enjoy this horse’s
life that I have given you, but know that
if you ever disobey me, I’ll snatch it from
you as quickly as I granted it.”
‘I understand,’ the dark, whispery
voice replies.
“Now catch that rider. Do not let him
escape.”
In less then a minute, they are within
shouting distance, and Jinx can see that
the rider is no man. It is a woman and a
beautiful one at that.
“Halt now, if you value your life!”
Nybotha looks over her shoulder, her
blue eyes wide with fear as she stares at
the nightmare.
“Halt!” Jinx yells again, watching as
the woman pulls back on her reigns,
drawing her blade.
“You shall not take me alive!”
“Then you’ll die, though I have no
desire to kill you.”
“What do you want if not to kill me?”
“To educate you,” Jinx spits back.
Nybotha just blinks, somewhat taken
aback. “I have no quarrel with you, but
since you travel with the drow, know that
you have made yourself the friend of my
enemy.”
“I just got to this world. Forgive me if I
made the wrong friends, but it was not
my intention to enter into anyone’s little
war.”
This time Nybotha just stares. “Just got
to this world…?”
* * *
IgTheme: Recurring Scenes
Jinx’s modus operandi, even when she
was relatively weak, was to subdue even
weaker creatures and make them her
minions. She pulled this off one time
with some goblins, and although they
proved of limited value, they willing
gave her what information they had in
return for their lives. I reconciled it to the
central feature of her character, being
that her mother, who raised her, was a
devil, and it is in their nature to subdue
and rule over lesser creatures. Hence,
Jinx was only following her instincts
and/or training, but as this sort of event
recurred again and again, I knew very
well as GM what to expect. If the
encounter was too difficult, she would
retreat and come back another day, but it
would always be there on her to-do list.
Then, as she grew more powerful, she
encountered greater challenges, until she
finally decided to fake her own death and
abandon all that she had built. It was at
this point that she became a planewalker,
but her modus operandi was still the
same as this scene readily illustrates.
Incidentally, I had completely forgotten
that this was also the scene were I had
introduced her steed, Laertes. After the
ensuing conversation with Nybotha, she
picked up with him.
* * *
‘That was quite a display of fierceness
back there,’ the nightmare’s cold,
slithery voice rises in her mind.1
‘Are you attempting sarcasm, horse?’
1
We would eventually make it our practice
to use single-quotes to signify telepathy, and
later we added italics just to make it more
obvious. Hence, I’ve edited this
accordingly.
 ‘My name is Laertes. If you must call
me anything, call me that.’
‘If you’re not careful, I’ll call you
replaceable.’
‘That’s not a very nice thing to say,’
the nightmare glares at her, slowing the
pace, ‘particularly when you think how
quickly I showed up.’
‘Yes, that was quick. Did someone send
you?’
‘Not that I can recall. One moment, all
was black. The next, I was here. Is it
always like that?’
‘From what I’ve read, yes. I’ve never
actually summoned a nightmare before,
but from what I’ve read and heard about
it, you’ll pick up your past memories as
time goes by… unless, that is, somebody
erased them, though I doubt that
happened.’
‘Why?’
‘Because then you wouldn’t remember
your name… Laertes.’
‘I suppose one must be glad for small
favors. Speaking of favors, since it is my
birthday, after all, I think you should let
me eat your captive.’
‘Really.’
‘Yes. If she tastes as good as she looks,
she’ll be a savory morsel, indeed.’
‘I have uses for her.’
‘Perhaps later?’
‘Perhaps. In the meantime, if it is food
you want, there are plenty of warm
corpses up ahead. You’ll never go
hungry under me. I kill often enough.’
Just then the others come into view.
There is Zarith, the daemon mage;
Melina, Sheetah, and Traia, the drow
sisters; and, of course, Sethira, the
half-drow captain of the guard, only
recently met, and the one who led them
here to begin with.
“It was glorious,” Sethira grins. “Did
you see how they cried out in terror when
they saw your magecraft?! I’ve never
witnessed so one-sided a battle as this.
We must continue on and take out the
next war party. A few more fights such
as this one and there will be nothing left
of them.”
“If you want to do that, Sethira, you
may,” Jinx nods. “For myself, however,
I’ve had about enough of killing en
masse. We’ve gone though much
together,” she looks at the others, “and
we will go though much more before we
are done, but this is a time for us to rest. I
need a little solitude… some time to be
alone and to explore this land on my
own.”
“Are you sure, Leana?” Melina steps
forward. “You know we would follow
you if that is your will.”
Zarith chuckles, “You would stick out
like a sore thumb in this land of men.”
“Look who’s talking.”
“I agree,” he nods. “So let her go.
We’ll wait for you back at the half-drow
city, Leana. If that gnome stops by, we’ll
let him know that you’re busy seeing the
sights. Just do me one favor?”
“What is that, Zarith?”
“Don’t take off your helmet.”2
* * * Then Jinx gently removes Nybotha’s
When Jinx returns to the hillside where
she left her “captive”, she sees that
Nybotha is still there, the chill wind
whipping her fiery red hair as blood from
the recent battle still coats portions of her
armor.
“I stayed here as you bid of me,” she
intones with the utmost care.
“I’m not your master; you’re not my
slave,” Jinx replies, dismounting the
nightmare.
“What am I, then?”
“A student. You can choose to learn or
remain oblivious, but you’re no slave.”
“How many students are kidnapped by
their instructors?”
Jinx makes a wry grin, “Okay, I’ll give
you that. But whatever you wish to call
this, remember, it must be better than the
alternative.”
“Death?” She shrugs, “I do not mean to
seem ungrateful that you spared by life,
though I wonder how I might be able to
live after witnessing the slaughter of my
soldiers.”
“Better in the long run, I imagine.
Humility builds character, or so I’ve
heard.”
“Some of those warriors had families.”
“Some of all warriors have families…
they aren’t limited to the human type.”
Nybotha makes a face and then turns
back toward the keep. At five miles
distance, it looks more like a tinderbox
than a dwelling.
“Would you have us simply disappear
then?”
“No, you should go and collect your
personal belongings.”
2
Jinx has horns, although later she finds
magical means of hiding them.
“You would trust me to return to my
people?”
“Tell them you are only there to gather
provisions and clothing. Where we’ll be
going and who we may be meeting,
you’ll need to be more distinguished
looking… more accomplished looking.”
“The blood, my wounds…”
Jinx dismounts and begins pouring
water onto a piece of cloth.
“They’re going to want to know where
I’m going.”
“Then be a stern leader. Tell them they
have no place asking what you’ve been
ordered not to reveal. That should quiet
them.”
shoulder-guard, placing the piece of
bloody armor on a rock, and then,
tenderly places her hand on the half-elf’s
wound. Her patient stands still, childlike,
too drained of emotions to move. A
slight bit of pain as the wind-chilled hand
touches her wound… and then…
warmth. The pain is gone, and as she
looks down, she sees only smeared,
gloppy blood where it had been. Jinx
then runs the cloth over her arm, slowly
working the blood away. She then rinses
the cloth, working some more, slowly,
patiently, methodically, silently.
Her voice nervous and cracking,
Nybotha finally breaks this silence.
“That decanter… its water supply
seems endless.”
“It holds the oceans.”
“Are you a cleric as well?”
“Of sorts.”
Finished with her arm, Jinx wipes the
blood from the shoulder-guard and then
returns it to its place. Nybotha, however,
seems lost in trance.
“What is it?” Jinx asks.
“What shall I say that became of the
slaughtered?”
“Nybotha, I haven’t chosen sides. I
only ‘slaughtered’ them, as you put it,
because I saw them charging me on
horseback with weapons swinging. How
would you have responded?”
“So I should just tell them that two
dozen of their comrades are dead due to a
misunderstanding? That will go over
well.”
