Jinx’s Vacation
All Good Things…
Jim Vassilakos (jim.vassilakos@gmail.com)
After her talk with Zarith, after they have made further plans
for the preliminary reconnaissance of the Isles of Oblivion,
Jinx goes into the forest with Laertes, preferring to sleep under
the stars rather than with a roof over her head, despite the wind
and the threat of rain. 1 Fortunately, the rain never comes,
though every now and then she can hear Laertes move about
the area as though standing a makeshift patrol. In some
shadowy recess of her mind, it gives her comfort, and she
dreams of Klodsruber, her steed before Laertes, and wonders
absently where his soul has wandered over the intervening
years. When she finally awakens, it is to the sounds of birds
chirping and insects buzzing. Laertes is there as well, his black
hair swathed in a glistening layer of morning dew.2
‘Sleep well, Princess?’ 3
‘Very,’ Jinx rubs her eyes, feeling in need of a cup of coffee,
‘although I did hear you rutting about last night.’
‘I wasn’t rutting. I was investigating. There was the scent of
blood on the air. I wanted to see where it was coming from.’
‘Indeed,’ Jinx sits upright.
‘It seems there was a little battle not too far from here…
rather recent, I think. There’s a breastplate with a hole in it
over yonder if you’d like to see it.’
‘Nothing like a little mystery before breakfast,’ Jinx gets to
her feet.
When they arrive at the piece of armor in question, Jinx picks
it up and uses her sensitivity to psychic impressions to see
what she can make of it. As it happens, there’s a story to every
pierced breastplate, and this one is certainly no exception. In
her mind’s eye, she can see Vasago4 dealing the killing blow.
In another scene, she can make out the cambion’s voice.
1
This is mostly due to justified paranoia. By recruiting a following
and making waves in the circles that she has, Jinx risks drawing the
attention of greater powers. Knowing this, she is hesitant to sleep in
what is essentially her home on his plane, knowing that it could
conceivably be attacked at any moment. Hence, taking to the
woods is a simply a precaution, and on this particularly evening, an
unnecessary one.
2
Portraying Laertes, I think, is one of the things that I have done
particularly badly. Unlike Klodsruber, I’ve played him as a rather
taciturn personality, hanging in the background most of the time
and doing little unless otherwise directed. Klodsruber, by contrast,
was constantly getting into trouble, a source of amusement for Jinx,
if sometimes irritating. However, aside from this “ghosting” of
important NPCs, which is something that almost invariably occurs
with respect to steeds, there is the question over how magical
creatures should be limited in terms of their powers. For example,
http://strolen.com/viewing/The_Steeds_of_the_Dead has
nightmares only being able to operate at night or being tied to a
particular piece of land where their spirit dwells. If I were to run
this campaign from the beginning, I think I would try to impose
various limitations on nightmares such that PCs don’t end up taking
them for granted like some glorified taxi service.
3
As usual, single-quotes with italics denote telepathy. See forced to “reconstruct” the rest, as the end is something I wish for
footnote #1 from my zine in A&E #404.
4
Yet another ally of Jinx’s, and they have quite a history, as I recall. process I should take some rather egregious editorial liberties.
“You can go that way if you like, but I wouldn’t suggest it.
Those woods are haunted. You’d be much better off waiting
here. We can call out to the next ship coming out of Yolin.”
“I don’t trust Yolin. Don’t worry. I can make it on foot to
Sunev and find a vessel there.”
“As you wish. Just be careful.”
Jinx drops the breastplate, smiling slightly.
‘Good news, I take it?’ the nightmare inquires.
‘Just Vasago doing rumor-control.’ 5
The rest of the day goes uneventfully, except that on the way
to Sunev, Jinx comes across some human tracks which soon
lead her to the coast and a small row boat buried in the thickets.
Sensitivity to psychic impressions turns up only that there are
some people, perhaps a small family, dwelling somewhere in
the forest. Deciding to take the boat, she and Laertes, now
polymorphed as a human,6 row the craft along the coast until
they reach Sunev.
By the time they arrive, the sun is already setting, and the
town, bathed in dusky shades of red, seems wistful and sleepy.
In need of solitude as well as nostalgia, Jinx indicates to
Laertes that he should take a hike and perhaps patrol the area
and report to her in the morning. Then she heads to the
“C’mon Inn” which she had stayed at the first time she visited
Sunev. True to form, the inn’s front door is still in need of
repair, and in the lobby the painting of the Kraken still hangs
from the wall, the scene of it taking a ship and crew to a watery
grave still magnificent if somewhat historic.7
“Evening, ma’am,” says a stout balding man tending the
hearth and a pot which hangs there. “A room for ya?”8
“How much?”
After a brief negotiation as well as the promise of a bowl of
fish porridge for breakfast, Jinx retires to her room, setting a
magical ward before laying down to rest.9 On the bed, she can
sense the emotions of previous guests, some of ecstasy, others
having an argument. What passes for adventurers in these
lands have been through here plenty of times, also merchants,
sailors, more than one prostitute...Jinx absently wonders if the
5
Jinx tasked Vasago with heading off any assorted riffraff that
might stumble across her home. Although it is now occupied by
Zarith as his base of operations, it remains important to Jinx that its
location not become generally known. Needless to say, this minor
episode just serves to illustrate that Vasago is doing his job.
6
That Laertes is able to assume human-form is yet another irritant
for me. Somehow, I think it was a mistake to ever allow nightmares
this ability, as it seems to detract from their horsiness. It also forced
me to consider such imponderables as how an intelligent horse
might behave in the form of a human.
7
Jinx has long-since subdued this creature, although this, of course,
is not generally known.
8
A sword-carrying woman traveling by herself would likely raise
eyebrows in some towns, but apparently not in this one. Of course,
the innkeeper might remember Jinx from her last visit.
9
Sadly, our write-up of this scene ends at this precise point with
but a teasingly brief summary of that which follows. Hence, I am
whatever reason to include. Please forgive me, however, if in the
innkeeper knows. Does he know and would he care if he did
know? she briefly ponders, remembering Dis and the The
Fourplay and Baron Esoto’s 10 little, social gathering She
remembers the whores, the many spirits inhabiting the bodies
of toys so that the nobility and their favorites could more
thoroughly enjoy themselves.
‘The very notion of good and evil is unknown to us,’ one
devil casually explained to her, though he would suppress her
memory of this conversation save for within dream, where all
thoughts become possible. ‘Call it post-modernism, if you
will.’
‘Postmodernism?’
‘The mother of moral relativism,’ he tests her conceptual
vocabulary, and in an instant, then as now, she recalls reading
the definition in a forbidden book long ago.
Postmodernism: A style and concept in
the arts characterized by distrust of
theories and ideologies and by the drawing
of attention to conventions.
‘Because we must all evolve beyond our absolutisms, we
tend then to distrust certainties… we tend to distrust
authority. This is a stage much like the terrible twos, a stage
through which we must all pass, until we realize that the
only true authority is that which we have no choice but to
accept.’
‘And so nothing’s real?’ Jinx asks him, implicitly sensing
something, though what this is she shall not recall.
