Aberrant RPG - Examining Exemplarism

[Guest]

As perhaps the harshest critic of Exemplarisms' author, Final_Knight, I thought that perhaps it was time to hand the man the props he is due. I saw that he had made a lengthy and well-thought out contribution to the board in the form of his latest opus, and felt compelled to read it.

And as the strongest advocate of my good friend (the Devil, for those not in-the-know), the sinister yang to FK's righteous yin, I felt that I should look at Exemplarism with a discriminating but reasoning eye. I tried very hard to put aside my past views of FK and read Exemplarism for what it is, and I can with certain safety say that my assessment would be close, if not outright identical, to my standing critique had I not known the authors identity.

My long-standing feud with Final_Knight aside, I feel a little shameful for what I am about to write, as my opinion of Exemplarism is less than favorable. Were that it had not come to me to do this, I would be glad. But thus far, nobody has sought to offer up a review, and I feel it only right that someone cast in their lot. It is my hope that in this, perhaps some people will come forward to defend Exemplarism and give me a reason to re-evaluate its validity. Perhaps some of you saw something in it that I did not.

And as always, I welcome any harsh critique of my own work, as always.

For the sake of this critique, I shall use the point-counterpoint model so as to better volley back the points made by the article.

Between you and I, Final_Knight, don't take this as a personal attack, as it is not. Should you like to evaluate some of my work, you're welcome.

Exemplarism Eval:

Point 1:

However intriguing Teras/Chrysalis may be, though, some (myself included) cannot help but consider it yet another example of White Wolf favoring the "bad guys."

Simply because you view the Teragen as the "bad guys" doesn't mean they are, or that the rest of the world does. Your personal view on the members of the Teragen has little relevance in the grand scheme of the game, apparently when compared to the opinions of your peers.

Point 2:

The idea that supposedly mega-intelligent novas seem to miss the fact that the scientific designation above makes them at best a sub-species stretches credibility.

Countless times in nature are 'sub-species' regarded as seperate species because of even a tiny variance which evolved out of a standard genetic template. Darwin's 'Origin of Species' is a fine example of this, as his work on the Galopogos islands indicates. The several species of gecko are just that -- species. Not sub-species. Simply because novas are homo sapiens novus, they should not be regarded as a sub-species of homo sapiens sapiens, but rather a parrallel species in and of itself. Novas and humans share a genus, not a species.

Point 3:

The latter of these two options allows for the expansion of a counter-philosophy to Teras.

This sentence begins a series of points that Final_Knight reaffirms throughout the article, namely 'Teras Bad / Exemplarism Good', as if they were two sides of the same coin, Exemplarism the "good" counterpart to the Teras' "evil".

Point 4:

Whether one is a devoted believer or a complete atheist, the simple fact is that when people believe they can do great things, great things often happen.

This is very true, very true indeed. The power of belief can move mountains, even if you don't believe in "god". But Final Knight here illustrates that he doesn't accept that one can have "faith" and immaculate "belief" in Teras. Indeed, Teras requires an immense amount of belief and stalwart dedication.

Point 5:

Some novas believe that their eruptions were not some coincidental occurrence, but rather specific gifts from God.

And some people believe that the devil lives in their dog and tells them to grind co-eds into sausage links. Being convinced that eruption is a gift from god doesn't mean it is. One could debate that the belief that eruption grants the ability to mentally rape a church congregation means that once you erupt, it's a-okay.

Point 6:

Whereas the Teragen use their Quantum abilities to justify anarchism and self-aggrandizement, Exemplars (as holders of this philosophy are called) recognize that their abilities were granted to them in order to embrace humanity.

That is your opinion, not fact. Again, Final_Knight displays his one-sidedness and prejudice. He tosses around the word "anarchy" as if he had a clue what it connotates when he clearly does not, and speaks of Terats as being "self-aggrandizing" as if egomania were an entry requirement.

Point 7:

They view themselves not as a higher order of beings, but as stewards of power with the responsibility to show mankind the best of humanity, the wonders that mankind can accomplish.

Many members of the Teragen view themselves as 'stewards' of humanity. In addition, the word 'steward' connotates authority and power. How is this any different from the Teragen, other than in motive? How is this peaceful coexistance with humanity? It sounds more to me like the establishment of a "benevolant" ruling class.

