 Jack7 |
Blog
View Jack7's BlogRecent Entries
Latest Blog Entry
Posted in
Tome and Tomb
Thread Link
ESSAYS ON GAME DESIGN
Essay Twelve: The Blood of Uncanny Monsters*
Synopsis: The Blood of Monsters is far more than the blood of simple animals, or the nerveless sap of tree limbs. The blood of the monster is a deep, potent, ancient, terrible thing, capable of warping the world, and either wondrously enabling, or viciously crippling and killing, the Hero. Beware the blood of the monster, and do not easily discard the tremendous potential it encloses within itself.
Essay: In myth it is often the case that the blood, tissues, organs, or parts of a monster have unique, if not astounding properties of their own, quite apart from those possessed by the whole or intact, living creature itself.
Yet far too often these additional (or inherent really) “monstrous characteristics” are overlooked (sometimes entirely) in fantasy, mythological, and magical gaming. Monsters are slain, their blood washes over the characters to no real effect, and the monstrous bodies or corpses thereafter simply discarded, as if they were the inconvenient, tiresome, or useless detritus of the true business of adventuring. No real consequences ensue from, or for, the slaying of monsters, from being in close proximity to them when they are killed, or from being washed and covered in the gore and curses and hatred and pollution and ferocity of their ultimate demise. The death of monsters becomes a mere mathematical and mechanical expression of character survival beyond beastly endurance, rather than a fascinating cosmic struggle between weird and uncanny physical, supernatural, and magical forces and the life-force of men. And the killing of monsters likewise has either no additional benefit, nor any additional consequence, other than the taking of their treasure or the removal of their objection to whatever goal(s) the hero currently or ultimately pursues. In short the monster is far less a real monster, far less a real threat, far less weird and far less dangerous, than if hunting and killing monsters implied nothing more mysterious, fantastic, and potentially lethal than a mere exercise in hit point reduction to “less than zero.” As a matter of fact killing most monsters in many role play games implies a level of danger and consequence that is exactly that, less than zero. Once slain or nearly slain a monster is then no more of a real threat than the paper-tiger number stats used to summarize his imaginary existence. But is this really a proper expression of the idea of monstrousness? In the imagination? In myth? Or even in-game?
Certainly not so in myth, where the blood of monsters and weird beings often has dramatic (and even sometimes life-long) effects upon the heroes who encounter such marvels, perhaps even upon nearby observers, other monsters, or the very landscape itself. In this respect I think myth is often far more engaging, richer in content and implication, tremendously more interesting, and far more versatile than typical fantasy (or other genres of) role play gaming. Monsters actually mean things in myth. They are not simply the enemy soldier du jour, dressed in some fantastic garb of hoary yet impotent flesh or rotting, undead sheets of nothingness. They are not merely “tactical challenges” as would be the case as if an infantry battalion in a wargame were suddenly compressed into a single fearsome body and sent forth to fight tooth and claw against armed adventurers. Instead monsters are “danger incarnate,” they are a warping of the woof of existence, their being alters and changes things around them, they bend reality, sicken or extend it, they reshape nature (physical, mental, and spiritual) into a monstrosity of devastating potential. In myth (from which spring the sources of the idea and shapes and names and forms of monsters in role play games) monsters are dangerous, deadly, uncanny, they distort the nature of the things they encounter, and they do all of this both within and well-beyond the very narrow confines of combat. It seems to me then that the monster should be returned to his more natural (or unnatural, depending upon your point of view) state(s) of being, a being that exudes, reflects and engenders corruption, weirdness, lethality, and real, unremitting and unrepentant peril. Both in life, and in death. *
In short I am advocating the idea that even the blood, tissues, and corpses of monsters might very well, and even in some cases definitely should, have effects both upon the characters encountering them, and upon the entire atmosphere and environment of the role-play milieu. That monsters become far more than mere combat automatons, far more than just tactical challenges, far more than an enemy in a rubber mask and a plastic suit of armor who can execute feats of multiple backflips or shoot acid from a naphtha gland in his mouth.
Monsters are not simply monsters because they look weird, because men find them to be distasteful, evil, ugly, frightening, gigantic, or unique adversaries. Monsters are also monsters because of their peculiarly monstrous qualities, which extend far beyond motive and appearance and down to the very marrow of their bones, as well as throughout the blood or ichor that washes unseen through their twisted veins. And that when this blood (and/or body) becomes exposed to the world at large, when it stains the flesh of the hero, and when the bones of monsters litter the landscape, other things occur of definite and noticeable effect. Things that are sometimes wondrous, things that are sometimes terrible, occasionally even more horrifying in implication or outcome than the threat of the original monster itself. (I use the term monster in this respect in a very generalized sense. Of course the same “monstrous properties” might be said to exist for supernatural beings and alien creatures, in horror/supernatural/adventure/superhero, and sci-fi gaming. And I would hardly argue against the same types of monstrous properties I am advocating for mythological and fantasy based monsters is such cases. Rather I would just expect that given the nature of the creature in question that such properties would manifest differently, but also quite obviously, in those other types of circumstances.)
With that in mind I am going to suggest some effects that will result from the injury, death, or shedding of the blood of uncanny monsters. Some of these effects will be light, some dramatic, some wondrous, and some terrible. Feel free to add your own ideas. This is an Interactive Essay on the notion of “Monstrosity.”
The Corpus Dejecti: First of all, let me speak about the remains or parts of a monster’s body (whether or not the creature itself has survived as a result of loss of these assets). The remains or parts of a monster are valuable because of the unique properties they bestow both upon the monster itself, and anyone else either fortunate enough, or unfortunate enough, to gain control of or contact such remains. To that end let me detail just some of the possible parts of a monster’s body that could be invaluable, a treasure in itself, or horrifically disastrous, an unshakeable and lifelong curse.
The Blood
The Brains
The Eye or eyes
The Third Eye or the Secret or Invisible Eye
The Tongue
The Horn or horns
The Scales
The Claws or nails
The Heart
The Liver
The Lung
The Glands
The Tears
The Ichor
The Tail
The Foot
The Hand
The Paw
The Snout
The Jaw
The Ear
The Tendril or Tentacle
The Wings or feathers
The Fin
The Bile
The Stolen Part
The Flesh
The Muscles
The Excretions
The prized and blood or ichor stained possessions of a monster
Each of these parts might render some beneficial aid to the possessor, or might render some monstrous curse. In the case of especially powerful or weird monsters, it might very well render both, and/or multiple effects.
In addition such tissues or remains can be prepared, modified, presented, and intentionally used (with the right knowledge) for other employments, such as:
Creating inks and parchments
Creating Book materials
Creating unique potions
Creating unique magical items
Creating technologies, machines, artifacts, and devices
Creating unique traps and tricks
Creating illusions
Creating unique spells and powers
Disrupting other things, objects, places, or events
Dispelling magics
Enhancing or disrupting miracles
Augmenting or disrupting mental or psychological powers
Augmenting or disrupting physical capabilities
Augmenting or disrupting spiritual capabilities
Invention, Design, and Craft
Summoning or turning away other monsters
Summoning or turning away the undead
Summoning or turning away demons and devils
Foreseeing possible futures
Solving puzzles
Overcoming obstacles
Developing new scripts, ciphers, and codes
Gaining control over, or freeing other creatures
Gaining control over, or freeing spirits
Communicating secretly and/or over a distance
Creating Glammors
Creating powerful blessings or curses
Making objects tough or nearly indestructible
Destroying other objects
Extending or shortening life
Curing or causing disease
Creating or controlling intense emotional states
Charming others
Exciting Love, or Hate
Allowing flight
Healing or preserving health
The Effects – I will divide effects into obviously beneficial and obviously malignant effects. Some effects may seem to fall into both categories. Some effects can be viewed as blessings, others as curses. These effects can occur on the level of the individual, or on the cosmic level (effecting the world at large), or both, when the blood, tissues, and other remains or parts of a monster become exposed to a hero or the world through direct contact. These effects are not intentionally controllable but occur as a result of the unique properties of the monsters interacting with the unique nature of the individual or circumstance to which the blood or remains of the monster are exposed. These effects can also be acute, immediate, temporary, chronic, delayed, or life-long and permanent (unless somehow brought under control or removed).
Beneficial Effects:
Magical powers increase
Sensory Capabilities improve
One can read the thoughts of others
One can know the hearts of others
New capabilities are gained
One becomes stronger
One becomes wiser
One becomes more intelligent
One becomes more charismatic
One becomes more resilient
One becomes faster or more dexterous
One’s flesh becomes invulnerable to certain things
One rarely tires or rarely needs to sleep
One needs little food
One needs little water
One becomes powerfully intuitive
One becomes prophetic
One becomes clever and ingenious
One can speak with monsters
Malignant Effects:
Magical powers decrease
Sensory capabilities become clouded, restricted, or confused
One’s own thoughts become scattered, confused, and open to suggestion
One becomes unable to understand the motives of others
Old capabilities are lost or diminish
One becomes weaker or feeble
One becomes more foolish, reckless, or unwise
One becomes denser, slow-witted, or more stupid
One becomes repugnant or repulsive to others
One becomes drained, lethargic, or inflexible
One becomes slow of body and reflex
One is easily injured or sickened
One exhausts easily and often, or is chronically anemic
One becomes uncontrollably gluttonous
One becomes a drunkard or an addict
One becomes uncontrollably arrogant and prideful
One becomes uncontrollably envious and covetous
One becomes uncontrollably lustful
One becomes uncontrollably angry, petty, and ill-temperate
One becomes uncontrollably greedy
One becomes uncontrollably despairing and cynical
One becomes uncontrollably slothful and lazy
One becomes uncontrollably bloodthirsty and vicious
One becomes easily duped and made fool of
One becomes blind
One becomes deaf
One becomes unable to smell
One becomes unable to taste
One becomes leprous
One becomes mute
One contracts a chronic and perhaps incurable disease or condition
Blessings:
Good fortune is enjoyed
Crops become plentiful
Good and pleasant weather
Enemies avoid invasion or warfare
Water supplies are clean and plentiful
The earth is enriched, plants and animals thrive
The natural environment becomes filled with beneficial magic
Wealth increases
New resources are discovered, old ones are easier to exploit
Miracles occur
The Gift of Tongues – other languages can be understood, or the language of other creatures can be understood
Powerful and beneficial creatures or allies rein habit the area
Trade prospers
Resistances to malignant forces develop
Curses:
Water becomes polluted, fouled, and poisoned
The air becomes poisonous and retched
Foul, dangerous, catastrophic, violently stormy weather
Natural disasters abound
Plagues become common
Droughts develop and wild fires break out
The earth becomes weak, polluted, unyielding and unproductive
The natural environment becomes resistant to beneficial magic or open to malignant magic or other influences
Wealth decreases and resources become depleted
Treasures corrupt or corrode
Misfortune multiplies or lingers
Confusion and misunderstandings of speech and language
Malignant serpents, insects, and other creatures spring from the ground
Warfare and Civil warfare erupt
Vulnerabilities to evil develop
The Death Curse of the Monster: Sometimes at or near the moment of their death particularly powerful, intelligent, and malignant monsters might curse an individual, a party of people, or even an entire region or nation with an especially effective and malicious curse. In such cases extreme and immediate counter-measures must be taken, sometimes even involving the undertaking of a complicated Quest, it order to nullify or reverse this curse. Otherwise, if the curse is not counteracted it may very well unfold as prophesied in a most destructive and devastating manner.