‘All that is real is what we decide is real,’ he affirms,
conjuring an apple into his hand. ‘It is this manipulation,’ he
telepathically enunciates, ‘this allowance of anything we want
whenever we want it that feeds upon itself until our reality
becomes one big playground inhabited by infants.’
He extends his arm to the room, and Jinx watches the violent
fornication, the sadistic satisfaction of whims, and the torment
of the powerless. And laughter! He too is amused, but for
reasons they do not conceive.
‘You despise them,’ Jinx posits.
‘To despise one’s self is a terrible thing, but therein lay the
fate of those who question too much.’
‘Who are you?’ she asks.
‘Who are any of us?’ he smiles.
‘WAKE UP!’
The dream evaporates as quickly as the ward’s magic, both
dissipating in the gentle moonlight as Jinx snaps to full
attention.
‘Laertes!’ she telepathically calls out to her steed, leaping
away from the bed and taking a prepared stance at the far
corner of the room. However, there is only a cat, its supple
outline regarding her somewhat curiously from the sill. Jinx
lets out a long breath as Laertes gallops toward her from down
the street.
‘It’s just a cat,’ she telepathically confesses to keep him from
literally flying into the room.
‘I hate cats. Allow me to torture and then eat it.’
‘That would be unwise,’ the cat interjects, its yellow eyes
glimmering with amusement.
10
Baron Esoto appears in A&E #s 335, 345, and 347.
Jinx blinks for a moment, having not expected an intelligent
feline on her windowsill.
“Are you someone’s familiar?” she asks.
‘I am a messenger sent by order of Adramalech., my purpose
to watch over his property and inform her that her vacation is
coming to an end.’
Jinx regards the hellcat and its glimmering yellow eyes for a
silent heartbeat.
“How long do I have?”
‘Three days,’ it tells her.11 ‘Until then…’ And then it crosses
back into the ethereal plane, vanishing from view, albeit
remaining ever so close.
Comments on A&E #405
Myles Corcoran: Cute kids!
Michael Cule: RAE Refugees of the Seven Hills. I’m
curious to learn how this turns out. I also enjoyed your
description of Bjorn Brokenbow.
Robert Dushay writes on the topic of a paladin’s reaction to
slavery in AD&D, “That’s a toughie! (…) I’d say that you
have to accept that there is such a thing as definable Good
and Evil (…). I’m too post-modern to be able to do that
effectively.” He also brings up the humanity of their
treatment as being a possible wedge.
Robert makes interesting points, as always. In terms of the
game itself, perhaps the most obvious thing I could have
done would have been to define this particular paladin’s
god/church much more clearly before Jinx ever met him.
Unfortunately, being the incorrigibly lazy GM that I am, I
didn’t get that far, and so I found myself in the predicament
of having to invent this stuff on the fly. Let my mistake be a
lesson to other GMs that if you’re going to have paladins or
priests cropping up in your world, you’d be wise to define
their particular brand of morality before they enter play.
Of course, this all but abandons the more central issue, that
of absolute good and evil. If a paladin can detect evil yet fail
to recognize certain absolute evils or perhaps recognize them
only after having split some number of hairs, what does that
say? As usual, we have found a discussion that could
conceivably go on forever, and so it seems to me such a loss
that every time we dip our toes into what may as well
amount to a forbidden sea, we must then quickly pull out for
fear of the dangers lurking within.
Scott Jamison: Enjoyed the bit about Niall Garrideb and the
script for the 9th issue.
Joshua Kronengold asks what level Jinx was when the
campaign started. She started at first level, but as I recall, her
11
Bizarrely, the amount of time does not appear in my notes (at
least the ones I have in front of me). For all I know it was a week.
(The lazy GM, as usual, wasn’t keeping particularly good track of
time.) This scene as well as the one previous to it, the tail end of
which appears in A&E #405, fall somewhere between the 1st and
2nd talks with Cedric in A&E #s 391 & 398. All the reader need
take from this is that Jinx’s remaining time after the War Council in
A&E #402 is exceedingly short.
stat rolls were quite exceptional. Her player is normally a
lucky die roller, having proven capable of conjuring a
critical hit when one is demanded, but even for him, the
attribute rolls were phenomenal. Likewise, she had certain
devil-related powers, so she wasn’t as weak as your standard
1st level character.
Joshua asks if the reason Jinx spared Nybotha in #404
went “beyond her beauty and femaleness.” I’m not entirely
sure. Jinx explained to Nybotha in #403 that she knew the
“drow needed a female to respect as a negotiator.”
However, at the point that Jinx spared Nybotha, she
probably didn’t realize that she had the ruler of a city on her
hands. Taking her captive in the first place may have boiled
down to sheer curiosity. However, once Jinx discovered that
Nybotha had authority and political connections, I’m sure
she decided that the half-elf was much more valuable living
than dead, even though, of course, their relationship got off
to a somewhat rocky start.
Oh, before I forget, I do appreciate the way that you
continued to carry on conversations with me about other
things while we were sharing our views regarding your
earlier comments to Louis. (I imagine that some of my
comments may have seemed overly harsh.) To your credit,
many others would have focused solely on the disagreement
and cut off other avenues of discussion. I think it is quite
good that you didn’t do this (this time). I apologize if this
sounds condescending, but what it tells me is that there’s
hope for you, as you have not propelled yourself into the
proverbial “dark side,” the point of enmity to where there
can be no communication whatsoever. You didn’t permit
anger to consume you, although you came close12, but it was
for only a moment, and as for the rest of it, I think you said
your peace, such as it was, as well as could be expected
considering your point of view.13
Paul Holman (aka Pum): I’d be curious to learn your
thoughts on Everway as you continue digesting it.
Spike Jones writes “Re How the 1st Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution Applies to A&E: I don’t think it does or
should.”
Yes, we are in agreement. 14 However, just because we
don’t have a legal duty doesn’t mean that we don’t have a
moral one. Hence my point about establishing some rules in
this regard. My point is that different people feel very
differently about political discourse. I understand why it’s
not necessarily a good idea to discuss politics in A&E, but
you must certainly understand why many topics that are
related to roleplaying games (and setting design, in
particular) often cross through the world of politics. I mean,
there could be a rule like, “no politics of more than page
unless specifically related to some RPG.” 15 I’m not saying
that this is necessarily the best possible rule or even a good
12
http://jim-vassilakos.livejournal.com/4002.html (2009-05-21
09:25 pm).
13
I think “Oops. So it goes” at 2009-05-21 10:45 pm pretty much
clarified it for me. I couldn’t help but imagine you shrugging while
reaching for a handi wipe.
14
See my zine in #404, page 6, 2nd column, 1st sentence of the 1st
complete paragraph.
15
See my marriage comments to Steven Warble in this issue to see #402.
what I’m talking about by politics sometimes being RPG-related.
one, but even were it nothing more than a non-enforced
guideline, at least it would give newcomers some heads-up
on what is expected, and it would be fair across the board.
But, again, I really don’t know if this is a good idea or not,
and I’ll trust in Lee to decide what’s best.