Point 8:

It takes a significant amount of devotion to God to resist the temptation to revel selfishly in one's power, and to embrace that power not for the good of mankind, but for personal glory and success.

A significant amount of devotion to God? Yes, undoubtedly. Or any one of a handful of other reasons, most of which have nothing to do with god or religion at all. Batman was a religious man as we see, but it's fairly obvious that the reason he embarked on his personal quest to help all humanity had nothing at all to do with religion. Peter Parker "resisted the desire to revel selfishly in his power" because of a mistake he made and because he wanted to make someone proud. Had nothing to do with god. Faith and religion are not the only reasons for altruism and heroism. If it is, then surely we are all doomed.

Point 9:

Those ST's who hold a more open view towards religion might allow any individual of faith, or even atheists with a particularly philosophical nature, to have access to Exemplarism.

Aye, but not the author, I'll wager, as his views have been made crystal-clear in this piece alone.

My own view aside, these few sentences serve a definite use, and I am heartily glad they were included. It was well done of Final_Knight to have added it.

Point 10:

[Faith] is not universal, even amongst those who practice any particular religion. Faith isn't simply showing up to church, for example, but actually sacrificing for and believing in their religion. In short, Faith is true religion, rather than mere lip service.

My problem with the Faith trait isn't the trait itself, but how cheap it is. As a background, this means that any normal human can rather easily start with five dots in Faith, equivalent to the Pope, Gandhi, Buddha, Christ, etc. Faith shouldn't be a background, mainly because backgrounds are cheap. Faith is cheapened by making it cost so little. Secondly, Faith shouldn't be a background because each corresponding dot is nearly as expensive as the last, and too cheap during character creation. The price needs to rise. If one dot in Faith doesn't connotate even 'going to church every week' and 'paying lip-service' to your religion, than what is one dot in Faith worth, and how many people can you honestly say has it? In this morally bankrupt time, I'd press you to find half of a church congregation with even a singular dot in Faith.

Point 11:

Swaying the minds of the devout is no menial task.

And yet they were so easily swayed there to begin with...

Yeah, yeah, that was my potshot at religion. Sorry, sorry.

Point 12:

Secondly, even if a character with Faith should be dominated or controlled by some outside power, if the controller ever directs the character to engage in an action directly opposed by a tenet of the character's religion, the player may immediately roll a number of dice equal to the dots in the Faith background. If any successes are achieved, the control or influence is immediately thrown off. Botches on this roll have no particular ill effect, other than the character's continued enthrallment.

I was all about this...until the end. If any successes are achieved? Too powerful. Far too powerful. The Faith roll sould be made before the mental coercion roll. Any successes increase the difficulty level the number of successes rolled. Three successes would make the difficulty 10 for the Domination/etc. roll, to a maximum of 10. After this, Willpower comes to play.

Also, if Faith is so rare, there must then be a corresponding pain that comes with botching this roll. There must be a price for failure. Some suggestions would be a crisis of faith that leaves one drained and even more suggestive to manipulation (taking the form of a -1 to rolls vs. Domination/etc. for the scene). Failure when it means most, lacking the strength of spirit to resist when faced with anathema, they falter. That could potentially shatter a mans faith, at least in the short term. Maybe you blame god. Maybe your failure means that he isn't there at all, or that he doesn't care if he is. Perhaps the nova becomes convinced of his human frailty and without knowing it gives himself over wholeheartedly to the manipulator. The bottom line is that a botch should have a consequence to counteract its bonus.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

What follows is more or less a description of Teras, with the Teras words plugged out and the Exemplarism words plugged in, with the addition of rules for how faith affects Paradigm gaining.

Furthermore, and perhaps justly so, we find that paradigm can only be used to disperse of taint, social flaws, mental aberration and physical aberrations. However, and I rarely say this, it simply isn't enough. Though decreasing the cost for ridding yourself of taint and increasing the cost of getting new powers and abilities would be appropriate, I simply don't see going to all that trouble (and it is a lot of trouble) to rid yourself of taint.

While the Exemplarism philosophy certainly fulfills its promise of harkening back to humanity, it seems that it can do little else. Exemplarism provide the nova who undertakes it with no other spiritual or mental bonus, makes them no closer to god or whatever they have faith in, and serves only to ground them further to humanity, which, though approrpriate, is hardly a proper payoff for all the struggling one must do to reach that state.