Conclusion: Make use of monsters, their blood, and their remains in a far more interesting, productive, potent, and imaginative way to reflect their real and inherent potential for creating both endless wonder, and appalling desolation.
* I use the term uncanny poetically. I do not mean to imply that a monster must be supernatural (in the gaming or mythological sense) for its blood to have weird or powerful effects.
ESSAYS ON GAME DESIGN
Essay Twelve: The Blood of Uncanny Monsters*
“The Blood of the monster is the doom of the unwary.”
“He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”
“Fantasy, abandoned by reason, produces impossible monsters; united with it, she is the mother of the arts and the origin of marvels.”
“History is not the story of heroes entirely. It is often the story of cruelty and injustice and shortsightedness. There are monsters, there is evil...”
“… I prefer the monsters of my fancy to what is positively trivial.”
“He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”
“Fantasy, abandoned by reason, produces impossible monsters; united with it, she is the mother of the arts and the origin of marvels.”
“History is not the story of heroes entirely. It is often the story of cruelty and injustice and shortsightedness. There are monsters, there is evil...”
“… I prefer the monsters of my fancy to what is positively trivial.”
Synopsis: The Blood of Monsters is far more than the blood of simple animals, or the nerveless sap of tree limbs. The blood of the monster is a deep, potent, ancient, terrible thing, capable of warping the world, and either wondrously enabling, or viciously crippling and killing, the Hero. Beware the blood of the monster, and do not easily discard the tremendous potential it encloses within itself.
[Image]
Essay: In myth it is often the case that the blood, tissues, organs, or parts of a monster have unique, if not astounding properties of their own, quite apart from those possessed by the whole or intact, living creature itself.
Yet far too often these additional (or inherent really) “monstrous characteristics” are overlooked (sometimes entirely) in fantasy, mythological, and magical gaming. Monsters are slain, their blood washes over the characters to no real effect, and the monstrous bodies or corpses thereafter simply discarded, as if they were the inconvenient, tiresome, or useless detritus of the true business of adventuring. No real consequences ensue from, or for, the slaying of monsters, from being in close proximity to them when they are killed, or from being washed and covered in the gore and curses and hatred and pollution and ferocity of their ultimate demise. The death of monsters becomes a mere mathematical and mechanical expression of character survival beyond beastly endurance, rather than a fascinating cosmic struggle between weird and uncanny physical, supernatural, and magical forces and the life-force of men. And the killing of monsters likewise has either no additional benefit, nor any additional consequence, other than the taking of their treasure or the removal of their objection to whatever goal(s) the hero currently or ultimately pursues. In short the monster is far less a real monster, far less a real threat, far less weird and far less dangerous, than if hunting and killing monsters implied nothing more mysterious, fantastic, and potentially lethal than a mere exercise in hit point reduction to “less than zero.” As a matter of fact killing most monsters in many role play games implies a level of danger and consequence that is exactly that, less than zero. Once slain or nearly slain a monster is then no more of a real threat than the paper-tiger number stats used to summarize his imaginary existence. But is this really a proper expression of the idea of monstrousness? In the imagination? In myth? Or even in-game?
Certainly not so in myth, where the blood of monsters and weird beings often has dramatic (and even sometimes life-long) effects upon the heroes who encounter such marvels, perhaps even upon nearby observers, other monsters, or the very landscape itself. In this respect I think myth is often far more engaging, richer in content and implication, tremendously more interesting, and far more versatile than typical fantasy (or other genres of) role play gaming. Monsters actually mean things in myth. They are not simply the enemy soldier du jour, dressed in some fantastic garb of hoary yet impotent flesh or rotting, undead sheets of nothingness. They are not merely “tactical challenges” as would be the case as if an infantry battalion in a wargame were suddenly compressed into a single fearsome body and sent forth to fight tooth and claw against armed adventurers. Instead monsters are “danger incarnate,” they are a warping of the woof of existence, their being alters and changes things around them, they bend reality, sicken or extend it, they reshape nature (physical, mental, and spiritual) into a monstrosity of devastating potential. In myth (from which spring the sources of the idea and shapes and names and forms of monsters in role play games) monsters are dangerous, deadly, uncanny, they distort the nature of the things they encounter, and they do all of this both within and well-beyond the very narrow confines of combat. It seems to me then that the monster should be returned to his more natural (or unnatural, depending upon your point of view) state(s) of being, a being that exudes, reflects and engenders corruption, weirdness, lethality, and real, unremitting and unrepentant peril. Both in life, and in death. *
In short I am advocating the idea that even the blood, tissues, and corpses of monsters might very well, and even in some cases definitely should, have effects both upon the characters encountering them, and upon the entire atmosphere and environment of the role-play milieu. That monsters become far more than mere combat automatons, far more than just tactical challenges, far more than an enemy in a rubber mask and a plastic suit of armor who can execute feats of multiple backflips or shoot acid from a naphtha gland in his mouth.
[Image]
Monsters are not simply monsters because they look weird, because men find them to be distasteful, evil, ugly, frightening, gigantic, or unique adversaries. Monsters are also monsters because of their peculiarly monstrous qualities, which extend far beyond motive and appearance and down to the very marrow of their bones, as well as throughout the blood or ichor that washes unseen through their twisted veins. And that when this blood (and/or body) becomes exposed to the world at large, when it stains the flesh of the hero, and when the bones of monsters litter the landscape, other things occur of definite and noticeable effect. Things that are sometimes wondrous, things that are sometimes terrible, occasionally even more horrifying in implication or outcome than the threat of the original monster itself. (I use the term monster in this respect in a very generalized sense. Of course the same “monstrous properties” might be said to exist for supernatural beings and alien creatures, in horror/supernatural/adventure/superhero, and sci-fi gaming. And I would hardly argue against the same types of monstrous properties I am advocating for mythological and fantasy based monsters is such cases. Rather I would just expect that given the nature of the creature in question that such properties would manifest differently, but also quite obviously, in those other types of circumstances.)
With that in mind I am going to suggest some effects that will result from the injury, death, or shedding of the blood of uncanny monsters. Some of these effects will be light, some dramatic, some wondrous, and some terrible. Feel free to add your own ideas. This is an Interactive Essay on the notion of “Monstrosity.”
The Corpus Dejecti: First of all, let me speak about the remains or parts of a monster’s body (whether or not the creature itself has survived as a result of loss of these assets). The remains or parts of a monster are valuable because of the unique properties they bestow both upon the monster itself, and anyone else either fortunate enough, or unfortunate enough, to gain control of or contact such remains. To that end let me detail just some of the possible parts of a monster’s body that could be invaluable, a treasure in itself, or horrifically disastrous, an unshakeable and lifelong curse.
The Blood
The Brains
The Eye or eyes
The Third Eye or the Secret or Invisible Eye
The Tongue
The Horn or horns
The Scales
The Claws or nails
The Heart
The Liver
The Lung
The Glands
The Tears
The Ichor
The Tail
The Foot
The Hand
The Paw
The Snout
The Jaw
The Ear
The Tendril or Tentacle
The Wings or feathers
The Fin
The Bile
The Stolen Part
The Flesh
The Muscles
The Excretions
The prized and blood or ichor stained possessions of a monster
Each of these parts might render some beneficial aid to the possessor, or might render some monstrous curse. In the case of especially powerful or weird monsters, it might very well render both, and/or multiple effects.
In addition such tissues or remains can be prepared, modified, presented, and intentionally used (with the right knowledge) for other employments, such as:
Creating inks and parchments
Creating Book materials
Creating unique potions
Creating unique magical items
Creating technologies, machines, artifacts, and devices
Creating unique traps and tricks
Creating illusions
Creating unique spells and powers
Disrupting other things, objects, places, or events
Dispelling magics
Enhancing or disrupting miracles
Augmenting or disrupting mental or psychological powers
Augmenting or disrupting physical capabilities
Augmenting or disrupting spiritual capabilities
Invention, Design, and Craft
Summoning or turning away other monsters
Summoning or turning away the undead
Summoning or turning away demons and devils
Foreseeing possible futures
Solving puzzles
Overcoming obstacles
Developing new scripts, ciphers, and codes
Gaining control over, or freeing other creatures
Gaining control over, or freeing spirits
Communicating secretly and/or over a distance
Creating Glammors
Creating powerful blessings or curses
Making objects tough or nearly indestructible
Destroying other objects
Extending or shortening life
Curing or causing disease
Creating or controlling intense emotional states
Charming others
Exciting Love, or Hate
Allowing flight
Healing or preserving health
The Effects – I will divide effects into obviously beneficial and obviously malignant effects. Some effects may seem to fall into both categories. Some effects can be viewed as blessings, others as curses. These effects can occur on the level of the individual, or on the cosmic level (effecting the world at large), or both, when the blood, tissues, and other remains or parts of a monster become exposed to a hero or the world through direct contact. These effects are not intentionally controllable but occur as a result of the unique properties of the monsters interacting with the unique nature of the individual or circumstance to which the blood or remains of the monster are exposed. These effects can also be acute, immediate, temporary, chronic, delayed, or life-long and permanent (unless somehow brought under control or removed).
Beneficial Effects:
Magical powers increase
Sensory Capabilities improve
One can read the thoughts of others
One can know the hearts of others
New capabilities are gained
One becomes stronger
One becomes wiser
One becomes more intelligent
One becomes more charismatic
One becomes more resilient
One becomes faster or more dexterous
One’s flesh becomes invulnerable to certain things
One rarely tires or rarely needs to sleep
One needs little food
One needs little water
One becomes powerfully intuitive
One becomes prophetic
One becomes clever and ingenious
One can speak with monsters
Malignant Effects:
Magical powers decrease
Sensory capabilities become clouded, restricted, or confused
One’s own thoughts become scattered, confused, and open to suggestion
One becomes unable to understand the motives of others
Old capabilities are lost or diminish
One becomes weaker or feeble
One becomes more foolish, reckless, or unwise
One becomes denser, slow-witted, or more stupid
One becomes repugnant or repulsive to others
One becomes drained, lethargic, or inflexible
One becomes slow of body and reflex
One is easily injured or sickened
One exhausts easily and often, or is chronically anemic
One becomes uncontrollably gluttonous
One becomes a drunkard or an addict
One becomes uncontrollably arrogant and prideful
One becomes uncontrollably envious and covetous
One becomes uncontrollably lustful
One becomes uncontrollably angry, petty, and ill-temperate
One becomes uncontrollably greedy
One becomes uncontrollably despairing and cynical
One becomes uncontrollably slothful and lazy
One becomes uncontrollably bloodthirsty and vicious
One becomes easily duped and made fool of
One becomes blind
One becomes deaf
One becomes unable to smell
One becomes unable to taste
One becomes leprous
One becomes mute
One contracts a chronic and perhaps incurable disease or condition
Blessings:
Good fortune is enjoyed
Crops become plentiful
Good and pleasant weather
Enemies avoid invasion or warfare
Water supplies are clean and plentiful
The earth is enriched, plants and animals thrive
The natural environment becomes filled with beneficial magic
Wealth increases
New resources are discovered, old ones are easier to exploit
Miracles occur
The Gift of Tongues – other languages can be understood, or the language of other creatures can be understood
Powerful and beneficial creatures or allies rein habit the area
Trade prospers
Resistances to malignant forces develop
Curses:
Water becomes polluted, fouled, and poisoned
The air becomes poisonous and retched
Foul, dangerous, catastrophic, violently stormy weather
Natural disasters abound
Plagues become common
Droughts develop and wild fires break out
The earth becomes weak, polluted, unyielding and unproductive
The natural environment becomes resistant to beneficial magic or open to malignant magic or other influences
Wealth decreases and resources become depleted
Treasures corrupt or corrode
Misfortune multiplies or lingers
Confusion and misunderstandings of speech and language
Malignant serpents, insects, and other creatures spring from the ground
Warfare and Civil warfare erupt
Vulnerabilities to evil develop
The Death Curse of the Monster: Sometimes at or near the moment of their death particularly powerful, intelligent, and malignant monsters might curse an individual, a party of people, or even an entire region or nation with an especially effective and malicious curse. In such cases extreme and immediate counter-measures must be taken, sometimes even involving the undertaking of a complicated Quest, it order to nullify or reverse this curse. Otherwise, if the curse is not counteracted it may very well unfold as prophesied in a most destructive and devastating manner.