Paul Mason, in his comment to me, writes on “active
intervention being the defining feature of rolegames” and
this notion not always being as self-evident as one might
wish: Point well-taken. We each do game a bit differently,
just as I suppose we dream a bit differently, philosophize a
bit differently, argue a bit differently, and, more generally,
relate a bit differently, both interrelate as well as intra-
relate. 16 Each of us is different from the others, and each
gaming group is likewise unique; in short, what you say is
very true.
This is something that we perceive when we interact on a
more general basis, but in roleplaying it seems somehow
amplified, and I think it’s because there’s hopefully the
notion among each of the participants that their contribution
matters, or at least there is hopefully in each a hope that it
matters, and so perhaps we try harder to be a part of what is
going on, whereas with many other interpersonal exercises
in which people partake as a matter of personal amusement,
what often happens is that one or more of the participants
may be engaging at a less than optimal level, whatever that
might mean, but nobody really cares. Maybe it’s a party, and
so-and-so is tagging along, so through no fault of their own
they simply don’t know anyone but they’re muddling
through it for the sake of accompanying their significant
other. The same thing happens in tabletop RPGs, of course,
but in such games, unfamiliarity with the rules, standards,
and setting can be a bit intimidating, and the close, in depth
and constant interaction doesn’t provide much opportunity to
wander off and take a break. Hence, divergent personalities
are made manifest and conflicts of some manner may easily
ensue. Likewise, those who are not partaking become very
obvious in their reticence, and this can even become an
unwelcome distraction, as it was in Brian Rogers’
Earthdawn game with John/Voi.17
Aside from competitive sports and games, non-RPG events,
whatever form they happen to take, are often not interactive
in a manner that really matters. Like spectators of theatre,
the outcome, if any, is beyond the individual reach of the
participants. Where there is an outcome that the participants
can individually influence, such as with competitive sports
and games, there’s typically no story beyond a very narrow
one, perhaps one dealing with some heroic effort that
somebody made to score points or keep the other side from
scoring. But in roleplaying games, as I’d imagine you’d
agree, there is a broader story, and its outcome becomes a
sort of contest in the sense that each participant should be
allowed to redefine the plot in his or her own terms, given,
of course, sufficient persistence, determination, and luck.
This, I assume, is the external half of this “creative
contribution” that you mention.
On the internal half of this term, there is what you call at
one point “imaginative interpretation,” at another “creative
16
This is a distinction that Jerry Stanton reminded me about in
17
See A&E #403 and my comments in #404.
imagination,” and at another “unconscious creativity,” all of result, the very nature of what it supposedly means to be a
which you seem to describe as the peculiars of the narrative participant in a “rolegame” as you term it 20 suddenly
that form in the mind of each participant (players and GM). dissipated, and he thus found himself bereft of any further
Let’s simply call this the “internal narrative” in the sense reason to attempt meaningful participation. I’d imagine he
that is it internal to each individual player. On the external felt robbed, gypped, fooled… betrayed, in essence, a certain
half of “creative contribution,” however, is what you term level of trust having been broken… just as I’m sure fellow
the “active intervention” or “active involvement” aspect, the A&Ers have felt from time to time, their backs to us as they
“creation of fundamental plot elements” you write at one exit from this cocktail party21 that is written on paper, their
point. Let’s simply call this the “external narrative” as this ability to partake in the discussion in a manner most
is the narrative that each player and the GM externalizes or comfortable to them thwarted at some level by those who are
communicates to the others, and in this sense it is the keen to push them from our midst. Alarums & Excursions:
external narrative that is really shared between all the Arguments & Exclusions.22
various internal narratives that are necessarily individual to That is what happens in roleplaying games at some level
the players, private by design, the “unconscious creativity” some of the time, and I suppose it is really the GM’s duty to
that you speak of. try to prevent this, but sometimes it’s too difficult.
And your point, as I understand it, is that the creation of Sometimes we end up dealing with someone who wants to
these two narratives are in conflict in the sense that the flow dictate large outcomes, as opposed to merely small ones, like
of the story is what helps to build the internal narrative, but simply being allowed to continue to interrogate some captive.
the act of being forced to make a choice jars the After all, it reached a point that Voi’s fellow party members
reader/participant out of the internal narrative so that he or wouldn’t even translate for him, their supposed party leader.
she can consciously help build the external narrative, and so They all stood against him, and he couldn’t stand this, and so
it’s back and forth between internal narrative and external he withdrew, at least emotionally. In this sense, a rolegame,
narrative, between unconscious imagination and conscious as you term it, is like a form of Survivor (as in the reality TV
imagination. In your words, “Ironically, the very thing series), each participant vying to be number one. That’s the
which increases our active involvement in the story competition within the party, the internal conflict or the
simultaneously draws our attention to its fictionality.” “fight among brothers” one might say… the vanity of being
I tend to disagree with this, although I do believe I see the story’s staring actor or the plot’s primary pusher. And, as
your point. What you’re saying, essentially, is that the we’ve probably all seen at one time or another, it can turn
narrative is broken by the fact that the player must make a nasty.
choice. However, from my point of view, that’s exactly what I’d be curious to read about any anecdotes you might have
makes the narrative all the more meaningful to the player. from your own past campaigns where there was some sort of
The fact that he or see is directing it to some extent makes it intraparty conflict. What were the most noteworthy conflicts
more personal than, say, a novel or a movie. about and how were they resolved both in terms of in-game
True, I’m trying to imagine what it would be like if I were and out-of-game results?23
watching a movie and I were getting into it, and then As for myself, in many of the games that I have run/GMed,
suddenly it stopped so that I could make a decision. This, in the initial plot has been merely a send off into a world of
effect, was happening over and over in Wing Commander 3 possibilities, and after the introduction, it has largely been
& 4, and also in Star Control 2 if you want to consider the the characters who choose their own adventures. 24 When
latter as being sort of like a movie with subtitles. It may have things are going to my satisfaction, I (as GM) am reacting to
been a little bit disconcerting the first few times it happened, what they do as much as they are reacting (as the player(s))
but after awhile, it just became part of the experience, to what I do. This cultivation of the co-evolution of story has,
something I grew to expect, and so it didn’t bother me. I
guess what I’m trying to say is that it was part of the fun. 20
To continue with the thought, however, while you draw I’ve tended to use the term RPG, as opposed to CRPG (computer
games that incorporate character choice at the personal, intimate
attention to the internal narrative (and, I think you are right
level as opposed to those that incorporate choice only as a matter of
to do so, as this is certainly central to each player), you seem
strategy and tactics), tabletop RPG, LARP and so forth which are
to regard the player’s ongoing contribution to the external more specific to a particular form of play, and I’d be curious to
narrative as a hindrance. However, I personally find it learn if your use of the term rolegame is likewise being used in the
somewhat difficult to construct my internal narrative in an same manner, or are you meaning something else?
21
RPG unless I am free to explore, which means that my See John Redden’s “Salts in the Insults” in #405.
