Campaign: Facets

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Icelander

How do you manage to describe every moment of the months that pass?

You don't. You describe the important elements that occur.

For example: Deciding that the Character is going to learn how to blend in better...

The GM does not make those decision for the Player, this being important I'd want it cleanly in the Player's purview. Thus, if the Player does not make such a declaration, the Character does not make such an action.



As to the second part of your post, I disagree so vehemently with Death of the Author it isn't even funny.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

You don't. You describe the important elements that occur.

For example: Deciding that the Character is going to learn how to blend in better...

The GM does not make those decision for the Player, this being important I'd want it cleanly in the Player's purview. Thus, if the Player does not make such a declaration, the Character does not make such an action.

And as an in-setting interpretation of the player's choice not to have his character learn to blend in, wouldn't you say that it was a reasonable deduction to conclude that it was not important to the character to blend in and thus avoid killing innocent locals?

By implicitly or explicitly deciding that the character didn't prioritise blending in, a message is being sent that the character, subconsciously or consciously, doesn't mind or even actively seeks killing downtimer locals.

That the players forgot is a simple and probably accurate explanation. It doesn't work for the characters, though, because the characters were there for all these months, not just providing a short description of what they were going to do.

Originally Posted by evileeyore

As to the second part of your post, I disagree so vehemently with Death of the Author it isn't even funny.

You don't have to agree with it as the only 'correct' method of literary criticism to accept that it is possible and valid to analyse the personality and morality of fictional characters separately from their creators.

One of the most interesting thing about fiction, good or bad, is that it stimulates thought and discussion about the choices that the characters made, even though the characters are fictional and did not actually choose anything.

All of my fellow gamers here in Iceland, as well as many of my friends who are not gamers or game only rarely, have spent untold hours talking about what various characters in Game of Thrones should have done, whether Batman's pacifism is principled or cowardly, how Samwise Gamgee is the true hero of LOTR and if Yoda deliberately allowed the fall of the Jedi Order and the rise of the Empire to 'bring balance to the Force'.

The best part of the Millenium Trilogy and the movie of the first one, Män som hatar kvinnor / The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, was the spirited debate it gave rise to with the people I saw the movie with, about the morality and the choices of the protagonists. I've enjoyed debating the morality of the protagonists of superhero movies in the MCU or DCEU much more than I enjoyed watching the films.

And no one ever brought up the morality of the authors, script writers, directors or actors as relevant in such discussions, as that's not the point. The point is to discuss the characters within the context of their world.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Icelander

And as an in-setting interpretation of the player's choice not to have his character learn to blend in, wouldn't you say that it was a reasonable deduction to conclude that it was not important to the character to blend in and thus avoid killing innocent locals?

No.

See again "Cannot disagree more with Death of the Author".

You don't have to agree with it as the only 'correct' method of literary criticism to accept that it is possible and valid to analyse the personality and morality of fictional characters separately from their creators.

Sitting around and fan-wonking over things for trivial amusement*? Sure. But I do not accept Death of the Author as a serious/valid method of criticism.



* I've had waaay more than my share of amusing discussions about how Batman and Yoda are the villains of their respective media.

The point is to discuss the characters within the context of their world.

Of which I've contended from the start: mistakes are mistakes.

Even setting aside/ignoring the Player's intent, I still see this as 'mistakes were made'. Not deliberate villainous action, as no one has voiced the desire to be a villain*.

Now, as I've said, if they do it again (on another jaunt through a world that does not match theirs), then they are proving their intent.



* I'm willing to accept that Aurelia (Miss "I wanna be an Astral Pirate") is acting with 'villainous' intent, but not the whole of the crew.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

No.

See again "Cannot disagree more with Death of the Author".

Originally Posted by evileeyore

Sitting around and fan-wonking over things for trivial amusement*? Sure. But I do not accept Death of the Author as a serious/valid method of criticism.

Most media, practically speaking, is consumed by us without knowing who wrote which parts of it. Only novels and other written media are likely to have only one author and, even then, many best-selling authors don't actually write all of the books where their name appears on the cover.

If we want to think or talk about fictional characters, it's generally a lot simpler to discuss them in terms of their own world, not in the context of an author we don't know anything about. As for the PCs here, specifically, we don't really know what the players are trying to convey and what emerges from tshiggins' write-up.

In any case, it would be pretty weird to try to analyse the personalities of real people based on second-hand reports of what characters they created did. After all: "There is a technical term for someone who confuses the opinions of a character in a book with those of the author. That term is idiot." -S.M. Stirling.

We do, however, have some information to speculate on the personalities of the characters, in the context of their own world. Which is what I was doing.

Originally Posted by evileeyore

* I've had waaay more than my share of amusing discussions about how Batman and Yoda are the villains of their respective media.

Yoda is making a very hard decision, it is true, but given the completely reckless and severely authoritarian behaviour of the Jedi Order, as well as their status as practically speaking above all laws and beyond any accountability, it might have been that allowing the prophecy to happen, even when he knew it would have a lot of horrible consequences, struck him as the less terrible option.