Conclusion: Make use of monsters, their blood, and their remains in a far more interesting, productive, potent, and imaginative way to reflect their real and inherent potential for creating both endless wonder, and appalling desolation.
* I use the term uncanny poetically. I do not mean to imply that a monster must be supernatural (in the gaming or mythological sense) for its blood to have weird or powerful effects.
Posted in
Tome and Tomb
D&D/Fantasy Adventure/Scenario: The Familiar Man –
Introduction: This adventure revolves around the creature known as the Homonculous. And is involved with events on our world, and on the world of Ghantik, described in this thread: the Worlds Apart.
Thread Link
A Group of Ilurgists (in this case Ghantikan sorcerers of the Ulbraen – fanatics dedicated to maintaining and expanding Elturgical power) have created a new type of creature. A thing they call the Parah, but which they also call the Homonculous, in parody and mockery of how it was created, and out of what materials.
The Homonculous was designed to exist in our world, on Terra, and the Ulbraen, working with their even more dangerous underworld partners in Kitharia decide to send the first of their homonculors to Earth in order to test it and to use it against human beings and human societies.
The Homonculous is sent to our world in a state of suspended animation, disguised as a small statue. To some men it appears beautiful and of exquisite workmanship, made of precious gems and metals. To others it appears hideous and misshapen. Monstrous in appearance. To some men it appears as a sort of misshapen lump of some unknown metal. As if it had fallen from the sky.
However even in this “statuesque-shape” it begins to immediately exert psychic influence over the human couriers to whom it has been entrusted. When given the homonculous the couriers were instructed by the Ulbraen agents to transport it to Belgrade where it will be given to the human Warlock Klingsor, who has become a sort of de facto human earthly and mortal ally of the Ulbraen cult of the Eladarin, and of Ghantikan Ilurgists. Klingsor thinks the homonculous will be a powerful new Elturgical tool for him to employ in his quest for personal and magical power, given by his allies on Ghantik. But his allies in Ghantik hate all humans and intend to use the homonculous to enslave the mind of Klingsor and to “bind” the homonculous directly to him, both mentally and physically, so that in effect he becomes their tool in their covert war on humanity and against the Byzantine Empire.
However unknown to the Ilurgists the trip along the Weirding Road which leads from Ghantik to Terra has changed the homonculous, making it even more self-aware and allowing it to partially overcome the magical spells designed to make it into a sort of magically animated automaton and psychic weapon against men. Once on Earth and away from the direct control of his makers the homonculous decides to influence his couriers to turn away from Belgrade and to head East and South, towards the Orient. Along the way, while stopped in Alexandria, the homonculous escapes his statue-form and animates, thereafter eluding his couriers. Wandering alone at night, and disguised as a large, talking lizard the homonculous finally takes up with a teen-aged orphan, a young boy named Koptoi. Appearing to him as a beautiful, two-foot tall youth the homonculous convinces the boy that he is a Spirit of Good Fortune and if the boy will take him East then he will show him treasures and make him famous and into a prince. What the motives and ultimate destination of the homonculous really are no one knows. Except the homonculous.
Meanwhile the Caerkara has learned of the creation of the homonculous and where the couriers were last seen (in Alexandria) and they come to Earth to warn the Basilegate and solicit their help in capturing and/or destroying the creature. At about the same time the Ilurgists learn that the homonculous has escaped their immediate control and ask Klingsor for his help to track down the creature. Klingsor, anxious to gain control of the homonculous and make it into his own, personal familiar contacts agents of the Consociatio who accompany him to Alexandria to search for the homonculous. As the Caerkara, the Basilegate, Klingsor, and the Consociatio all head towards the Orient to locate the homonculous, the Ilurgists of Ghantik send a monstrous chimera into earth to track and kill the homonculous while it moves ever closer towards its own secret destination. A destination that may just involve a very ancient, powerful, and entrapped Demon who was long ago banished to a spiritual prison within a long deserted desert stronghold by the Apostle Thomas.
Introduction: This adventure revolves around the creature known as the Homonculous. And is involved with events on our world, and on the world of Ghantik, described in this thread: the Worlds Apart.
Thread Link
A Group of Ilurgists (in this case Ghantikan sorcerers of the Ulbraen – fanatics dedicated to maintaining and expanding Elturgical power) have created a new type of creature. A thing they call the Parah, but which they also call the Homonculous, in parody and mockery of how it was created, and out of what materials.
The Homonculous was designed to exist in our world, on Terra, and the Ulbraen, working with their even more dangerous underworld partners in Kitharia decide to send the first of their homonculors to Earth in order to test it and to use it against human beings and human societies.
The Homonculous is sent to our world in a state of suspended animation, disguised as a small statue. To some men it appears beautiful and of exquisite workmanship, made of precious gems and metals. To others it appears hideous and misshapen. Monstrous in appearance. To some men it appears as a sort of misshapen lump of some unknown metal. As if it had fallen from the sky.
However even in this “statuesque-shape” it begins to immediately exert psychic influence over the human couriers to whom it has been entrusted. When given the homonculous the couriers were instructed by the Ulbraen agents to transport it to Belgrade where it will be given to the human Warlock Klingsor, who has become a sort of de facto human earthly and mortal ally of the Ulbraen cult of the Eladarin, and of Ghantikan Ilurgists. Klingsor thinks the homonculous will be a powerful new Elturgical tool for him to employ in his quest for personal and magical power, given by his allies on Ghantik. But his allies in Ghantik hate all humans and intend to use the homonculous to enslave the mind of Klingsor and to “bind” the homonculous directly to him, both mentally and physically, so that in effect he becomes their tool in their covert war on humanity and against the Byzantine Empire.
However unknown to the Ilurgists the trip along the Weirding Road which leads from Ghantik to Terra has changed the homonculous, making it even more self-aware and allowing it to partially overcome the magical spells designed to make it into a sort of magically animated automaton and psychic weapon against men. Once on Earth and away from the direct control of his makers the homonculous decides to influence his couriers to turn away from Belgrade and to head East and South, towards the Orient. Along the way, while stopped in Alexandria, the homonculous escapes his statue-form and animates, thereafter eluding his couriers. Wandering alone at night, and disguised as a large, talking lizard the homonculous finally takes up with a teen-aged orphan, a young boy named Koptoi. Appearing to him as a beautiful, two-foot tall youth the homonculous convinces the boy that he is a Spirit of Good Fortune and if the boy will take him East then he will show him treasures and make him famous and into a prince. What the motives and ultimate destination of the homonculous really are no one knows. Except the homonculous.
Meanwhile the Caerkara has learned of the creation of the homonculous and where the couriers were last seen (in Alexandria) and they come to Earth to warn the Basilegate and solicit their help in capturing and/or destroying the creature. At about the same time the Ilurgists learn that the homonculous has escaped their immediate control and ask Klingsor for his help to track down the creature. Klingsor, anxious to gain control of the homonculous and make it into his own, personal familiar contacts agents of the Consociatio who accompany him to Alexandria to search for the homonculous. As the Caerkara, the Basilegate, Klingsor, and the Consociatio all head towards the Orient to locate the homonculous, the Ilurgists of Ghantik send a monstrous chimera into earth to track and kill the homonculous while it moves ever closer towards its own secret destination. A destination that may just involve a very ancient, powerful, and entrapped Demon who was long ago banished to a spiritual prison within a long deserted desert stronghold by the Apostle Thomas.
Posted in
Tome and Tomb
Thread Link
The Parah (the Homonculous) – The homonculous was created on Ghantik through the use of Ilurgy or Ilturgy (powerful Ghantikan sorcery). Those evil beings responsible for the creation of the Homonculous call it the homonculous in mockery of both men, and of how the creature is created. In their own language they call the thing the Cǻforil, which means “misshapen flesh,” or the Parah, which means the “little slave.”
A homonculous is created out of the remains of stolen and murdered human children, the corpses of men, and the bodies of women.
The Homonculous can vary in size, but is usually between one foot and three feet tall, and is made primarily from human flesh. Because it is a sort of magically created hybrid, and because the body contains elements from other creatures as well, it is both part chimera and part monster. Embedded and woven within it’s bones is secret information as well as the formula of an Ilturgical spell that will allow for the enslaving of human minds and the transference of control over the minds of men so that the masters of the homonculous can use it to create a group of mentally and psychologically enslaved sorcerers.
The Homonculous begins as a flesh-pot shaping (literally) of human flesh that is slowly transformed over time into a statue made out of rare Ghantikan mineral substances mixed with Elturgical alchemical substances that can be used to enliven and animate dead flesh. The creators of the homonculous also use Elturgical quicksilver for the creature’s blood. Anyone drinking the blood, which instantly replenishes itself within the body of the homonculous, can be turned into a mind-controlled user of Ilturgical magic.
The creators of the homonculous, a shadowy group of underground Ilturgists (outlaw sorcerers), hate all human beings. They also fear and despise Thaumaturgy (miraculous or divine power.) They plan to create several powerful sorcerers on Earth by giving each their own homonculous. The sorcerers and warlocks on Earth assume these gifts are for service to the ilturgists, but the ilturgists plan to enslave their human servants in order to use them to assist with various nefarious plans including cultic murder and human sacrifice, human trafficking and enslavement, using humans for experiments, and interference in human affairs so as to weaken human societies and assuring that Thaumaturgy never infiltrates into Ghantik.