22
ability to contribute to and meaningfully advance the This, of course, is overly critical, as to insinuate that this is
external narrative has to be there before I’ll allow my A&E’s totality or even its primary attribute is simply unfair. I mean,
internal narrative to really begin to blossom.18 In short, my after all, one can also babble at length about practically nothing and
attention span, I suppose, is somehow limited in this regard. have a splendid time while doing so. There is nothing quite so
narcissistic, I suppose, as the delusion that people actually care
In a way, this conversation relates to Brian Rogers’ game19
what one thinks.
where Voi/John wants things to go his way, however, 23
Please reply to this if nothing else.
seemingly (to him) by GM fiat, they don’t. John’s active 24
Perhaps, because of this, Jinx’s player as much as Jinx herself
intervention/external narrative was thus curtailed, and as a may have gone to Hell simply seeking structure and not merely due
to the desire to have a permanent pad in the multiverse, one that is
18
Please see my comments to Joshua in #405 under “Other essentially invulnerable save for a invasion from within Hell itself.
Comments.” The problem, of course, is that she didn’t bargain for what would
19
See Brian Rogers’ Earthdawn campaign write-up and GM Notes ultimately happen because of this fateful choice. Yes, she would
in #403. get to go on vacation, but all good things must come to an end.
for me, been particularly aided by single-player games
where, by definition, the mind of the party is unified. The
story then is about one person who pushes against the
universe knowing implicitly that the story is his or her own
(just as we all, presumably, are the staring characters of our
own lives). That, to me, is where the sharing of power is
most evenly balanced in the sense of party versus world
(players versus GM), and the internal tension that one might
otherwise view as either a metaplot or perhaps, in some
stories, merely diversionary, is actually entirely internal to
the point of being potentially Hemingwayesque in terms of
its mystery. 25 And therein lay the potential for divergent
interpretations, none of which need necessarily be the sole
truth.
I can’t help but wonder if this may be the reason that one
of the trends in tabletop roleplay, as you perhaps term it, are
“GMless” games, where the traditional powers of the
DM/GM are effectively split up among the players, and I’m
curious to see where all this goes. Incidentally, if you have
any opinions on this or can point me to issues of A&E or
imazine where this was discussed, I’d be curious to read
your thoughts and those of others which you consider
noteworthy.
You also mentioned something about discovering the
meaning of life in your Chinese campaign. More on this
please, if you wouldn’t mind sharing.
Regarding Ty, Louis & Joshua (among others) and
whether “new people who decide to open up enough to
speak their mind” actually constitute “another person’s
rant”:
First of all, splendidly put. Just as an aside, I really wish
you would stay among us on a more or less continual basis,
rather than just contributing irregularly; but, of course, if
irregular is all you can manage, then it’s all you can manage.
I took a sabbatical myself, at one point, and I don’t even
have children. Just imagine if I did. It would be like I died
and vanished. What I’m trying to say, I suppose, is just that I
would very much prefer to be able to exchange views with
you on a more regular basis.
Now, as to what you said… what you said in summary, I
think, is more or less, “What you are saying is very silly, you
know.” At one point you write, “But let’s be grown up about
this.” Notice that you are using the exact method that you
say appears to you “to be abuse.” Can you not see the irony
in your own words… this obvious and irreconcilable
division? And all within the same paragraph…. (But don’t
feel bad. That you entertain conflicting points of view is a
good thing, in my opinion.26)
In the paragraph above it, you write, “toned-down abuse,
and patronizing to boot.” I ask you: What is patronizing if
not asking one to be grown-up? And you’re doing it
beautifully. The way that you express yourself is beautiful.
That is what I was trying to say above.
25
Unless, of course, we are witness to the player’s entire internal
dialogue, but that would be rather odd… though perhaps interesting
and even amusing. Yes, it could be fun. Imagine a group of players
each playing a different aspect of a single character. Has there ever
been an RPG like that? This notion syncs in a manner with some
other ideas I’ve been having.
26
Walt Whitman famously said, “Do I contradict myself? Very
well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes.”
I mean, you can have the most obvious dichotomy in your
thinking, as can we all, and yet your style and the choice of
words, their arrangement… what you say may be bullshit27,
but even when it is, it’s beautiful bullshit! Ty is also this way.
He’s the same…every bit the same as you if only in this one
respect. 28 In a sense, you are like two halves of the same
coin. Politically, you probably don’t inhabit close quarters,
but in terms of your attention to detail, the care you take
with your words, you are very similar.
Why is that important? Because it shows that you both
take an ounce of pride in your writing. You both probably
prefer not to write when you know you’re too busy, because
you intuitively realize that your writing would not be up to
some minimal standard of quality that you keep somewhere
in your mind. He and you both have this pride, and it’s the
good half of pride. As to the bad half of pride (the problems
of pride, one might say), I don’t know either of you well
enough to comment, but I would venture to guess that you
both conduct yourselves in your respective professions with
a high degree of pride, enduring all that this necessarily
entails. In these ways, be they meaningful to you or
extraneous, I would presume that you are both more similar
than different.
All of us are, in certain ways, more similar than
different… all of us.
And yet you are tolerated 29, and Ty has clearly not been…
and as for myself… oh… I can only imagine that I’m
probably near the end of my rope. Which is bizarre, because
of anyone, I probably should have been the first to go. After
all… I blabber on and on… not something I do in real life,
mind you, but here is not real life. What A&E does for me30,
I suppose, is that if I am accepted as I am, then at least I was
able to be honest about what I thought and felt, whereas if I
wasn’t, then what good is it? Do you see my point?
And yet, even as I make these arguments, I still agree with
you on a certain level. It is much more fun to have a political
conversation with people who at least pretend to respect you,
rather than with those who hold you in open contempt and
disdain. I agree with you 100%. But, recall, Ty and Louis
were not holding me or anyone else, to my knowledge, in
utter contempt. Well, there was some contempt, I suppose. I
mean, there was some political argumentation. Somebody
would say something remotely contemptuous, and Ty would
artfully tear them a new one, so yes… he was probably a bit
more forceful in his views than was absolutely necessary.
Well, aren’t we all sometimes? After all, let us be grown up
about this.
It’s the same thing, more or less, as a bunch of monkeys
hurling feces, I suppose. You noted in #405 how Marco
talked about this in #402, his assertion that “too many with
strong opinions love to read the validating words of those
who agree with them and love, even more than that, to savor
the cathartic eruption of hatred, contempt, and smug
superiority which they feel when reading the words of those
27
Do not be offended. We all regard each others’ ideas as bullshit
some of the time. Hence, please understand that I am using this
word respectfully, not as a cheap shot.
28
And I imagine that he, like you, would both like to smack me for
suggesting this, but it is, nonetheless, my view gleaned from what
little I have so far observed.
29
…for the most part. Don’t get too cozy, mister. (grin)
30
See my zine in #401.
who think differently from themselves.” Note that he didn’t
say everyone. “I don’t feel any sort of cathartic eruption of
the type you mention,” you wrote in response, as though this
assertion might invalidate his observation. He wrote “too
many,” a qualifier that you noticed but which, strangely, you
seemed to put to the side.
My perception of you is that you’re unlike most other
people in certain ways.31 For instance, aside from the care
that you obviously take with your writing, I see you as being
more philosophical than most. You ruminate at length upon
matters that others barely mention. And when attacked, you
tend not to hurl invective but rather reply with a sort of wit
that I find enviable.