Originally Posted by evileeyore

Of which I've contended from the start: mistakes are mistakes.

Even setting aside/ignoring the Player's intent, I still see this as 'mistakes were made'. Not deliberate villainous action, as no one has voiced the desire to be a villain*.

Now, as I've said, if they do it again (on another jaunt through a world that does not match theirs), then they are proving their intent.

This wasn't the first time that downtimers noticed their clearly out-of-time artifacts or their acting without thinking got people killed. The PCs have ignored local customs, norms and technological standards before. It eventually led to a similar confrontation with Russian soldiers.

Beatrice memorably acted foolishly and impulsively and ended up losing a leg. Also killing people. And getting her friend JoCat killed, which was a very predictable consequence of attacking the kidnappers without any way to rescue the hostage. So Beatrice isn't a child who has never observed that actions have consequences. She knew what she was doing, if not at first, then certainly by this time.

So the characters have made mistakes before. They have chosen to learn certain things from them, but one of these things has not been how to blend in. By not adjusting their behaviour, they've made it abundantly clear that they do not care in any way about the people they kill when they fail to blend in.

And you don't have to 'voice the desire to be a villain' in order to be portraying a villain. If you decide to kill innocent people for unclear reasons, or for what appear to be very unsatisfactory reasons, you're clearly portraying a villain.

Outside comics, very few characters actually say: "I'm a bad guy. Yep, The Villain. That's why I'm doing this." Instead, their villainous behaviour is shown and the reader/other audience is expected to make up their own mind.

Originally Posted by evileeyore

* I'm willing to accept that Aurelia (Miss "I wanna be an Astral Pirate") is acting with 'villainous' intent, but not the whole of the crew.

Beatrice certainly didn't come across as just accidentally causing the murder of all the cavalrymen. Like I said earlier, she was obviously annoyed with them and wanted to punish them for the affrontery of not showing her enough respect. This is not just interpretation, it's explicitly stated in the post that she is annoyed with the soldiers' presumption.

And it's not that she has not been studying about the past, she just studied ways to kill people, like fencing, and not how to pass unobstrusively among the downtimers and thus not have to kill them. So she's clearly more interested living out fantasies of consequence-free mayhem and murder in alternate worlds than keeping anyone safe or avoiding committing murder.*

Lastly, there are innumerable occasions of her reacting to 'provocation', which can be anyone looking at her wrong or touching her, accidentally or otherwise, with instant violence, which is liable to turn lethal. You know, like the scariest convicts in the prison yard do.

Beatrice is also in favour of the human sacrifice of people she doesn't think are worthy of living, like drug dealers, pedophiles, gang members and the homeless, for reasons that boil down to 'increased personal power and wealth'.

All in all, she seems more like a very violent, entirely sociopathic, mentally unstable ex-con, in the process of discovering that alternate worlds allow her to live free of the constraints of society, than any kind of socially functioning soldier who'd have managed to get away without a dishonourable discharge.

That being said, A.J. and Frank Moses are ruthless, but seem to kill for a purpose. They can plausibly be said to be attempting to do the right thing, but failing spectacularly. As can Randy and Sunmi, as well as any PCs I've forgotten. Hmmm... I think 'Doc' Basher and Henrietta have made some token attempts to avoid mass murder, but Henrietta, at least, was entirely prepared to go along with Beatrice's human sacrifice plan.

They fail to do the right thing because at a certain point, when you condone and assist villains in their acts, you can't really continue to call yourself a good guy any more. There is no 'right thing' to do that involves continuing to associate with Aurealia and Beatrice and covering up their impulsive kill sprees and other crimes.

*Which, again, doesn't make her player a bad person or that style of play invalid. Just that, when considered as people, Murder-Hobo PCs are, well, Murder-Hobos. Not stable, mentally healthy people. Not morally upstanding. Just... you know, entirely sociopathic mass murderers, not considering anyone else in the world a real person and thus never hesitating to murder them for fun.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Icelander

If we want to think or talk about fictional characters, it's generally a lot simpler to discuss them in terms of their own world, not in the context of an author we don't know anything about.

Simpler I'll grant. However when possible I try to find out about the author.

For example knowing that HP Lovecraft was sexist and racist informs my discussions of his writing. I'm willing to be more forgiving offenses of the characters a bit more based on the context of time period and authorial bias.

As for the PCs here, specifically, we don't really know what the players are trying to convey and what emerges from tshiggins' write-up.

Actually we do know: No GM Gimme Advantages, several complete newby Players, and it's 'a hobby not a lifestyle' for the Players.

That's an awful lot to inform criticism with.

In any case, it would be pretty weird to try to analyse the personalities of real people based on second-hand reports of what characters they created did.

Right.... that would be going backwards. I don't create my opinions of writers based on their characters (baring some extreme examples) but I do inform my opinions of characters based on the author.

We do, however, have some information to speculate on the personalities of the characters, in the context of their own world. Which is what I was doing.