“Tell them whatever you wish, but
know this. If you go into that keep and
send your soldiers after me, you force me
into siding with the drow, ‘cause I can’t
side with those I can’t trust. If you force
me not to trust you on your word as a
leader representing humans and half- Her magical armor plays with the rays of
elves, the slaughter you witnessed today the rising sun as she leaves the safety of
will be minuscule compared to that her fortress. A bastard sword hangs from
which will be imposed on your people her back; and to the back of her right leg,
because of your cowardice.” attached to her saddle, a bow and quiver
“I am no coward, Leana.” rest within easy reach. Saddle bags
“Then do what you must, but do not packed to their capacity strategically
underestimate my capacity for surround her. She looks every part a
vengeance.” great warrior leaving for a solitary quest.
Nybotha remounts her steed, her Yet, in her own mind, she rides towards
thoughts still in turmoil, as she circles the enigma a failure.
him toward Foundation. When she’s finally in sight of their
“Nybotha,” Jinx calls after her, “one meeting place, she slows down. There’s
mistake a day is enough. Return shortly.” no sign of the strange woman nor of her
steed nor even of any note or sigil or sign
* * * of skirmish. Nybotha stares about, seized
with a strange mixture of worry and
Misadventures in PBeMing hope.
“Any problems?”
Sometimes, during a PBeM (play by Startled, Nybotha quickly turns around,
email) campaign, there are extended mentally adding ‘invisibility’ to the
delays, say when one person becomes stranger’s ever-growing list of powers.
unusually busy, develops a bad case of “No, no problems.”
writer’s block, or gets sick. The last of “Since I’m in unfamiliar terrain, what
these eventualities seized me at some place, if any, do you feel we should stay
point during our progress, and I away from?”
neglected to inform Jinx’s player or even “You mean to say you don’t know
check my email, such was the extent of where you’re taking me?”
my illness. Imagine my surprise to find “Oh, I know where you’ll end up
the following missive in my inbox: before the two week’s end,” Jinx replies
“Jinx’s animator waits patiently for ominously. “It’s where to go or not go in
Nybotha’s response, but day passes after the meantime that concerns me.”
day and no pbem response occurs. He “Well,” Nybotha gulps, “The Lake of
never expected the daily exchange as the Gods is scarcely ever traveled except
was mentioned to him, and realizes in force. Worse still are the mountains to
vacations interfere with these things, but the east.”
with the vacation over, and pbem “Worse… why?”
updates seemingly nonexistent, “They are home to the Ice Giants.”
disillusionment bites bitter cold. He “How many do they number?”
looks for tidbits, crumbs, a bone, but “Nobody knows. During my
nothing is thrown. He knows once more grandfather’s time there were hundreds
he has only himself to blame--again he of them, and come winter they would
has hoped for more than what could be. raid all the settlements in this region. He
Is guilt a valid form of motivation here finally led an expedition into the peaks to
or would you suggest another? I’m destroy them at their stronghold, but he
isolated—badly need escape.” was slain along with his men. After his
Needless to say, I hastily explained the death there were more expeditions and
situation, and we continued as soon as I more battles, and a few years ago, my
decided I was well enough. One of the father established a city in the mountains
advantages of PBeM play is that you can which was called Summit. Two years
take an extended break and then come ago, it was destroyed, and he was slain
back to it. Also, this style of play is much not long thereafter in our fight with the
easier to accommodate into a busy dog-men, and so I inherited Foundation
schedule since the players need not and the fort you see before you.”
actually meet to conduct the game, and “Did you try to re-establish the city?”
each is free to choose his or her own time “We do not have the strength. Last
to participate. summer, I sent two scout parties to
provide us with information on where the
* * * giants are located and how many they
number… neither returned.”
“So you just gave up?” Jinx queries
with a slight trace of disgust.
“Of course not!” the fueled response is
spit back, “but with the war, the winter
just now ending… resources have been a
little… we had planned to send another
search party very soon now, with things
finally beginning to thaw.”
“You now have your resource.”
Jinx turns her steed and begins riding
towards the easterly snowcapped
mountains, their peaks shining brightly
beneath the awakening sun. Nybotha
follows, not daring to ask if suicidal
quests are part of the ‘education.’ The
two ride for several miles passing just
north of the city of Foundation which is
set at the foot of the mountains. Glancing
toward the city with its neat rows of
buildings basked by the noon sun, Jinx
breaks the silence.
“Two months ago I met the three
dark-skinned drow that you became
acquainted with this morning. They are
survivors in search of a home. Since that
meeting I’ve been attempting to show
them that allies are preferred over
enemies. We come here; we meet the
half-drow, exchange words, and we’re
accepted. I ask the commander of the
drow guard to show us your city of
Foundation. Once there I had planned to
show them how humans and elves
choose to work and trade with one
another instead of fight one another.
Then you see us. You say nothing to the
odd motley crew that comes in your
sight, but you assume everything. You
attack. You perhaps destroy in a matter
of seconds what I had been working on
with them for weeks.”
“I didn’t know…”
“Silence! You didn’t attempt to know!
You used the word ‘slaughter’ to
describe our meeting, and how accurate
you were. You just proved to them that
you are their mortal enemies. They were
seeds—seeds that may have slowly
changed the thinking of their people—
seeds that may have one day grown to
desire negotiation over genocide.
Slaughter… yes, slaughter… the
accuracy of your word choice may soon
sicken you!”
For a brief moment, Nybotha feels her
hand slide subconsciously toward her
weapon’s pommel, thinking that perhaps
her companion will suddenly turn upon
her and attack with all the fury of caged
demon. The moment passes in silence,
however, and with it the fear slowly
evaporates until in its wake is stirred a
strange sense of remorse—remorse in the
realization that this strange woman,
whatever she is, also has emotions,
hopes, perhaps even dreams, all of which
came crashing down within a moment’s
reckless haste, which also, not
inconsequentially, cost two dozen of her
soldiers their lives.
* * *
Jinx had more lessons in store for
Nybotha, and together they had a few
minor adventures as well. Eventually,
however, Jinx began contemplating that
if she stayed on this world for very long,
making waves as she was bound to do,
she would eventually be discovered by
her enemies or others who would seek to
use her for their own purposes. This
fueled her desire to find a more
permanent home amongst beings who
she envisioned would protect her. Later,
she would come to view her choice of
Hell as foolhardy, but, then again, we
don’t know what would have happened
had she decided to hide away on this
world indefinitely.
Comments: #402 & #403
The Jinx Campaign
Robert Dushay wrote in #402, “I’m
rather shocked Jinx felt hosed. She’s
dealing with the most Machiavellian
system in the multiverse, and she’s
upset at being treated badly? What’s
the point of evil?”
The first thing we must remember
about Jinx (or any PC, for that matter)
is that she believes she’s special and,
hence, that the normal rules of conduct
do not necessarily apply to her. The
second thing to remember is that to a
certain extent, she’s right.
The exploits of her father have
bequeathed into his bloodline a very
special set of powers, giving her the
ability to learn how to naturally tap
primal energies as though she were a
greater god. This is something that
Arch-Mages, in my game, learn to do,
which is why they are either
incorporated into deific hierarchies or
are killed. Those who try to become
interplanar leeches usually fall into the
latter category. Jinx, however, has
powers that go beyond even those of an
Arch-Mage. Whereas they are
specialized and therefore vulnerable
outside their specialty, Jinx is more of a
generalist, incorporating talents from
various schools of magic as well as
blade-swinging. In short, she is an army
of one.
There will eventually be a debate in
Hell on whether or not she is too
dangerous to be permitted to exist, but
at the time she first enters Malsheem
and meets the Emperor, neither she nor
they realize her ultimate potential.
rhctm me on slavery in #403, Robert
writes, “I suspect slavery was taken for
granted in ancient times as we feel
about raising animals for food and
labor.”
