Look, folks, this not a game box that passed any of my prejudices. Not only is it expensive and bulky, but it's what I call a treadmill game: the game wants you to buy more of it, over and over, as you get more and more tricks and gimmicks to add onto your ever-growing collection. Bad treadmills are explicitly about getting the next thing and experiencing the next dopamine hit. Good treadmills are actually good games, with the dopamine hit. I don't have the space, so I put a pause on my buying of Heroes of the Grid. I'm sure as hell not going to go buy another treadmill game. Welp, a friend of mine gave it to me as a gift. A year ago. You don't turn down gifts. I've played it almost every day, sometimes up to five times a day. I've played it with a variety of ages, from young kids to grannies. And I can say this, pretty definitively: I'm still learning these eight characters in the box. There's a depth going on in this 99 dollar box that I did not expect.
Let's get down to brass tacks: Dice Throne's center is "just" Yahtzee. Pick up the five pretty dice, roll 'em three times, keeping whatever you like, all to get a result from on the board, which has special abilities and attacks.
This means that, in order to successfully pull anything off, you aren't rolling against another player, per se, but instead against your own luck. And this has a real effect for the table environment: it doesn't feel as personal. In fact, sometimes you feel bad when they don't pull off an attack, or at least I do! If they do pull off an attack, that's fine, you usually get a defensive roll, which is unique to your character. And these defensive rolls aren't just "cancel the hit", but can sometimes get the defender real advantages that shift the game in their favor. There isn't a moment when everything is shifting around. If you pick up the dice it matters. I've never, not even once, seen a dead turn, where not a thing happens.
Of note are the myriad conditions that are part of every character. Some of them are extremely simple, and some are incredibly complex, requiring a good and solid reading. The designers were extremely good at ensuring that conditions of similar complexity are grouped appropriately with characters. None of the conditions are useless, and none of them are too powerful. All of them require some skill to use, even if the character is simple enough. It's all in the Goldilocks zone, folks: just right.
The last bits are the cards.The cards cost Combat Points (CP), usually up to 4 at a time. The effects are appropriately grouped to the complexity of the character, with very few of them being actually expensive. There's four types of cards: main phase, upgrades, roll phase cards, and instants. Main phase cards have all kinds of different effects, grouped around the theme of the character. Upgrades let you shift up the abilities on your board, and can even add new abilities for you to roll. Roll phase cards let you muck about with your dice rolls, and this is honestly where some of the biggest "Oohs!" and "Ahs!" of the game really come about; there's nothing like mucking about the with the dice and they still freaking get their roll. Instants can be played at any time, and can turn the game on its head. All of this is clearly explained by the rules and expertly laid out: I handed this to my “I can’t play games like that” mom, and she had it within moments, nevermind enjoying herself as she began cooking up strategies on her own!
None of this would make a difference if the character design wasn't any good. I'd have chucked the box, gift or not, if the character theming wasn't good. This kind of game needs strong vision for all the characters, as well as allowing the characters to be played in a myriad of ways. It is not an easy thing to design for. The character is where all the previous parts are assembled together, and either are more than the sum of said parts or far less. And the game really delivers here! Everyone, and I do mean everyone, plays differently and well. I’ve got my favorite (paladin, to the shock of no one), but I enjoy all the others and can win with them, should someone take my vengefully armored baby. They all come in a range of complication levels, from the “I hit you and you can’t hit me back” barbarian to the treant, who commands a small army of spirits, all of whom require a great deal of finesse to use correctly. None of them feel unbalanced against each other: if two players of equal skill did a barbarian (the simplest) vs treant (the most complex) battle it would be a damn close game.
The only real issue with this box is its price, but only in the abstract. 99 bucks plus shipping sounds expensive, but I’ve put the hours in on this game, folks. I can tell you that I got way more than a 99 buck value for this game. If this sounds like fun to you, I can promise that actually investing in this particular box is more than worth the effort and cash. But if you're wanting to get something a bit more casual, something that you wouldn't actually use all that often, I wouldn't recommend something of this scope. Maybe I'm wrong, but I certainly wouldn't buy this box if I wasn't going to use it as often as I do. If someone really got through my prejudices hard enough to get me to consider trying it, but I wasn't sold, I would get me the "little" two character packs and give it a shot first. And then, if I liked it, I'd save up.
It's hard to say "Yeah, sure, get this!" when a box like this is so much, up front. That's a thing I don't think is ethical to say. I will, however, say that I have gotten alot more joy, drama, and outright surprises out of this one box than anything with this level of difficulty has any right to provide. I am getting another box, I am putting more money into this. It's worth my time. It might be worth your time as well.
"For it is better to preserve the just with the evil than to subvert the just for the good"
Anynomous,Commentary on Matthew
Over the years I've come to know many a disgruntled formerly homeschooled Catholic or Protestant Christian. Some of you will be reading this going "HOW DARE YOU AIR MY DIRTY LAUNDRY." Here's the sad part.
I'm not.
Y'all are all saying the same words, in the same tone of voice, with the same sad eyes that scream disillusionment.
And it breaks my heart.
Frankly, I'm there too. Still.
My father, while I was growing up, told me two things that have never not served me well. I added a third precept, because he implied it with the first two but never thought to say it:
All of life is grieving.
If you could be in someone's body like it was your own you'd go catatonic from the pain they've been passively holding onto.
By grieving, you become open to others and can help them with their pain.
All of life is grieving. I'm sorry, folks, there is no avoiding this one. You can't not grieve. Life hurts, it just does. Anyone who says differently is lying, and that's all there is to it. Or, worse, they're selling you something to where you're distracted from your pain. You can piss and moan and bitch about how life shouldn't be painful, but honestly what's that going to get you? You're just wasting energy on pissing and moaning and bitching. Now, granted, if you don't actually want to live I suppose that's okay. But fucking hell, if you're reading this blog it's because you actually want to live. And live well. Somehow. Somewhere. You want to live. And in order to live you must grieve. You must be able to look at the world and say "THIS HURTS LIKE FUCKING HELL" and you must be uncomfortable, you must be pained, you must sorrow and shed tears over it, because the world is worth grieving over. You are worth too much to waste in refusing to do it. It is not that the pain makes you better, it is what you do because you are in pain that makes you better. You are meant to face the dragon that is the world with the sword of grief in hand, with the shield of rational thought in the other, clad from head to toe with the conviction that your life means something and is worth defending. And make no mistake, your life, the real one, is a fragile thing. It needs defending. So grieve!
Unlike many a disillusioned post-Christian, I actually saw shit go down in the Catholic Church as a teen. I was there, behind the closed doors, watching many a critical fumble or outright malfeasance occur. I got to see these politics happen, in real time. And yeah, at the time it about broke me to witness them. The road to hell is paved with the skulls of bishops and there is no sight better than the back of a bishop as he leaves. But most people, when they think of these bishops, of these malefactors who honestly need to be forcibly removed from their posts (and if they get banged up in the process c'est la vie it's better than what most of you deserve) do not have a specific picture of what these blasphemers of the Law of God are actually like. It's not that they can't get a good picture, or if they have enough empathy that they can't develop a good one, but the mind is open to fantasize about anything it wants in relation to these people.
Let me blow that up. Right now.
Those bishops, who did so much harm to the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, are not mustache-twirling meglomaniacs. Oh no. We would be lucky to have that kind of evil, because that kind of evil engenders righteous anger, which summons holy fire to burn the motherfuckers out. Holy anger requires specificity, intimacy, love, to be effective. And evil meglomaniacs love, in some way, and thus the blasphemy is easy to spot, easy to get worked up over, and easy to treat.
No, we have something much worse. We don't get big bad guys, but small, mean, cowardly, fuck ups. They dissemble and hide because they know they are small. They remain nondescript, milqetoast, tepid, thoroughly mediocre men so that way you can't do more than summon a mild disgust and try to ignore them as fast as possible. They're not a virus, they're a cancer.
I saw all this going into adulthood. After a few years of witnessing it I went to the Orthodox Church in a rage. That was not the right thing to do. After barely a year I returned to the Catholic Church where my family was, confused and hurt, and finally began to grieve. When I finally opened up to my dad about what I had seen, and how the evils I had seen were worse than anything I could have imagined at the time, my dad sadly told me to remember that all burdens are in physical pain too, not just spiritual. The way a person holds their soul is the way they hold their body. If anyone could be in another's body as it was their own for even a second they'd double over from the horrific pain the other person was in, and they'd probably die from the shock of just how vicious, how truly horrific, the other person's universe was.
