Sorry for not posting anything new for awhile. I was away for Thanks Giving doing family stuff and then I've been working.
Happy Thanks Giving almost a week late.
By the way, until I can write a real review, let me say: MirrorMask is an awesome movie.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Saturday, November 17, 2007
You know you're a D&D Geek when
I had a dream the other night.
I dreamed that a lich, you know an undead wizard from D&D, came into the restaurant where I bus tables.
I made a comment to a server about how wherever this guy goes, meaning the lich, the weather goes from bad to worse. Now this kind of references both a lich's actual chill touch power or cold aura or whatever it is and just the depressing atmosphere around the undead.
The strange part is what really bothered me in this dream wasn't the presence of a lich in the restaurant, it was the server's failure to understand my metaphor.
I dreamed that a lich, you know an undead wizard from D&D, came into the restaurant where I bus tables.
I made a comment to a server about how wherever this guy goes, meaning the lich, the weather goes from bad to worse. Now this kind of references both a lich's actual chill touch power or cold aura or whatever it is and just the depressing atmosphere around the undead.
The strange part is what really bothered me in this dream wasn't the presence of a lich in the restaurant, it was the server's failure to understand my metaphor.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Greybeards & Grognards 3: Assassins, Paladins, Image Problems, and Party Harmony! Oh My!
I mentioned before that the assassin class was dumped in the 1e to 2e switch because of image problems and party harmony issues. I promised that there was an essay in there somewhere. Here goes:
I believe that D&D's image problem goes deeper than the assassin class. I also believe that, properly played, paladins are more disruptive to party harmony than assassins.
Assassins must be of evil alignment, but may be lawful evil, chaotic evil, or neutral evil. Paladins must be lawful good. Other than alignment restrictions, assassins have no particular code of conduct. In addition to being lawful good in alignment, paladins have a detailed code of conduct, including a flat prohibition against adventuring with evil characters and restrictions on adventuring with neutral characters. They can also detect evil, which prevents potential covert evil PCs from maintaining their cover.
Here's what the Players Handbook says of lawful good:
"Lawful Good: While as strict in their prosecution of law and order, characters of lawful good alignment follow these precepts to improve the common weal. Certain freedoms must, of course be sacrificed in order to being order; but truth is of highest value, and life and beauty of great importance. The benefits of this society are to be brought to all." (Gygax, P. 33)
Looking at this definition of lawful good, the supposed team player aspects are suggested but not quite spelled out. That is to say that the rules don't say that a lawful good paladin can't be a dick. Actually, under certain circumstances, the rules pretty much require it. For instance, if the party wants to hire mercenary NPCs for a particulalry dangerous mission, the paladin would be required to turn away evil applicants. This sort of behavior can have the rest of the party tearing their hair out in frustration.
Now let's look at what the Players Handbook has to say about the evil alignments:
"Chaotic Evil: The major precepts of this alignment are freedom, randomness, and woe. Laws and order, kindness, and good deeds are disdained. Life has no value. By promoting chaos and evil, those of this alignment hope to bring themselves to positions of power, glory, and prestige in a system ruled by individual caprice and their own whims." (Gygax, P. 33)
"Lawful Evil: Creatures of this alignment are great respecters of laws and strict order, but life, beauty, truth, freedom and the like are held as valueless, or at least scorned. By adhering to stringent discipline, those of lawful evil alignment hope to impose their yoke upon the world." (Gygax, P. 33)
"Neutral Evil: The nuetral evil creature views law and chaos as unnecessary onsiderations, for pure evil is all-in-all. Either may be used, but both are disdained as foolish clutter useless in eventually bringing maximum evilness to the world. (Gygax, P. 33)
Note that nowhere in all this does it say that, "Evil characters kill the rest of the party and take all their treasure at the earliest possible oppurtunity," or, "An evil character must be a jerk." The statement that, "Life has no value," for a chaotic evil character sounds damning, but the next sentence about a system of individual caprice seems to imply that the chaotic evil are not simply nihilists desring universal destruction; it sounds like it might imply a certain sort of anarchism, though.
I think I've made my position on the party harmony issue clear and given evidence for my opinion. You are free to agree or disagree with me. Now let's move on to D&D's image problem.
D&D has two major image problems outside the RPG community:1) D&D is seen as Satanic and2) D&D is seen as geeky.
I have, on occasion met people who see my D&D hobby as evidence that I'm a Satanist. Rational, well-constructed, logical arguments won't work in these situations because the belief is irrational and emotional. Really, there's nothing that can be done about it, but getting rid of the assassin class from the Players Handbook that these people won't read anyway is not that much help.
Others don't think we're worshipping the devil; they simply think we're weird and geeky. Honestly, I agree with them. Having a hobby at all these days is outside the norms of society. Having a hobby that involves thinking and reading and requires basic math skills is even weirder. Then there's the fact, that we are basically adults, playing pretend. It's hard to see normality anywhere near the D&D hobby. I'm fine with that. Looking at what's hep these days, I'd rather be a geek. Again, dropping the assassin class from the Players Handbook that those who look down on the hobby won't even read does nothing to help D&D's image problem.