I agree with this assessment,
however, how would a paladin
rationalize it? “Those fools captured by
the gnolls obviously lack the
wherewithal to fend for themselves. If
they should end up slaves, then they
shall have arrived at the station to
which they chose, for they could have
died in battle had they the courage to
fight ‘til the bitter end.” I’m sure you
can see the problem. Instead of
representing lawful-good, he’d end up
representing the status-quo, whatever
that happens to be. After all, it’s usually
not too hard to rationalize what is. So
yes, I probably could have pulled it off,
and given his political affiliations,
that’s probably the argument that
should have been made, but I just
wasn’t comfortable doing it. It just felt
at odds with my internal notion of what
a paladin is supposed to be.
Homosexuality & Social Decay
On February 21, 2009, I posted a
thought-dump on homosexuality and
social decay on my blog.3 Rather than
replying over there, two A&Ers decided
to post their comments in A&E #403.
Robert Dushay wrote, “…you circle
round and round and don’t have a
coherent argument as much as a
collection of half-formed thoughts. I’m
honestly sorry I don’t have the time to
wade through and give it solid
comments, except to say that I disagree
with your evident premise that
permitting gay marriage would
undermine social stability…”
3 effect, a gamble… sort of like a child
http://jim-vassilakos.livejournal.com
And Steven Warble wrote, “Very
interesting and well thought out. I
disagree with you on a few issues,[…]
but I find your point of view both
understandable and reasonable.”
As first this apparent discrepancy of
opinions left me a bit mystified, but
then I seemed to recall a quote from
Hemingway, something along the lines
of, “What a reader takes from a piece
of writing is the measure of what he
brought.”
With respect to Robert, I suppose
that the premise that he was referring to
was my general worry that trying new
social arrangements might entail
unforeseen social repercussions.
Nonetheless, I was apparently willing
to have my society accept this risk for
the continued advance of freedom and
equality. Sometimes, though, I do
wonder if we are worthy and/or wise
enough to manage our own affairs in
this ever-changing world.
I can imagine the speech to young
Imperial princes, genetically enhanced
beyond the level of their subjects and
with greater wealth and power than any
“normals” (i.e. “commoners”) might
hope to obtain. Only, perhaps, might
the masters of the Interstellar Mega-
Corporations enter this realm of power,
and they would likely be elevated and
incorporated into the hierarchy
provided they were willing to toe the
party line. And that line, that voice
speaking to the young nobles, would
caution them that freedom is a weed in
the garden of peace and stability, and
that it must be rooted out because it
causes too much internal conflict; too
much internal heat is generated.
Freedom is like a virus that can destroy
a society if left unchecked. That is
probably what the nobility in Traveller
would be taught. I don’t know… any
thoughts?
In my way of thinking, they would
become increasingly corrupt… unless
there’s something keeping them in
check. After all, is it not said that
absolute power corrupts absolutely?
Granted, we don’t really know. How
one referee plays Imperial society and
how another does it can be completely
different, and both are equally valid
until proven otherwise, but I do find
such things interesting to discuss.
In short, my worry is that each new
freedom that we permit ourselves is, in
eating from the proverbial cookie jar. I
don’t know that this one will
necessarily be “the one” to get us into
trouble, but what about all the others?
As for my “round and round,” yes…
I do admit to this tendency. My writing,
like my thinking, is a bit of a joke…
cluttered and disorganized almost to the
point of invoking self-pity. Suffice it to
say that it is nearly impossible for me to
think things out to a reasonable level of
detail unless I write about them,
because only when I write do I get
some gauge for the different
perspectives that need to be weighed.
There’s too much surrounding detail…
too many alternative opinions and
options. Sometimes, I suppose my brain
is like a crowd of people all trying to
get a word in edgewise, and certainly
many of them in mutual frustration as
to the apparently hopeless task of trying
to persuade me to fully see things their
own peculiar way and to the total
exclusion of their counterparts.
What can I say? I’m a natural fence-
sitter, and so I am not looking for an
argument but am rather hoping to hone
my own “collection of half-formed
thoughts” with the thoughts of other
people who do occasionally somehow
manage to find the time “to wade
through and give it solid comments.” In
short, I would be interested in reading
what anyone thinks. However, I request
that replies occur on the blog so that
A&E may remain blissfully uncluttered
by such off-topic discussion… unless,
of course, the discussion relates to an
RPG, in which case, by all means….
In reply to Steven: Thank you for
your comment. If not for what you
wrote, I should have thought myself
almost entirely unintelligible (as it is, I
suppose, I am only partially
unintelligible). Also, you mentioned
having some thoughts on the
redefinition of marriage at earlier points
in history. When was it, what
happened, and did anything else happen
as a result? Finally, as previously
stated, replying on the blog rather than
in A&E might be in order.
Courtesy & Consternation
Joshua Kronengold, in #403,
inadvertently put two zines in one
issue.4 In the first, he wrote with respect
to my comment to Myles in #399:
“Your condescending to Myles, otoh?
Not cool at all.”
It is possible that I need to work on
my tone when launching into a moral
reprimand, but suffice it to say that I
still think that the substance of my
remarks was essentially correct.
Further, if my tone wasn’t sufficiently
pleasant, it may have been because
Myles’ statement to Ty was, in my
belief, both uncalled for as well as
permitting of no diplomatic reply.
In any case, I agree with Lisa’s
comment with respect to Myles’ reply.
He handled my criticism well, and my
respect for him has increased because
of this, although, as he did not see fit to
apologize to Ty, my disappointment
remains.
Speaking of apologies, if you were to
attempt to make amends with Louis…
oh, but why do I bother? If you ever do
it, do it because you wish to… not
because I opened my stupid mouth. I
shouldn’t push you… but that’s how I
feel. It would be right. If you don’t see
it the same way, that’s your choice, but
I think it would be the gentlemanly
thing to do. If you ever wake up and
realize this, however, be sure that you
do it not because I asked you to but
rather because you accept that you
wronged Louis and that you owe him
an apology. Regardless of whether he
accepts it, doing this will make you into
a better person, and I’m sorry if you
find that condescending.
Regarding this latest brouhaha,
which, incidentally, I’ve probably
conflated with my insufferable
philosophizing, moralizing, and advice-
giving, I’ve had another stray thought
that I need to mention.
I was in traffic this morning, admiring
how all us drivers have this simple set
of rules that we obey in order to get
from Point-A to Point-B without
crashing into each other, and I had to
ask myself if perhaps it would be to
A&E’s benefit if Lee were to institute
some set of rules regarding political
discourse.
By “our society” I mean Western
Civilization. My apologizes to those readers
who do not consider themselves a part of it
4
Lee explained how this happened under and thus view this whole line of thinking as
“Apologies.” somehow arrogant or nationalistic.
As it is, we have one regarding length
but none regarding the level of volume
or consternation that is provoked. I
guess this may be because it is
relatively easy to count pages but
relatively difficult to easily decide what
is fairly said versus what is unfairly
said. In short, how far may one go in
provoking outrage? And this question, I
think, is as pertinent to art as it is to
public speech.
Regarding the latter, I wrote to
Patrick last issue, stating that saying
what one will of public figures “is a
long-standing American tradition that I
would not hear of changing,” but, later,
as I thought about this further, I, as
usual, backtracked on my own
intuitions, no doubt instilled by a liberal
education, and I began to wonder if this
tradition that we have toward freedom
and free speech is entirely correct all of
the time.
I’m sure there are valid reasons why
our society has seen fit to allow us to
criticize those in public office with the
most forceful and even arguably hateful
of language, and I think it’s a real
blessing that we have this right.
However, I also worry that many of us
end up misusing it whether for attention
or money or just to hear the sound of
our own voices. I should explain this a
bit further, I suppose.