When I asked what the point was, my father told me that what I was witnessing that was draining my soul so was that I had seen what happened when someone let that pain get the better of them, at the large scale. The bishops weren't bad, they were simply ignoring their own pain and thus ignoring everyone's pain. And we were doing the same thing back. The key was to accept that you were already in horrific agony, had blocked almost all of it out, and needed to get to where you could feel the pain and process it.
The third point is mine own. My father was not at a point where he could teach me this one, but I learned it from repeated experience and confirmed it with my parents later, after more than a decade of slogging away at the garbage the world had handed me. Many of you will read the above and go "That's nice, but the world is a horrible place and I need to fix it now. I must help take control over the systems of control and reform them" and other Marxist platitudes that are just such utter bullshit.
Systems cannot enable justice.
Only people can.
And they need systems in place to be able to do that. But in order to be a person who can take advantage of the dark and terrible sword known as System you must have conquered your own darkness first. You must be worthy, and it is not impossible that you be in such a state.
Don't roll your eyes. I mean it.
Look, the years from 2016-2022, six years, were spent suffering from horrifying flashbacks. Almost hallucinatory level memories of rape, torture, and other things that are so fucking bad I'd rather write about my rapes than write about them went through my head. I'd wake up, go to work, do my best to not wreck my family, and then spend the evenings they went to bed suffering. Years of nights spent practically pulling my own hair out, sobbing until I was hoarse, almost checking myself into a mental ward multiple times because I just didn't want to be a human anymore, and almost throwing up sponatenously because I'd had a flashback and the pure disgust of what I was feeling were normal occurences. I hated every moment of it. But my wife told me it was worth going through. She never wavered on this one fact:it was all worth grieving over. I was not wasting my time by using it to grieve. I was not abandoning them by being in pain. Without her support and constant reminder that I was not a waste of a human being for sitting alone at night and crying my eyes out while I tried to keep my dinner down I wouldn't be here. As far as I was concerned that was my real job.
Because of this, I 've never really done anything about my professional life, nor do I really care to. I work at a government helpdesk. It's not my favorite job, and frankly there's months I dearly wish I had something a bit more fulfilling to do than arguing with end users about their tier ones screwing them over, but it's a job. Money comes in. The fact that I am making money from an entity that I regard as a globalist empire is very secondary to the fact that it's feeding my wife and kids. I don't have the luxury of being idealistic about it, because of that whole recovery thing we were talking about above. I just don't. I go to work, do the job to the best of my cantankerous ability, and go home. Hi, I'm the government, and I'm here to help.
I wrote about my experience of the evacuation of Afghanistan on this blog before, practically while it was happening. But I left something out. While I was in the backrooms, watching things going down y'all simply couldn't freaking comprehend because you're just not here to see it, I was involved in the saving of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, of lives. Yeah, I failed to do more. That legit haunts me. But I was in the right place, at the right time, and said a few words to the right ears... and more than a few people made it out that otherwise wouldn't have. I didn't even do that much. But simply by being available and open to helping and paying attention, no matter what it cost me, paid off. I really hope I get to meet these people at the Last Judgment and find out what happened to them afterwards. I hope to meet the people I couldn't get out and beg their forgiveness for not being able to do more.
Anyone here sitting around just bitching about the state of the world or yourself able to claim that?
No?
It's not like I went out to look for that. It fell right into my lap, I chose to pay attention, and that was that. It was a small, quiet, very quick moment. If I hadn't been so focused on healing, on restoring, and doing only what I could do for years before I couldn't have done it then. And y'know what? I've been able to do it more often since then. There's more than a few people out there who are alive because of my direct action. It's a good feeling.
But they weren't something I chased.
I focused on cultivating life, starting with mine, and found that it inevitably spilled over to others.
Now we're here, to my point. Yup, took awhile, but without the previous context it's hard to comprehend exactly what I'm saying. But now you have the context. Now, most formerly homeschooled adults are (at best if they're honest) heavily disillusioned about what they were taught as kids. That's normal, as befits those who were (at best) misled. They're more than vaguely aware that what they were taught wasn't actually Christianity, but some Satanist faux-Christian parody that should, in fact, make them sick. But they're stuck in a conundrum: they know there's a God; they've felt the Light, they know He's real, even if they'd quibble over my use of the word know, since they haven't caught on that knowing something very rarely involves that fallible thing called the mind. But the things that have been taught to them are clearly cruel, clearly awful, and don't add up with this experience. But now these well-meaning folks are in a damned if you do, damned if you don't, situation. They either choose to stay loyal to the light they know to be real, or they accept the doctrine they were only half-taught as true.
It's an awful choice. No one can make it and feel good about themselves, forevever.
But there is a third path. It's not as painful in the long run, but it is more complicated, and it is, in some ways, much harder than sticking to the two choices above: to take seriously the following words of the Master Himself:
2 The scribes and Pharisees, he said, have established themselves in the place from which Moses used to teach;
3 do what they tell you, then, continue to observe what they tell you, but do not imitate their actions, for they tell you one thing and do another.
4 They fasten up packs too heavy to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; they themselves will not stir a finger to lift them.
5 They act, always, so as to be a mark for men’s eyes. Boldly written are the texts they carry, and deep is the hem of their garments;
6 their heart is set on taking the chief places at table and the first seats in the synagogue,
7 and having their hands kissed in the market-place, and being called Rabbi among their fellow men.
8 You are not to claim the title of Rabbi; you have but one Master, and you are all brethren alike.
9 Nor are you to call any man on earth your father; you have but one Father, and he is in heaven.
10 Nor are you to be called teachers; you have one teacher, Christ.
11 Among you, the greatest of all is to be the servant of all;
12 the man who exalts himself will be humbled, and the man who humbles himself will be exalted.
13 Woe upon you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites that shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces; you will neither enter yourselves, nor let others enter when they would.
14 Woe upon you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites that swallow up the property of widows, under cover of your long prayers; your sentence will be all the heavier for that.
15 Woe upon you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites that encompass sea and land to gain a single proselyte, and then make the proselyte twice as worthy of damnation as yourselves.
Matthew 28: 2-15
Most of the New Testament is the apostles writing letters to the churches and telling them how they'd fucked this up. Out of the 27 books in the New Testament, TWENTY-TWO directly address heresies and frankly really scandalous sexual shit going on in the Early Church. The New Testament is not some lovey-dovey "Oh God is love" namby pamby horseshit, it's the apostles, who had met Christ and been total idiots while they were with him (or in the case of Paul after actively killing Christians for years) going "YOU IDIOTS NEED TO STOP BEING IDIOTS KTHX"... which is exactly in line with how the prophets talked to Israel in the Old Testament. And how we view the churches now.
An objective reading of the Bible, where you go along with the assumption that God is the good guy as the texts intend, show a humanity that is almost irrevocably broken. Virtues turn to stumbling blocks in the blink of an eye, the evil always seem to win out, and if the just live too long they become the bad guys.There's only one this didn't happen to, and He was killed because the rest of us couldn't stand to have something that good and pure live.
But for, whatever reason, God chose to give direct life, life itself, through very broken and stained hands. Sometimes He even uses their otherwise irredeemably awful words too. But He didn't leave. Now, either He is actively going through those stained channels (and dont' think you're less stained than them) or He isn't. Either we accept what the text says, which is that God openly allows the unworthy access to His life and you're one of them, or we don't. And if you don't you have to somehow come up with how you're better than the assholes you don't like.
Good luck with that one.
I'd prefer to just forgive them and myself for not being good enough to fail at their level. That actually has seemed to do some good for me and those around me.
And that is a lot better than most. I mean, we're wanting cold hard results here, right?
Many have accused the Rippaverse of being a stunt. They have gotten at July’s writing with a level of bad faith that isn’t surprising, but still annoying. And frankly there’s some basis for this: July’s dialogue is awful and he chose to start the Rippaverse with a slow burn world-building arc. July has said repeatedly that he did this on purpose. After all these repetitions you can either believe him or be an idiot. But with the hiring of Chuck Dixon to write Alphacore, the Soska Sisters hired full-time, and Mike Barron to write Goodying, the picture changed. July backed up his declaration that he was in for the long haul.
Welp, here’s the first non-July project, Alphacore #1! It’s next to me as I write. It’s quite pretty, as per the Rippaverse standards. This is a premium product. It’s pretty obvious where a lot of the money went. I could go on, but it’s repetitive at this point. Point is: this is a really well put together book, especially for 28 bucks.