Not everyone is like you in these ways, either in terms of
temperament or ability. And yet even though you have this
facility, this still doesn’t prevent you from getting into minor
squabbles.32 Of course, we all do this some of the time, in
our youth if not our adulthood, but even as adults we are still
subject to the same temptations and limitations. 33
Nonetheless, just because we are seemingly limited by
design, this doesn’t mean that we need necessarily throw the
bomb, so to speak, the point where one party effectively says
to the other, “I propose that we sever this relationship. You
should leave now. Off with you.” And although you might
fault Ty for overly-aggressive politics, for ranting, in effect,
he never threw the bomb. Guess who did.
Now, were those who “threw the bomb” at Ty right to do
so? Well, it all depends on the rules. As of now, aside from
the two page limit, there’s nothing formal. Is that as it should
be? Should we be just like the Internet? I don’t know… I
don’t know. But what little I do know is that I raised the
question… and silence has been the response. Perhaps that is
for the best. Again, I don’t know.
Both you and Ty have many thoughts about the world, and
I find these thoughts entertaining and sometimes profound, if
only because they might make me laugh and alternately
because they make me think, hitting my pathos and then my
logos all for the purpose of affecting my ethos. You and Ty
both write artfully… at least to my way of reading. And true,
what you both write can, at times, be looked upon as a rant
in the sense that both your opinions are often presented in a
way that is somewhat naked, propounded with certainly,
defended vigorously, and when insulted, replying creatively,
intelligently, artfully. That is what both of you do as a matter
of policy, because your way of thinking matters to you. Your
ideas of what is right and wrong matter to you both. Hence,
the disagreement followed by the discussion/argument.
No, the truer rant, in my mind, came from those who, in
effect, said “get lost.” But, of course, that is merely my way
of thinking, where, in fact, the only way of thinking that
really matters here is Lee’s. But I think Lee has, perhaps,
31
We’re all unlike “most other people” in certain ways; we’re all week.
unique, just as we are all, in certain ways, more similar than
different.
32
I am reminded of your comment to Marco in #359 (for my take
on this, see my footnote #23 in A&E #359 and my footnote #9 in
A&E #360).
33
Incidentally, you revealed in #405 that the greatest challenge you beneath the entry of April 17, 2009.
currently face “in life is dealing with the consequences of an 35 Sadly, that’s pretty much typical for me.
uncontrollable temper,” which is not your own, you parenthetically 36 Judging from Marco’s comments to me in #364, where he
qualify. If you don’t mind sharing, I’d be curious to learn more. Is laments “pejoratives directed against groups of people,” I am
it your son?
already made up her mind insofar that she is perhaps
satisfied with the results as they are. After all, she decided to
“edit” Louis.34 Her mind was perhaps decided right at the
very beginning.
As for your assertion that I “obviously missed” the start of
your comments, where you talk about his “past form,” I
didn’t miss that, but I didn’t assume that just because you
remembered him necessarily meant that he’d remember you.
And, so far, I still don’t know if he does. This was back on
Usenet, you say? I doubt I could remember anyone from so
long ago. What has it been? Fifteen years? I’m just guessing.
It’s been awhile for me. I can’t remember very much from
back then. 35 I should really look to see if I have anything
saved. There was that discussion I replayed in #298. I’m
sure I have some other stuff on some decaying floppies.
Therefore, if not a first, first impression, I at least hoped
that you’d be able to make a second, first impression, and, at
any rate, what a person’s form may or may not have been so
long ago is of little interest to me. People change and we
should be able to critique their behavior as it is now rather
than going back in time so far, to such an outdated version of
the person, let alone to such an unverifiable footnote. After
all, in speaking this “reason” as you call it, you seemingly
endowed yourself with some authority on the topic, as
though your opinion was the more right because of
something you seemed to remember so very long ago. I
don’t know what you remember. You never described it. All
I had was your word that Ty was somehow bad, when what I
see in him is certainly different and, ironically, similar to
what I see in you.
You even substantiate my view by describing an incident
where you were a “naughty boy.”
I love your word choice. I didn’t mention that, right? It
would be, I think, actually painful for me if you did not stay
here among us to talk about whatever springs to mind.
In any case, as I was saying, you were apparently naughty
in terms of telling an apparent racist that he was a fuckwit. If
I was there, I’d perhaps have said to him, “Fuckwit is
actually the polite term. Hurtfully ignorant is the more
accurate. Take your pick.”
There are times when you’ve got to hurl some shit. This
was my point to Marco in #403, wherein I lamented that I
wasn’t being entirely fair.36 There’s a time for everything…
including shit-hurling. But the question, of course, is when.
In terms of certain A&Ers reactions to Ty and Louis, I did
not think it was yet the proper time; some disagreed, and
therein lay the root of this discussion.
When is it appropriate? Absent any sort of formal rules, I
draw the line at when one A&Er attacks another, and not
merely with phrases like, “what you’re saying is very silly,
you know,” as I suggested, or “but let’s be grown up about
this,” which you actually used. These may be condescending,
but I’ll take condescension over anger or hate any day of the
After all, condescension is something that we may do only
semi-consciously and without really meaning offense or
34
http://jim-vassilakos.livejournal.com and see the comments
nearly certain that he’d agree.
disrespect. Phrases such as “let’s be grown up” are, of
course, loaded with it. They pre-suppose that the recipient
isn’t being grown up and, therefore, that the one wielding
the phrase holds a position of moral superiority.
In some ways, this reminds me of my “get people to
think” comment to Myles in #356, which Lee took exception
to in #357. Patrick, in #358, agreed with her proposition that
my comment was insulting,37 and in #362, Lee elaborated as
to why. Interestingly, however, #362 was also the issue of
Lee’s “lying/hypocrisy” comment to me (in response to a
gaming-related discussion I’d been having with Spike), and
my response in #363 was to explain why I thought her word
choice could have been a tad gentler. Lee’s response in #364
was diplomatic, as always. She didn’t want to fight, nor did I,
which just goes to show that even when someone’s word
choice betrays what, at first glance, appears to be the
strongest and most uncompromising condescension, this still
is not proof that they actually meant harm. Essentially, as
funny as it might sound, she meant “lying/hypocrisy” in a
good way. And that’s the thing about condescension… we
can read into it as much antipathy or good will as we desire,
and offense, even if seemingly intentional, was not
necessarily inflicted with the intent to harm or to bully the
recipient from the conversation.
(What I mean is that perhaps Lee didn’t so much mean that
I shouldn’t try to get people to think because of my so-called
implicit assumption that they are not already thinking… but
rather that I shouldn’t try to get them to think about real
world politics and all associated topics because to get them
to think about these things would cause controversy, and that
would cause petty animosities, and that would cause anger
and rage, and all the things that come from those who are ill-
suited to contemplate that they themselves might be wrong,
at least in some small way, and that the ensuing conflict
would detract from the subject-matter of the APA. “This has
happened countless times, you fool,” she might rightly say to
me.38)
Granted, condescension can also be consciously employed
as a tactic to purposely attempt to provoke the recipient into
losing his or her temper. In this use, I too find it an unfair
tactic, however, even in this worst-case scenario, all the
recipient must do is point out the condescension and show
how the same point could have been made less
harshly/antagonistically. 39 Successfully used, this tactic
should easily thwart the bad intentions of someone who
actually meant to incite anger, but as for someone who
didn’t mean any harm, at worst they might conclude that the
recipient is overly prickly but would have little reason to
themselves take offense. Either way, insult diffused.