Appearance – The homonculous can appear as either the creator or user desires to see it. It is short, one to three feet tall. As a façade it can appear as any sex or race. Those who stumble upon the homonculous unintentionally see it initially as a small, bat-winged, distorted, misshapen and mutilated man about with long claw-like hands and feet, bent nails, sharp, uneven teeth, glowing eyes, and with a noxious and nauseating odor which is repulsive and sickening to most everyone except the owner. The eyes are apparently made of gemstones with a third eye centered in the middle of the forehead. This “other eye” is extremely dangerous and has several secret and arcane functions, all of which can be lethal to the unwary.
Powers - When acting as a familiar the homonculous can be used by a sorcerer or warlock to see visions, to listen in on or read the thoughts of others, as a spy, to increase fertility or sexual desire and lust in self or others, to enchant and encharm others, to read magical texts, to transfer knowledge of Ilurgy, to increase and augment magical power, or to create or sustain illusions. The homonculous has a base of known spells and charms of its own (unique to each homonculous, and these spells can vary in power as well as in kind), but it will usually be unwilling to share these, even with the sorcerer for whom it is operating as a familiar. It can help create more of itself if necessary through the flesh of innocent victims who have been tortured and murdered. But these sub-homonculous are usually little more than robotic automatons, incapable of sophisticated action. They also lack all but the most basic powers and capabilities of the true Ilturgical homonculous.
As a disguise the homonculous can transform itself into a raven or an alien bird or a reptile or a crab or spider.
The homonculous gives protection to its creator or owner up to within a distance of 50’. These forms of protection include increased resistance to magical charm and psychic influence, immunity to poison, and resistance to being turned to stone. While in contact with the homonculous the sorcerer or warlock also becomes much more charismatic and believable, even when engaged in an intentional and obvious lie.
The homonculous carries with it a multi-colored and gilded Egg (of unknown origins), very beautiful and desirable in appearance, whose shell is actually a clever composite of various Ilurgical glyphs, symbols, and magical scripts. If the writings can be deciphered correctly, and the riddle contained on and within the shell solved, then the shell will magically unwind revealing inside a substance that will allow the user to create Chimeras of various kinds as well as totally new life forms and creatures that have never before existed. This Egg is a sort of secret communication and covert weapon entrusted to the homonculous by its creators for the day when they intend to undertake a secret plan to attack humanity directly and openly through their sorcerous agents. For this reason the homonculous usually keeps the Egg well hidden in a secret location, as well as disguised with wards of invisibility.
Invention and Creation – The homonculous must be created over a long period of time. For raw materials the Ilturgist must obtain a human body, preferably that of an honest old man or woman, or of an innocent or chaste young boy or girl, who was murdered through treachery and deceit. The body must then be buried in an unmarked grave for three days to which has been added various small insect-like creatures (created by the Ilturgists) that both partially consume and transform the corpse. Thereafter the body is retrieved and through evil sorceries and various ilturgical spells, potions, and alchemical and Eldarikal processes is slowly shrunken and transformed into the homonculous.
Destruction - If a homonculous is killed and then its bones ground up and dissolved in its own blood then it will make the sorcerer who drinks of this calcified-blood potion immune to all disease, magic and psychic charm or influence (including that of the original creators), except for Thaumaturgy, will cause aging to slow greatly, will greatly magnify the magical powers of the sorcerer, and is the first step in a shortcut method for creating a sorcerous human Lich. This is a side effect of the creation process of the homonculous and is unknown even to the original creators.
A homonculous cannot be bled to death, nor is it afraid of or affected by undead creatures or beings. It cannot be killed by normal methods, but it can be frozen or reverted back to its statue-shape. If it is sufficiently damaged in a short enough period of time then it will fall into suspended animation while it regenerates. At that point it can be dissolved in strong acid, or burned to ashes within an Elturgical or miraculous or even a very hot normal fire of not less than 3000 degrees. It is also said that if the homonculous can be tricked into drinking a potion made of freshly dug mandrake root then its flesh and various components will unravel and it will be forever destroyed.
Next: The Gorkîllion (the Corpse Taker, or the Shambling Mound)
The Parah (the Homonculous) – The homonculous was created on Ghantik through the use of Ilurgy or Ilturgy (powerful Ghantikan sorcery). Those evil beings responsible for the creation of the Homonculous call it the homonculous in mockery of both men, and of how the creature is created. In their own language they call the thing the Cǻforil, which means “misshapen flesh,” or the Parah, which means the “little slave.”
A homonculous is created out of the remains of stolen and murdered human children, the corpses of men, and the bodies of women.
The Homonculous can vary in size, but is usually between one foot and three feet tall, and is made primarily from human flesh. Because it is a sort of magically created hybrid, and because the body contains elements from other creatures as well, it is both part chimera and part monster. Embedded and woven within it’s bones is secret information as well as the formula of an Ilturgical spell that will allow for the enslaving of human minds and the transference of control over the minds of men so that the masters of the homonculous can use it to create a group of mentally and psychologically enslaved sorcerers.
The Homonculous begins as a flesh-pot shaping (literally) of human flesh that is slowly transformed over time into a statue made out of rare Ghantikan mineral substances mixed with Elturgical alchemical substances that can be used to enliven and animate dead flesh. The creators of the homonculous also use Elturgical quicksilver for the creature’s blood. Anyone drinking the blood, which instantly replenishes itself within the body of the homonculous, can be turned into a mind-controlled user of Ilturgical magic.
The creators of the homonculous, a shadowy group of underground Ilturgists (outlaw sorcerers), hate all human beings. They also fear and despise Thaumaturgy (miraculous or divine power.) They plan to create several powerful sorcerers on Earth by giving each their own homonculous. The sorcerers and warlocks on Earth assume these gifts are for service to the ilturgists, but the ilturgists plan to enslave their human servants in order to use them to assist with various nefarious plans including cultic murder and human sacrifice, human trafficking and enslavement, using humans for experiments, and interference in human affairs so as to weaken human societies and assuring that Thaumaturgy never infiltrates into Ghantik.
[Image]
Appearance – The homonculous can appear as either the creator or user desires to see it. It is short, one to three feet tall. As a façade it can appear as any sex or race. Those who stumble upon the homonculous unintentionally see it initially as a small, bat-winged, distorted, misshapen and mutilated man about with long claw-like hands and feet, bent nails, sharp, uneven teeth, glowing eyes, and with a noxious and nauseating odor which is repulsive and sickening to most everyone except the owner. The eyes are apparently made of gemstones with a third eye centered in the middle of the forehead. This “other eye” is extremely dangerous and has several secret and arcane functions, all of which can be lethal to the unwary.
Powers - When acting as a familiar the homonculous can be used by a sorcerer or warlock to see visions, to listen in on or read the thoughts of others, as a spy, to increase fertility or sexual desire and lust in self or others, to enchant and encharm others, to read magical texts, to transfer knowledge of Ilurgy, to increase and augment magical power, or to create or sustain illusions. The homonculous has a base of known spells and charms of its own (unique to each homonculous, and these spells can vary in power as well as in kind), but it will usually be unwilling to share these, even with the sorcerer for whom it is operating as a familiar. It can help create more of itself if necessary through the flesh of innocent victims who have been tortured and murdered. But these sub-homonculous are usually little more than robotic automatons, incapable of sophisticated action. They also lack all but the most basic powers and capabilities of the true Ilturgical homonculous.
As a disguise the homonculous can transform itself into a raven or an alien bird or a reptile or a crab or spider.
The homonculous gives protection to its creator or owner up to within a distance of 50’. These forms of protection include increased resistance to magical charm and psychic influence, immunity to poison, and resistance to being turned to stone. While in contact with the homonculous the sorcerer or warlock also becomes much more charismatic and believable, even when engaged in an intentional and obvious lie.
The homonculous carries with it a multi-colored and gilded Egg (of unknown origins), very beautiful and desirable in appearance, whose shell is actually a clever composite of various Ilurgical glyphs, symbols, and magical scripts. If the writings can be deciphered correctly, and the riddle contained on and within the shell solved, then the shell will magically unwind revealing inside a substance that will allow the user to create Chimeras of various kinds as well as totally new life forms and creatures that have never before existed. This Egg is a sort of secret communication and covert weapon entrusted to the homonculous by its creators for the day when they intend to undertake a secret plan to attack humanity directly and openly through their sorcerous agents. For this reason the homonculous usually keeps the Egg well hidden in a secret location, as well as disguised with wards of invisibility.
Invention and Creation – The homonculous must be created over a long period of time. For raw materials the Ilturgist must obtain a human body, preferably that of an honest old man or woman, or of an innocent or chaste young boy or girl, who was murdered through treachery and deceit. The body must then be buried in an unmarked grave for three days to which has been added various small insect-like creatures (created by the Ilturgists) that both partially consume and transform the corpse. Thereafter the body is retrieved and through evil sorceries and various ilturgical spells, potions, and alchemical and Eldarikal processes is slowly shrunken and transformed into the homonculous.
Destruction - If a homonculous is killed and then its bones ground up and dissolved in its own blood then it will make the sorcerer who drinks of this calcified-blood potion immune to all disease, magic and psychic charm or influence (including that of the original creators), except for Thaumaturgy, will cause aging to slow greatly, will greatly magnify the magical powers of the sorcerer, and is the first step in a shortcut method for creating a sorcerous human Lich. This is a side effect of the creation process of the homonculous and is unknown even to the original creators.
A homonculous cannot be bled to death, nor is it afraid of or affected by undead creatures or beings. It cannot be killed by normal methods, but it can be frozen or reverted back to its statue-shape. If it is sufficiently damaged in a short enough period of time then it will fall into suspended animation while it regenerates. At that point it can be dissolved in strong acid, or burned to ashes within an Elturgical or miraculous or even a very hot normal fire of not less than 3000 degrees. It is also said that if the homonculous can be tricked into drinking a potion made of freshly dug mandrake root then its flesh and various components will unravel and it will be forever destroyed.
Next: The Gorkîllion (the Corpse Taker, or the Shambling Mound)
Posted in
Tome and Tomb
Yesterday I saw on the internet a recorded interview with Jim Butcher (my current favorite author of modern fantasy).
During the interview the woman interviewing him asked who his favorite authors were (who he reads when writing). The first person he mentioned was Robert B. Parker. I well understand Butcher's inclinations. Parker is without a doubt the single best writer of crime fiction alive today. He reminds me of a cross (in all the good ways possible) of Raymond Chandler and Ernest Hemingway.
He's brilliant, and not just at crime fiction either. He's written some of the best Westerns I've ever read. There are a lot of things to like about Parker, but to me the bets is that his characters are obviously all men. (I don't mean all his characters are men, I mean all his male characters are actually men - not plastic, not artificial, not afraid to be men men, but real men.) His characters are throwbacks to the days when real men write real books about real men. He appeals to me as a man. To most all of the masculine qualities I associate as best in manhood. I don't know how to say it any better than that, but after I read his books I generally end up thinking to myself, "this is exactly the way a man should behave." It's a real shame so much of that has been lost in our culture (Western, and even American culture).
Now I like Westerns and Frontier works (which appeals to the Frontiersman/Explorer/Woodsman/Survivalist in me), and Military fiction (which appeals to that part of me interested in the military and in service), and Adventure works (ditto), and I like Mysteries and Vadding works (cause that's a big part of my nature, problem solving, sneaking about, infiltration), and Espionage works (double ditto). All of these things appeal to the man in me, and they all either interest, fascinate, or excite my nature. Doesn't matter if these kinds of things are fiction or non-fiction. It's all equally enticing to me. (Well, maybe non-fiction is more enticing, but the really best fiction is usually base don real life anyways, so it all works out eventually I reckon.) Cause that's the way I'm made.