The pencilling by Joe Bennett is amazing, front to back. There's a reason why he was a front-line penciller before being blacklisted for not being on the side of the cancel pigs. His storytelling particulary is on point, something that has been pretty standard for the Rippaverse so far. But there are not one, not two, not three, but FIVE fucking inkers on this book. FIVE. What the hell is this? Why are there five inkers on the project? There is no way they can maintain visual continuity with five of them, no matter how much they may talk, email, or cuddle after their orgy. And it shows in the product, trust me. There's moments where characters radically change appearance and you can tell it's coz that inker didn't stick to the other four freaking inker's styles hard enough. One of the characters, a cop called Wilkins, suffers more than any of the others, in some spots looking like something out of a redneck satire. I would have been okay with waiting a bit longer for the book, even swapping its debut out with Yaira #1 if that was a thing that needed to happen. But it wasn't, and that leads me to believe that we may see more crap like this. It is because Joe Bennett is so good that the book doesn't look like a total travesty, as opposed to just janky. The instant you hand a lesser penciller to five inkers there are gonna be problems.
Oh, and there's two colorists, and they really didn't freak talking to each other. They clearly didn't even try. One of the strongest moments in the whole book almost falls part coz I can't tell if the guy is supposed to be a red-head or a fucking blonde.
The fact that all of this adds up to "okay" art is a miracle. It's just janky at times. This could have gone a hell of a lot worse. Hand this to any lesser artists and it would have been a complete laughingstock.
Fortunately the story is awesome. Oh my God I love the story in this issue. Chuck takes the 96 page format and makes it sing. The beleagured and harrassed Alphacore, comprising the idealistic-but-dumb Bryan Solari, smart-but-temperamental Ingrid Valdez, and the silent cypher Braxten, stumble acrost the machinations of the shadowy Michael Copper and Lilian Ronashi. The book opens with Solari stopping a bombing attempt at a bank... only for the bomber to be legitimately surprised when his bomb goes off. It's one hell of an opening. And it just rolls from here. The story builds and builds and builds and then doesn't explode (literally), in the best way possible. The Alphacore are beautifully rendered in their frustrated-and-flawed glory. See, they want to be "regular" cops, but they're not regular, they're Excepts, and they're only wanted for whenever other Excepts are screwing around! This isn't a totally unreasonable request. Alphacore are justifiably frustrated, coz they want to be cops. And they can't just be cops. So they get more and more frustrated and start making mistakes. These are people just being people, with the epic consequences of their mistakes and frustrations being front and center. It's to the credit of Chuck that every beat of the way makes sense, but isn't defended or glorified. I love that every single second of these flawed characters is fun. Heck, my pulse started going up! It was fun! I had a great time! And the ending felt so damn good to read. I mean it. This is why I buy superhero comics. This. Right here.
I'm going to address Chuck Dixon's ending note now. It is becoming increasingly obvious that the mainstream U.S. comic book industry is falling apart at the seams. Sales are horrible, the books are worse, and frankly if I was an artist having to draw one of these new books I'd cry, coz they're so boring. Dixon's ending note, and the fact that 1 million bucks (so far) has been spent to glory in this end note, not to mention the incredible comic book before it... that should be very disconcerting. Change is here. If change keeps looking like stories like this the mainstream needs to get with the program, and quickly. But they won't. The note will go unheeded.
Alphacore has a lot of problems, and I spent most of the review bitching about them. All the things I said are true, but they are potentionally misleading.
This book is so much more than the sum of its parts.
A lot more.
And it is a failure of me, as a writer, that I cannot adequately explain that. This comic builds on itself in a way that very few outside of Chuck Dixon can adequately do these days, nevermind hit it out the part like he does. The ending of this comic feels good. This comic feels amazing to read. There are so many problems with it, but everything clicks together so fucking well that it's honestly a bit breathtaking to witness. This is a great comic. Buy it. Yeah, there's problems, but man that last double page spread is so fucking cool.
There's a phrase in the fighting game community I like: "Don't let them play their game". The idea is that each character in a fighting game interacts with the mechanics of the game in a unique way, and thus have their own way of playing the game, and their strategy is to find a way to play their form of the game. The basics of any fighting game are to deny the opponent their form of the game, while getting to maximize your own time playing your game.
So, for instance, these are the shenanigans that my favorite character Sub-Zero can get up to, should he put you into the corner:
Now, why am I pointing this out?
Because, as a geek, I've noticed that this logic is pretty damn near universal, especially when it comes to debate. I've never, not even once, seen this not be an issue. If you share assumptions then certain logical outcomes are certain. Sorry, there's only so many ways to skin the rabbit in a way that works with power. And yes, trying to keep power/politics out of the situation is naive. Power is a magnet: if you're set up to be in agreement with its assumptions you will, eventually, go to where the power is. It's a matter of time. Power, whether it be military, cultural, personal, will always win if you give it an inch.
I disagree with where society is going, and always have. Hell, I'm not sure I've ever agreed with any society at any point in time. That may be because of the sheer number of times I've seen groupthink be harmful. So I acknowledge there may be an irrational impetus in there. But, looking the rage, distrust, and outright incoherence of where we're at I don't think I'm entirely off the track. So I don't want to be like what the society around us wants. That means my assumptions are different, and if they aren't different I must make them different, to avoid the pull of power. And so, if I wish to maintain what I think is a good outlook on life, my assumptions must be radically different from what society assumes. They can't play their game, not even for a moment.
Here's some of the assumptions I keep running into with our society that I think aren't just wrong but are obviously wrong. And by assumptions I mean things that you can more or less ascertain if you just a take second and actually look at the world and how it operates.
1. People are, by nature, good and if we could just get the bad programming out it would be fine.
Nope. I've never agreed with this, because it's just manifestly and obviously untrue. Everyone, from every culture, has a degree of brutality and evil to them, and you can't not pass it on. The attempts to "reboot" have always been disastrous, and there's so much blood in just the French Revolution (which implemented 10 day weeks, temple prostitutes to Reason, and a generous severance package from life if you disagreed with them), nevermind the Nazis (who adapted Marxist principles to the scale of nations, that's literally what nationalism is), and definitely the Bolsheviks (whose attempts to rewrite human nature resulted in a black market that choked out the "legit" one).... people are social animals. They're immediately imprinted upon, from the moment they come into existence. There are no blank slates.
And even then, humans are programmed to follow the path of least resistance, which leads to entropy and death. Social programming is there to stop us from killing ourselves due to sheer indolence. You need people around to tell you how to fight against your own ennui. Which is everywhere in you, all the time.
You. Need. People. That's HUMAN 101 folks.
So no, the programming is not the problem, on principle. People just do bad things with the programming they're given, and the best human programming attempts to make it as difficult as possible to subvert it.
2. Categorical imperatives are the key to morality.
I've written about this before. If such and such was applied universally would it be right? That's the categorical imperative. It assumes that humans can figure crap out. Again, that's manifestly untrue. If you think religion is the problem with that please, explain the 20th century, which implemented the openly atheistic principles of the Enlightenment, like the categorical imperative... to absolutely disastrous effect. Anyone who wants to defend the categorical imperative has to explain why it didn't impact the bloodshed of the 20th century, an act suspiciously like trying to deny the nose on your face. Somehow you'd have to go through the works of the Marxists, Communists, and Nazis, and prove they didn't have the categorical imperative behind them.
Good luck.
3. The key to a good life is minimizing pain while maximizing pleasure.
That's called hedonism, specifically epicureanism.
And that's, again, obviously wrong.
Most of the things I've found worth doing in my life have not just been horrifically hard, but painful beyond cruelty. But if I hadn't have done those things I would have become less, lost my peace, which is not the same as being happy. To quote George Lucas "Happiness is only for a moment". You can't control whether or not you're happy, but you can control whether or not you're at peace.
Yes, that means learning to sit in the midst of the inferno as it rages around you and accepting it. Or, as St. Silouan puts it: "Keep thy mind in Hell and despair not". Yes, it means that you have to let go of the idea of happiness as an end point, or even as something worth thinking about at all.
The modern world only makes sense if you accept its assumptions. Assumptions are either correct or they're not. If you accept the assumption you accept the logic founded upon it. The only way out is to reject the assumptions. You either look at the world around you and go "Yup, that tracks" or you don't.
And honestly? I don't. And haven't. And never will.