Actually.... you're extrapolating and presuming an awful lot*. Which is why I keep saying "being uncharitable".


* The whole "one would do this, one would do that" is rather presumptive. It may be what you would do (Player or Character), it may be what you think one should do, but it does not describe people as a whole in any realistic fashion.

As I've mentioned, it's quite likely I wouldn't think of those things myself.

This wasn't the first time that downtimers noticed their clearly out-of-time artifacts or their acting without thinking got people killed.

Yes... however those are two (and more) separate situations. Kinda. Ish.

It's clearly the first time their anachronistic gear has prompted a "Yeah, and we're gonna take you into custody" moment.

It's also clearly the first time the group's actions as a whole have lead to a "and now we have to kill everyone and lose our hats" moment.

The PCs have ignored local customs, norms and technological standards before. It eventually led to a similar confrontation with Russian soldiers.

Maybe. We actually don't know why the Russians ambushed them. It is likely over their anachronistic gear, but that's not the only possibility.

Beatrice...

...has been discussed at length. Further discussion of her poor behavior will not sway my thinking on the remainder of the team, nor will it set me to thinking she is a villain.

She is a head-strong, misandrist, 'wants to be in charge' individual who fails to consider her actions before initiating them. She is in every way a 'Classic Greek Hero', full up with flaws but trying to do 'right'.

Beatrice certainly didn't come across as just accidentally causing the murder of all the cavalrymen.

She did, and does, to me.

Like I said earlier, she was obviously annoyed with them and wanted to punish them for the affrontery of not showing her enough respect. This is not just interpretation, it's explicitly stated in the post that she is annoyed with the soldiers' presumption.

The bolded part is your extrapolation and reading into the situation. I disagree that it 'was about her'.

I see that moment as her being impatient, disgusted by the lack of respect showed to "American Civilians"*, and her misandry†. Not any affrontery shown to her directly.


* Pointed out that she (the Character and maybe the Player) hasn't fully wrapped her mind around the idea that the 'US' of 1918 world isn't nationalistic like that and that they likely didn't see them as "US Citizens" since the group claimed to hail from outside US territory. So... classic Player mistake which made for an excellent Character mistake.

† Lack of Charitable applying to men. Also the Character has shown to be more inclined to violence to men. I forget right now how she reacted to the violence towards their singular female enemy. I may revisit my thoughts on Beatrice when I get to those passages on the Denver forums.

Lastly, there are innumerable occasions of her reacting to 'provocation', which can be anyone looking at her wrong or touching her, accidentally or otherwise, with instant violence, which is liable to turn lethal. You know, like the scariest convicts in the prison yard do.

I do believe the Character is supposed to have 'issues' with men.

This doesn't excuse over-reactions, just informs them.

Beatrice is also in favour of the human sacrifice of people she doesn't think are worthy of living, like drug dealers, pedophiles, gang members and the homeless, for reasons that boil down to 'increased personal power and wealth'.

Eh... I'd have to go back and reread those sections, but I'm under the impression the group chose "to do what was needful over what was right" and not "what gives us power".

They have certifiably made some seriously boneheaded mistakes (the vampires, murder, possessions)... but in each case it was a 'slippery slope' situation. Which you are basically arguing "any deviation from what is Right is complete crossing into Wrong".

I personally accept Grey Morality. For instance killing is excusable to prevent harm to oneself or others, even if other, harder paths exist. Allowing/participating in the possession of murderous drug dealers is very grey...

I don't remember the homeless being offered as possession choices.

There is no 'right thing' to do that involves continuing to associate with Aurealia and Beatrice and covering up their impulsive kill sprees and other crimes.

I eye-rolled so very hard.

I ask you counselor to point out a single "spree killing" they've gone on. And no "it was hyperbole" will not cover this egregious case of spin-doctoring.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

Simpler I'll grant. However when possible I try to find out about the author.

For example knowing that HP Lovecraft was sexist and racist informs my discussions of his writing. I'm willing to be more forgiving offenses of the characters a bit more based on the context of time period and authorial bias.

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by evileeyore

Actually we do know: No GM Gimme Advantages, several complete newby Players, and it's 'a hobby not a lifestyle' for the Players.

That's an awful lot to inform criticism with.

Right.... that would be going backwards. I don't create my opinions of writers based on their characters (baring some extreme examples) but I do inform my opinions of characters based on the author.

Okay. That's another mental exercise, I guess. I generally don't like to do that unless I'm actually critising the craft of the author in a technical sense, as opposed to to discussing the characters.

Originally Posted by evileeyore

Actually.... you're extrapolating and presuming an awful lot*. Which is why I keep saying "being uncharitable".

Sure, I'm extrapolating a whole lot. We only have brief descriptions in text, of slightly longer descriptions at the table.

And I guess I could be described as 'uncharitable', but honestly, despite a tendency in computer games and escapist fiction to have protagonists commit terrible crimes and still be supposed to be the good guys, I just don't buy that kind of thing.