Our adherence to “Freedom of
Speech” allows the greatest part of us a
free reign in terms of expressing what
we believe… and testing what we
believe against what others believe…
and this is spiritually as well as socially
important. To speak truly is something
our soul is always seeking, even if it is
not in our best interests to do so, and to
seek the hidden truths is also very much
in our nature. We are communicative
and curious, and so it should perhaps
not be surprising that this “speaking
truth” both to power and to one another
allowed our society5 to develop as it
has. We are, you might say, freedom’s
product.
But, of course, the question next
becomes whether or not freedom is
socially advantageous over the long
term and without qualification, and
certainly, I think, groups need to
qualify the freedom of their members
5
by virtue of making certain demands
which are conducive to the sort of
interactions the group wants to have
versus those sorts of interactions that it
doesn’t want. Societies do this, and so
do families in their own way. So,
perhaps, should A&E, if there’s a
recurring problem that may be
correctable.
So what sort of demands am I talking
about? Well, the two-page rule is an
example. Now that it’s in place,
however, the restless masses seem to be
easily agitated by content that is
boisterous though brief. It is not that it
is wasteful of paper or difficult to skip.
It’s just the sheer language and “art” of
expression that leaves certain people
“sick or nauseous.” 6
The problem with this sort of
thinking, of course, is that is presumes
a right to not be offended, and, of
course, such a “right” is antithetic to
freedom of speech. Hence, there is no
such right as the so-called right to not
be offended.
This, in fact, is why I am so opposed
to this idea that I’m seemingly in the
midst of proposing. I honestly believe
that the best solution is for the
squeamish among us to just take some
meds before subjecting themselves to
the written thoughts of other people.
However, it is at these very moments of
self-righteous indignation that I need to
recall that just because I think this way
doesn’t give me to right to force my
views on others. Also, I would do well
to recall that in non-moderated forums,
or those that are largely non-moderated,
there’s often a downside insofar that
“debates” tend toward vulgarity.
We’ve seen this on the Internet and
on what goes for mass-media news
these days, where “debate” usually
consists of short, machinegun-like
bursts fired by participants of
diametrically opposing views, all in
between commercial-breaks and for the
sole, apparent purpose of auctioning the
audience’s eyeballs and ever-decreasing
attention spans to the highest bidder.
This, in turn, may be driving the
tendency for the public to take this sort
of “consumer-oriented debate” as
normal behavior, and it may be
radicalizing our society around
opposing viewpoints. In short, I do
definitely see the downside.7
6
See Myles’ comment to me in #403.
Likewise, just because we have this
right in society to say what we will
doesn’t necessarily mean that a
publisher must print it. Lee, just like
any other publisher, has the right to
draw a line between what’s acceptable
and what isn’t. She could, therefore,
establish certain standards, and as
members of the APA, we could also
propose standards, debate them, and
petition for their adoption. I don’t know
exactly how these might be phrased or
how they’d even be enforced, but I’m
beginning to think that it is this absence
of clearly defined rules-of-the-road that
has been causing us to crash into one
another, not just this time but many
times before… before you and I and Ty
were even members. I mean, without
clear standards, we’re all just sort of
left to our own devices, and that’s cool
if that’s what we want, but the end
result will be, just as on the Internet and
on domestic “news” channels, people
screaming at one another. Hence, I’ve
begun wondering if this long-time and
recurring problem may be solvable or,
at least, ameliorated.
I wish to emphasize, however, that
I’m really torn about this, because I’d
like to think that we’re wise enough to
police ourselves and to do it in a way
that is appropriate to the situation. But,
the problem is that without any sorts of
standards, people will engage in what
amounts to flame wars. They could be
discussing politics or some RPG, and
then suddenly it’s like they’re at war.
This happens over and over again in
A&E. I was reading one of the older
issues, and they were having quite a
row over metallurgy in ancient times. It
seems to me a strange thing to get upset
about, but people apparently do.
Then, of course, we get those people
who, having experienced it all before,
7
See my comment to Robert regarding
young nobles in Traveller and what they
might be taught, and please also illuminate
me with an expansion of your notion that
“historically, citizens and nobles alike
insulted their rulers all the time. Autocracy
doesn’t mean police state.” I’m curious for
some examples of “good autocracies” in
history, particularly for older, well-
established societies that have been
autocracies for a long period of time. I take
exception to your views, but not being an
historian, I have little factual basis for my
underlying assumptions. Hence, I would
very much like to learn more about your
views to see whether or not I might be
persuaded, and if so, then to what degree.
admonish others to beware of feeding
the troll, and this makes a certain
amount of sense, as flame wars tend to
be such unpleasant and ignoble affairs.
Also, no doubt, many experience a
hesitation in terms of expressing their
own ideas, and so I worry that the most
careful and thoughtful among us may
be effectively silenced by the louder
and more boisterous members, and
that’s something that, if it were true, I’d
definitely want to see changed.
But how to fix it? How do we give
people the freedom to say what they
want to say but in a context or mode
that is not so offensive that the more
psychologically fragile among us end
up becoming sick or nauseous because
of something they inadvertently read?
I’m sorry if you perceive this as a
mischaracterization, but from where
I’m standing, this is the situation, and if
the only way to permit open discussion
is to establish rules, then maybe we
should.
Granted, creating standards of
criticism now that the U.S. has a
democratic administration seems
somewhat politically-timed, but as long
as the standards apply to everyone and
are permanent from this point forward,
I think it should be okay, and it may
reduce the ill-feelings that, to my mind,
could perhaps have been avoided.
Then again, you know, monkeys will
be monkeys, standards or not. I mean,
what sort of standard might work?
“Thou shalt not hurl thine shit, either
at-eth one another or at-eth personages
known or unknown to thee. No flying
shit-cakes, you little bastards… so
sayeth The Lard.”
Yeah… maybe that could work. It’s
silly, but it gets to the point. Of course,
it is a time-honored tradition, this
hurling of shit at public figures whether
or not they deserve it, but I’ll sacrifice
that if it’ll keep A&Ers from engaging
in flame-wars. And if someone has a
shit-cake and can’t bear to let it fester
in their bowels, they have merely to
post it to a blog and tell us where to
find it. Those who are inclined to read it
can still do so. Those who aren’t
needn’t fret nor grow nauseous due to
accidentally happening upon it.
What about enforcement? When
someone flings a shit-cake in A&E, as
will no doubt occur from time to time,
we can complain to Lee either privately
or publicly, “Lee, so-and-so is flinging
shit-cakes again. Ooh… that was a
stinky one. I think somebody needs an
enema.”
If Lee decides the offense is genuine
and insufficiently provoked, the
offender gets cautioned; the next time
and every time thereafter, they’re either
warned again or put in the penalty box
for one issue… the idea being to allow
our beloved queen to discipline us
when we step out of line but not to
arrange a system whereby we
permanently evict people, which was
what had disappointed me with respect
to what Myles had initially said to Ty.
And, incidentally, although Myles
worried over “stirring the pot” just last
issue, I didn’t find his latest remarks to
be uncivil, so perhaps a mild reprimand
every now and then isn’t a wholly
horrible thing, although I would prefer
that in the future it come from Lee
rather than myself.
Of course, I don’t really like putting
Lee in this position either, because it
sort of forces her to give the impression
of taking sides, and she might prefer to
just lay low and avoid the whole mess.
Likewise, there would no doubt be
instances where it’s a matter of splitting
hairs to decide if something was or
wasn’t offensive… in which case I’d
opt for wasn’t, but I could see people
being angry all the same.
For example, Lisa’s comment last
issue where she writes to Steven, “I’d
rather lose ten Ty Beards than one
Patrick Riley or Myles Corcoran.”
That, to me, has the fragrance of a shit-
cake, and although it wasn’t hurled at
Ty, per se, it’s definitely a baked good.
I mean, why must we lose anyone?
Why is that our only option?