Now sometimes my inclinations will swing in one direction or another. I might prefer a work on survival better than a Western at one moment, a Western being the best possible thing I can read the next. It sorta fluctuates from time to time with me, exactly what I like best to study or read, but that's about the gist of it. All of the things I mentioned tend to interest me, stimulate me, encourage me or provoke to have adventures of my own. I reckon I like danger a whole helluvah lot better than being bored. Then again I like pretty much anything a whole helluvah lot better than being bored. I'd rather be a stiff than be bored stiff. At least dead I'd be free to explore things again. Least ways I hope I will be.
Anywho, and all of that being what it is, I suppose that most of the time, and generally speaking, I prefer works on crime. I like to study crime, to work on my own cases (and I've had some good ones), to read about crime, and to read crime fiction (usually as much to see how others operate, even fictional characters, as the cases themselves - I'm always picking up "working and operational tips" from every source I can that to me seems worth pursuing).
Parker's works are first rate to me in this regard. The cases themselves are often very interesting, but to me it's watching his characters work that really excites me. And that I enjoy. (You know it's often been said that good work is it's own reward. That's certainly true. But good work is also a step into the future. A better one than not being good at what you do.) The way they work, their methods of operation, what they do and just as importantly, (and I think most people overlook this when it comes to work against criminals) what they don't do, or what they do or don't do in order to break or bend the rules in order to try and achieve Justice. And Justice is far more important than the law. I'd rather see one instance of real Justice achieved than all mere efforts of the law ever undertaken. Of course, in the end, there's only one real kind of Justice, the kind that prevents bad things from happening in the first place. Everything else is really just catch-up, if that much. Justice should never be blind, and it should never be slow. It should always see farther, hear clearer, sense more cleanly, and anticipate more cleverly than anything else, so that it kills injustice before injustice can ever be born. Certainly before injustice can stand upright. Maybe I should write a play or something about that. Justice as the sleepless Nemesis who never stops hunting and thwarting rather than the senseless judge who is always trying to put the useless pieces back together again after it's far too late. After all you break it and you buy it even though it's already ruined, but you save it, and everybody's got a decent shot at enjoying it then. Well, that's for another time I suppose. I'd best get back to what I meant to say about Parker and his men.
Of his crime works two guys stand out to me. Stone and Spenser. (It also don't hurt much that both men are real dog lovers.) Now I really like Spenser. Didn't think I would when I first started reading him, but I've been through four books now and in everyone the guy appeals to me. I like to read how he works, try and guess what he'll do next, and in which way. I like the way he talks. He's clever. He's usually ahead of the competition. He's a helluvah good Dick. No doubt about that. I'm not sure if I had a buddy like Hawk I could always stand behind the guy. Fact is I'd probably bust him. But the friendship between Spenser and Hawk is admirable. I understand it, even if I personally couldn't stomach some of the things Hawk does or how he operates. But I do understand it.
One other thing I really like about Spenser. I both admire and fully understand why he works alone. why he quit the Force and can't stand to be part of an organization. Been that way most of my life. As I've gotten older I reckon I've mellowed. Don't mind being part of an organization now. Don't mind having superiors. Don't always mind taking orders either. But by nature, and I've always been this way, even as a kid, I've always desired to work alone. I like working alone. Being a loner (in certain respects anyways). I suspect I'll always be that way too. For the most part. I'd much rather go undercover alone, with no-one really knowing exactly where I am or what I'm doing til I decide somebody needs to know. So I get that about Spenser. We're simpatico in that respect.
Stone, however, Jesse Stone. Well, he seems like a brother to me, only far closer to me than my real brothers. He tends to think like me, act like me, operate like me. I read the way he's working a case and I think to myself, "yup, that's pretty much exactly the way I'd work it." Some people, familiar with Stone, even tell me we sorta talk alike. Not in vocabulary so much as in mannerisms, and style. I suspect there's some truth in that. And like Spenser he's also a helluvah Dick. And a superb Chief of Police. He's more company man though than Spenser, but then again he operates outside of policy. Sometimes way outside of policy. I admire that. Really admire it. I've never thought much of organizational structure and policy just for the sake of organizational structure and policy. That kinda thing doesn't float me very far. I'd much rather run on my own wind, and tack my own course. What I like about Stone, really like about Stone, is the fact that he operates within the system but he ain't part of it. He's in it, solid to all appearances, but in all of the ways that count, he's really an outsider lookin in. In that way he's quintessentially American to me. In it, but not. Clan man, but ain't. Outsider. His own self. Enterprising. Frontiersman.
I also like the guys who operate with Stone. Captain Healy for instance always makes me laugh. He reminds me a lot of a guy I once knew. The one thing I don't like about Stone though is that he's a lush. He needs to kick that in the head and just be done with it. He carries the booze around like a dead albatross. One day it might get him killed.
(By the way, I see a lot of Stone in Butcher's Harry Dresden. I see now how Butcher took a lot of Dresden from Stone and Spenser. From Parker. I knew that sub-consciously I liked all three characters, for pretty much the same reason I reckon I like all such characters. They seem familiar and natural and similar to me. But I never really thought about how close they all were til I heard Butcher mention Parker as one of his big influences. Butcher and Parker don't write a lot alike, not at all. Parker is sparse, and sharp, externally oriented, and all craft. Butcher is wordy, and rambling, and articulate, and self-concerned. But their characters are pretty much the same guy wrapped in different mannerisms, and working along different tracks. Same Rome, different roads.)
Last Spenser book I read had Spenser operating near Paradise and Stone and Spenser actually working together. Overlapping on a case, so to speak. It was really interesting to me.
In any case I just want to say that I highly recommend Bob Parker and both the Stone and Spenser crime novels. If you like that kinda thing, then you'll like those guys. And if you don't then I'm not sure I can help that much. Nevertheless that's my story and I'm stickin it to ya.
Thread Link
[Image]
During the interview the woman interviewing him asked who his favorite authors were (who he reads when writing). The first person he mentioned was Robert B. Parker. I well understand Butcher's inclinations. Parker is without a doubt the single best writer of crime fiction alive today. He reminds me of a cross (in all the good ways possible) of Raymond Chandler and Ernest Hemingway.
He's brilliant, and not just at crime fiction either. He's written some of the best Westerns I've ever read. There are a lot of things to like about Parker, but to me the bets is that his characters are obviously all men. (I don't mean all his characters are men, I mean all his male characters are actually men - not plastic, not artificial, not afraid to be men men, but real men.) His characters are throwbacks to the days when real men write real books about real men. He appeals to me as a man. To most all of the masculine qualities I associate as best in manhood. I don't know how to say it any better than that, but after I read his books I generally end up thinking to myself, "this is exactly the way a man should behave." It's a real shame so much of that has been lost in our culture (Western, and even American culture).
Now I like Westerns and Frontier works (which appeals to the Frontiersman/Explorer/Woodsman/Survivalist in me), and Military fiction (which appeals to that part of me interested in the military and in service), and Adventure works (ditto), and I like Mysteries and Vadding works (cause that's a big part of my nature, problem solving, sneaking about, infiltration), and Espionage works (double ditto). All of these things appeal to the man in me, and they all either interest, fascinate, or excite my nature. Doesn't matter if these kinds of things are fiction or non-fiction. It's all equally enticing to me. (Well, maybe non-fiction is more enticing, but the really best fiction is usually base don real life anyways, so it all works out eventually I reckon.) Cause that's the way I'm made.
Now sometimes my inclinations will swing in one direction or another. I might prefer a work on survival better than a Western at one moment, a Western being the best possible thing I can read the next. It sorta fluctuates from time to time with me, exactly what I like best to study or read, but that's about the gist of it. All of the things I mentioned tend to interest me, stimulate me, encourage me or provoke to have adventures of my own. I reckon I like danger a whole helluvah lot better than being bored. Then again I like pretty much anything a whole helluvah lot better than being bored. I'd rather be a stiff than be bored stiff. At least dead I'd be free to explore things again. Least ways I hope I will be.
Anywho, and all of that being what it is, I suppose that most of the time, and generally speaking, I prefer works on crime. I like to study crime, to work on my own cases (and I've had some good ones), to read about crime, and to read crime fiction (usually as much to see how others operate, even fictional characters, as the cases themselves - I'm always picking up "working and operational tips" from every source I can that to me seems worth pursuing).
Parker's works are first rate to me in this regard. The cases themselves are often very interesting, but to me it's watching his characters work that really excites me. And that I enjoy. (You know it's often been said that good work is it's own reward. That's certainly true. But good work is also a step into the future. A better one than not being good at what you do.) The way they work, their methods of operation, what they do and just as importantly, (and I think most people overlook this when it comes to work against criminals) what they don't do, or what they do or don't do in order to break or bend the rules in order to try and achieve Justice. And Justice is far more important than the law. I'd rather see one instance of real Justice achieved than all mere efforts of the law ever undertaken. Of course, in the end, there's only one real kind of Justice, the kind that prevents bad things from happening in the first place. Everything else is really just catch-up, if that much. Justice should never be blind, and it should never be slow. It should always see farther, hear clearer, sense more cleanly, and anticipate more cleverly than anything else, so that it kills injustice before injustice can ever be born. Certainly before injustice can stand upright. Maybe I should write a play or something about that. Justice as the sleepless Nemesis who never stops hunting and thwarting rather than the senseless judge who is always trying to put the useless pieces back together again after it's far too late. After all you break it and you buy it even though it's already ruined, but you save it, and everybody's got a decent shot at enjoying it then. Well, that's for another time I suppose. I'd best get back to what I meant to say about Parker and his men.
[Image]
Of his crime works two guys stand out to me. Stone and Spenser. (It also don't hurt much that both men are real dog lovers.) Now I really like Spenser. Didn't think I would when I first started reading him, but I've been through four books now and in everyone the guy appeals to me. I like to read how he works, try and guess what he'll do next, and in which way. I like the way he talks. He's clever. He's usually ahead of the competition. He's a helluvah good Dick. No doubt about that. I'm not sure if I had a buddy like Hawk I could always stand behind the guy. Fact is I'd probably bust him. But the friendship between Spenser and Hawk is admirable. I understand it, even if I personally couldn't stomach some of the things Hawk does or how he operates. But I do understand it.
[Image]
One other thing I really like about Spenser. I both admire and fully understand why he works alone. why he quit the Force and can't stand to be part of an organization. Been that way most of my life. As I've gotten older I reckon I've mellowed. Don't mind being part of an organization now. Don't mind having superiors. Don't always mind taking orders either. But by nature, and I've always been this way, even as a kid, I've always desired to work alone. I like working alone. Being a loner (in certain respects anyways). I suspect I'll always be that way too. For the most part. I'd much rather go undercover alone, with no-one really knowing exactly where I am or what I'm doing til I decide somebody needs to know. So I get that about Spenser. We're simpatico in that respect.