For all this, it's never made particularly clear how Exemplarism developed, by whom or when, nor are we told who practices it and who may be willing to teach it. This is left completely up to the whims of the ST, which, although this level of freedom is comforting, leaves much to be desired in the way of explenation.

The burning question on my mind is who exactly managed to develop Exemplarism into a cohesive philosophy since 1998? Especially since Divis Mal with his Mega-Intelligence of 5, who our author obvious can't stand, somehow took somewhere in the neighborhood of decades and the help of another nova to develop Teras, and further decades to refine it into the process we now see? The idea that another nova independently could turn out a system nearly exact to that of the Teragen in a meager fraction of the time leaves me scratching my head.

Clearly, Final_Knight has a problem with Teras and the Teragen and sought to develop an alternative for those who would embrace humanity rather than segregate from it, something that he is to be commended for.

However, he made two major mistakes:

(A) Making Exemplarism a mirror-image of Teras. The idea that another nova, any nova (let alone several, apparently), could just stumble across a system of personal advancement that runs off the same blueprints as Teras, a system decades in the making, is ludicrous.

( Final_Knight's derision of Teras is made apparent throughout the article, which will no doubt color the opinions of those who read it for good or for ill. Stereotyping every member of the Teragen as an egomaniacal, self-aggrandizing, conceited hypocrite and all those who follow Exemplarism as paragons of virtue and bastions of faith and stability in a world gone mad won't win many points, either.

The verdict, then?

It's a good idea, but I wouldn't use it the way it is. A system of enlightenment that allows one to clutch on to their humanity is called for, but setting it up as the Superman to Teras' Lex Luthor is uncalled for. Not only should they not be similar, they shouldn't be equal methods. Final_Knight makes his own views on god very clear in this piece, and it's obvious that he allows his own faith to influence his objectivity. With revisions, Exemplarism could be perfectly viable.

--Avenger

------------------

"Don't try to run, you son of a bitch. You'll just die tired."

avengingcrusader@hotmail.com

[This message has been edited by Henry_Ashton (edited 09-09-2001).]

[Hugin]

Good Lord, it feels like I am walking into a lion's den responding to this. But hell, doesn't do any good simply to disagree and not actually write anything about it does it?

'Kay, let's go point by point like you did.

Point 1.

Two items here. First of all, when I read FK's article I find that his use of quotation marks when indicating "bad guys" does suggest acknowledgment that this is a viewpoint and not a factual statement. He is not defining Terats he is merely indicating his viewpoint.

Second, viewing the Terats as 'bad guys' is not an uncommon opinion nor is it one without support. The Terats are presented in a very mixed light, as is Project Utopia. One of the themes of the game is human nature in all of its extremes. So FK found the portrayal of Terats as evil as the most convincing. Consider some of the evidence to support this view; the killings by Lash and the subsequent support he receives from Terats, Shrapnel's psychotic behavior, the description of a sample catalyst to enter Chrysalis, ie the murder of one's parents, and Clarion is a wonderful example of the potential madness in the Teras philosphy.

Point 2

Here you are merely continuing an argument made in the Aberrant books, whether or not Novas are human. That is left up to the interpretation of the reader and FK has made his interpretation, you've made yours. They happen to be different. That is not a weakness in Exemplarism.

Point 3

No argument here. I just don't find FK's judgement to be inherently flawed.

Point 4

Paragraph 2 Sentence 3 and 4.

"I considered my disdin for Teras and pondered why mega-intelligent beings would hold to such a faulty philosophy. The answer was imminently simple: Faith."

Evidently FK does believe one can have faith in Teras.

Point 5

FK didn't make a case for these religious novas being correct, he merely stated that some novas would have this belief. It is the basis for Exemplarism, not an attempt to redefine the source of eruptions.

Point 6

I make it a habit not to argue with anarchists or people who find the concept intriguing. I put it into the same catagory as trying to teach a pig to dance.

Point 7.

Uhm, you switched some words around. FK stated that Exemplar's "see themselves not as a higher order of beings, but as stewards of power with the responsibility to show mankind the best of humanity." You stated that "Many members of the Teragen view themselves as 'stewards of humanity." You then ask how these are different. Exemplar's steward, ie have authority over power, not humanity. They are examples *to* humanity, not stewards *over* humanity. That is a very meaningful difference.