That isn't to say that I don't believe in shades of grey, but that covers a situation where people make a choice to do something that could be called evil, but only because the alternatives are worse. It doesn't cover selfishness and thoughtlessness to the point of a basic lack of respect for the lives and personhood of others.

Let's take fictional examples. I have a lot more sympathy for someone who has deliberately and with forethought done terrible things, because they seemed the best course of action, like Lord Tywin Lannister in Game of Thrones, than someone who continually harms others through selfishness and not bothering to care what happens to others, all the while convincing themselves and others that they are still basically good people, but never change their behaviour, like Nancy Botwin in Weeds.

Originally Posted by evileeyore

* The whole "one would do this, one would do that" is rather presumptive. It may be what you would do (Player or Character), it may be what you think one should do, but it does not describe people as a whole in any realistic fashion.

As I've mentioned, it's quite likely I wouldn't think of those things myself.

Realistically, a lot of regular people would do terrible, villainous things in the right situation. Or, you know, wrong situation.

Many normal people would be completely overwhelmed by dangerous situations and unable to deal with the stress and complexity of special operations, which is what people who train for it call what PCs in action-adventure oriented games generally do.

But a normal person, who isn't delusional, should realise that they do not have the skills or abilities to form a criminal syndicate and break into the established world of interplanar exploitation. And they certainly can't do so without causing a lot of people to suffer and die.

I must admit that I don't know what the player characters believe justifies everything they do.

Why haven't they informed people who actually have some ability and training to deal with the supernatural threats of the existence of the gate?

Even if they don't know how to contact such people, why haven't they reached out to people who have training in covert operations, reconaissance, espionage, investigation, translation, cross-cultural diplomacy, unconventional warfare and the dozens of other fields of expertise they clearly need?

I just don't see how they expect to be able to handle... well, anything. The gate sounds like something like something that needs a full-scale intelligence organisation, with hundreds of professionals, to handle gathering information on the other worlds and decide what to do about them. The PCs are just fairly normal people, without the necessary background to do much of anything well, and certainly without much in the way of a plan. How do they imagine that this will not result in a disaster?

I get that some of this is because of their campaign premise and their players not wanting to have other, qualified people handle tasks that they want their PCs doing. But that just means that the campaign premise implicitly called for outlaw characters and that despite allegedly starting out as basically 'good guys', the things they are doing mean that they are rapidly becoming 'bad guys'. And this was a somewhat inevitable consequence of amateurs trying to play power games with Cabalists.

The PCs need to ask themselves some hard questions.

What are their long-term goals?

What is their ethical justification for their long-time plan?

Originally Posted by evileeyore

Yes... however those are two (and more) separate situations. Kinda. Ish.

It's clearly the first time their anachronistic gear has prompted a "Yeah, and we're gonna take you into custody" moment.

It's also clearly the first time the group's actions as a whole have lead to a "and now we have to kill everyone and lose our hats" moment.

Maybe. We actually don't know why the Russians ambushed them. It is likely over their anachronistic gear, but that's not the only

Even the possibility that their gear could have been the reason should have been enough information for a reasonable person to change what they were doing.

They killed people. That's not just a minor bump in the road, to be ignored. This is something that they needed to sit down and work out, find a way to prevent it ever happening again. For them not to do so would show an astonishing lack of respect for human life.

Originally Posted by evileeyore

...has been discussed at length. Further discussion of her poor behavior will not sway my thinking on the remainder of the team, nor will it set me to thinking she is a villain.

She is a head-strong, misandrist, 'wants to be in charge' individual who fails to consider her actions before initiating them[/COLOR][/U]. She is in every way a 'Classic Greek Hero', full up with flaws but trying to do 'right'.

She did, and does, to me.

The bolded part is your extrapolation and reading into the situation. I disagree that it 'was about her'.

I see that moment as her being impatient, disgusted by the lack of respect showed to "American Civilians"*, and her misandry†. Not any affrontery shown to her directly.

You see, what you are describing as your 'charitable' interpretation of the character sounds to me like a description of someone like the real violent criminals I meet in our prisons, interrogation rooms or court rooms.

People with sad backgrounds, impulse-control issues, rage issues and an inability to consider consequences. That's basically every real criminal I've ever met.

Frankly, most of the real criminals are more sympathetic, because they show more genuine effort to understand and empathise with other people, avoid conflict and be likable. Most criminals are fairly normal people most of the time, just normal people who lack a lot of things more successful folk take for granted.

And only a minority of them are truly bigoted, which I must say is nice, as that's an awful personality trait, which makes people extremely unlikable (and disliking clients is less fun than the alternative).

Also, being a person who wants to be in charge is fine if you are capable enough to know what to do. If not, it amounts to either a massive delusion or a total indifference to consequences for others to want to take charge in dangerous situations.

It's nowhere close to okay to take charge of a life-and-death situation because you want to, when you don't have any idea how to handle it. If you pretend to be a trained incident manager and start giving paramedics contradictory and stupid orders at an accident scene that end up killing a lot of people, that's not just incompetence.