[Image]
Stone, however, Jesse Stone. Well, he seems like a brother to me, only far closer to me than my real brothers. He tends to think like me, act like me, operate like me. I read the way he's working a case and I think to myself, "yup, that's pretty much exactly the way I'd work it." Some people, familiar with Stone, even tell me we sorta talk alike. Not in vocabulary so much as in mannerisms, and style. I suspect there's some truth in that. And like Spenser he's also a helluvah Dick. And a superb Chief of Police. He's more company man though than Spenser, but then again he operates outside of policy. Sometimes way outside of policy. I admire that. Really admire it. I've never thought much of organizational structure and policy just for the sake of organizational structure and policy. That kinda thing doesn't float me very far. I'd much rather run on my own wind, and tack my own course. What I like about Stone, really like about Stone, is the fact that he operates within the system but he ain't part of it. He's in it, solid to all appearances, but in all of the ways that count, he's really an outsider lookin in. In that way he's quintessentially American to me. In it, but not. Clan man, but ain't. Outsider. His own self. Enterprising. Frontiersman.
I also like the guys who operate with Stone. Captain Healy for instance always makes me laugh. He reminds me a lot of a guy I once knew. The one thing I don't like about Stone though is that he's a lush. He needs to kick that in the head and just be done with it. He carries the booze around like a dead albatross. One day it might get him killed.
(By the way, I see a lot of Stone in Butcher's Harry Dresden. I see now how Butcher took a lot of Dresden from Stone and Spenser. From Parker. I knew that sub-consciously I liked all three characters, for pretty much the same reason I reckon I like all such characters. They seem familiar and natural and similar to me. But I never really thought about how close they all were til I heard Butcher mention Parker as one of his big influences. Butcher and Parker don't write a lot alike, not at all. Parker is sparse, and sharp, externally oriented, and all craft. Butcher is wordy, and rambling, and articulate, and self-concerned. But their characters are pretty much the same guy wrapped in different mannerisms, and working along different tracks. Same Rome, different roads.)
Last Spenser book I read had Spenser operating near Paradise and Stone and Spenser actually working together. Overlapping on a case, so to speak. It was really interesting to me.
In any case I just want to say that I highly recommend Bob Parker and both the Stone and Spenser crime novels. If you like that kinda thing, then you'll like those guys. And if you don't then I'm not sure I can help that much. Nevertheless that's my story and I'm stickin it to ya.
Thread Link
Posted in
Tome and Tomb
Thread Link
ESSAYS ON GAME DESIGN
Essay Eleven: Luck Be Not Lazy
Synopsis: “Boldness makes you luckier.” Boldness and risk taking make you more likely to survive and succeed than timidity and cowardice. This is true both in life, and in-game.
Recently while reading the book The Survivor’s Club (I am a survivalist and often study various aspects of survival art and science) I came across a very interesting equation by Nicholas Rescher.
The equation is as follows:
λ(E) = ∆(E) x [1-pr(E)] = ∆(E) x pr(not-E)
Rescher was attempting to mathematically illustrate how conclusions are drawn about the conditions and functional nature of “luck.” I have not had the time to examine the mathematics in detail for myself since I have only the basic equation formulation and a basic interpretation by the author of the book (not the author of the equation). I plan on looking up the entire background of the equation when I have the time.
Basically the equation states that how lucky an individual (or theoretically an event, with variable exchange) is considered to be depends upon a number of factors, but not least is the level of sufficient risk associated with any endeavor. That is to say the greater the risk taken by an individual, when success is finally achieved (though success is not guaranteed), then naturally the “more lucky” such an individual is considered in relation to others. This is of course only logical, and can be illustrated in the following way.
Two men decide to cross a chasm. One does so by a secure wooden footbridge with a safety railing, another along a length of tightrope. If both men make it safely across then most objective observers would say that the man walking upon the tightrope was “luckiest.” His risk was greatest and when (if) he succeeds then luck has been said to play a greater role in his crossing (in spite of any personal skill he might possess in wire-walking) than in the guy who has crossed the chasm on a relatively secure footbridge (in which case chance or luck plays a much smaller, if any, role as regards the crossing). This is self-evident, though perhaps often ignored or not noticed in this way in most circumstances by some observers.
But I suspect that an even more interesting underlying and basic assumption fundamental to the structure of the equation (though it may not necessarily be overtly stated, when considering “normative variables”) is this: the greater the risk you take the more lucky you are likely to be. Not merely as a matter of relative comparison to others in different circumstances, but as a practical and fundamental matter in most any circumstance. And by extension then the more risk you assume in your given situation then the more likely you are to eventually succeed within that given situation. (Also this implies that luck is not a matter merely to be judged and quantified after the fact, or after the conclusion of the endeavor, but as a functional force, and likely an indirectly measurable force, operating throughout the course of events.)
Think about that for a moment. For the idea may just very well be fundamental to the nature of what many consider “good fortune.” Whether most people realize it or not.
The implication is that with great risk comes not only great danger, but also a greater probability towards actual and more capital success. (I think that there are several reasons for the likelihood of this conclusion, some physical, some psychological, and a few of which I will discuss here). The equation actually states that if you succeed then a larger level of risk can be said to include within the nature of the success a greater degree of good fortune, expressed colloquially as “luck.” But underneath the equation, if you examine it closely, is a sort of sub-structural formulation that implies that the greater the level of risk you assume in attempting any given or particular thing, the more likely you are to actually succeed, but that this does not become absolutely mathematically obvious until after the events are actually concluded.
In short the equation is covertly implying that all things being equal, and excluding the impossible (of course, as well as the intentionally foolhardy and reckless), it is the one who assumes the greatest risk who is far more likely to be lucky and in the end, to succeed as a result of the advantages bestowed by luck. (Is luck the only factor in success? Good Lord no. Preparation, skill, cunning, cleverness, drive, desire, etc. – all of these factors and more, or even less, can help to assure success. But what it is saying is that among roughly equivalent situations and/or competitors it is the more daring and less risk averse who is mathematically far more likely to “get lucky” and win the day, other factors not withstanding. Risk is therefore, as counter-intuitive and paradoxical as the idea may seem, one of the open and golden gateways to good fortune. Or as the old maxim goes, "Fortuna favet fortibus." There is far more to that observation than mere Latin wit.
We all know that boldness is a fundamental aspect of the nature of Heroism. (Indeed, I personally would not attempt the execution of the function of anything heroic lacking the mettle of individual bravery as my guide. There is neither room for in most risky situations, nor likelihood of success in most dangerous situations for the ‘timid hero.’) Heroes therefore are universally bold. Or on the royal road through hardship and risk to becoming universally bold. Yet often heroes also triumph over seemingly vastly superior opponents with vastly superior resources. Why? Because they are bold. Because they are daring, and audacious, and brave. They also almost universally, whether in real life, or in myth or literature, “get lucky” or at least luckier than everybody else around them. Why? Because fortune does indeed favor the bold. The bold risk great things and therefore fortune is a natural and interested companion along the way. Fortune is attracted to bravery and risk-taking. (This does not imply that all risks are equal, or even equally fortunate, only that fortune prefers boldness to a lack thereof.)
Now it might appear on the surface that the heroic individual, or group, is often both bold and lucky. But the actual truth is they are lucky precisely because they are bolder than everyone else. Hence luck does not make one bold, being bold makes one lucky. There is a direct, if not always immediately observationally evident, correlation. That man who takes the most risk is that man who is likely to be luckiest and to be most successful. Even if bravery does not create good fortune in a particular circumstance it at least maintains and augments what good fortune already exists within that circumstance.
There are several reasons for this I think, some derived from my own personal observations, others I have gathered from anecdotal evidence, some taken from historical studies, still others implied by the equation I listed above.
First, the psychological ones:
1. The man who is audacious and daring tends to impress others with their vision. Small visions do not attract interest or followers. Bravery impresses and heroic visions and examples evoke imitation. Courage inspires devotion. And devotion inspires more courage as well as more of itself, which thereby tends to augment good fortune through cooperative enterprise and shared labor and objectives. Making success far more likely.
2. The individual who is brave tends to impress even dangerous creatures and animals, which will sometimes flee a man who the animal could easily kill because the man exhibits no fear. So if something or even someone thinks you’re crazy enough to be unafraid (regardless of whether you really are or not in that situation) when they think you should be then this gives them pause about their own chances of success against you. Courage in yourself can often inspire caution in an enemy or dangerous opponent, tipping the scales of good fortune, as well as the initiative and control of the situation in your favor.
(This has happened to me on more than one occasion with animals, men, and situations. For instance I’ve been shot at and drawn on on more than one occasion. Most recently this happened to me about two weeks ago. Yet I managed to defuse that particular situation without bloodshed or anyone being harmed because I walked towards the gunfire instead of freezing or fleeing from it when guns were drawn. Not that walking into gunfire is the most impressive or important kind of courage, it is far from it. Other things are often far more dangerous. I know that from personal experience. But the policeman in this case had the wrong location and the wrong target and he was obviously afraid of attack himself and so he drew and fired when he thought he was under attack. I don’t blame him by the way, he did indeed think he was under attack and may have even thought he could possibly be killed. He was also a young fella and a bit of a rookie. I doubt he had ever drawn his weapon before in the line of duty, but that’s just an assumption mind you based upon my observations of the boy, I didn’t really ask him. But he didn’t do anything really wrong; he was just surprised and scared by the situation, not knowing what was really going on. So I supported him when his commanding officer came out to do the in-the-field inquiry about why and how he had discharged his weapon. But I was able to prevent any real harm during the incident by walking into his line of fire [he wasn’t shooting at me, but I caused him to pause by interjecting myself] and taking control of the situation with my voice. Thereby stopping any further firing. I don’t think most people realize how effective an instrument the human voice can be in controlling a dangerous situation but those of you with law enforcement or military backgrounds probably know exactly what I mean. Your voice is probably often your most effective tool of courage and control. So I wasn’t afraid at all when it was happening, though my wife later yelled at me, as she often will, by saying “you stupid white guys run towards gunfire instead of away from it.” But obviously it has got nothing to do with being white, I’ve known a lot of brave men from all kinds of backgrounds, or even really with being stupid I would argue, but with training. I wasn’t afraid at all and so acted as I have trained myself over time, to walk towards danger and not away from it, and to attempt to command any given dangerous situation by not panicking, but by trying to assume control of the circumstances. I also wasn’t scared at all in this situation because I wasn’t thinking about myself at all. Over time I have basically trained fear for my own safety out of myself so that when others are endangered I think about others and not myself. Which eliminates the occupation with “self-fear.” It has become a matter of habit by now, and I never consciously weigh dangers for myself in my mind in that way anymore. However this does not mean the elimination of fear, if my children or wife had been under fire or endangered then I would have been afraid, I would have been thinking of their survival. I do not think though, and thank God this has never occurred, that even in that situation it would have paralyzed me, but I would have been afraid. Afraid for them. Indeed after the shooting I spoke about before was over and I realized just how bad the situation could have become for everyone – there was another officer who could have drawn and started shooting but he remained basically calm and watchful - I had about two minutes where I needed to sit down. To prevent my legs from shaking. But that was about 15 to 20 minutes later. Various friends and some people at church heard about this little adventure from my wife and the police and they all said I was a lucky fool. Just shook their heads. But I wasn’t a lucky fool; I was lucky because in that situation my training allowed me to be bold enough to prevent the situation from becoming completely out of control. I guess what I’m saying is that training yourself to move towards danger may seem apparently crazy, and so the assumption is that you just get lucky that nothing bad happens. Actually you get lucky because you act boldly. The crazy is only relative to those who do not understand that boldness enhances good fortune, not detracts from it.)