Point 8

I think that you are trying to indicate that FK is excluding paths and potentials that he isn't. His article is about Exemplarism. As he wrote it, Exemplarism is about those individuals with a powerful faith in god and how they can use it as novas. So, when he makes statements as in this point, he is merely illustrating a point about Exemplarism, not excluding other possible points of view. Peter Parker and Batman are powerful examples for your statement, however, FK is not talking about those individuals who have chosen other paths. That would be for a different article, perhaps one you would like to write?

Point 9

I have no disagreement with you here. Yes, FK has definetely made his point of view known.

Point 10

I would have to disagree with both of you on this one. Personally I don't think true faith should cost anything. Just as I don't think it should cost anything for a deep and abiding love for Chicago style pizza should cost anything in character creation. It is an aspect of roleplaying. But, I do understand that for the purpose of the system it should have some cost. However, I think it should be redefined as something else. Oh, and you're right, with the effects that it has on the system aspect of the game it should be more expensive.

Point 11.

That was a cheap shot, and what is sad, you realized it and left it in. While I disagree with you on several points up until this time you had kept a sense of integrity to your response. This little jab made your review seem small and for someone of your talent that is a shame.

Point 12

Agree with you here. Botches should always have some effect. They need to be just as important as successes.

Now, as far as FK's 'two mistakes', I disagree with number one. The idea of identical systems can be looked at this way. There is actually only one way to rid yourself of taint, the only difference between the two systems is the perspective of the people on the path. A Terat sees the path one way, and an Exemplar sees it another. But most importantly, having the two systems very similar allow for simplicity of play. That is something I will usually vote for.

As for mistake number two, I agree, FK does paint Teras with a bit of a wide brush. I don't think he is as far off the mark as you seem to think he is however.

Some of you other comments did strike true to me. I would have liked to see a little background on Exemplarism. Who came up with it? Which cannon NPCs would be considered good examples of followers of it? Also, if a person is so dedicated to remaining human, why would they acquire enough taint to need the system?

So, have I pissed you off yet again? Hope not, this is just my response to your cry for a critique of your critique.

[This message has been edited by James 'Prodigy' Meehan (edited 09-10-2001).]

[Avenger]

"Good Lord" and a reference to a lions den in the first sentence. Guess we know where you're coming from, James. Heh.

For the record, it will take a lot more than that to piss me off. I disagree, of course, but you brought up some good points. I only hope that what I have to say in retaliation won't anger you, as you'd have to be a very cool-headed sort not to, I should think.

Point 1.

As I was making a point of, FK's view of the Teragen doesn't mean a goddamned thing. It was a mistake on his part to include it. Nobody cares what he thinks of the Teragen.

Now, it would have been totally appropriate to say something like "Though some novas found the concept of transcendance compelling, a number of them found Teras self-serving and centered around egotism and the advancement of self above all others." This puts the burden on an anonymous group of "others", more approrpriate for a fictional piece.

Point 2.

Correct, this was not a weakness of Exemplarism. I brought it up because my critique was more of the article than Exemplarism itself. I should have made that more clear. In light of this, perhaps that comment had no place in my critique anyway. But I made it, and I'll stick by it.

Point 3.

And I do. That's what is called a difference of opinion. I still can't understand why you chose to bring it up. They happen a lot around here.

My point in that remark was that it is bad form to elevate your own stance by cutting down the stance of your alternative. The Teras Bad / Exemplarism Good mentality, whether you agree with it or not, is nothing more than mudslining. Exemplarism should be able to stand on it's own, not by pissing on Teras.

Point 4.

Oops. Read that sentence wrong. I bow out on this one. You're correct. Though again, FK elevates his view by cutting down the Teragen. It's bad form.

Point 5.

I suppose I just have a different interpretation of what I read there.

Point 6.

On this one, you've hit a nerve. What a pathetic and small-minded statement that was. Again, it's pretty damn obvious that you don't know a thing on the matter. If I'm wrong, please tell me exactly what makes you so qualified to even harbor an opinion (let alone such a vehement one) about Anarchism.