That’s my central point. I think that
there ought to be a better way to resolve
these sorts of things than what we’re
currently doing, which essentially
amounts to mob-rule, turn on the
flames until people leave, but maybe
that’s what you personally prefer. Also,
if we leave things as they are, I think
there may be the tendency for people to
regard A&E as somewhat childish &
cliquish, a place where newcomers are
attacked en masse whenever a certain
group of intolerant members sees cause
to evict. I’ll admit that I find it
personally distasteful that Ty or others
should be forced to censor their
politics, but if it means peace in A&E,
then, speaking personally, I think it’s a
price worth paying so long as the rules
apply to everyone and are fairly his campaigns. But in terms of being
enforced. our family or even our friends, they
Comments welcome. have proven, at least to you, that they
are neither, and if they are not to you,
Louis La Mancusa writes in #402, “I then I see no reason to expect any better
do not believe the solution to the for myself.
success of our APA lies in editorial You know that I bent over backwards
censorship or a ‘decency squad,’ but in to keep you here, that I wanted to prove
the individual members vocalizing their to you that at least one person saw what
concerns about what they see as unfair happened and gave a shit. But the fact
or inappropriate.” that nobody else did makes clear your
I wish I could continue to believe reasons for contemplating a “leave of
this. Brian Rogers and Spike Jones absence.” What’s the fun of being part
raised some interesting questions in the of a community that doesn’t police its
very same issue that you commented. own and that looks the other way when
Brian asked, “Bear in mind…we are its own members criticize one another
paying to converse. […] Does my in such a deliberately destructive
unwillingness to spend money on an manner, as though this were not A&E
argument that has no practical or but rather alt.flame? Granted, it doesn’t
political repercussions mean that I happen often, but this only makes it all
agree with everything they say?” And the more noteworthy when it does
Spike added, “That’s the problem with happen, because to let it happen and
silence: It can be interpreted any way then let it happen again establishes a
the listener wants.” And he goes on to precedent that I think ought to have
list five possible interpretations, making been challenged long ago.
it explicitly clear that his silence on this The reason I made such an ordeal out
particular topic could be interpreted in of this is not that I truly expected the
at least five different ways. So, as I now outcome would be any different than
understand it, what we have here is a what it is. After all, people are people,
situation where A&Ers, when and unless they see something in it for
witnessing one of their own being themselves, their natural and
attacked, choose not to vocalize their understandable tendency is to avoid
concerns about what they may see as controversy that doesn’t directly
unfair or inappropriate because, quite concern them. However, even being
consciously, they’re either unwilling to aware of this, I wanted to give A&Ers
spend the money or simply prefer not to an opportunity to say, “Yes, we are a
lower their aura of ambiguity.8 family,” and “No, I don’t like it when
Lee stated in her comments to Myles members attack each other,” because if
in #403, “Yes, A&E is a wonderful they had done this, I think it would
community of people.” However, given have been a step toward fostering a
the fact that A&Ers, by and large, culture in A&E that is perhaps better
choose to remain silent when someone than what we have now and, indeed,
(you, for instance) is attacked in a way what has been with us here all along. In
that is both cruel and unprovoked, and short, although this was always a long-
the fact that once this is called to our shot, it was worth a try, and I’m glad I
attention, we tend to shrug and make did try, even though I knew that apathy
excuses or otherwise obfuscate our would likely rule in the end.
motivations, or rather lack thereof, I So what I more or less expected to
think that we cannot be honestly said to happen did, and we are left in the same
be both wonderful and a family, and position as before. Do we just accept
hence, I perhaps spoke too hopefully that we are subject to random attack as
when I took the foolish liberty of the price of participation in A&E? And
characterizing us as a family in my when others are attacked in the future,
essay of #401 and subsequent should we look away like everyone else
comments, for, I think, wonderful and just pretend that it’s okay? I think
people who are a family would not everyone here ends up answering these
behave as we have done. Perhaps we questions in their own way and in their
are wonderful in other ways. Spike, I own time, showing to themselves a
think, has a wonderful intellect. Brian, I facet of who they really are, but for
believe, does wonderful write-ups of myself, I’m contemplating going back
to the policy I began with… the policy
8
Nifty feat! How can I get this? of not commenting at all, because it
might be easier, I think, to not get to
know the people here too well if this is
the way that I know that they will
ultimately behave toward one another,
unapologetically.
Yet, even though I write this, I also
have to admit that I, too, am guilty.
When the Robert Rees incident
occurred (I can’t even remember how
many issues ago), I saw that he was
getting beat on, and I thought to myself,
“Well, maybe he deserves it.” I didn’t
know what set things off, and neither
did I bother to look. “Why should I get
involved?” I no doubt asked myself.
“Eh… too much trouble… I’ll just skip
it.” Frankly, I didn’t give a shit (so
much for my theory that we’re
supposedly a family).
Hence, my current thoughts with
respect to Spike and Brian Rogers and,
by extension, to almost all the
contributing members, are hypocritical.
I did then what they are doing now.
Also, I can’t help but wonder now if
that brouhaha was a contributing factor
to Paul Mason eventually leaving. In
any case, I can’t be too disappointed or
angry, because I, too, am guilty.
Was I wrong then? I don’t know. I
don’t know Robert Rees, and I’ve never
even bothered to go back and find out
what was such an affront to those who
attacked him and essentially chased him
off. I was too disinterested… too
lazy… too self-absorbed in whatever it
was I was doing at the time.
But having witnessed two of my
favorite contributors being attacked
(yourself and Ty)… well, I haven’t
been so lazy this time around. At the
same time, I want to try to take into
consideration what the other side is
saying. So far, I think, Steven Warble
has done the best job of explaining their
point of view, and so I want to listen
and see if there’s a way forward… a
sort of compromise, if you will.
If we are to continue to live with
ourselves as We, we must overcome
our differences. Primarily, I believe, we
are here to learn; secondarily we are
here to do, but primarily we are here to
learn.
It is not their fault, really. They’re
just people. This is what people do.
This is what it is to be human…
because, I think, we seem to be
continually trying to prove to ourselves
that it’s not how we play the game but
is rather if we win or lose. Joshua and
Myles and now Lisa, attacking rather
than trying to seek a common ground…
Spike and Brian Rogers with their
hands in their pockets, both acting like
Switzerland… it’s all part of this
picture… this picture that we know is
wrong… and yet we do it anyway, and
it’s sort of sad, really, but it’s
understandable, because it is, after all,
the easiest path for each of those who
have chosen it.
I was watching The Weather Man on
TBS with my wife just yesterday. For
some reason I confused it with that Will
Ferrell movie, Anchorman, and so I told
our DVR to record it, hoping that it
would make my wife laugh… her
laughter is one of my favorite things. In
any case, it turned out to be this rather
gloomy and serious movie about a guy
who’s gotten divorced, and in a
flashback, we see him (Nicholas Cage)
explaining to his father (Michael Cain)
why he’s getting this divorce, and the
explanation, of all things, is that he and
his wife have mutually decided that
getting a divorce would be the best
thing for their children. He says
something along the lines that a divorce
would just be easier for the whole
family, and his father responds with
this great line that I’ll never forget:
“Do you know that the harder thing to
do and the right thing to do are usually
the same thing?”
If the resolution here is like the
resolution in the movie, both you and
Ty will leave, and that’s exactly what I
want to avoid, first because I think it
reinforces a bad precedent that people
can be chased away by a clique of
intolerant members, and secondly
because I really like learning what
different people honestly think, and I
think both you and Ty have been great
contributors in this regard.
Many people tend to closet their
opinions and ideas for fear of being
judged. It is so rare to come across
someone like Ty who lays it all out
there in the strongest possible terms
along with ample evidence and logic.
Ty has a highly detailed, highly
specific, highly certain point of view.
He is a sort of treasure, in this sense.