3. Bravery does not allow for panic, especially not debilitating panic. Courage is usually prepared for most situations (through exercise, practice, training, and habit) or at the very least does not panic and make situations worse. Boldness has “faith in itself.” Because boldness and enterprise are habits and skills that can be learned through practice. Perhaps some people are naturally born fearless or bold. But regardless of the veracity of that statement a person can become bold and daring through the exercise and practice of courage, just as is the case with bodybuilding through resistance training. You become muscularly and physically stronger by working ever-heavier resistance against weak and inexperienced muscles. You become more courageous by placing yourself in dangerous situations and exercising control against your fear. Eventually your “courage physique” will increase and it will take more and more danger to cause fear any real friction or resistance against you.
That’s all I’m gonna say about the psychological factors because it is not my intent in this essay to discuss all possible psychological variables. But merely to present basic possibilities.
Now for some of the physical factors:
1. I suspect that on the physical level there is an “Entrainment of the unlikely” but nevertheless “necessarily possible” whenever boldness is a factor operating upon the physical environment. That is to say that boldness has both a physical and a quantum effect upon the surrounding environment much as it does on the psychological environment in which courage is in operation. Though the effect may be subtle, it nevertheless positively influences events in favor of the party operating “boldly.” The apparent physical effect is displayed as a tendency of events to move favorably in relation to the “bold party.” Though of course more than one party may be simultaneously operating in a bold fashion. It is not my intention in this short essay though to discuss competitions or conflicts between separate parties acting against each other each in their own bold fashion. That subject can be taken up by another if they so desire.
2. I suspect boldness is probably also a “quantum excitement” to the local environment, causing obstacles and frictions to move away from or bend away from the “bold party.” Friction and resistance does not build up in the environment against the bold, but rather boldness acts as a sort of overlaying energy field that slightly tilts the operational environment in the favor of the bold. You might think of daring and risk as exciting the local environment in such a way that it acts as a sort of simultaneous lubricant for good fortune, and as a sort of barrier against misfortune.
Now if all, or indeed if any of this is true, then this idea has large scale implications for human activity and work in the real world. It also has large scale gaming implications, because heroic gaming could therefore be used as a sort of imaginary training ground for the development of higher and higher states of mental and psychologically habitual (behavioral habits begin in the mind after all) boldness, which could then be effectively transferred outside the self-contained environment of a given game and exported to the wider world.
But for the moment, since this is a website and forum dedicated to gaming let’s examine how we might exploit the idea encapsulated by the statement: “Boldness makes you luckier.”
So I’m going to make a few suggestions as to how to use this hypothesis within your game and/or game setting.
1. If you use some factor, variable, or attribute in your game that represents or expresses Luck (I use several in my games) then (given that my previous statements and hypotheses above make sense to you) anytime your players display real courage this should have a corresponding and even compounding “Luck Effect.” If they are brave, and bold, then their level of Good Fortune should naturally increase, or be augmented in some way. Good luck is never lazy, and it is rarely risk-averse. Rather the braver the character the more likely he is to be lucky in any given situation (assuming he or she does not face impossible odds or an inescapable situation).
So acts of courage and heroism are more than likely to have a direct and positive corresponding effect upon factors of good fortune and the benefits bestowed by luck. I can’t tell you how to do this exactly in your game or setting (because I don’t know the details of your setting) but it is my recommendation that you bind together in some way acts of heroism and boldness to corresponding gains in good fortune. (However these things might be expressed, as bonuses to saving throws, or as “luck advantages,” or as gains to certain types of abilities or skills, or whatever the particular case may be in your situation.)
2. I would also suggest that acts of cowardice and timidity have a corresponding suppression upon factors involving luck. The risk averse would also be averse to natural good fortune. After all the obverse of my proposition, that bravery makes you luckier, is easily demonstrable. No great thing was ever achieved by timidity. The timid do not attempt and therefore naturally do not achieve great things. That is self-evident. Therefore good fortune can hardly be considered a close ally of timidity or cowardice, for achievement is the opposite of being retiring and timid. And achievement against great odds can be called one of the potential proofs of good fortune. So the bold often achieve where the timid will not go. And good fortune goes where the bold dare to lead her. Therefore fortune is long time friend of the bold, but always the stranger to the timid.
3. Courage might not only affect “Luck Factors” but even attributes like Charisma, Wisdom, and leadership. Courage should and will increase luck and overall good fortune but it might also temporarily or even permanently increase attribute scores like Charisma, Wisdom, Intelligence, or leadership abilities.
4. Courage causing increases in luck and good fortune might also have a corresponding positive effect upon things like intuition or even psychic abilities (I use the term psychic to reflect both mental abilities and spiritual capabilities.)
5. Courage would make one “fortunate” in the types and quality of the individuals you attract to yourself as friends, allies, and followers.
6. Another suggestion I might make is that in game terms at least allow for a sort of generalized and conditional reaction to acts of heroism, bravery, and boldness on the part of the surrounding environment. This could take any number of different forms but the overall effect would be that the environment “acts lucky” towards the person exhibiting bravery, initiative, and enterprise.
7. Courage and luck might have a beneficial effect upon the degree of power and level of control one may exercise over magic, magical items, artifacts, and devices, and/or more mundane types of tools/technology.
8. If courage increases good fortune and good fortune makes survival more likely then heroism and bravery should likely have direct and positive effects upon any useful survival mechanism or skill within your game.
These are but a few simple ways that the relationship between boldness and good fortune could be exploited in game, and could also serve as a sort of “reward system” to your best and bravest role-players. I could go into other related matters such as the possible mathematical relationship between boldness, confidence, and chance mechanisms, like gaming dice. But I’ve explored pretty much what I personally wanted to explore as regards this subject, and since I am presenting this post as an Interactive Essay others can add related or peripheral content as they see fit.
But in summation I would also like to encourage you all to make better use of heroism, enterprise, initiative, and boldness in your own situation(s), both in real life and in-game. I suspect that given time you will find yourself more and more inclined to boldness through practice (assuming you are not already), and as a result of that more likely to find yourself enjoying an ever increasing level of good fortune and definite luck.
Good luck to you then.
ESSAYS ON GAME DESIGN
Essay Eleven: Luck Be Not Lazy
“High Fortune is the Good Wife of the Brave Husband.”
“Our survival kit is within us…”
“Good Luck befriend thee, Son…”
“Our survival kit is within us…”
“Good Luck befriend thee, Son…”
Synopsis: “Boldness makes you luckier.” Boldness and risk taking make you more likely to survive and succeed than timidity and cowardice. This is true both in life, and in-game.
[Image]
Recently while reading the book The Survivor’s Club (I am a survivalist and often study various aspects of survival art and science) I came across a very interesting equation by Nicholas Rescher.
The equation is as follows:
λ(E) = ∆(E) x [1-pr(E)] = ∆(E) x pr(not-E)
Rescher was attempting to mathematically illustrate how conclusions are drawn about the conditions and functional nature of “luck.” I have not had the time to examine the mathematics in detail for myself since I have only the basic equation formulation and a basic interpretation by the author of the book (not the author of the equation). I plan on looking up the entire background of the equation when I have the time.
Basically the equation states that how lucky an individual (or theoretically an event, with variable exchange) is considered to be depends upon a number of factors, but not least is the level of sufficient risk associated with any endeavor. That is to say the greater the risk taken by an individual, when success is finally achieved (though success is not guaranteed), then naturally the “more lucky” such an individual is considered in relation to others. This is of course only logical, and can be illustrated in the following way.
Two men decide to cross a chasm. One does so by a secure wooden footbridge with a safety railing, another along a length of tightrope. If both men make it safely across then most objective observers would say that the man walking upon the tightrope was “luckiest.” His risk was greatest and when (if) he succeeds then luck has been said to play a greater role in his crossing (in spite of any personal skill he might possess in wire-walking) than in the guy who has crossed the chasm on a relatively secure footbridge (in which case chance or luck plays a much smaller, if any, role as regards the crossing). This is self-evident, though perhaps often ignored or not noticed in this way in most circumstances by some observers.
But I suspect that an even more interesting underlying and basic assumption fundamental to the structure of the equation (though it may not necessarily be overtly stated, when considering “normative variables”) is this: the greater the risk you take the more lucky you are likely to be. Not merely as a matter of relative comparison to others in different circumstances, but as a practical and fundamental matter in most any circumstance. And by extension then the more risk you assume in your given situation then the more likely you are to eventually succeed within that given situation. (Also this implies that luck is not a matter merely to be judged and quantified after the fact, or after the conclusion of the endeavor, but as a functional force, and likely an indirectly measurable force, operating throughout the course of events.)
Think about that for a moment. For the idea may just very well be fundamental to the nature of what many consider “good fortune.” Whether most people realize it or not.
[Image]
The implication is that with great risk comes not only great danger, but also a greater probability towards actual and more capital success. (I think that there are several reasons for the likelihood of this conclusion, some physical, some psychological, and a few of which I will discuss here). The equation actually states that if you succeed then a larger level of risk can be said to include within the nature of the success a greater degree of good fortune, expressed colloquially as “luck.” But underneath the equation, if you examine it closely, is a sort of sub-structural formulation that implies that the greater the level of risk you assume in attempting any given or particular thing, the more likely you are to actually succeed, but that this does not become absolutely mathematically obvious until after the events are actually concluded.
In short the equation is covertly implying that all things being equal, and excluding the impossible (of course, as well as the intentionally foolhardy and reckless), it is the one who assumes the greatest risk who is far more likely to be lucky and in the end, to succeed as a result of the advantages bestowed by luck. (Is luck the only factor in success? Good Lord no. Preparation, skill, cunning, cleverness, drive, desire, etc. – all of these factors and more, or even less, can help to assure success. But what it is saying is that among roughly equivalent situations and/or competitors it is the more daring and less risk averse who is mathematically far more likely to “get lucky” and win the day, other factors not withstanding. Risk is therefore, as counter-intuitive and paradoxical as the idea may seem, one of the open and golden gateways to good fortune. Or as the old maxim goes, "Fortuna favet fortibus." There is far more to that observation than mere Latin wit.
We all know that boldness is a fundamental aspect of the nature of Heroism. (Indeed, I personally would not attempt the execution of the function of anything heroic lacking the mettle of individual bravery as my guide. There is neither room for in most risky situations, nor likelihood of success in most dangerous situations for the ‘timid hero.’) Heroes therefore are universally bold. Or on the royal road through hardship and risk to becoming universally bold. Yet often heroes also triumph over seemingly vastly superior opponents with vastly superior resources. Why? Because they are bold. Because they are daring, and audacious, and brave. They also almost universally, whether in real life, or in myth or literature, “get lucky” or at least luckier than everybody else around them. Why? Because fortune does indeed favor the bold. The bold risk great things and therefore fortune is a natural and interested companion along the way. Fortune is attracted to bravery and risk-taking. (This does not imply that all risks are equal, or even equally fortunate, only that fortune prefers boldness to a lack thereof.)