I went to Christian school for a decade. I was raised Christian. I own multiple copies of the bible and I read it regularly. I've read well over a dozen books on the subject of Christianity, and not even half of them were negative appraisals. I've read so many essays and dissertations on Christianity from so many different angles that I haven't bothered to keep count. I know Christianity about as well as most young Priests and Pastors. I am more than qualified to make an appraisal of the religion. Likewise, I've read books on anarchism, as many as I can get ahold of. Easily twenty or so, by now. If you can show me that you know thing one about Anarchy outside of what you may have learned from government pamphlets, then we would have something to discuss, if not for the fact that you don't want to talk about Anarchy. Why exactly is that?

I liken teaching Anarchism to a Christian as teaching the Bushido Code to a Skinhead -- so inundated into their own tunnel reality, their own narrow perception of what 'is' and 'is not' are they that even if they wanted to listen, they wouldn't understand.

Point 7.

Correct you are. Seems I read this one wrong. That careful wording different changes things considerably. I rescind the comment.

Point 8.

That isn't a point about Exemplarism. I don't see Exemplarism mentioned there. What it says, very plainly, is that one must have supreme faith in god to not use your powers for selfish ends. It is flat-out wrong.

Point 10.

I wouldn't say True Faith or Religious Devotion or whatever should require a point cost, either. However, because it gives you a dice bonus, you've got to charge something. Otherwise, I'd let it go, too.

Point 11.

Yeah, it was a cheap shot. It was also mostly a joke. I'm not really sorry you didn't find it funny. Furthermore, I'll take all the potshots I want. I don't post here to get my ego stroked, and I don't hunger for the approval of the people on the board.

I digress. I agree with your "all roads lead to Rome" sort of mentality, and I think it makes sense that any path you take should eventually lead you to the same result, which is a chance for illumination. But ease of play aside, it simply doesn't make sense for Exemplarism and Paradigm to so closely mirror Teras and Chrysalis. I'm bigger on logic than I am on ease of play. I'd rather something made sense than was easy. But again, that's really just a difference of opinion. You like simple, I like detailed. Nothing wrong with either, right?

Anyway, James, no love lost, except for the Anarchism bit. That was depressingly closed-minded of you. Until you've done some reading up on the matter from someone who isn't a patriotic flag-suckling jackass, you might want to keep your derision to yourself. Trying to get down on my badass circle-A in my presence, you may as well be talking shit about "that small-dicked, cousin-fucking, cracker, redneck motherfucker David Duke" at a Klan rally.

And for the record, man, I wasn't asking for a critique of my critique. I was asking if anyone had anything they'd like to add or if they'd like to critique my work, they're welcome to. But your points are appreciated nontheless, because you did pick up on some of my erroneous mistakes. I thank you for that.

--Avenger

------------------

Don't try to run, you son of a bitch. You'll just die tired.

avengingcrusader@hotmail.com

[Avenger]

Amendment to Point 6:

No, I don't mean all Christians, or even all (or perhaps any) of the Christians who post here. When I say 'Christians', I refer to a cross-section of people I can't stand who also happen to be Christians. Unfortunately, I use the label 'Christian' because in nearly every social grouping, I've found Christians to be the only group that consisted of a majority of these people. I consider this an unfortunate circumstance, though it cannot be coincidence.

Then again, maybe it's me. Maybe I'm the problem. I'm willing to accept that possibility.

Anyway, I just didn't want all the Christians here to get up in arms for generalizing. I didn't mean to generalize and would never mean it if I accidentally did. Saying that all Christians are small-minded and wouldn't understand Anarchy is ludicrous.

I mean, that'd be like saying all Terats are self-aggrandizing egomaniacs or something. What loon would do something like that?

--Avenger

------------------

Don't try to run, you son of a bitch. You'll just die tired.

avengingcrusader@hotmail.com

[Elizabeth Rayne]

I've been intending to write about my thoughts on Examplarism for some time and since this thread is here I may as well use it.

Firstly I do adhere to a particular faith which I will try to prevent colouring my judgement here but I thought it fair to warn you.