That's criminal incompetence, often caused by an incredible level of indifference to others, not to mention selfishness that approaches solipsism, as people simply don't want to admit, to themselves and others, when they are over their heads or don't know what to do, no matter who suffers for it.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

* Pointed out that she (the Character and maybe the Player) hasn't fully wrapped her mind around the idea that the 'US' of 1918 world isn't nationalistic like that and that they likely didn't see them as "US Citizens" since the group claimed to hail from outside US territory. So... classic Player mistake which made for an excellent Character mistake.

Excusable... maybe the first time she went there. Not after going there more than once and knowing someone who grew up there for months.

At that point, it becomes the classic trope of the cultural chauvinst, exemplified in many forms of media as the 'Loud American Idiot Abroad', who is incapable of grasping cultural differences, because he/she has internalised the values of his/her culture, even the trivial prejudices and illogical shibboleths, to the point that any divergence is just ignorant savages and simple foreigners being 'wrong'.

As is said, the past is a different country, which is a very bad thing for time- or alternate world-traveller characters who are incapable of and unwilling to understand different cultures.

Originally Posted by evileeyore

† Lack of Charitable applying to men. Also the Character has shown to be more inclined to violence to men. I forget right now how she reacted to the violence towards their singular female enemy. I may revisit my thoughts on Beatrice when I get to those passages on the Denver forums.

I do believe the Character is supposed to have 'issues' with men.

This doesn't excuse over-reactions, just informs them.

In the real world, every rapist, murderer, pedophile, extortionist and torturer I have met (mostly as a defence attorney), has had some psychological issues, trauma in his past and the like.

If we even accept that any person can be called evil, unethical or villainous, most of those who truly deserve that name will have things in their background which might explain them.

Personally, I don't think bigotry makes the character more sympathetic. I think prejudice toward any group of people is a fairly villainous trait. Granted, everyone has prejudices, but anyone wishing to approach even the baseline ethical level of 'maybe an okay person' tries to deal with their unthinking prejudices, they don't let other people suffer for them.

I actually find the concept of a character with villainous traits, like racist, sexist or other bigoted views, who still tries to do the right thing, to be intriguing. I like the idea of a heroic character who will still come across as unlikable and flawed. However, there is a world of difference between a bigot who uses slur words and one who kills a lot of people because they give in to their unthinking prejudice.

In fictional terms, it's the difference between the racist cop who makes us wince when he refers to various groups of people by terms that the obscenity filter here blocks and the racist cop who has shot several suspects of colour because he keeps assuming that they are threats to him when they are not. One can be interesting as a heroic character, despite having obvious flaws. The other... will have a very hard time retaining any audience sympathy, unless portrayed with absolute genius.

Originally Posted by evileeyore

Eh... I'd have to go back and reread those sections, but I'm under the impression the group chose "to do what was needful over what was right" and not "what gives us power".

They have certifiably made some seriously boneheaded mistakes (the vampires, murder, possessions)... but in each case it was a 'slippery slope' situation. Which you are basically arguing "any deviation from what is Right is complete crossing into Wrong".

I personally accept Grey Morality. For instance killing is excusable to prevent harm to oneself or others, even if other, harder paths exist. Allowing/participating in the possession of murderous drug dealers is very grey...

Killing people not because it is the only alternative to allowing worse harm to happen, but just because it's easier than the alternative, is a pretty clear example of 'The Dark Side'. It's like an almost universally agreed on tenet in nearly all ethical systems and morality parables that taking the easy path, especially when doing so hurts others, is the wrong solution.

I have a very utilitarian view of ethics and am willing to accept an argument that nearly any terrible crime was ethical in a given situation, as long as a reasonable person could conclude that it was the best, most practical choice to maximise the chances of an outcome with the least harm caused.

I even accept that characters who commit truly heinous acts that they believe to be necessary in order to prevent worse harm may be wrong in their estimation, and this will still not make them 'Evil' or even wrong to have acted as they did, if they genuinely made a reasonable choice based on the information they had and the situation as it appeared. However, this requires that they were acting in good faith and did their best to make the best decision they could.

Killing an active gunman instead of trying to talk him down, even if that might theoretically have been possible, is not wrong or evil. It's based on the reasonable analysis that the harder, less violent solution has a much lower percentage chance of working and if you fail, other people will pay the price. Electing not to bet the lives of others is a completely moral choice, even if it means you decide to kill someone when you might have had an alternative.

But making an impulsive choice, without making a good faith effort to gather all the information you could reasonably get at that point in time, is never morally justifiable. When your profession involves life-and-death issues, it isn't ethically acceptable to wing it, because it risks the lives of other people, not just yours. And like it or not, the PCs have taken up the profession of members in a faction of the Cabal multiverse. They have to know what they are doing or, alternatively, find someone who does and let them make the decisions.

If you find a lot of military supplies, including a nuke, and decide not to tell anyone about it, but instead form a criminal syndicate using the supplies and the nuke, well, you are responsible for happens after that. The gate that the PCs found is at least as dangerous as a nuclear weapon.