Hence, my personal rule of thumb is that anger is the true
barrier, and that although condescension may be useful as a
weapon in the hands of those who wield it skillfully, it can
37
My footnote #21 in my reply to Patrick in A&E #359 goes back
to this recurring issue of rules (or rather the absence thereof).
38
And if Lee should find offense in my imagining these words
coming from her, then I apologize, but if she did say this, I would
understand.
39
See my essay “Constructive Criticism in Alarums & Excursions”
in #363. Interestingly, Lee commented in #364 that this tactic
appeared to her to be putting words in her mouth and requested that
I refrain from adopting it in the future. Although I explained my
reasons in #365, Joshua seconded her request in #366 (Ironic, no?).
also be easily snatched from the playground by this strait-
forward application of logic.40 Hence, I think we should at
least make some effort to look past what we perceive as
condescension to the extent that it’s unclear that disrespect
was intended. Open hostility in the form of anger, on the
other hand, seems to me to be a bit over the line. But that’s
just my opinion.
You may, if you wish, disagree. You would be perfectly
within your rights to do so, but if so, then tell me your rule
of thumb, if you have one. What rule would you propose? I
took a stab at one that I thought Joshua and company might
approve of in my comments to him in #404, but he hasn’t
spoken of it in A&E, and I myself am somewhat conflicted
to the point that I can’t really decide if, given the choice, I’d
vote for my idea or against it. Regardless, judging from
Lee’s comment to me in #405, I’m guessing that she’d prefer
that I just shut my cakehole. But as long as you wish to
discuss it, I’ll be happy to continue until we reach either
some union or impasse (or one or both of us are bombarded
by insult 41 ). I hold you in the highest regard and am
therefore very curious as to what you think.
The one point you did make about it being perhaps unwise
to talk politics in A&E, I think, is fair. At one point I agreed
with this wholeheartedly. But, as I thought more about it, I
realized that it’s actually sort of hard to talk about fictional
settings in detail without touching upon the real world. Also,
this notion that politics in verboten presumes that the
monkeys cannot be tamed, that adults cannot be taught. It
presumes that they42 are incapable of advancing.
One question that I’m somewhat ashamed to admit that
I’ve asked myself is that: If they prove to be to a great
enough degree essentially incurable in this regard, then
should I remain? And this is particularly worth asking if my
own words have caused irritation to a great enough degree. I
mean, and this is, I suppose, a blessing as well as a danger,
at some point in A&E, certain people either have to shut up
or get out, because attack, pure and simple, is the apparent
punishment for exposing what they care about, and, perhaps,
most importantly of all… how it is they think…
essentially… who they are.43
I mean, neither Ty’s nor Louis’ zines were purely about
game X or convention Y. They also included a lot of
personal information in the way of extra-gaming ideas and
opinions. Now, like you attacking the racist, Josh, for
example, may have had good reason for attacking Louis. I
40
Anytime anyone assumes that they are right, it is, in a way,
condescending. Nonetheless, how are we to communicate
effectively if we cannot assume we are right? Where, exactly, is
that line, and if it is condescending even to believe something, then
exactly what does that say?
41
Because we’re having an off-topic discussion… “No philosophy
allowed… it wakes up gods. Philosophy is evil. Thou shall not
think!”
42
And by they, of course, I do not mean everyone.
43
And, interestingly, this goes right back to the topic of
homosexual marriage and is, perhaps, the fundamental reason that
the term marriage shouldn’t be used to unnecessarily discriminate
between one group and another, for this would besmirch the very
word and, arguably, make it unsightly unto the Lord. (That is
perhaps what my blog comments should have said had I been
thinking in a less temporal frame of mind. See http://jim-
vassilakos.livejournal.com/3745.html if you have no idea what I’m
talking about and are bored enough to care.)
don’t know. If he did, I’m not exactly sure what it was,
although we did discuss it outside44 of A&E, but about all I
could finally decipher is that Joshua didn’t like Louis right
from the beginning, and his personal opinion coupled with
what appeared to me to be a few seemingly extraneous facts
colluded to just sort of propel him into attack mode. Well, I
guess that’s always what happens, right? And as for Ty, who
I assume is your primary focus in this discussion… well…
he was rather critical of a guy running for President…
during election season. Yeah, I guess that happens a lot too.
An election rant… yes, it was an election rant. So what?
One thing I will say, and this, likewise, is probably good or
bad depending on the situation, Louis is the sort of person
who takes great exception to being personally attacked, and
it is a matter of pride with him to respond in kind if not
worse. Ty, likewise, is no stranger to verbal throat-slitting.
I remember the saying that if somebody hits you then you
have to hit them back twice as hard; otherwise, you are
encouraging them to hit you again. That, perhaps, is what
has been taking place in some of the conversation here in
A&E. Perhaps there’s an imagined slight, something said,
some phrase to which someone assumed some level or
personal discourtesy, and from there it just escalates and
mushrooms to the point that the wiser among us are warning
the others not to feed the troll.
It is good advice, actually. It’s very good advice,
because… you know… this sort of escalating back and
forth… we should be doing it only if there is a chance that
something productive might emerge as a result. Otherwise,
it’s just too much paper and ink, not to mention time and
energy, to be spent on something that is ultimately of no
consequence.
But in my case, my personal troll seems to like to hover
around this issue over freedom of speech, and perhaps that’s
something that I need to address. Perhaps when I see it being
abridged, even when I feel with my every fiber that what I
am seeing is wrong and that I should intervene, maybe at
that precise moment I should just silence myself, tell myself
to shut-up, and say nothing. I don’t know if I would ever
quite be capable of that, and if I were, I don’t know that I
should like myself any better for it. Hence, maybe I should
take Lee’s suggestion. 45 Alas, if only I were not so
criminally lazy. She’s right, though. That’s the next logical
step. Unless I can finally accept the fact that this is what
A&E is… a place where people can be effectively expelled
for what I tend to view as the smallest of offenses insofar
that opinions are like sins.46
I mean, that is what it is to speak freely: to speak in such a
way that you’re seemingly unconcerned as to whom you
may offend, irritate, or otherwise anger. But, perhaps, part of
etiquette is having some sense of the time and the place, and
this certainly isn’t the proper place for long, political
discussions. Or should it be? I don’t really know. I sort of
like the old rule someone mentioned some time back that
you can tell us why some imaginary world is or should be a
certain way, but don’t try telling us why the real world that
we all share is or should be a certain way. If the conversation
goes in that direction, I think, it’s best to just take it outside
44
See http://jim-vassilakos.livejournal.com/4002.html
45
See Lee’s comment to me in #405.
46
See my essay in #401.
of A&E, either to a blog or email. In this sense, perhaps this
is a “rule” that would be worth adopting, Lee mentioning it
under the “maximum monthly contribution” limits.