I have a hatred for shills disguised as reviews. You know the ones I'm talking about, where there's nothing wrong with the game, it’s obviously perfection, and it's within their best interest for them to say so. I also have a hatred for "reviews" that do not reflect table experience. A read-through of a game is not the same as a review, and frankly most "reviews" of RPGs are outright fraudulent.
This is not a review.
So to get it out of the way: I am not an objective source. I love this game. Robby, the designer, has helped me with mine own baby, Crescendo, which has a similar vibe. Robby’s opinions on things aren’t exactly my own, but I’d be lying if I didn’t say that I look up to and respect his opinions more than I normally would, even if I don’t completely agree with him on implementation. You are not reading someone who can be objective. I’ll tell you what I’m looking for when I look at the industry and why I love this game so much, and you can make up your own mind.
So, here's my concerns. Most RPGs do not teach good table talk. Modern Dungeons and Dragons destroys most good habits people could have built for RPGs, takes a dump on the wreckage, and then salts the earth so that way its shit JUST stinks and can’t compost. Most people who get away from the game Ron Edwards generously said caused “brain damage” in its players find it takes years, sometimes a decade or more, to undo the damage wrought by WOTC’s trainwreck. All RPGs have to contend with The Great DnDisaster in their texts, either leaning into the brain damage, or fighting against it constantly on every page. Heck, some games go so hard against the DnDisaster they actually create entirely new problems of their own! All in an effort to help people heal from the damage!
But then there’s my least favorite part of the industry: the “rules-lite” garbage. Masquerading as “getting out of the way”, the lite-reactionaries throw out most of the supportive structure that’s actually good to have in the mistaken belief that most of us will go looking for supporting products or want to make up whole swaths of the game at once. Sorry, I’m a parent, not an unpaid designer.
That’s technically true because someone paid ten bucks for Apex. Once. So I am a paid designer! Hooray!!!
Point is, it’s usually not rules-lite, but rules-anemic. It’s infuriating.
For those who are curious: yes the above is my nice opinion about the state of the industry; I’m not naming names, nor am I speaking my very pointed opinions on the “solutions” to the DnDisaster. The above is simply what’s going on, stated strongly so that the actual shitshow that is modern RPGs can be looked at with accuracy.
What in the everloving fuck does this have to do with Enclave, you may ask?
Simple.
Enclave is one of the best introductions to RPGs ever made, easily rivaling the classic Tenra Bansho Zero. This anorexically thin book is what I’d honestly throw at anyone who’s recovering from the DnDisaster AND total noobies, at the same time. This game is a gold standard for what RPG rules should be like.
How? Why?
By hyper focusing on merging mechanics with the conversation as tightly as possible. See, the DnDisaster can rightfully be called “brain damage” because it puts the two key aspects of an RPG, conversation and rules, in as acrimonious a rivalry as possible. Spoiler alert, but power gaming and taking advantage of a metagame shouldn’t be a dirty word. If you flinched at that congrats: your own sense of playing games itself has been turned on you. Hence why it’s called “brain damage”. And why I continue to use the term unironically.
Enclave melds these two elements so tightly that it drops dice altogether. For some that is going to be a huge no-no; rocks or nothing! And that would be sad, because the one thing I have found while playing Enclave is that it helped me remember how much fun just making shit up can really be… except there’s a short but robust system of rules in place to help keep things easy and fair.
Part of this has to do with the book itself. At “typical” RPG size and 60 pages, Enclave simply isn’t what I like holding in my hands. It feels flimsy to hold. I don’t like that. But the fact that I’ve never had an issue looking up a rule in this “FEED ME A BURGER PLEASE”-sized book is something I must begrudgingly acknowledge. Some of this is definitely because the book’s organization is very clear. But the utility of a thinner rule book was honestly lost on me until this game, where the rules actually do matter in running the game, so that’s what I’m talking about now.
The gameplay itself is, as Martha remarked of Crescendo, “rules invisible”: all the rules faithfully respond to narration already going on, or are so intuitive that all it takes is a moment’s glance to understand the rule. So it’s not that you forget the rules, but that they encourage you to do what you already wanted to do to begin with. It’s not often you find a ruleset that’s so dedicated to legitimately getting out of the way, while providing support by giving you mechanics in spots where there would be questions as to how to handle things, like Rally.
Of more questionable worth is the apparent hatred of numbers, while still using the concept. Is ++ really different from 2? Functionally? No. I get where Robby is coming from, and I applaud the attempt to keep the game as grounded in the conversation as possible, but I personally think the game goes too far, taking out useful trackers like HP and DCs simply because numbers are bad. But, and take notes here kiddos, the systems that replace the numbers are functional and more than satisfactory. Assigning color levels to stuff looks weird till ya do it, and then it makes sense. Now, I'm not new to RPGs, so I can't speak to whether or not it's better than numbers, but criminy it does work. Could it have stayed similar to previous systems? Yes. Does it work anyways? Also yes.
There are very games on the market today that actualy focus on the conversation that aren't incredibly reductive, aka PBTA. Enclave isn't reductive, but focused. There's a mechanical variety to Enclave that's really subtle, quiet, but there. Sometimes the best things in life are the really quiet ones, which give just the right nudges, at the right time. And Enclave is exactly that.
“The life of the eternal subjectivity is an infinite reference to its subjectivity contemplated within another “I” so as to be truly love… In any other circumstances, eternity would be either an unbearable boredom… or else an absurdity.”
St. Dimitru Staniloae
The Experience of God
Let’s break that down, shall we? What the hell does that gobbledygook mean?
Simply: true joy and peace is to experience yourself in the context of someone else. Anyone who has ever stared into the eyes of a beloved knows exactly this feeling; parents experience this in the eyes of their children. Without this experience of self being experienced by another self we wither and die inside. “It is not good for man to be alone” is said after Adam names all the animals; it is not until man realized nothing else in the world will do that God gives man that most ferocious of creatures, woman.
It is essential to understand one of the primary truths of Christianity: all are subjects, all is community with the goal of “union in perfect love”, as Staniloea also says. That first statement is a bit difficult to parse, and the second statement is even harder to understand without the first. So first off we'll need to break down what the hell I mean by that and then break down what that means for game design, particularly TTRPGs, coz that's what I know.
So, what do I mean by "all are subjects"? I mean that historical Christianity, Catholic and Orthodox alike, regard all of creation as alive and sentient. It's not like us and our version of it, but the universe is alive. God loves it and cares for it, even if we're supposed to care for it. The Golden Legend, has this to say about how active and aware the universe really is:
"The third accuser will be the whole world. Hear Gregory: "If you ask who will accuse you, I say, 'The whole world. When the Creator is offended the entire creatoin is offended.'" Chrysostom comments on Matthew: "There will be nothing we can say in response on that day when heaven and earth, the waters, the sun and the moon, night and day and the whole world will oppose us before God, testifying to our sins; and if all were silent, our very thoughts and especially our works will against us before God, forcefully accusing us."
The phrase "The blood of thy brother has found a voice that cries out to me from the ground" isn't meant to be figurative, it's literal. The Biblical world is not silent, not at all. We're just deaf and stupid in our fallenness.
More than that, however, is there is a point to creation. The Orthodox theologian Staniloae states that creation, including time and space, were given to us, so that we could carry on a conversatoin with God. God, in His mercy, knew that we would not be able to talk to Him as creatures. God is so far removed from us by just the definition of what He is and what we are not that we wouldn't be able to focus on Him to be able to talk, not directly. The world exists specifically so we can have something to attach our minds to, so that God may babble with us about these little created things that we have cooperated with Him to refine and put the way we like them, together. And if we screw this up the world, which must be multiple myriads of consciousnesses because God is a community of persons. Even celibates, those monks who sit around and don't seem to do much, are with us, becaus they've discovered that God is as much a medium for transmission as He is person; by being in union with God directly, they are in union with all, in their own way.
So all of life is communion, even if you don't understand how all the things that can see and hear you do.
If you're wondering where I'm going with this: game design's central point should be to help you relate better. By designing artificial environments that are different from your usual you give each other a place to do the most worthwhile action of all: investing yourself into something beyond yourself, to BELIEVE again.
It is here I draw my first line in the sand: a good game helps you trust yourself to others more, possibly helping you restore yourself, possibly healing emotional and spiritual wounds in the process. Games reward investment of self (which us Christians call kenosis) by creating a framework of rules that reward certain actions while punishing others. You are expected to let go of your notion of what is real and consequential and engage with this new construct, this new environment. By doing so you imbue it with meaning, replicating the human action: to give meaning to the universe. Really good game design will bleed your experiences back over to the real world. And it should. It’s why the USA loves sports so much!