Now it might appear on the surface that the heroic individual, or group, is often both bold and lucky. But the actual truth is they are lucky precisely because they are bolder than everyone else. Hence luck does not make one bold, being bold makes one lucky. There is a direct, if not always immediately observationally evident, correlation. That man who takes the most risk is that man who is likely to be luckiest and to be most successful. Even if bravery does not create good fortune in a particular circumstance it at least maintains and augments what good fortune already exists within that circumstance.
[Image]
There are several reasons for this I think, some derived from my own personal observations, others I have gathered from anecdotal evidence, some taken from historical studies, still others implied by the equation I listed above.
First, the psychological ones:
1. The man who is audacious and daring tends to impress others with their vision. Small visions do not attract interest or followers. Bravery impresses and heroic visions and examples evoke imitation. Courage inspires devotion. And devotion inspires more courage as well as more of itself, which thereby tends to augment good fortune through cooperative enterprise and shared labor and objectives. Making success far more likely.
2. The individual who is brave tends to impress even dangerous creatures and animals, which will sometimes flee a man who the animal could easily kill because the man exhibits no fear. So if something or even someone thinks you’re crazy enough to be unafraid (regardless of whether you really are or not in that situation) when they think you should be then this gives them pause about their own chances of success against you. Courage in yourself can often inspire caution in an enemy or dangerous opponent, tipping the scales of good fortune, as well as the initiative and control of the situation in your favor.
(This has happened to me on more than one occasion with animals, men, and situations. For instance I’ve been shot at and drawn on on more than one occasion. Most recently this happened to me about two weeks ago. Yet I managed to defuse that particular situation without bloodshed or anyone being harmed because I walked towards the gunfire instead of freezing or fleeing from it when guns were drawn. Not that walking into gunfire is the most impressive or important kind of courage, it is far from it. Other things are often far more dangerous. I know that from personal experience. But the policeman in this case had the wrong location and the wrong target and he was obviously afraid of attack himself and so he drew and fired when he thought he was under attack. I don’t blame him by the way, he did indeed think he was under attack and may have even thought he could possibly be killed. He was also a young fella and a bit of a rookie. I doubt he had ever drawn his weapon before in the line of duty, but that’s just an assumption mind you based upon my observations of the boy, I didn’t really ask him. But he didn’t do anything really wrong; he was just surprised and scared by the situation, not knowing what was really going on. So I supported him when his commanding officer came out to do the in-the-field inquiry about why and how he had discharged his weapon. But I was able to prevent any real harm during the incident by walking into his line of fire [he wasn’t shooting at me, but I caused him to pause by interjecting myself] and taking control of the situation with my voice. Thereby stopping any further firing. I don’t think most people realize how effective an instrument the human voice can be in controlling a dangerous situation but those of you with law enforcement or military backgrounds probably know exactly what I mean. Your voice is probably often your most effective tool of courage and control. So I wasn’t afraid at all when it was happening, though my wife later yelled at me, as she often will, by saying “you stupid white guys run towards gunfire instead of away from it.” But obviously it has got nothing to do with being white, I’ve known a lot of brave men from all kinds of backgrounds, or even really with being stupid I would argue, but with training. I wasn’t afraid at all and so acted as I have trained myself over time, to walk towards danger and not away from it, and to attempt to command any given dangerous situation by not panicking, but by trying to assume control of the circumstances. I also wasn’t scared at all in this situation because I wasn’t thinking about myself at all. Over time I have basically trained fear for my own safety out of myself so that when others are endangered I think about others and not myself. Which eliminates the occupation with “self-fear.” It has become a matter of habit by now, and I never consciously weigh dangers for myself in my mind in that way anymore. However this does not mean the elimination of fear, if my children or wife had been under fire or endangered then I would have been afraid, I would have been thinking of their survival. I do not think though, and thank God this has never occurred, that even in that situation it would have paralyzed me, but I would have been afraid. Afraid for them. Indeed after the shooting I spoke about before was over and I realized just how bad the situation could have become for everyone – there was another officer who could have drawn and started shooting but he remained basically calm and watchful - I had about two minutes where I needed to sit down. To prevent my legs from shaking. But that was about 15 to 20 minutes later. Various friends and some people at church heard about this little adventure from my wife and the police and they all said I was a lucky fool. Just shook their heads. But I wasn’t a lucky fool; I was lucky because in that situation my training allowed me to be bold enough to prevent the situation from becoming completely out of control. I guess what I’m saying is that training yourself to move towards danger may seem apparently crazy, and so the assumption is that you just get lucky that nothing bad happens. Actually you get lucky because you act boldly. The crazy is only relative to those who do not understand that boldness enhances good fortune, not detracts from it.)
3. Bravery does not allow for panic, especially not debilitating panic. Courage is usually prepared for most situations (through exercise, practice, training, and habit) or at the very least does not panic and make situations worse. Boldness has “faith in itself.” Because boldness and enterprise are habits and skills that can be learned through practice. Perhaps some people are naturally born fearless or bold. But regardless of the veracity of that statement a person can become bold and daring through the exercise and practice of courage, just as is the case with bodybuilding through resistance training. You become muscularly and physically stronger by working ever-heavier resistance against weak and inexperienced muscles. You become more courageous by placing yourself in dangerous situations and exercising control against your fear. Eventually your “courage physique” will increase and it will take more and more danger to cause fear any real friction or resistance against you.
That’s all I’m gonna say about the psychological factors because it is not my intent in this essay to discuss all possible psychological variables. But merely to present basic possibilities.
Now for some of the physical factors:
1. I suspect that on the physical level there is an “Entrainment of the unlikely” but nevertheless “necessarily possible” whenever boldness is a factor operating upon the physical environment. That is to say that boldness has both a physical and a quantum effect upon the surrounding environment much as it does on the psychological environment in which courage is in operation. Though the effect may be subtle, it nevertheless positively influences events in favor of the party operating “boldly.” The apparent physical effect is displayed as a tendency of events to move favorably in relation to the “bold party.” Though of course more than one party may be simultaneously operating in a bold fashion. It is not my intention in this short essay though to discuss competitions or conflicts between separate parties acting against each other each in their own bold fashion. That subject can be taken up by another if they so desire.
2. I suspect boldness is probably also a “quantum excitement” to the local environment, causing obstacles and frictions to move away from or bend away from the “bold party.” Friction and resistance does not build up in the environment against the bold, but rather boldness acts as a sort of overlaying energy field that slightly tilts the operational environment in the favor of the bold. You might think of daring and risk as exciting the local environment in such a way that it acts as a sort of simultaneous lubricant for good fortune, and as a sort of barrier against misfortune.
Now if all, or indeed if any of this is true, then this idea has large scale implications for human activity and work in the real world. It also has large scale gaming implications, because heroic gaming could therefore be used as a sort of imaginary training ground for the development of higher and higher states of mental and psychologically habitual (behavioral habits begin in the mind after all) boldness, which could then be effectively transferred outside the self-contained environment of a given game and exported to the wider world.
But for the moment, since this is a website and forum dedicated to gaming let’s examine how we might exploit the idea encapsulated by the statement: “Boldness makes you luckier.”
So I’m going to make a few suggestions as to how to use this hypothesis within your game and/or game setting.
1. If you use some factor, variable, or attribute in your game that represents or expresses Luck (I use several in my games) then (given that my previous statements and hypotheses above make sense to you) anytime your players display real courage this should have a corresponding and even compounding “Luck Effect.” If they are brave, and bold, then their level of Good Fortune should naturally increase, or be augmented in some way. Good luck is never lazy, and it is rarely risk-averse. Rather the braver the character the more likely he is to be lucky in any given situation (assuming he or she does not face impossible odds or an inescapable situation).
So acts of courage and heroism are more than likely to have a direct and positive corresponding effect upon factors of good fortune and the benefits bestowed by luck. I can’t tell you how to do this exactly in your game or setting (because I don’t know the details of your setting) but it is my recommendation that you bind together in some way acts of heroism and boldness to corresponding gains in good fortune. (However these things might be expressed, as bonuses to saving throws, or as “luck advantages,” or as gains to certain types of abilities or skills, or whatever the particular case may be in your situation.)
2. I would also suggest that acts of cowardice and timidity have a corresponding suppression upon factors involving luck. The risk averse would also be averse to natural good fortune. After all the obverse of my proposition, that bravery makes you luckier, is easily demonstrable. No great thing was ever achieved by timidity. The timid do not attempt and therefore naturally do not achieve great things. That is self-evident. Therefore good fortune can hardly be considered a close ally of timidity or cowardice, for achievement is the opposite of being retiring and timid. And achievement against great odds can be called one of the potential proofs of good fortune. So the bold often achieve where the timid will not go. And good fortune goes where the bold dare to lead her. Therefore fortune is long time friend of the bold, but always the stranger to the timid.
3. Courage might not only affect “Luck Factors” but even attributes like Charisma, Wisdom, and leadership. Courage should and will increase luck and overall good fortune but it might also temporarily or even permanently increase attribute scores like Charisma, Wisdom, Intelligence, or leadership abilities.
4. Courage causing increases in luck and good fortune might also have a corresponding positive effect upon things like intuition or even psychic abilities (I use the term psychic to reflect both mental abilities and spiritual capabilities.)
5. Courage would make one “fortunate” in the types and quality of the individuals you attract to yourself as friends, allies, and followers.
6. Another suggestion I might make is that in game terms at least allow for a sort of generalized and conditional reaction to acts of heroism, bravery, and boldness on the part of the surrounding environment. This could take any number of different forms but the overall effect would be that the environment “acts lucky” towards the person exhibiting bravery, initiative, and enterprise.
7. Courage and luck might have a beneficial effect upon the degree of power and level of control one may exercise over magic, magical items, artifacts, and devices, and/or more mundane types of tools/technology.
8. If courage increases good fortune and good fortune makes survival more likely then heroism and bravery should likely have direct and positive effects upon any useful survival mechanism or skill within your game.
These are but a few simple ways that the relationship between boldness and good fortune could be exploited in game, and could also serve as a sort of “reward system” to your best and bravest role-players. I could go into other related matters such as the possible mathematical relationship between boldness, confidence, and chance mechanisms, like gaming dice. But I’ve explored pretty much what I personally wanted to explore as regards this subject, and since I am presenting this post as an Interactive Essay others can add related or peripheral content as they see fit.
But in summation I would also like to encourage you all to make better use of heroism, enterprise, initiative, and boldness in your own situation(s), both in real life and in-game. I suspect that given time you will find yourself more and more inclined to boldness through practice (assuming you are not already), and as a result of that more likely to find yourself enjoying an ever increasing level of good fortune and definite luck.
Good luck to you then.
Recent Comments
Thanks Michael. I really...
Wow, this is something...