Inside the RPG hobby, D&D is looked down on for a variety of reasons:It's too complicated; it doesn't encourage real character development or real role-palying; most D&D games end up in fractious and backstabbing contests to see who can get the most kewl stuff.
In some ways, the rules for various versions of D&D are more complex than systems that stress simplicity, like FUDGE. Dropping the assassin class doesn't really fix this.
Character development and role-playing are independant of the rules set. D&D can be as RP-intense as Vampire: the Masquerade, and Vampire: the Masquerade can end up in the same tactical swamp as D&D. Dropping the assassin class doesn't deal with this.
Backstabbing is somewhat encouraged by the D&D rules. If your character gets better when he gets a better slice of the loot or kills more monsters, then players who want to advance their characters at all costs will work against the rest of the party. Here's where dropping the assassin class helps, but I think it's a little bandaid on a huge festering wound.
Work Cited:Gygax, Gary. Players Handbook. TSR Hobbies. Lake Geneva, Wisconsin
I believe that D&D's image problem goes deeper than the assassin class. I also believe that, properly played, paladins are more disruptive to party harmony than assassins.
Assassins must be of evil alignment, but may be lawful evil, chaotic evil, or neutral evil. Paladins must be lawful good. Other than alignment restrictions, assassins have no particular code of conduct. In addition to being lawful good in alignment, paladins have a detailed code of conduct, including a flat prohibition against adventuring with evil characters and restrictions on adventuring with neutral characters. They can also detect evil, which prevents potential covert evil PCs from maintaining their cover.
Here's what the Players Handbook says of lawful good:
"Lawful Good: While as strict in their prosecution of law and order, characters of lawful good alignment follow these precepts to improve the common weal. Certain freedoms must, of course be sacrificed in order to being order; but truth is of highest value, and life and beauty of great importance. The benefits of this society are to be brought to all." (Gygax, P. 33)
Looking at this definition of lawful good, the supposed team player aspects are suggested but not quite spelled out. That is to say that the rules don't say that a lawful good paladin can't be a dick. Actually, under certain circumstances, the rules pretty much require it. For instance, if the party wants to hire mercenary NPCs for a particulalry dangerous mission, the paladin would be required to turn away evil applicants. This sort of behavior can have the rest of the party tearing their hair out in frustration.
Now let's look at what the Players Handbook has to say about the evil alignments:
"Chaotic Evil: The major precepts of this alignment are freedom, randomness, and woe. Laws and order, kindness, and good deeds are disdained. Life has no value. By promoting chaos and evil, those of this alignment hope to bring themselves to positions of power, glory, and prestige in a system ruled by individual caprice and their own whims." (Gygax, P. 33)
"Lawful Evil: Creatures of this alignment are great respecters of laws and strict order, but life, beauty, truth, freedom and the like are held as valueless, or at least scorned. By adhering to stringent discipline, those of lawful evil alignment hope to impose their yoke upon the world." (Gygax, P. 33)
"Neutral Evil: The nuetral evil creature views law and chaos as unnecessary onsiderations, for pure evil is all-in-all. Either may be used, but both are disdained as foolish clutter useless in eventually bringing maximum evilness to the world. (Gygax, P. 33)
Note that nowhere in all this does it say that, "Evil characters kill the rest of the party and take all their treasure at the earliest possible oppurtunity," or, "An evil character must be a jerk." The statement that, "Life has no value," for a chaotic evil character sounds damning, but the next sentence about a system of individual caprice seems to imply that the chaotic evil are not simply nihilists desring universal destruction; it sounds like it might imply a certain sort of anarchism, though.
I think I've made my position on the party harmony issue clear and given evidence for my opinion. You are free to agree or disagree with me. Now let's move on to D&D's image problem.
D&D has two major image problems outside the RPG community:1) D&D is seen as Satanic and2) D&D is seen as geeky.
I have, on occasion met people who see my D&D hobby as evidence that I'm a Satanist. Rational, well-constructed, logical arguments won't work in these situations because the belief is irrational and emotional. Really, there's nothing that can be done about it, but getting rid of the assassin class from the Players Handbook that these people won't read anyway is not that much help.
Others don't think we're worshipping the devil; they simply think we're weird and geeky. Honestly, I agree with them. Having a hobby at all these days is outside the norms of society. Having a hobby that involves thinking and reading and requires basic math skills is even weirder. Then there's the fact, that we are basically adults, playing pretend. It's hard to see normality anywhere near the D&D hobby. I'm fine with that. Looking at what's hep these days, I'd rather be a geek. Again, dropping the assassin class from the Players Handbook that those who look down on the hobby won't even read does nothing to help D&D's image problem.
Inside the RPG hobby, D&D is looked down on for a variety of reasons:It's too complicated; it doesn't encourage real character development or real role-palying; most D&D games end up in fractious and backstabbing contests to see who can get the most kewl stuff.
In some ways, the rules for various versions of D&D are more complex than systems that stress simplicity, like FUDGE. Dropping the assassin class doesn't really fix this.