Good game design has a few factors: it encourages and requires particular actions while punishing others, while providing a sense of progression towards a goal, with usually some form of going out of yourself as the endpoint (also known as ecstasy). No, this isn’t exhaustive, no I do not have all the answers, I’m just an obnoxious loudmouth with the determination to write his silly thoughts down (mostly on a phone) in the ridiculous expectation that others may get something out of what I’m saying. No, I won't elaborate on those here. Honestly I need to think on them more.
Now, it should be obvious why general disinterest is a bad thing for a game. You get bored, you withdraw, because your attempt to invest is actively thwarted.
I’m breaking the next line into its own paragraph, because you need to actually read it.
YOU NOT LIKING A GAME IS NOT NECESSARILY THE SAME AS BAD DESIGN.
This is where it gets tricky and actually requires adult conversation and that really gray thing called discernment, wisdom. A good game can ask for a type of investment that you may not want to give. And I know all about that one! I’m designing tabletop role playing games! That aren’t Dungeons and Dragons! I’m in niches that are so pathetically small that subatomic particles are calling their exterminators because holy crap I thought we got rid of all the freaking subatomic roaches.
So not wanting to invest doesn’t make a game bad. It’s a game; by its very nature not liking or even loving a game isn’t a grave matter. But bad design does exist. It is a thing. Bad design can hurt you. Bad game design specifically uses your dopamine receptors against you while providing nothing in response. Instead of you playing the game, the game takes you over and plays you. You're not trying to interact with an object on its terms, you're just wasting time as your dopamine gets upped.
Or, y'know, in the case of Dungeons and Dragons or Magic you're just putting up with it because you genuinely don't know better stuff exists.
Please stop giving the supervillain money. Thank you.
Speaking of DnD, there’s another bad form of game design, one which people are more attached to, because its allure is so strong: having a ton of complexity that doesn’t really fit in with the game’s stated goals, or obfuscates the core loop of the game. This has the knock-on effect of making a second game that’s effectively divorced from the supposed real game. All modern DnD games fall into this trap, even my beloved 4e, where the option bloat invites one to tinker and tinker and tinker… to no actual difference. I’m not talking against games that have builds being a part of the loop; I may not like Pathfinder, but I’ll be the first to admit it doesn’t hide its core loop with its options. Even games with core loops I don’t like, like Marvel Champions and Arkham Horror the LCG, are games that use its “build” mechanics well. But building for its own sake, where the engine you’re supposed to be building for gets left behind, is bad design. If this is done well it’s an opportunity to give greater meaning to your experience. If it’s done poorly it’s modern Scholasticism.
Seriously, the difference between modern scholastics and build whores in games is nil.
The point is: bad design actually hijacks you against yourself, removing you from relating to others and plays your own brain against itself. A lot of mobile games are built this way, weaponizing your dopamine receptors against themselves. You can also design a game that can not support a player well enough in the design goals. This is a much harder one to identify, and is much more subject to taste than we'd all like to admit... but clunky designs do exist. I mean, c'mon folks, SpiderMan 3 the video game exists. We all know there's such a thing as designs that don't live up to their potential. These designs prevent you from giving subjectivity, and thus relationship, to the design. Without gifting meaning to the design you are stuck in a series of meaningless actions, isolated and stuck within your own subjectivity. It's doomscrolling on your phone, but with an object that was actually supposed to help you practice your primary function as a human being: giving meaning.
Yeah, we got a word for that: Hell.
I think that's what I got for the moment. Good game design is meant to be a function of you giving meaning to the world and those around you. Great design makes that central human function easy and enjoyable, sublime. Bad design frustrates this ability. Horrible design will make you forget it's your job to give meaning entirely, either because the base engine is bad or because the game distracts you from its core too much.
OKAY, SO THIS IS THE SHILL TIME. If you go away after this point that's fine! Really!
If you like what I'm saying and want to see what I'm up, design-wise, I update my two games on my Discord on an-almost weekly basis. If you want to see the drafts, go on over to Discord and take a look!
Oh, what am I working on, in general? Glad you asked! I'm working on three games: Dragons and Planets, The Truth Found in Death and Crescendo.
Dragons and Planets is a one-shot space fantasy game for two to six people, in the tone and tradition of Star Wars, Pacific Rim, and the Matrix. Gameplay is fast, frenetic, and extremely collaborative, while being surprisingly relaxing. Oh, and it's diceless and uses your favorite book. From character and world creation to the end it takes about two hours.
The Truth Found in Death is a game for two to six people, emulating the blood-punting pulp of Robert E. Howard. Yes, that includes Kull. Game sessions feature an original D6 dice pool system, with lots of risk, reward, and blood. Each game sesssion takes between two to four hours, character creation included.
Crescendo is a long-form fantasy game of character development for two to four people. Innovative journaling with easy-but-deep storytelling mechanics, Crescendo is an intensely rewarding time for those who really want to sink their teeth into their characters and the setting.
You can find the most recent drafts for both games on the Discord.
"There is something ambiguous about time... We have to launch ourselves out, relinquishing a state threatened by death, in the sure faith we will discover fullness."
St. Dimutru Staniloae,The Experience of God
The last two weeks I chimed in my very short opinions on the conservative and progressive viewpoints. A few people have commented to me on other platforms that they enjoyed reading my posts, but told me I was far too kind to my won former camp of conservativism. They were right, of course: it can be very difficult to critique what you came from honestly, and to be totally blunt neither post was very fun to write. This is because, even though I did my level best to write against ideologies, and not people, the simple fact of the matter is that people I love, care for, and respect ascribe to points of view I think are inherently and inordinately destructive to them. I take no joy in pointing at things that have given people I love meaning and screaming "ACTUALLY IT'S KILLING YOU PLEASE STOP."
However, they are only the wings on the bird, halves of a whole. Yes, they are a whole. And the whole problem is secularism, which is practical and political atheism. I was going to write a post on the subject, detailing how popular atheism is actually a pretty recent thing, how it’s eerily linked to the loss of true astrology, and a lot of other esoteric nonsense. I would have felt very smart, people who know more about the subjects I would have mentioned would have rolled their eyes, and people who didn’t wouldn’t have really benefited. Instead, I’m going to try something else, something about time.
I’ve been going through a personal process of change lately. It’s been complicated and I may not write about it for a few years, but rest assured it’s happening. A lot of really intense healing work is being done, and rapidly. A logic in the story of my life is beginning to appear as I work through the difficulties of my existence. As I remember more and more a narrative emerges. And as I work through this stuff I’ve found myself becoming grateful for this very next moment.
And this one.
This one too.
Yup.
Just keep going!
It’s not this overwhelming “OOH LIFE IS HUNKY DORY HOORAY” or any smarmy bullshit. It’s a small, quiet realization the moment has been given to me. I didn’t have to have it. There is nothing stopping me from winking out the next second.
But I don’t. And neither did you.
The older I get the more I realize it’s a gift. Me. My existence. There’s no inherent right I have to any of it. I’m a small, fragile existence, who shouldn’t have any right to decide anything. But I can. Against all odds and decent guesses, I am alive. Husband. Father. Somehow, despite every bit of exertion in the universe, I chose those things. Somehow I was conscious a better choice existed and gave everything I didn’t think I had to make those choices. It was harder than I could ever tell you, to continue making that choice, over and over and over. Decisions are not one-time events, but a resolution made over time, repeatedly, and they have to be made in faith that that resolution is going to be worthwhile.
Faith.
As in, a deep and constant trust, even without sufficient evidence. Sorry, but the past is not sufficient evidence for moving forward, not ever.
Over-reliance upon the past is pathologically bad for you. All the ancient spiritualities say it. I've spent the last seven years in therapy working through just how true that statement is, so obviously modern psychology agrees with this timeless statement. Learning to stay in the present, taking the past in advisement while not being enslaved to it and heading into the unknown of the future... that's a type of death.