Why do I say treasure? Well, because
like I said, we’re here to learn… not
just here in A&E but here in life. In my
philosophy, so to speak, our task is to
fit it all together into a cohesive whole.
Each individual perspective, no matter
how wildly divergent from
conventional wisdom, is here for a
reason. I don’t want any ideas to be
lost, and I absolutely don’t want people
being too afraid to say what they
honestly think. But that means that we
need to be willing to confront the
conflict that is inherent to this
conundrum and then navigate ourselves
through it to seek a solution, if one is
possible.
I’ll understand, however, if you’re
just tired of this… too tired to try to
deal with the rudeness and the
intolerance to which you’ve been
subjected. It may be the case that no
matter what sort of compromise we try
to offer certain intolerant people, they
will not be happy until they are
dictating all of the terms all of the time.
This, actually, is the very nature of
intolerance… which is why I find
intolerance so intolerable. Needless to
say, we only have a short time on this
Earth, our free time is even more
limited, and spending it trying to deal
with those who cannot be dealt with
may be a wasted and foolish effort. In
short, you may have been right all
along… that this just isn’t worth it.
Hence, if you want me to drop this
entire line of discussion, let me know.
Lisa Padol writes to Steven Warble in
#403 rhctm of #402, saying of Robert
Rees that she, “owed him the courtesy
of telling him why I had stopped
commenting to him and why I was
considering skipping his zines
altogether. I decided not to do that for
the zines I chose to skip this time
around…”
Hmm… “Owed him the courtesy…”
I’m curious, Lisa. What reason did you
give him? Can you point me to an issue
number, because, like I said, I wasn’t
paying attention at the time. I’m curious
to see what your reason was and how
you phrased it.
Generally, I think it is wise to not tell
a contributor when one is skipping their
zine in retaliation for something they
have written. Doing this, in my opinion,
betrays a certain conceit and is,
therefore, self-demeaning, but even
aside from that, it seems to me unlikely
to do any good. We need to find
constructive and thoughtful ways of
expressing our disapproval, and I think
that perhaps the best way can be
summed up as positive-engagement. “I
disagree with what you’re writing, but I
like you and want to encourage you to
change in this one, specific way.”
However, I don’t pretend to know
exactly how to pull this off.
Also, telling someone that we are
skipping their zine as a retaliatory
gesture institutes a certain level of
animosity, and even though we may
later reconsider our position, once
having made such a pronouncement, we
might feel too cornered by our own
statements to express our new feelings
and seek an amicable resolution. It
would be both foolish and tragic, I
think, to allow our pride to hinder us
from seeking reconciliation, but, of
course, people do this all the time. I
suppose that it’s all part of being
human.
Hard-SF RPGs?
On the topic of Hard-SF, Spike
recommended Shatterzone, GURPS:
Space, and Star Hero in #402. In #403,
John Redden recommended Other
Suns.
Here’s the problem: I read SF-RPGs
in a highly critical mode, and once I
spot something that looks like a glaring
flaw, I tend to put the book back down,
and it pretty much requires an act of
will to pick it up again. No wonder I
own so many SF-RPGs that I’ve merely
skimmed. What I really need to do is
mine them for ideas.9 In any case, here
are my initial impressions of these
RPGs that were mentioned.
Shatterzone: What a great title! I was
immediately curious as to what is
the Shatterzone? Page 6 of The
Universe Guide illuminates as
follows: “The ‘zone is composed, at
least, of rock and matter and large
amounts of energy. It is theorized
that the energy flashes that fill the
gaps between the asteroids are
caused mainly by the collision of
dark matter and unknown energy—
but no one really knows.”
Ah… where should I begin? First
of all, rocks are matter. Therefore,
one doesn’t really need to say “rock
and matter.” You might say “rock
and other matter,” in which case
you might talk about what the other
matter is… assuming anyone really
knows. But let’s ignore all that for
the moment.
9
Does anyway here use a database to
organize their notes?
The real problem with this is dark Other Suns: With jump space,
matter colliding with unknown contragravity, psionics, and lots of
energy. What sort of dark matter? aliens, Other Suns looks and feels a
Are we talking about black holes, lot like Traveller except insofar that
brown dwarfs, neutrinos, axinos, rather than it being a human-
neutralinos? Dark matter is a rather dominated setting, humanity is
broad category. After all, we merely one of many species, and a
ourselves are made of dark matter; chastised trouble-maker, at that.
granted, this condition can be Interestingly, the game also
remedied either by spontaneous includes some scientific
combustion or self-immolation. imponderables, such as
This whole description is just spacewhales, space sharks, and
astronomical mumbo-jumbo. It’s space dolphins, describing them as
fine if the players have no idea and creatures and “living starships” but
don’t care, but its lack of scientific neglecting to discuss their
depth makes it read like Space evolution, physiology, or the
Fantasy. manner in which they survive and
I don’t mean to sound so critical, travel in the vast vacuum of space.
as for all I know the game is very I think this is a worthy effort for
playable and a lot of fun. This is my the time that it was published
problem, really… not the game’s (1983), however, it could stand to
problem. After all, any game that be updated. Likewise, in reviewing
has an alien species that is described the setting’s background, my initial
as follows can’t be entirely boring: feeling is that the amount of trouble
“Kestaria is a female-dominated that humanity was able to cause
world, and with good reason: seems a bit contrived as well as
through a combination of their unnecessary, and I’m left wondering
stunning appearances, almost if the author was making a political
mystical allure, and possibly some statement. I think that others here
form of pheromone secretion, who no doubt know much more
Kestarian women are virtually about the game might lend me their
irresistible seductresses.”10 thoughts on this point.
Oh… won’t someone please put In terms of Hard-SF, I’d put this
me out of my misery? game right alongside Traveller,
which is to say that, in my opinion,
GURPS:Space: An excellent it’s harder than Star Trek or Star
recommendation, but it is trying to Wars but not as hard as, say,
be all things to all people. This isn’t Transhuman Space.
really a fault, but it necessitates that
the GM decide what level of Finally, Eugene Reynolds suggested
hardness he or she wants.11 In short, Shock: Social Science Fiction back in
how many miraculous technologies #400. It is a very difficult game to
will the setting incorporate, and evaluate, because it is written at a fairly
what are their scientific abstract level. Most games include a
explanations? The thing that this setting into which one can poke holes.
book does best is that it presents the In this game, the setting in invented
GM with many possibilities from more or less on the fly by the players
which to choose. But can it themselves, each of them taking
necessarily be called Hard-SF? I responsibility for a different facet. I
think GURPS:Space would consider find this game highly inventive, but will
Hard-SF to be a niche into which it it work when I actually manage to get a
doesn’t wish to be consigned. group together to play it? I have no
idea. Also, I think there’s a lot of work
Star Hero: As with GURPS:Space, I need to do before I’ll be ready to
Hard-SF in Star Hero is considered attempt this. Actually, I’m thinking
optional. Pretty much everything I about doing an imaginary play-test so I
said with respect to GURPS:Space can anticipate questions and problems
could also be said of Star Hero. before they arise.
10
The Universe Guide, p43.
11
Get your mind out of the gutter.
 (Near) Total Party Kill!
Patrick Riley writes in #403 about how my opinion, well-played on Patrick’s
he “killed three of the four PCs” and part. But, of course, it left an
then had to do a “reset.”
It’s a tough situation. I recall one time options he might have considered.
that I killed the party.12 There is,
indeed, a certain sense of “oops” that, I •
think, is inevitable, as somebody has to
eat it because we are so conditioned
against this sort of outcome in the
typical story-telling tradition. “And
then Robin Hood foolishly took on too
many opponents at the same time, and
he ended up being drawn and
quartered by the Sheriff of Nottingham.
The End.” That would be amusing for
about two seconds, but then the joke
would be over, and so would the story.