I guess, though, I’d be happier if it were possible to
actually engage people outside of A&E. Spike has said he
will only comment politically inside of A&E. 47 Robert
Dushay, meanwhile, is apparently happy to discuss things
outside of A&E so long as it is kept reasonably brief. He
apparently leads too busy a life to sit down and parse
lengthy blog posts, which I suppose I can understand,
although it is a bit disconcerting to think that you’re having a
conversation with someone who you like and respect, and
suddenly it turns out that they’re no longer there. 48
In short, maybe I should just look at the glass as being
half-full insofar that A&E has a great deal to offer even
though it apparently can’t be quite as much as I’d have
hoped. Lee’s suggestion to me is so very good. Alas, were I
not so pathetically slothful…49
John Redden: re Salts in the Insults & “Fling them at me,”
I more or less decided some time back that if I did ever run
an APA, as Lee suggested to me last issue, this would be the
first rule.
RAE the car registration story. Next time I visit Hawaii, I
hope you won’t mind if I drop by.
Patrick Riley discusses the difference between the D&D
v3.5 Forgotten Realms setting as being “the epitome of a
gonzo fantasy setting,” what with “all the gaps” being filled
in, whereas the setting for his Savage Worlds Monster
Hunters campaign is “white-label generic, bland, unfinished,
and boring,” just the way he says he likes it.
I’ve been wondering if part of the reason I enjoyed running
the Judges Guild world in the Jinx campaign was for much
the same reason… because it was unfinished to the extent
that there was lots of infill that I could do to personalize the
setting. Running a campaign in a world that is highly
developed, however, gives the GM lots of resources. Oh
well, there are pros and cons to each.
Regarding in-character vs. out-of-character discussion, I’m
curious as to what method you use to limit it in your own
game. Is it just a matter of being more focused on the game
as a GM?
Regarding the two players who are “bugging the piss” out
of you in the D&D campaign, I’d be curious to learn more.
What’s going on, and why is it necessarily your problem?
Regarding later versions of D&D focusing increasingly on
combat and this being an “amusing” critique because D&D
1E does the same: I think I would tend to agree with the
amusing critique. In later versions, it becomes increasingly
difficult to back away from the battle-map to such a point
that combat is only vaguely conceptualized. When you have
rules regarding cleaving through two people with a single
blow, attacks of opportunity and so forth, you really have to
47
See the last paragraph of Spike’s comment to me in #365.
48
See Robert’s comments to me in #403 & #405 and, if you’ve got
ridiculous amounts of spare time and energy, see http://jim-
vassilakos.livejournal.com/3238.html and then http://jim-
vassilakos.livejournal.com/3745.html, both of which stemmed from
his response to my comments to him in #399.
49
Or am I slothfully pathetic? (The two, I suppose, go hand-in-
hand.)
map everything out in a fair degree of detail. In the Jinx
campaign (basically AD&Dv1 with lots of homebrew), I’ve
tried to back away from mapping every single combat in
precise detail except for purposes of area-effect spells, arrow
ranges, and so forth, and even then, I’ve tended to shy away
from the battle-map except in situations where it seemed
absolutely unavoidable.
Brian Rogers: First of all, Joshua tells me that my
comments to you in #404 regarding your Earthdawn
campaign may have been… er… he says, “are a bit rude.”
But “a pretty well-thought out bit of analysis”50 he adds.51
In any case, if I was needlessly rude, I do apologize. I
imagine that my statements can sometimes be a little bit
abrasive, and if/where that’s the case, know that I mean no
disrespect. Joshua is correct insofar that I wanted to convey
to you what I guessed to be John’s point of view, but… you
know… it’s only a guess. That’s why I wrote that you need
to decide for yourself what to do. After all, my position is
like that of some armchair general trying to re-fight
Gettysburg on his coffee table. My opinion is just… well…
it’s just a guess based on what I read in what you wrote. It’s
always easy to criticize, but fixing… making things better…
that’s the real challenge. Good luck to you, and I’m curious
to read about what finally happened if you won’t mind
sharing it.
Secondly, congratulations on 100 issues, and I’d echo what
you wrote. A&E is fun despite the petty grievances that do
occur every so often. I suspect that if we could all sit around
face-to-face and talk things out, most of these rough spots
could be ironed out in relatively short order.
Jerry Stratton: Thanks for the capsule reviews. I’m
pleasantly surprised to see that there’s now a community
actively promoting old-school gaming. It’ll be interesting to
see what happens.
Marco Subias: Yes, start up an original setting. More work,
definitely, but no boundaries save for your own imagination.
re Jenny, good luck; re the yearbook, congratulations; re
your brother’s wedding, sounds like you had a good time.
Steven Warble, on the topic of marriage and divorce,
mentions that with people living longer, perhaps “‘til death
do you part” is unworkable. “How do the Elves deal with
it?” he wonders.
It’s an excellent question. This whole discussion had
reminded me of Dr. Phlox on Star Trek Enterprise. I
dutifully watched the series during its first season and caught
the occasional episode after that, and I seem to recall one
point where it comes out that he’s married to three women
and that on his home world, all Denobulan men may marry
up to three women and all Denobulan women may marry up
to three men. At the time I thought it was an interesting idea,
but I have to wonder as to the possible social consequences.
Would this be a fair topic for A&E? I’m worried that it
would veer into such subject matter as human psychology,
sociology, contemporary politics, and even, perhaps, religion.
50
Thank you, Joshua.
51
Perhaps this is an example of what Whitman was partially
alluding to: the fact that “good” and “bad” can be sliced and diced
into a million nuances. See footnote #26.
Alas, why must so many discussions regarding imaginary
worlds ultimately revert back to the most contentious facets
of the real one? If so, how are we to discuss anything? Or,
perhaps, this seemingly pre-ordained feature of imaginative
literature is trying to tell us something; perhaps it is nudging
us to be more curious and tolerant of seemingly alien ideas
and less defensive with respect to those that we, for
whatever reasons, hold dear. Whichever the case, I’ll present
some tangential thoughts, and if they don’t belong here,
Joshua or someone else can tell me so, and then we’ll move
the conversation outside of A&E so that nobody need be
offended.
Some years ago, I ran a Star Trek play-by-email
campaign 52, and in Turn #61, the one remaining PC 53 , an
Andorian security officer, ended up proposing a sort of trial
marriage54 to an NPC55, a Deltan executive officer. He called
it “Zatrakah,” which I assume is something he made up on
the spur of the moment. Needless to say, I began combing
through the source material to see what I could glean on
Andorian and Deltan mating customs, and this being back in
the 1990s, there was precious little online and not even a
whole lot in the published sources. I went online today, just
to see if the situation has changed, and it has changed
considerably.
In any case, at the time, I recall being somewhat at a loss
over how she should deal with the situation. On the one hand,
Deltans as a race are more or less given over to emotionality.