If you are psychologically healthy you are constantly facing the death of the past and the present. I am learning to do that in faith that the next moment will not only come, but it is a deliberate gift, and that I should be grateful for it. But here's the thing: you can't thank a machine for doing its job because to be thankful requires someone on the distant end to say "You're welcome". This is such an obvious point that it's very easy to overlook and thus argue the point, but I do not know of a single person alive capable of maintaining a grateful mindset without relationship, true and genuine. Theism at that point isn't a nice option, but a requirement. If you say "thank you" into the universe and you feel "you're welcome" back, by definition that means there's something on the other end saying it back. Now, the more I lean into this way of being thankful, the more I feel myself detaching from whether or not the success or failure of my actions matters. I am not in control of the next moment. The only thing I am in control of is how I respond. To have the next moment at all is such an earth-shattering gift that I frankly don't have time to go "Oh fuck that didn't work! Why????" It's a waste of time, as I will never get that answer, or if I do it will either be on an impractical timeline or just... I mean has anyone ever gotten an answer to that question and found it helpful?? I sure haven't met anyone who could claim that.
Now I am very aware that there's another way to face the death of your present moment as it becomes the past, the one of endurance. You face the death of the present as someone on the wall of a city facing a siege, awaiting the end. Change has come, and frankly it's a really messed up game of Russian Roulette as to whether or not it's something that'll take you out or not. Now, one can make the case that they can definitely believe in a God while believing that the next moment is actually Russian Roulette. But I'm not talking about what's in your head, I'm talking about what's in your nervous system.
I will say it again, coz someone is going to go "No I don't think that and I'm an atheist or I don't think the way you think I do!"
I didn't say you thought it.
It's not a thought.
It's not something that pops up in your head.
It's an expectation in perception. It is the lens you use to determine how to look at reality, which then dictates your thoughts.
Now, someone can tell me "But there isn't anything out there, or God is continuously after me and you can't fucking convince me otherwise, because saying there's something out there that's benevolent is an irrational fairytale." And sure, I can't convine you otherwise. My entire life, existence, is a testatement to otherwise, but sure, I can't actually convince you.
But I can say, emphatically, that whether or not it's a childish fairytale is irrelevant: being continuously thankful (which requires two subjects) is a lot more healthy than constantly bracing yourself for the next impact. No, I'm not claiming that one is constantly anxiously awaiting the future. It is possible to harden yourself against the moment of death, to make your expectation of enduring. I mean, that's stoicism. You can go do that. It takes years and years and years, and there's some really good guidance on how to do that. But it's you against the universe, which is much much bigger than you.
I shouldn't have to say which one has less mental and physiological overhead; it takes less muscles to smile than frown.
Why am I bringing this up? Because secularism is based off this automatic response. Conservativsm looks to the past to endure the present moment of death, knowing that it's all been done before and hoping to find a solution to endure the new now. Progressivism looks beyond the next moment, in an absurd hope that somehow, some way, someone will figure out something new. And, even though my disgust for progressivism's... hope isn't the right word, but that's the word they'd use, even though it isn't.. is obvious and I have a lot of vitriol for such adolescent silliness, the simple fact of the matter is that conservatism is trying to deal with the same existential problem. The issue is that this attitude has some really serious and obvious side effects, leading to... well... do you remember any mention of death camps killing tens of millions of people before the 20th century, when the Enlightenment really came to roost?
You don't either?
Huh.
Odd.
I sure don't.
Now, some smartass will attempt to state that the colonialism of Western Europe counts, despite the glaringly obvious lack of it before the Enlightenment era. And honestly, all it takes is a quick survey of any of the Enlightenment-era writers to see they are specifically trying to undo spiritual experience as the primary aspect of life and to put the mind first, even going so far as to deny the nous, not to mention the silly notion that secular humanity would be gentler than religious humanity...
Yeah. Sure. That aged well.
The problem, the real problem, is that one cannot endure the present moment without becoming more hardened and destructive than we already are. Hardening may help you get through the next moment, but it doesn't have a great historical track record, best I can ascertain.
Oh, wait, you wanted something that didn't result in humans being massive assholes? You wanted all war to be gone and for people to miraculously start getting along? You wanted to maintain the nice cuddly myth that things were worse in the past than they are now, and that all ideas before just led to bigotry, oppression, and superstition?
You are aware that superstitious occult practices skyrocketed during the Enlightenment, right?
Now who's talking unrealistic fairy tales?
You can either be thankful for the opportunity to be in the next moment, or harden yourself because you don't know what's coming.
All you can really do is pick one. And embrace that your choice brings consequences, and that by making the choice you choose the consequences, good and bad.
The last week I wrote a piece I found pretty damn cathartic post about my issues with American conservatism, and really the right in general. The need for moral purity in heroes is a moral sickness in American conservativism that has destroyed many a would-be Christian, who now (for the most part) cannot separate the two out, even though American Conservatism looks a lot more like actual Satanism than anything else; the light that sickens, as opposed to healing and correcting.
On the one hand, I'm not shocked at the existence of the woke; one had only to look at the world as it was for even two seconds to see a generation of this bullshit coming.
On the other hand... c'mon folks, this is just Soviet-style Marxism without the moral conviction to kill 50 or 60 million people.
Now, more than a few of those who follow this ideology will immediately tell me that "woke" doesn't exist. The attempt to retcon recent history is expected (and we'll get to why below), but inaccurage: being woke isn't just being compassionate and wanting to stand up for the little guy, nor is it even really caring about the downtrodden among you, or wanting to speak truth to power (especially this one, wokeism actually encourages moral cowardice), but is specifically an engine to strip the humanity and compassion straight out of your soul and make you an honest-to-God monster with a clown's smile attached. American conservativism perverts, Wokeism destroys and salts the earth. And yes, it is a real ideology, it is particular, it is not American liberalism, it is distinct and particular.
There are people who think they sympathize with this ideology, who are not woke, who instead just want people cared for. They deny that the ideology itself is so toxic that spilling its blood would be a dangerous act like in Pacific Rim, saying they want to side with the people who actually want folks cared for. The problem is rooted in the fundamental humanity of the person, and wanting to empathize with the people who are hurt, wanting to affirm the righteous anger they're hoping is actually going on.
It's not righteous anger.
It's just rage.
I'm sorry.
Now, I've spent a few years trying to just observe what Wokeism entails. A lot of it didn't make sense for years, not until I started reading The Gulag Archipelago. And then it clicked. And now I'm writing this.
1. The most important thing is unfettered individual choice towards the (frequently immediately) pleasant. The thing, at the end of the day, that I have repeatedly seen any SJW fall back on is "what's the thing that is beneficial for me"? There isn't anything wrong with being concerned about yourself, of course, but that's not the way it's meant, but as a "No one else is concerned about my good, not really, and therefore whatever I perceive is for my own good, I will do, even if all else indicates it to be the wrong course of action."
The problem is that this way of thinking totally destroys your ability to have any meaningful relationships at all, and actually poisons you against the concept entirely. Hell, you can't even genuinely love at all with such thinking, because frequently you will find yourself in situations where the only way through with a person is to give without getting anything back at all, to lean out and get hurt because that is what's best for the other person.
Since pain is inherently evil, there is no world where you can use pain to your own (or someone else's) good. And since, in literally all previous modes of thought, pain is a necessary building block for growth, there comes into existence a divide so sharp and deep that there is literally no rapproachment possible. So long as this one damnable point is in one's soul one is Woke, and nothing else on this list can be discussed until this is dismantled.
2. All immediate hierarchy is inherently repressive. So what do I mean by this? I'm saying wokeness doesn't actually care about hierarchy they don't have to really look at. Biological ties are something right in there your face, something that binds people in a way that constrains choices, brings about inordinate amounts of pain, requires a level of discernment and wisdom where payoff may be years, even decades in the future. The hierarchy created by someone legitimately being stronger and wiser than you in your immediate vicinity creates similar issues. You can't run from this kinda thing, not really.
For literally any other ideology in the world this type of hierarchy is made into a feature, not a bug. The world is hard enough as it is, and if someone with more power and wisdom is actually working towards your good, save yourself some energy and lean into it willya. Local ties and power are inevitable. You can't avoid them
But for the Woke this is oppressive, because choice towards the pleasant is constricted.
And so therefore the war must be waged. Against our basic biological, psychological, and spiritual essenences. Forever.
God, it sounds exhausting to type it.
Us Christians call that nonsense Hell.
3. All societal issues are ONLY abstract constructs. Because the only thing that matters is what's immediately pleasant, anything to do with a group of people is simply immaterial. The need to procreate for both biological and psychological necessity becomes a squashing of individual potential, a threat against the very soul of a person. The idea that some hierarchy is inherently good becomes only a tool for the oppressor, because sacrifice for a whole is a completely alien thought.
4. All individual desires that aren't obviously harmful are good. And now we start to get into the real meat and potatoes, the parts where otherwise calm and reasonable and well-meaning people start going "But why not?" This question, while it's well-meaning, and while I'm extremely empathetic to the problem of pain... goes wrong.