And they have formally taken ownership of it. It's no longer an accident, they are active players in a criminal underworld unknown to the authorities. But the PCs don't seem to be people who are really capable of operating in the high-stakes world they've entered. And this fact is leading them to stumble about, killing lots of innocent people. As was obvious to any reasonable person from the start, making them responsible for these consequences.

That might make for an entertaining story. It apparently makes for an entertaining game. But, like the set-up for many popular types of fiction, such as the greedy small-time crook who goes on the lam with a chance score stolen from powerful underworld figures, sitcoms about comically incompetent people snarking at each other and playing mean tricks or any Coen-brother movie about criminals, it involves characters who, by the very nature of the story they are the protagonists of, are necessarily more villainous than heroic.

There is a lot of grey in every game I've ever played. I don't just divide characters into 'Good' and 'Evil'. In fact, I really enjoy debating where they fall on the scale. I just think that Aurelia and Beatrice have already shown pretty compelling evidence that they are on the wrong side of any line we could possibly draw separating the 'Good' from the 'Evil' and their trajectories are directly away from the 'Good' direction.

Originally Posted by evileeyore

I don't remember the homeless being offered as possession choices.

No, they wanted to feed the homeless to vampires, along with anyone else not considered to be worthy of living. Human sacrifice has been suggested more than once, for different occasions.

Originally Posted by evileeyore

I eye-rolled so very hard.

I ask you counselor to point out a single "spree killing" they've gone on. And no "it was hyperbole" will not cover this egregious case of spin-doctoring.

Spree killing is when you kill two or more people in a short time, over multiple locations.

St. [whatever] was killed by Aurelia and Frank in one location. Beatrice killed a man named Carr in another location. Gang members were killed by several PCs, in several locations, as I recall. And then the Russians. Several other persons killed by PCs in different locations, even different worlds, with varying degrees of humanness. Classic spree killing.

Their latest mass murder is when they killed, by my reading, nineteen men and left the twentieth to die of infection, thirst, hunger, exposure or by being eaten by wild animals. Their murder spree continues and it looks like it will continue until authorities catch up with them.

[tshiggins]

We held the latest session of Facets a few Fridays ago. Things went a bit more peacefully, this time, but not everything went well.

Characters Present:

Dr. Henrietta "Indiana" Johnson -- A personable, age 29-and-holding Anthropologist who specializes in the pre-Columbian indigenous people of the American Desert Southwest. A Native of Apache Junction, AZ, "Indiana" is good with people and has been fascinated by American Indian religion and folklore since she was a child. Henrietta speaks Apache fluently, and not-so-secretly wishes archaeology could be more like Raiders of the Lost Ark and less like digging in a trench with a trowel and a toothbrush -- Played by Debbie S.

Dr. Arthur "A.J." Jamison -- a retired NASA scientist with a home in one of Moab's nicer canyon sub-developments, who volunteers for 4CSAR because he needs to do something to get out of the house. Considers himself responsible for Sunmi Jones, who is enough of a science-geek that the two of them can actually hold a conversation. -- Played by Anten S.

Aurelia R. Lockrin -- A young woman with a shady past who teaches History at Grand County High School (Home of the Red Devils!), and volunteers for 4CSAR because she's a bit of an adrenalin junkie, and likes the companionship. -- played by Bennie Rae P.

Dr. Belody "Doc" Bascher -- a local veterinarian for both large and small animals, who frequently fixates on her job and uses 4CSAR as her primary social outlet. -- played by Samantha H. (Unable to attend.)

Sunmi Jones -- A Korean-American prodigy and student of chemistry at Utah Valley University, who spent most of her childhood with her deceased mother's family in Korea, but has come to Utah to attend college and work with her father's petroleum exploration firm. Somewhat moe, awkward-but-cute, glasses-wearing nerd girl, who only volunteers with 4CSAR because volunteer work is required for her degree. Recently suffered mental damage after an attack by a spirit of pain and violation, and agreed to become a chwal for the loa Erzuli Dahomey, as a way to replace the negative affects with those more positive. -- Played by Rebecca W. (Unable to attend.)

Beatrice "B" Lawrence -- U.S. Army veteran who works for a local air charter service as a helicopter mechanic. She recently lost the lower part of her left leg in a fight with a sorcerer from an opposing lodge, and now wears a high-tech prosthetic. A cynic about men, she is accompanied by "Grunt," the biggest, best-trained pit-bull anybody has ever seen (purchased as an ally, and a totally badass dog, even before it was possessed by what appears to be a benign “foo” spirit) -- played by Bernetta W.

Claudia Abigail Tavulari, member of the NASA Quantum Physics Research Team, and an old friend of Arthur Jamison’s. The team has been helping Arthur research the portal physics, on the sly. – Played by Tisa T.

Stephen Mack, another member of the NASA Quantum Physics Research Team, a former U.S. Marine Corps test pilot, and outdoors enthusiast. – Played by Jeff T.