They use their telepathic ability to achieve a sort of spiritual
blending, sharing of themselves on a deeper level than non-
telepathic races are capable. I seem to recall that somewhere
in the literature it mentioned that Deltans would also tend to
express themselves telepathically while engaging in sexual
relations, and that this could be disturbing for non-Deltan
partners.56 I imagined that a non-Deltan being so affected by
52
The full text of which can be found at
http://www.esnips.com/web/RPG-Wares-for-MS-DOS in
Trek80.zip
53
By this point it had evolved into a single-player campaign. It is
not terribly uncommon for players to come and go in particularly
long-lived PBeMs, and in this one, I simply stopped recruiting,
allowing those who had the most interest to duke it out in terms of
deciding what they wanted to do. Ultimately, all that remained was
myself and the guy who had initially founded the campaign. He had
GMed the five prologues before deciding to turn the helm over to
someone else (who ended up being me), and then he rejoined as a
player at the beginning of the 2nd adventure.
54
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/article2500361.ece
makes a case for why redefining civil marriage as a seven-year
contract might be socially beneficial. I’d be curious to learn what
A&Ers think about this idea.
55
This NPC was actually initially my PC which I ended up NPCing
as his love interest after he began making romantic overtures. I
later wondered if I should have killed her off in the 1st adventure
(specifically in Turn #9). But I let her live, and her character
provided me with some amusement as GM, although I am
somewhat skeptical about GMs who NPC characters who they
formerly PCed, and so I wonder if I should have circumvented this
when the opportunity presented itself.
56
Whether or not two (or more) alien species should be able to get
it on, scientifically speaking, is a whole other topic, but let us
simply take this bizarre imponderable for granted that in the Star
Trek Universe, sexual relations between alien species are more or
less routine. (Thank you, James T. Kirk, for your hedonistic legacy.)
Likewise, I can’t help but be reminded of my critique of
a Deltan’s unrestrained telepathic prowess not to mention
their sheer pheromone output might cause the non-Deltan to
fall hopelessly in love, having never quite experienced
anything like that before, and that this could be problematic
in the sense that fraternization among crewmembers can
always cause problems. However, I don’t recall reading at
the time that Deltans can’t fall in love or that marriage
doesn’t exist in their culture. Nonetheless, I must have
sensed it somewhere in the writing, as I felt a certain
hesitation on her part, and, likewise, there was the celibacy
oath to consider, already a well established feature of the
race since they were first introduced.
Fast forward to today (2009), and Deltan behavior and
society seem much more fleshed out.
Deltans do not see love, sexuality and emotion in the
regulated, compartmentalised and ritualistic manner that
say humans do. To a Deltan there is no labelling and
compartmentalising of the emotions. This is unnatural to
them. Whereas with humans there is a label attached to
friends as ‘friend’, or ‘best-friend’, ‘girlfriend’, ‘lover’,
‘fiance’ and ‘wife’, to a Deltan these are all artificial
designations for a natural continuum. Deltans do not marry,
nor do they have husbands/wives. Rather it is more that
when a pair of Deltans are attracted to each other, they do
not constrain their emotion. They pair together as long as
the feeling lasts, which may be for minutes or a lifetime.
Multiple partners and pairing between same sex Deltans
occurs as naturally as the pairing between any other.
Deltans look upon marriage as yet another artificial
construct that forces two people to be together for the rest of
their lives, not accounting for a change in feelings between
the partners over time, nor a realisation that the feelings
were not as strong as was first thought. Deltans see love and
companionship as natural continua and divorce as an
artificial result of the artificial nature of marriage in the
first place. Hence Deltans do not have an equivalent process
to marriage.57
Granted, this may well be unofficial as much on the
Internet is, but it serves to illustrate one characterization of
this race, one that I’m happy to live with if only because it
makes sense, to an extent, filling in a justification for my
initial hesitation and making the Deltans all the more
interesting to me. However, of course, I didn’t have this
resource back when I was running the campaign, and so my
inclination was that perhaps the Deltan character might want
even more than a trial marriage, which is what I imagined
most human women would want. This particular Deltan, of
course, having been among humans for so long (long enough
to become an executive officer in Star Fleet) might have
picked up and subconsciously taken onboard many human
customs. They discussed it again in Turn #79, but I won’t
give away the upshot. If you want to know what happened,
you’ll just have to go read it for yourself.
In any case, while looking up Andorian marriage, I
stumbled across another “factoid” that wasn’t around (at
least, not to my knowledge) fifteen years ago. Apparently
Shatterzone’s Kestarian women in #404, and it makes me wonder initial assumptions, which were no doubt made for good, economic
why I could so easily accept such drivel in Star Trek but not in reasons (cinema technology being what it was during the 1960s),
another, less well-established setting.
57
http://www.btinternet.com/~ady1971/deltan.html
Andorian couples marry each other, forming what are known
as quads. 58 I wonder if somebody thought this up after
Enterprise’s Phlox revealed that he had three wives.
Then, of course, we have the Ferengi, a truly evolved race
in terms of their attitude toward women. I won’t go into
detail, but suffice it to say that they make hard line Muslims
look progressive by comparison. You gotta love Star Trek at
least insofar as it tries to make room for all points of view.
To bring the conversation a little closer to home, however,
I recently read Altered Carbon, the first of the Takeshi
Kovacs novels, wherein Richard Morgan writes about a
future where people can essentially live forever by
downloading their minds, complete with memories, into
replacement bodies (called sleeves). People who have been
alive for a really long time are called Meths, short for
Methuselahs.
In the novel, the main character interacts with a rather
ancient pair of Meths who have been married for some
centuries and whose relationship is suitably complex. That
they “cheat” on one another sexually is sort of an open secret,
something that they both know and which more or less goes
without saying. They have been together so long that they
tend to accept each others’ dalliances and bizarre sexual
foibles without getting incredibly worked up and are
seemingly able to cohabitate without the overt displays of
emotional pain that would normally accompany such a
situation. (“How could you…? And to think that I’ve given
you three centuries of my life!”)
This presentation of their relationship raised the question
in my mind as to whether or not this couple truly loved one
another or whether they were sticking together simply for
financial reasons or because they had grown so accustomed
to being together that they couldn’t really imagine being
apart. If this final proposition was the case, then could this
then be called “love” or, at least, something analogous, and
if not love but something similar, then what word might we
use to describe it? I bring all this up because of the question
about elves, who although inherently chaotic, we are
somehow expected to assume mate for life. Personally, I find
this a difficult set of propositions to reconcile, and it seems
strange to me that in fantasy, different sorts of social
arrangements seemingly aren’t being explored to the same
extent as they are in what is passing for science-fiction. Why
is that? Or am I just not reading enough fantasy to know
where to look?
Comments welcome.
58
This is in the species databank at http://anomaly.mushpark.com
under racial info. Incidentially, I should add that I’m rather
impressed by the social and psychological information that has
been developed for various Star Trek races. It is no longer quite so
fair to consider them merely people with lots of makeup and
various facial prosthetics, “people in funny masks” I called them in
A&E #298. Once you get past the basic, scientific foolishness,
Hodgkin’s Law of Parallel Planetary Development and so forth, the
details can be quite fascinating. Perhaps this is the reason that Star
Trek remains an SF-staple, because despite the implausibility of the
the setting remains chock full of interesting ideas, and so it is a
setting that tends to naturally draw thoughtful discussion.