A. There are some problems with allowing Exemplarism to be used by all religions in exactly the same form since the starting point is so different. A Hindu is going to look at their eruption in a different light from a Christian. However there will also be commonalities. Any storyteller who allows players to use exemplarism on a multifaith basis will have to tweek it for each PCs religion. If they try to limit it to one religion however they create a bigger problem because they are elevating a philosophy to the level of miracle and that means that not only is the specific religion true (The storyteller may well believe so but you may also offend your players.) but so is exemplarism and that is an automatic slap in the face for chrysalis.

B. How did anyone (in character) come up with Exemplarism in the first place? And why did they call it that? (I find the name a mouthful. I'd have called it enlightenment like the chrysalis (Am i spelling that right?) analogue). I tried to develop one myself but have not yet come up with a plausible way the philosophy could have been discovered. I'm leaning towards a mystical thing since most religions do have a mysticism (even if it's only on the fringe) and mystical experience in all cultures tends to sound very similar and it is rather spontaneous. However this could be considered a cop out.

C. I would allow power increases but only if the player had xp left to spend after they'd removed all their taint and social penalty and possibly abberations. (I would also allow transformation of abberations at a lower cost than removal so that the character can remodel themselves to fit their religious view of themselves and if they did that treat it the same as removing them) However this is one of the few areas I will confess that my faith has influenced me on this.

okay I'm gabbling now so I'll shutup.

[Hugin]

Are you aware of the meaning of the phrase that I used? I don't teach a pig to dance because it wastes both of our time and pisses off the pig. That's why I don't argue with Anarchists. I disagree with the philosophy, I have found that discussing it with passionate supporters of the philsophy merely ends up burning up minutes that can be spent doing something else. I think anarchists are wrong, they think I am wrong. I can live with that.

Oh, for the record since it appears that you feel I might be coming from somewhere I am not. I am not a Christian, haven't been in a long time. The lion's den comment was actually coincidental.

Ok, my apologies to those who were subjected to the unedited version of this. I reacted more strongly than I consider acceptable.

[This message has been edited by James 'Prodigy' Meehan (edited 09-10-2001).]

[Avenger]

I was never angry at you, James. But if you were angry at me, I wish you had left well enough alone. I didn't get to read your post before you edited it. I would have rather had your knee-jerk opinion. I'd rather know what your gut reaction was. For the record, don't bother holding back with me. I'm a big boy.

And for the record, I don't really care if you're a Christian or not. I did think you were, but I misjudged you and I apologize. I should not have assumed, though for the most part I was just bringing it up in jest.

By the way, no, I've never heard that expression before. I took it as an intentional sleight. I'm sorry I didn't know better.

Regardless, passionate about Anarchism I certainly am. But I do wonder what could have lead you to such a negative opinion of such a positive movement.

--Avenger

------------------

Don't try to run, you son of a bitch. You'll just die tired.

avengingcrusader@hotmail.com

[Guest]

Oh, and incidentally - the plurality, if not the majority of Terats ARE self-aggrandizing egomaniacs. After all, isn't the Pandaimoinion supposed to be the biggest faction of the Teragen? And of course, its hard to find a bigger group of quantum-powered morally bankrupt (albeit perhaps not strictly evil) media whores than in the Pandaimoinion. At least most Utopians think they're on the right side.

[Avenger]

I'm not debating that most Terats fit the streotype, simply that there is a significant number that doesn't fit a predisposed mold.

Bear in mind that the reputation the Teragen has is not for being egomaniacs but psychopaths, terrorists and remorseless killers. This stereotype exists in the world of Aberrant thanks to the propaganda of Aeon. The truth of the matter is that many Terats are as you say -- this is a stereotype that exists for a reason.

But I just don't like such broad sweeps, and as an author myself, I can tell you with no small certainty that it only takes one more keystroke to spell 'most' instead of 'all'.

Not lending any respect or notice to those members of a group who do not fit the mold not only upsets those in that group but shows one-sidedness and bigotry on the part of the author.

--Avenger

------------------

Don't try to run, you son of a bitch. You'll just die tired.

avengingcrusader@hotmail.com

[Hugin]

I think something else in regards to the Teragen needs to be explored. The movement as presented in the Teragen book is still fairly young. The Night of Long Knives is designed to really shake up the Terat organization. I feel that it is very likely that after the Night of Long Knives scenario that the Teragen would be a much tighter, organized and unified group. Perhaps the Cult would win out, perhaps not, but either way the scenario seems guaranteed to put the Terats through a baptism of fire. Those that survive will very likely be less likely to act with such a cavalier attitude.