Because society is a real thing. It is driven by very real needs, the primary one of which is procreation. If there isn't a constant influx of babies into whatever system you're living in, it collapses in on itself. This is as obvious as picking up a history book and taking five minutes with it. And it is distressingly fragile. We're at a point in history where that incredibly obvious fact is obscured, but that does not change that it is the number one rule of society: more babies are good. Less babies are bad.
And that's before we get into the unavoidable fact that somebody has to clean the toilets. Somebody has to manage the raw infrastructure necessary to help us not wallow in filth and war. There is no "living your best life" if the sewage lines aren't working, folks. And that means somebody is biting the bullet and doing something really unpleasant. And there is no getting away from that.
And anything that is not actively helping that incredibly fragile thing to exist is actually a drain upon society. There's a reason why monasteries became the center of economies in the Middle Ages: folks not interested in making babies essentially banded together and found a way to contribute anyways, because they understood that all their energy needed to be focused on something other than sex, which really only works in the long run if babies are involved, somehow.
5. An human is an individual that can give me a pat on the back for being a "good person" (aka babies are not humans, the people who throw themselves off factories in China so I can have my phone are not humans)
And this is the one that really begins to get my goat. See, most Woke folks are very quick to scream about the injustices of the world.... on their iPhones. Y'know, the iPhones whose factories have nets around them, so that the workers don't jump off and kill themselves. And abortion is the ultimate mockery of their idea that people shouldn't be oppressed.
Whenever you can tell me why something with its own specific DNA strand should die because "you should be living your best life" with a straight face, that doesn't involve the idiotic "because it's not a person", let me know. The ethical conversation around that hasn't been at that primae faciae stupidity for a long time, and instead is "Yes, it's human, but so what?"
Why must something die for what you think of as your best life?
Or jump off a building so that way you can just amuse yourself on your iPhone?
These are not questions that are asked. I know they're not, I know they're actively avoided, because if I really put the screws to any Woke person they simply don't have an answer. And then they deep-six it as quickly as possible. Genocide and mass slavery are fine, so long as I get mine and don't see the bodies in the garbage cans or on the pavement.
If you disagree, prove me wrong! Oh wait, that takes pain and changing your life, struggling with inconvenience, and finding peace within that inconvience, and letting that peace spread to others, who then have the option to join in. Something that is very difficult to justify doing because of the previous points.
But hey, look, Christians are being homophobes again! That's easy, you can just screech on social media about how the world is a cruel place. All the while the blood congeals in the garbage can or on the pavement. But don't worry! You got a nice little dopamine kick from the phone. Relax into it. It'll be fine.
Everything is fine.
It's fine! Go back to sleep.
6. Humans are ONLY products of their enviroment.
This is a weird one, but it is what I've observed. And, really, it doesn't take too long to figure out. See, I have not met a single leftist who isn't aware, on some level, that the above is horrific. There's gaps in the ideology that lead to simply horrifying results. In order to hold to the point one, the cardinal point, you have to accept points 2-5. Have to. At some point, however, the human mind has to justify why those five points are acceptable. And that's fine: all ideologies have coping mechanisms in them. There has to be, because no plan survives contact with the enemy, nevermind the world.
But the leftist cope is... horrible.
Because all there is left is to admit that all you are is a consumer of corporate swill. To admit that all you can do is be a part of a series of force-fed drips. You can rage all you like, but there's not a single leftist I've met and actually talked to, on a serious level ,that actually thinks they're making a difference in the world. Not really. The only way to hold the thoughts in their heads is to admit the dirty secret that there is no leftist that is not totally dependent upon corporations for the news, the tech, the food, hell even babies. Because families are nuked, because any and all local hierarchy has been removed, all there is left are faceless corporations who merely have to say the words back at them while they rob, rape, and kill others.
Materially Wokies are the ultimate corporate shills. Philosophically they're against what feeds them.
Is it any wonder that there's been sudden explosions of depression and anxiety in the young?
7. Because society is not real, any attempt to see any nuance in the above points is treason to your fellow individual humans. There is no right, no wrong, just what's useful and expedient, and therefore questioning and nuance cannot be tolerated, nevermind disagreement.
I wrote one hell of a baity title, didn't I? But I really did mean it. The problem is that, at the end of the day, there is so much tension, with no release, no way out, of this point of view that any questionning of it, any genuine questionning, will create an incredibly volatile mix of frustration and hopelesness. I haven't met one single leftist who can hold all these thoughts in their head without going completely apeshit from time to time.
I don't say that as a flex.
I think it's horrifying.
I don't want people to go through that. Ever.
So yes, questioning any of the previous six points is going to be anathema. The tension between them is so tight that literally nobody can hold it without the rest of the world shutting up and going along with it. Nuance is a luxury for those who aren't under continuous pressure. And nothing about this ideology allows one to be under anything other than continuous pressure. And so, yes, if someone gets in the way, right or wrong be damned, they must be silenced by shame, rage, threats, whatever it takes just please shut up so that there's a possibility for a moment of peace.
But that never comes. It can't. You can't have peace by denying community and hating the world, because you are an extension of it. There's so many clearly and obviously and manifestly wrong things in this ideology, after just briefly picking up any primary source of history, nevermind theology or philosophy or whatevergets in the way right now, that really any action to quiet the noise down is acceptable. Like all humans, leftists hate chaos on a genetic level. And they will have order, or at the very least they will have silence as they seethe at problems literally every ideology before them has figured out cannot be solved.
I've been sorta sitting outside the culture war thing for awhile now, watching it in a rather clinical way, taking notes, making snide comments, and usually finding the whole matter more and more ridiculous. At this point I don't find myself comfortable with any of the sides, and the alienation only runs deeper and deeper the older I get. We will get to the leftists and their fundamental mistakes, but I'm going to pick on my former camp first; call it pride of place, conservatives.
Conservatives really don't understand heroes.
See, when I was growing up I read a lot as a child. I know that makes me stand out amongst all the bloggers and all that, but it's true. One of the things that I found as a child was that none of my ostensibly "conserving the culture" superiors seemed to be doing was actually conserving what made Christianity, or the West in general, special. They talked about conserving Christian values, preserving good families, keeping it in your pants until married or you'd go to Hell (boy someday I'm going to have a rant about that one), and generally being some milqetoast goody-two-shoes that would carry on their idea of Western civilization.
And everytime they said this I scratched my head, because none of the stories they were claiming to be defending were like that, at all.
Yeah, I know who I put up in the picture up top. I know some folks clicked on this because I laid the bait. But you're going to have to wait.
We're going to have to start with Samuel the Prophet.
I read most of the Old Testament from nine (when I actually started reading) to thirteen. Since then I've lapped it a few times. There are few things more important to me than reading the Old Testament, because it's here you find the most honest take on human nature you'll ever find. I get the New Testament is nice with all the cuddly "look Jesus is here and healing people" stuff, but honestly it doesn't really mean much without seeing people for what they really are. If you are not rooted in the Old Testament Christ isn't the fearsome conqueror of sin and death, but just some sweet nice dude who might be able to claim to be God because He was so fluffy. God stared men's nature down until it blinked, and it cost Him His life.
Samuel's story was the moment that started a watershed for me, that has lasted until this present day. Most of us know Samuel as the prophet who was told to say to God "Speak Lord, your servant is listening" when he heard someone calling for him at night. At nine I heard someone trying to teach a CCD class that the lesson of Samuel was that it was so very important to listen for the voice of God. Listen, and God will talk to you!
I was pissed.
I went up to the teacher afterwards and asked why she didn't tell the rest of the freaking story.
For those who don't know: Eli, Sameul's foster-father, was one of the priests at Shiloh. In those days the priesthood was an unabashedly family business. If you were a priest it was because your father was a priest, and you were going to go marry some other priest's daughter and have as many kids as you could so that way the priesthood could go on. So Eli's sons were priests. And they were not good people. Eli's sons stole from the sacrifices, very deliberately making sure God did not get His due. Connected (as in, God viewed them as two halves of the same sin) to this, Eli's sons were also sleeping with the temple virgins. Now, us Catholics and Orthodox teach that such virgins were younger; Mary the Theotokos was being sent away from the Temple at twelve. Now, I don't know if that's historically accurate, given we don't know much about temple virgins, but um.... twelve is a legit number.
So's ten.
I mean, technically so could five.
Sick yet? If not, we at least know where you stand on the priest/bishop sex scandals.