The players and the GM are in this
sort of cooperative/competitive dance,
and there’s this unwritten assumption
that the GM will be fair, which seems
to inevitably translate as, “I won’t kill
you provided you don’t do anything
unspeakably stupid.” At least, that’s the •
way that I’ve tended to see it
interpreted and the way that I’ve
interpreted it myself to some degree.
And because of this, perhaps, there’s
this tendency on the part of the players
to think that if they should die, it must
be either entirely their fault or entirely
the GM’s fault, and so naturally they
will argue their case, which it is in their
character’s interests to do, and the GM, •
once again playing the role of judge,
must naturally consider whether he or
she could have made different decisions
resulting in a different and probably
more satisfying outcome for the
primary participants and audience, the
players.
So, when this happens, the GM has to
think on his or her feet… and fast…
and it might behoove GMs to consider
that there are usually options that they
might be able to exploit to the
advantage of the story and the players’
(and his or her own) overall enjoyment.
In Patrick’s situation, what happened,
apparently, was that the players
executed poor planning, betrayed
ruthlessness before their enemies (thus,
by all rights, eliciting the same), and
were then horribly unlucky (or merely
not as lucky as usual). In any case, they
lay helpless, and their enemies
12
See my essay on the “Wisdom of Uncle
Figgy” in A&E #364 and look under
“Obeying the Dice.”
exploited their advantage to its fullest
measure… all very reasonable, and in
unsatisfying ending. Here are some
The PCs wake to the sound of
screaming… their own. They are
being tortured, and their captors
mean to extract vengeance in the
form of a long and painful death…
for each of them. Fortunately, this
allows for the possibility of escape,
assuming that a lucky twist were to
present itself. Remember, the Robin
Hood movie where, right at the
beginning, Kevin Costner is about
to have his hands severed? I’m sure
there are countless other examples,
some much more elaborate than
others. This option would even
allow for them being rescued by
some fortunate event.
The PCs wake up, bloody and
bound. They’re on a cart toward the
infamous slave trading city of
Garkomar. Every time one of them
shows any sign of life, he or she is
beaten unconscious. They might try
to escape along the way, but once
they are in the monstrous city, their
fate is virtually sealed.
This one is based on what
happened in Patrick’s campaign.
One or more of the PCs, perhaps the
one or ones most closely aligned
with a god or the one or ones most
likely to have been observed by one,
enter into a spiritual state upon
his/her/their throat being slit. The
god says, “I’ve been expecting
you,” and elaborates that he or she
is willing to offer them a deal… in
return for a fee, of course. So,
obviously, the deal involves them
somehow remaining alive, and so
they do, waking up some time
previous to the encounter (a do-
over), except in this case, it is a
dream that is remembered by those
who made the deal. Essentially,
either the god put them back in time
or simply inserted the dream into
their subconscious, thus taking
advantage of a favor that perhaps
never really occurred. One can see
how the PCs might reasonably look
at this from either angle, even
though their players will assume
that it did actually happen. In any
case, now they are obligated to do
whatever they promised, and so
instead of killing the campaign, the
GM will have introduced a major
plot thread. Patrick essentially did
this in his campaign but without the
deal and without a particular god or
angel being involved. I thought this
was a great move on his part, but he
returned their lives to them freely,
perhaps as a way of showing that he
was sorry for killing them, even
though, at the end, he defiantly
proclaimed, “I’m not doing it
again.” I think he made the right
call, but as a GM who has his
players in this sort of awkward
position, I think it would have been
more fun to have twisted the knife
by doing something campaign-
altering and quite to their PCs’
detriment, if only to say, “See what
happens when you’re not
sufficiently careful.” I also think
that it’s these sorts of surprises that
make for a more memorable
campaign.
• The PCs are offered an
afterlife working for a god.
• The PCs are raised as
intelligent undead by a powerful
necromancer.
• The PCs are resurrected, either
soon or in the distant future. Their
benefactors probably want
something in return, although not
necessarily. (GM: “The barmaid
you were enjoying on the previous
night becomes heavy with child.
The bastard, bullied and ridiculed
by his peers, grows to be a powerful
adventurer and one day discovers a
ring of three wishes. Having always
wanted to meet the father who died
before he was born…”). See also
my solution in A&E #364.
• The PCs come back as ghosts
and learn to possess the living, as
per Myles Corcoran’s idea for the
world of the Wolf Age (see A&E
#403). (Myles: More details,
please.)
• Exploring the previous idea
further, perhaps a powerful weapon-
smith collects the souls of brave
adventurers who manage to get
killed. He uses their souls to
 enchant powerful weapons or items,
magical artifacts which have the
power to possess their mortal user.
In this way, he recruits his own
army of adventurers who he expects
will do missions under his direction,
occasionally warning them, if he
must, that just as he made them (in
their current form), so too does he
know how to unmake them,
releasing them to the eternal or,
perhaps, to oblivion. A powerful
mage with such an army could
conceivably be pulling the strings of
kingdoms… or even ruling them
from afar. My conspiracy detector is
definitely making noises.
• This could conceivably go on
forever… even to the point of
changing the entire genre. GM:
“You wake up in the bodies of
futuristic twenty-somethings
(biologically speaking), your little
Memonix thrill-ride at an end.
‘Hey,’ the vendor says, ‘if you want
the story to continue, it’ll be
another twenty credits. Wha’d’ya
say?’ Just then an android walks in,
and you recognize him. Shit… he’s
entasked to a guy that you’d rather
avoid. What do you do?” Granted,
the players might walk out on the
grounds that the GM is screwing
with them (and they’d be justified).
But, of course, if they’re hell-bent
on continuing the fantasy campaign,
it’ll only cost another twenty
credits, at which point choose one
of the other options above. They’ll
be irritated, no doubt, but it’ll give
the GM an amusing memory.
One of the problems I have with
preconceived campaign arcs is that they
limit these sorts of unforeseen options.
All the GM can think about is, “How
can I undo this and just get them to
Encounter #4?” when that’s no longer
a plausible outcome, and so the game
comes to a screeching halt just as surely
as though the party walked off the
campaign map. Incidentally, if anyone
else has any other ideas with respect
different sorts of rabbits a GM might
pull out of his or her bag of tricks in
such a situation, please do feel free to
chime in and lend us your thoughts.
Problem Player—GM Gloom
Brian Rogers continues his excellent
New Dawn campaign reports,
describing in #403 how John, one of his
players, has become something of a
problem. Knowing John’s modus
operandi from prior experience, Brian
set out to correct the problem right from
the start by (brilliantly, in my opinion)
making John’s character the party
leader.
For those most part, this strategy
seemed to be working until the
infamous interrogation of the cadaver
man. I found this section of the write-
up both interesting and entertaining, as
the cadaver man proved to be highly
informative as well as an impromptu
comedian. John, highly involved at this
point, insisted on carrying on the
interrogation even further to try to get
additional information, suggesting both
torture and bribery, but the rest of the
party, perhaps noting Brian’s reluctance
to impart further knowledge, refused to
go along, refusing at the end to even to
translate for John, their so-called party
leader.
“The Cadaver Man interrogation
eventually reached a point where they
just weren’t going to get more
information. To speed things along I let
them know this.”
John, at this point, essentially
checked out of the game. He didn’t
physically leave, per se, but he no
longer considered the game to be fun,
and so he decided to amuse himself in
other ways, by playing his character as
ultra-aloof, as though to say, “I no
longer care about any of this.”
Brian writes, “He engaged in no
exploration, offered no suggestions,
took no affirmative actions, when
questioned would respond with ‘you’re
doing fine on your own.’ When other
PCs tried to heal the rift they were
rebuffed; when other PCs were in
mortal danger he took only minimal
action when pressed. When pushed he
said he was ‘just acting in character’
but refused to take any action in
character that might change the
dynamic…” Brian adds, “…any
guidance would be much obliged.”