NPCs Present

Randy "Random" Shoop -- a twenty-something, semi-pro mountain-bike competitor who has trouble staying focused, but is basically a good and reliable member of the team, with an unexpectedly strong moral character -- Played by Gold & Appel, Inc. (Currently in NPC mode.)

Jimmy Ehrland – A fugitive from the 1918 Colonia de Nova España, on the other side of the portal, he had fled from his vampire mistress, Doña Eva, only to find himself in a strange, alien world to which he must struggle to adapt. – Shifted back to NPC status.

Grunt: Beatrice's ally, a large pit-bull possessed by a protective "foo" spirit.

##

The news of the presence of nine cavalry scouts, plus the two cat-warriors, on the party’s back-trail, caused considerable consternation, and several methods ranging from non- to extremely violent got tossed around. Given that they didn’t actually want to kill their way across the 1919 version of the United States (recent events notwithstanding…), as that would make the dirigible theft a lot more difficult, the party had to figure out what to do.

The group had left the vicinity of what would be Poncha Springs, in their own world shortly after the ambush, and now found themselves in the headwaters of the Arkansas River, not far from what would be (in their world) the confluence of Texas Creek. The group decided to try to lose the trackers by walking in the river, for awhile, and then take cover in a spot that looked like it might allow the pursuers to pass them by.

The party did that, for several hours, and then Henrietta spotted a good possibility for concealment as they approached the Texas Creek confluence. The group left the river in single-file, and several members of the group did a really good job of concealing traces of their passage. Meanwhile, Henrietta directed others in building a camouflage blind in a heavily overgrown gully nearly a hundred yards from the river, that nonetheless offered good visibility up and down the valley.

In a bit more than an hour, the cavalry scouts proved they could earn their pay, when they trotted past, down by the riverbank. However, they failed to earn promotions because they apparently didn’t spot the place where the party had left the river and kept going past (really good rolls by the players…).

The group stayed hunkered for more than 30 minutes, in case the cat-warriors followed along. Sure enough, the in-betweeners appeared just about on schedule, and Aurelia and Steve spotted them coming. The pair had separated so one traveled on each bank of the river, and A.J. and Henrietta thought that might give them the chance to talk to the cat-warriors, in hopes of reaching a peaceful accommodation.

That proved futile, however, because as soon as the pair revealed themselves, the cat warrior on their side of the river made like a velociraptor and disappeared into the undergrowth, while the one on the other side kept to cover as he moved on past them.

Steve was able to keep an eye on the one across the river, for awhile, but eventually the party lost track of both. The group wondered if maybe the cat-warriors meant to stalk and slay the cavalry scouts?

The fact that at least one, and possibly two, groups of enemies now traveled ahead of them along the river trail, necessitated another strategy discussion. Aurelia initially favored following the cavalry so as to keep an eye on them, while watching carefully for the cat-warriors.

However, Steve pointed out that while such an approach loaned itself well to an eventual ambush of the cavalry, it didn’t exactly help them evade and escape. If that’s what they wanted, he said, the group should immediately take a route that led them away from the cavalry, before the scouts realized their error and doubled back (Jeff made a good roll against “Soldier,” which he used at minuses because Steve lacked “Tactics.”)

The group decided they did want to try to evade the scouts, so A.J. opened up his map to check the route. The group had entered the rugged vicinity of Royal Gorge, which offered some opportunities for concealed movement, but did make for rough travel.

Eventually, he picked a route that took them south up Texas Creek, and then east through the valley between what would be Hardscrabble Mountain and Wixson Mountain, in their world. That would allow them to approach Pueblo from the west, along what would be Highway 96, instead of northwest, from the direction of Cañon City (the location they suspected for the cavalry’s base).

(I took better notes about the route, this time.)

The rough route slowed them down, but they pushed south as quickly as they could, and saw no sign of followers for the rest of the day. Henrietta found another good campsite on the banks of the creek (still full with runoff), somewhere between what would be Hillside and Westcliffe. The creek bank had a band several yards wide of high rushes and thick shrubs growing amongst cottonwoods and willows, and the group set up camp nearby, as it provided some concealment and good grazing for their horses.

The group divvied up the watch schedule (and Claudia was again relieved of that duty) and tucked away one of A.J.’s good meals. The cool, clear evening passed quietly enough until the start of third watch, with Steven, Beatrice and Grunt on sentry-go.

Early in the watch, in the wee hours of the morning, Beatrice and Grunt approached the northern edge of the camp, while Steven stood at the southern end. The camp fire was still going, but had burned down enough to not mess with Steven’s night-vision goggles as he peered into the darkness.

Up at the north end, Beatrice and Grunt stopped at the edge of the camp, not far from two large trees. Suddenly, Grunt barked a warning and a startled Beatrice looked up to see both cat-warriors charging silently at them.

Beatrice shouted for them to stop and discharged her rifle into the air, but the two in-betweeners rushed them. One swiped at Grunt, who nimbly dodged, but the other laid Beatrice’s right arm open from armpit to wrist with a swipe of its claws.

(Continued...)