If you have information to the contrary I'd love to hear it (yes, there were temple virgins, they were a thing, so no, nothing on how they didn't "akshually" exist), but honestly the essence is that Eli's sons were either pedophiles and/or taking advantage of women who had nowhere else to go, and thus how much could they really say no? So God's message to Samuel? Y'know, the one that everyone so sweetly says "Listen to God", what did poor Samuel hear? To tell Eli, that foster-father of his, the one who told him to listen to God in the first place, that the entirety of his family was to die because he hadn't stopped his sons from either outright child rape or taking advantage of those who couldn't really resist them, and stealing from sacrifices, even though all priests got a share of all sacrifices. Eli had allowed his sons to become such monsters that God swore to Samuel that none of their descendants would live, and the books of Samuel actually keep track of this promise, coz it takes awhile to unfold, but when it does the book actualy says "That was the last descendant of Eli". And God told Samuel to say this to the man who had adopted him and raised him as one of his own.
Yes, listen to God.
It might scare the shit out of you though.
Samuel didn't want to say anything, of course, and actually had resolved to disobey God, because as it turns out telling your foster-father that his entire family had a deathmark on them for being child rapists is a bit much for a child. But Eli knew something was up, and forced Samuel to tell him the truth.
That's Samuel's origin story as a prophet.
Gnarly shit, ain't it?
Samuel went on to anoint two kings, Saul and David, and judged Israel until the kings were set up... after failing to stop the Israelites from installing said kings. He also had sons who were of great embarrassment to him, although it's not said in the Bible how Samuel dealt with them, only that he wasn't the best dad around. Every moment of Samuel's recorded life was filled with failure and regret. He couldn't stop Israel from wanting a king, something that he stomped and screamed and outright refused to do, until God specifically told him to shut up and do it anyways. Samuel couldn't stop the first king, Saul, from letting the power get to his head, and grieved over Saul, a man who formerly had a genuinely good heart, for years. He wasn't a good dad, and his own sons turned out to be an embarrassment, even if they weren't child rapists like Eli's. Samuel was not a terribly exceptional person in the way conservatives understand it. It's not that Samuel was some sexual deviant, it's that his story is one of constant hope amidst complete and utter existential failure. What made Samuel special wasn't that he succeeded, or even if he was a particularly special person... he just kept trying as it all fell apart. And that one thing is what he sorta got right.
And that's easily one of the squeakiest cleanest of the OT stories.
David is much worse. The instant the defender of the poor and the downtrodden became king he became a murderer, adulterer, and allowed incestual rape to rip his family, and thus his country, apart. The courageous fighter for the common man became a weak and inept ruler. He also allowed a plague to strike his own country, knowing that his actions would lead to many of his people dying. And God calls David one of the best men to ever live. Which means if you got the job of monarch of Israel you'd do a considerably worse job than David.
Yes, you.
Don't get me started on the rest of them, particularly Moses, who had a habit of acting rashly that actually got him locked out of the Promised Land. Humans act out of character, and even when they do act in character it's usually a bad thing to do.
And that's just the Bible, folks.
You look at actual mythology and it gets much worse. Humans are, to a one, the playthings of the gods, who treat them like pets. Humans are at the mercy of the world, and their moral strength doesn't come from rising up and standing up for themselves, but in figuring out which god likes them and doing whatever the fuck that god tells them to do, no matter what it is. Odysseus, the man who loved his wife Penelope so much that he fought like hell to get back home to her over the course of twenty years, didn't even flinch when Calypso demanded him into her bed and body. A god demanded. He got up in the bed and did what had to be done. Hell, we know there's a third act to the trilogy of the Iliad and Odyssey, where his son by that fateful night accidentally kills him on the road!
Yup, that's how Odysseus, the most cunning man alive, slayer of men, and the favorite of Athena, dies.
In a tragic highway manslaughter accident.
It gets worse once you actually start looking at Chrtistian medieval stories, like La Morte D'Arthur or the Medieval Romances. People are constantly fucking in those stories, married or not. Arthur alone sleeps with at least three women, one of them his own sister, upon becoming king. Gawain, the best knight of the Round Table, second only to Galahad (and does he even truly count???), is the one who destroys Camelot because of his inability to forgive Lancelot. And these are the good guys! These are the ones who manage to actually get something done that's worthwhile. They're the ones who face down the entropy of the world and actually try not to blink.
They try. And fail, but what makes a man good in classical and Christian thought isn't whether or not they succeed, for no man can, but their willingness to face their interior and exterior entropy and try to do the best they can with what they have, even knowing they'll fail. Because it's not about results, it's about what they can do right now. And yes, some of these heroes blink and do actually give up in total despair, and some of them stay that way, and some of them manage to come back. It depends. The idea of a hero never giving up is so inaccurate to the lore that it's actually hilarious.
Y'know what actually makes someone a hero? Get a pen and paper, coz here it is: they're the scapegoats of their people. Their life and suffering and joys (but usually their suffering) make majorly impacts society.
That's it.
Whatever they're going through personally, it hits their society at large. Call it chance, call it fate, call it being a half-god or whatever, whatever their own personal struggles and cares, they have a large societal impact.
Some of these heroes will notice and care that their actions have effects upon those around them... and a lot of them won't. This whole notion of the "self-sacrificing hero" is most certainly not endemic to the type. Hell, even a momentary look into Tolkien's own legendarium reveals that heroes can be literally anybody, with any kind of mental makeup. In fact, many heroes are actively against such ideals like self-sacrifice... and their fate isn't that much worse than the nicer heroes, if we're being honest. Turin and Feanor don't exactly have a different ending than Hurin (AURE ENTELUVA! DAY SHALL COME AGAIN!!!!) and The Trees. What is the point of hacking through 80 or so orcs with an axe screaming "DAY SHALL COME AGAIN!! AURE ENTELUVA!!!!" when you're forced by LOTR Satan to watch your children and grandchild die after an incestuous marriage and then having to purposefully withold that truth from your wife so she can die in peace?
Don't pretend you know, you fucking liar. There is a reason why theodicy exists: if the fate of a good man looks so similar to that of a bad one who gives a shit about being good? And to pretend this is not a question that is frequently asked by heroes is to ignore the Psalms and the Wisdom literature, where that question has entire books dedicated to it.
Now we get to the bait I laid at the front of the article.
Do you see the core issue I have with those who dislike Luke in TLJ? Luke's central issue, as detailed quite thoroughly in the classic The Empire Strikes Back, is his fear that his desire to do good will make him into Vader, a fear given major credence by the revelation at the end of the movie. Luke wants to do good, but is afraid that his instincts will trip him up. No, you don't get to grow beyond problems this elemental, sorry. Luke's utter recklessness in the pursuit of what he thinks is good is his defining trait, and it is both his strength and his weakness, like for anybody else. Those who say "he should have grown beyond being so rash" misunderstand how humanity works so fundamentally it's funny: Luke's vritue is also his flaw. You can't get the virtue without the vice to trip you up.
And yes, losing 13 of your foster children to your core motivation as a human being may break you and make you into a bitter asshole. That may be how humans work.
A lot of emotion is spent by leftists on how conservatives view people as cogs in a machine, and they're not entirely... wrong. If your supposed heroes are just there to serve the whole, as opposed to the individual affecting the whole at large (and all of them being some form of cautionary tale), then yes, that's essentially just cogs in the machine. As much as I dislike leftist ideology, even I have to admit when they're right they're right. I have always found the conservative faux-stoicism to be disingenuous, when elves in Tolkien's literature can literally cry themselves to death, or Ajax can be driven mad by the gods and commit suicide, or Achilles avenges his friend by committing actual war crimes...
Now, granted, some will read the above and go "Yeah, but what about Christian stories? Stories about good guys fighting bad guys and being good and my goodness isn't all the virtue so nice?
Look, at some point enough is enough. The absurdity is obvious, one way or another.
Go read even a page of La Morte D'Arthur to see what an actual Christian story and heroes look like. Where people are incredibly flawed creatures, who can't seem to hack it no matter what they try, where even if they win they lose, just like you and me, and at the end have to stare the death of all they know and love right in the face, knowing they had a hand in it... but still begging for a chance to do the right thing, even if it's just at the end.. if they're lucky.
It actually looks an awful lot like this, and all the moments leading up to it, green milk especially:
Gnarly shit, ain't it?
Christianity ain't for the weak.
But if you don't have the stomach for real Christianity, I suggest sticking with conservatism.