First of all, let me just say that you’re
doing a great job with these write-ups,
and I can tell from them that you’re a
very good GM. As far as roleplaying
content in A&E these days, I think your
zines are right at the very top. In short,
great job! Having said all that, I think
you screwed up, not just once but
twice… three times, come to think of it.
Your first mistake was with that
interrogation. You introduced these
cadaver men as rational undead. Then
the group captured one, interrogated it,
and you gave them a big pile of
information absolutely free of charge.
First of all, why would the cadaver man
have told them everything so easily?
Well, because you wanted them to
know this stuff, obviously, but from an
in-game perspective, what the GM
wants shouldn’t matter. The GM isn’t
there to dictate the plot. The GM is
there to interface between the players
and the game setting, allowing them to
do what they want to do and reacting as
the game universe seems likely to react.
Now, although you gave them a
whole bunch of information, you also
let them know that the cadaver man was
still holding back on them. “Eventually
it is clear to most of the party that the
pitiful Cadaver Man will reveal no
more information.” John, however, still
very much into the game at this point,
decided that he wanted to either torture
the damn thing or bargain with it by
offering it name-giver flesh. However,
instead of playing along with his idea,
you decided to just speed things along.
You told them this wouldn’t work. But
did you explain why? If so, I somehow
failed to notice this explanation in your
write-up.
From John’s point of view, the
cadaver man had nothing to lose, and
you’ve already portrayed it as a rational
creature, so why wouldn’t it bargain? It
seems to me improbable that there
would be this big pile of information
that it would give away for free, but
that then there would be this hard wall
beyond which it wouldn’t budge
regardless of the interaction. By simply
exerting GM authority, saying that it
wouldn’t work but not offering a
convincing explanation as to why, you
behaved in a way that was, to John’s
mind, both heavy-handed as well as
internally inconsistent, and this broke
his suspension of disbelief in the game.
After that point, he no longer cared.
What you could have done instead
was to actually play this out. “John,
what is Voi doing? What does he say?”
And then respond as the cadaver man
would respond, taking into account the
situation. “The cadaver man looks
expectantly toward the translator.
‘What’s he saying?’”
 If Voi wants to cut himself, even
sever fingers, let him. You’re not his
mother. You’re his GM… his neutral
arbiter. Because you didn’t allow him
this freedom to shine on his own terms
by employing his own creativity, he
saw the whole adventure as a balloon
full of hot air, your air, and decided to
amuse himself by sticking needles in it.
This, of course, given his
performance in past campaigns, may
have been inevitable, which brings up
your second mistake. Once John tossed
you the oldest excuse in the book, that
“I’m just in character,” you should not
have thought “fair enough” but should
have instead insisted, first, that he
explain all this in front of the group,
and then, you should have launched
into a conversation about how
unrealistic it is that the elders of their
kaer would select such a you do this, you should be clear that it
psychologically unbalanced individual
to be a member of this important
expedition… much less its leader. And
then, if he threw a fit, you could explain
that this is not D&D, there’s no place to
hide or sell the loot that he procures
ahead of the rest of the party, and that if
he’s looking for that sort of game,
you’ll be sure to make a note of it and
let him know when you’re running one.
Until then, you’re sorry it didn’t work
out, but you look forward to seeing him
and his wife in the future. No doubt, he
would storm off, angry and bitter, but
that would be his choice just as was
everything else that he did.
Your third mistake was the combat
where John was able to get away with
doing the minimum, and the entire
party still survived. This reinforced his
notion that the adventure was a railroad
and that it didn’t matter to what level he
participated. Ultimately, the party
would achieve whatever you as GM
wanted it to achieve, and his
contribution, or rather lack thereof,
would be rendered meaningless by your
overriding power.
Furthermore, this scene substantiated
his assessment of the situation to the
other players. It proved that they could
safely tolerate his lack of participation
rather than confronting him directly,
that they didn’t need him, in effect,
because they trusted you to pull your
punches.
This is corrosive and deadly to
suspension of disbelief. It brings down
the whole game, and John knows this.
That’s why he’s doing it. He is, in
short, making a statement about the
game from within the game without
actually having to say anything,
because you and the other players are,
in effect, making the statement for him.
In my opinion, there’s not a whole lot
you can do to fix this unless you
confront it head on. John has his
opinion of the campaign and it’s not
likely to go away. I’m surprised that he
even bothers to show up, but maybe he
has no friends and this is his only social
outlet.
I’m sorry. I shouldn’t be so mean. Let
me try nice. I think the best thing you
can do is have a conversation with John
where you go over your mistakes as
GM and where you go over his as a
player, and then you both admit that
you’ve both made mistakes, and you try
to put things back together. However, if
is unacceptable for him to continue
screwing around in the way he is doing,
and although you understand that he
was behaving in this manner as a sort of
reaction to your GMing style, now that
you’ve effectively kissed and made up,
this sort of behavior on his part will be
tolerated no further and that if you see
him doing it again in any of your
campaigns, you’ll simply have to take
him aside and ask him to leave.
Emphasize that you don’t want to do
this, of course, but explain that you
have a duty to the other players and that
as an experienced player himself, he
should understand that your duty to the
entire group has to take precedence
over any personal friendship with an
individual player. If he doesn’t like
that… well, too bad. Is that nice
enough?
Oh, and if you’re feeling particularly
brave (or perhaps foolhardy), you might
also tell him one more thing. If he’s
willing to stick with the game and
actually play to the highest level of
which he is capable, you would
appreciate it very much if he would
help you GM to the highest level of
which you are capable. Hence, he
should quietly keep a list of what he
perceives as your errors of judgment as
the game progresses. Then, when there
is time for the two of you to sit down
privately, he should go over these with
you so that you can better take into
account his perceptions and ideas of
how you might have handled situations
differently. You have nothing to lose by
doing this save for a small bit of pride,
and potentially you have a lot to gain
both in terms of GMing skill as well as
friendship. It would, incidentally, also
be an opportunity to discuss his playing
style and to reiterate your expectations
of him.
This, of course, is all just food for
thought. Feel free to use what make
sense to you and toss the rest. I don’t
know this guy. You do. Hence, it’s your
call. Just keep these campaign reports
coming so that I might continue to
enjoy them, and my thanks to you for
all the work that you’ve put into them.
Other Comments
Myles Corcoran re Sir Elad and
Lancelot, wrote in #403, “…Elad very
nearly drove Lancelot mad well ahead
of schedule with one conversation and
nearly saved Britain from the mess that
Lancelot, Guinevere and Arthur would
later become embroiled in.”
I don’t suppose there’s any chance I
might cajole you into attempting a
recreation of this conversation in the
form of a write-up? If the player is still
around, you might even try seeing if
he’d be willing to PBeM it with you,
unless, of course, you think you can
wing it on your own. Personally, I’m
curious to learn more about what was
said.
And, by the way, thanks for your
comment on the frequency of low-
mass, sub-stellar objects (i.e. brown
dwarfs and the like).
Michael Cule: Enjoyed the story about
the God Kings as well as the entire
write-up.
Lee Gold: Loved your long quote of
Shaw’s preface to The Apple Cart in
your comments to Eugene in #403.
Jerry Stratton writes in #402 in
reference to my random relationship
system of A&E #400, “Why not roll for
a character’s relationship with
themself?”
Yes, you could, I suppose. You’d
have to define what you mean,
however, as I think most people are
fairly self-devoted, but you might get a
few who can’t stand to be around
themselves. “God, I really… really
suck.” Yes, that would be rather
amusing in an evil mastermind. Little
did we know that the Demon King just
needed a prescription for Prozac. Pretty
soon elvish archers would be teaming
up with gnomish pharmacists to deliver
much-needed medication to the world’s
most nefarious villains.