[tshiggins]

(...continued)

Beatrice screamed in pain as Steve whirled around, only to catch a glimpse of the two spirit predators as they disappeared into the underbrush along the river-bank. Beatrice managed to retain her grip on her rifle, and tried unsuccessfully to trigger a healing spell, while calling Grunt to heel before the foo-dog could chase them into ground of their choosing.

Another attempt at a healing spell apparently worked, but Beatrice still couldn’t move her arm. She realized, to her dismay, that the claws and likely ripped through the tendons and crippled her arm. Steven tried desperately to spot the cat-warriors as the rest of the party started to wake up and move.

A.J. was one of the first to wake, as he’d decided to brave the mosquitos and sleep in the open, on just a ground-pad, near to the river so he could rise early and try a little fishing. Just as he sat up, the cat-warriors leapt silently from the undergrowth.

The scientist desperately dodged one claw swipe, but the second laid open his chest down to the ribs and A.J. nearly passed out from the pain. However, he managed to keep it together and rolled toward Sunmi’s tent, located nearby, as Steven tried to draw a bead on the cat-warriors, who disappeared back into the brush.

Claudia emerged from her tent, right about then, and looked around to see what was happening. She quickly spotted Beatrice standing at the north end of the camp, rubbing her right arm with her left – but not apparently noticing the blood spattering to the ground from her mangled arm.

(On an earlier spell, Beatrice had drawn the wrong type of energy during the ritual, and the spell had a nasty quirk. The next use of the spell would fail, but it would seem to work to her. It had been a long time since she’d had to heal herself, but the quirk remained in effect.)

Aghast at the sight, and thinking Beatrice must be in shock, Claudia rushed to help just as Steven made a difficult shot through the underbrush, and dropped one of the cat-warriors.

Aurelia, who had awoken and quickly nocked an arrow, heard a splashing sound as the remaining cat-warrior picked up his unconscious buddy and stepped deeper into the river to move away. She took a wild shot through the wall of the tent, and actually almost hit.

Claudia reached Beatrice, found a place to apply direct pressure, and clamped her hands on part of the wound. Beatrice screamed in agony as the illusion cleared, and the helicopter mechanic realized she remained badly injured.

Beatrice heard Steven shout he’d gotten one, and sent Grunt after the other – followed closely by Randy, who had also made it out of his tent by this time.

Doc Bascher emerged and rushed over to help Claudia pull Beatrice closer to the fire so she could see the injury; Henrietta and Jimmy popped out, pistols ready, and looked around wildly as they oriented themselves; Sunmi complained that A.J. was bleeding all over her tent as she started First Aid; Aurelia cursed as she realized she missed and started to zip her way out; and Steven put a round through the torso of the second cat-warrior, killing it instantly just before Randy and Grunt reached it.

The relief proved short-lived, however, as the group realized the dead cat-warrior’s spirit likely had emerged in Yetzirah, and it could take a form they wouldn’t know.

Also, Doc Bascher reported that, while a good healing spell had managed to stop Beatrice from bleeding to death, it hadn’t repaired the tendon damage. That would require the veterinarian to perform some extensive surgery, although a healing spell after that would likely return Beatrice most of the use of her right arm.

On a good note, although A.J. had suffered a severe wound to the chest, it hadn’t been crippling and Sunmi and cleaned and debrided it properly. A healing spell had taken care of his injury.

The next day, the group caught their first clear sight of a dirigible. Somewhat to Aurelia’s disappointment, it seemed that technology lagged in this world, as well. A.J. said it appeared to resemble the early LZ 2 or LZ 3 models, and not the Shenandoah-class ZR airships they’d hoped to find.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LZ_2

With that, the session ended.

##

Funny Quotes

(The group discusses airships.)
A.J.: It’s American, which means it’s helium, which means we don’t have to worry about it catching fire.
Steve: We do have to worry about holes….

(The group tried to figure out what to do about the nine cavalry scouts.)
Steve: I have traps and explosives…
Aurelia:.. and I know how to use them!
Steve: We could plant claymores!
GM: You don’t have claymores. Those would be improvised explosive devices. You would make the transition from “villains” to “terrorists.”

Steve: We just infested this world with evil cat-demons! Good luck, America!

(The party discusses whether or not to kill yet more cavalry troopers.)
Henrietta: That makes us look like villains! Stop it!

(Despite pleas to avoid killing the cat-warriors, lest it free them from their hosts, Steven nails one.)
Steve: Makin’ holes and releasin’ souls!

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by tshiggins

A.J.: It’s American, which means it’s helium, which means we don’t have to worry about it catching fire.
Steve: We do have to worry about holes…

I wouldn't be too sure of that. Helium production in the USA originated as a side-product of oil and natural gas production. The first historical helium concentration plant was built in 1915, and this world is technologically retarded. Edit: The first helium-filled airship to fly was USS Shenandoah, in 1923.

They'll be using goldbeater's skin for the gasbags, irrespective of if it's hydrogen or helium. That is fairly primitive technology, but there was nothing better until plastics got going seriously.

Nice to see the party trying to be less violent, though.