Character development and role-playing are independant of the rules set. D&D can be as RP-intense as Vampire: the Masquerade, and Vampire: the Masquerade can end up in the same tactical swamp as D&D. Dropping the assassin class doesn't deal with this.
Backstabbing is somewhat encouraged by the D&D rules. If your character gets better when he gets a better slice of the loot or kills more monsters, then players who want to advance their characters at all costs will work against the rest of the party. Here's where dropping the assassin class helps, but I think it's a little bandaid on a huge festering wound.
Work Cited:Gygax, Gary. Players Handbook. TSR Hobbies. Lake Geneva, Wisconsin
Saturday, November 10, 2007
I'm back, I think
I don't know what it is, but the onset of fall/ winter puts me in a miserable mood, but improves my writing output and quality.
I wrote the previous post in one night. I've got a good pencil draft of my next long subject going. I should have that up in a few days.
I wrote the previous post in one night. I've got a good pencil draft of my next long subject going. I should have that up in a few days.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Civil War & What's Wrong With Comics These Days
I recently read the Black Panther: Civil War trade paperback collection. I found it to be an engaging read. I'd recommend it to others who like political thrillers, espionage, and/or superheroes. I also read the Checkmate: A King's Game trade at about the same time. My overall enjoyment and evaluation is the same.
Despite the excellence of these two collections, they seem to perfectly illustrate a trend I don't especially like in comics: the post-90s, post-9/11, grimmer, grittier superhero comics. It probably started in the 80s with grim, deconstructionist superhero tales like Watchmen, Bat Man Year One, Bat Man The Dark Knight Returns, Miracle Man, and, depending on your definition of the superhero genre, V For Vendetta.
It went further in the 90s, with companies finding ways to make superheroes grimmer and grittier by either screwing over their marquee characters (Knightfall, The Death of Superman, Emerald Twilight, Age of Apocalypse), increasing the prominence of or introducing grim, psychotic vigilantes (Lobo, Azrael, the three regular Punisher books plus his guest appearance every month in someone else's title, Ghost Rider and Wolverine's similar omnipresence in the 90s), and turning villains into not quite heroes (Venom, The Thunderbolts).
Now after experiencing a bit of a slow down, the grim superheroes trend has kicked back into high gear again. I can't say it definitely started with Avengers Disassembled, but that seems to be a pretty key point. Since then, Marvel's House of M and Civil War and, on the DC side of the street, Identity Crisis and Infinitie Crisis have kicked it up another notch.
It's not that these are bad comics. They're not. They're intelligent and well written. The trouble is, these comics are too reminscent of the troubles of the real world.
Do I really need to read about a superhero civil war, spured on by a superhuman registration act precipitated by a disastrous explosion that resulted in numerous civilian deaths, when we've got two real wars and are heading for a third, while the nation is deeply politically divided, and the Patriot Act erodes our civil liberties, all precipitated by the real 9/11? No. I want to see the JLA and JSA team up agaisnt the Crime Syndicate of Earth-3. I want the bad guys caught. I want the world to be a bit more idyllic than our own.
I'm also tired of morally ambiguous superheroes. I like superheroes who do what's right. The Powers make them super. Morals makes them heroic.
Despite the excellence of these two collections, they seem to perfectly illustrate a trend I don't especially like in comics: the post-90s, post-9/11, grimmer, grittier superhero comics. It probably started in the 80s with grim, deconstructionist superhero tales like Watchmen, Bat Man Year One, Bat Man The Dark Knight Returns, Miracle Man, and, depending on your definition of the superhero genre, V For Vendetta.
It went further in the 90s, with companies finding ways to make superheroes grimmer and grittier by either screwing over their marquee characters (Knightfall, The Death of Superman, Emerald Twilight, Age of Apocalypse), increasing the prominence of or introducing grim, psychotic vigilantes (Lobo, Azrael, the three regular Punisher books plus his guest appearance every month in someone else's title, Ghost Rider and Wolverine's similar omnipresence in the 90s), and turning villains into not quite heroes (Venom, The Thunderbolts).
Now after experiencing a bit of a slow down, the grim superheroes trend has kicked back into high gear again. I can't say it definitely started with Avengers Disassembled, but that seems to be a pretty key point. Since then, Marvel's House of M and Civil War and, on the DC side of the street, Identity Crisis and Infinitie Crisis have kicked it up another notch.
It's not that these are bad comics. They're not. They're intelligent and well written. The trouble is, these comics are too reminscent of the troubles of the real world.
Do I really need to read about a superhero civil war, spured on by a superhuman registration act precipitated by a disastrous explosion that resulted in numerous civilian deaths, when we've got two real wars and are heading for a third, while the nation is deeply politically divided, and the Patriot Act erodes our civil liberties, all precipitated by the real 9/11? No. I want to see the JLA and JSA team up agaisnt the Crime Syndicate of Earth-3. I want the bad guys caught. I want the world to be a bit more idyllic than our own.
I'm also tired of morally ambiguous superheroes. I like superheroes who do what's right. The Powers make them super. Morals makes them heroic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)