[Avenger]

Excellent point. Many of the so-called Teragen are truly nothing more than kids playing terrorist. Divis allows this for now because if he were to come down on, say, Clarion with holy fire for being an unrighteous little fuckhead, that would mean endorsing any one philosophy over another. I'm sure that all the death and destruction that his ignorant, wayward children cause in the search for purpose grieves him, but it is a means to an end. If he makes a move in any direction, he's given them a hint. And as far as Mal is concerned, the Teragen needs to find their way themselves.

Though I honestly don't think the Cult of Mal will come out on top after the conflagration. Scripture worships Mal because Mal is his boyfriend and he loves him dearly, but I just don't see Mal putting up with this sychophantry for much longer. He says it himself rather emphatically when he emerged from his Chrysalis -- he doesn't want followers, he wants equals.

"You repay your teacher poorly if you remain always a student."

--Avenger

------------------

Don't try to run, you son of a bitch. You'll just die tired.

avengingcrusader@hotmail.com

[Argent_]

Ah.

For the first time, Avenger, I think I see the pattern in you being the defender of the Teragen philosophy, both in and out of character. This is ceirtanly a relief for me, as I now can relate to what you are saying in a new light, whereas before it seemed to me much like any other roleplayer embracing the ´anti-heroes´ (y´know, the Sabbat freaks from V:TS, the Nephandi fans from M:TA etc).

Being an old, but severely disillusioned, anarchist myself, I can relate to what you´re saying.

(Funny. I didn´t really think that I´d be able to cheer up so easily today, what with all the shit that´s been going down lately. Still...)

I do think, however, that you are (from time to time) unecessarily confrontative in your views and how you display them. I know that you´re not out to get a handjob from everyone who reads what you´re writing, and I confess to not knowing the background to this little "feud", but there is such a thing as common courtesy. It is actually possible to state an opinion without adding that everyone who does not share this opinion can suck your fucking dick.

I did, though, take offense at Prodigy´s statement on anarchism - bad form at best. I guess I´m used to it, though - especially (for some reason) from Americans, who´ve always held a pretty twisted view on what the ideology in question actually stands for. As you stated, Avenger, it is a very positive movement.

Oh well. Take care.

------------------

"It always begins in the same way: The first pawn moves. The first shot is fired (usually at the first pawn)."

[Avenger]

Argent --

You know, every time you post here you leave me with a smile and a little something to think about. I want you to know that I appreciate that. Today, I took the time to take a look at your profile and, provided you told the truth, noticed that you're from Sweden and -- lo and behold -- you're an author, no less. And an old-school anarchist, to boot. At your suffering, I'd like to continue a line of conversation off the board. My address is at the bottom of every post I make. I would encourage -- ask, humbly -- that you utilize it sometime.

Moving on. Thank you for your kind words. Though not a stroke for my already massive ego, you've acknowledged that there is at least a method to my madness, something I appreciate even more. No, Argent, I never support something that I don't genuinely believe in (even if I'm wrong), and I don't offer my backing lightly. I try my best to consider things carefully before I cast in my lot to them. This includes even fiction.

I adhere so strictly to my defense of Teras because I liken it greatly to a form of Anarchism, which I am sure you know is an idea that is reviled by a depressing number of people, nearly all of whom haven't the knowledge to judge.

I've tried to think of something else to put here, but I don't think I could do virtue to what I'd mean. In lieu of a mockery of an explanation, I'll simply move on. Perhaps we can carry on this conversation in private.

I understand that, regrettably, I can be too confrontational at times. In my zeal to provoke thought, I sometimes allow myself to instead provoke anger, justifying it as being better than nothing at all. I do not claim to be perfect and I know that I sometimes tend to beat my opinions into people. I'm working on it. I just find it hard to accept another persons' opinion when I am passionate about something because I cannot conceive of somebody having spent as much time researching and thinking about those few subjects I have such vehemence for themselves. Incidentally, if you'd like to know the origin of the conflict between Final_Knight and I, you can read the 'Was the KB Interview, Now Is Religion' thread on the Non-RPG board. As it would appear, I made quite an impression when I first arrived here.

James' comment was much less than what it seemed initially, as I have found from my private discussion with him. It was poor wording, I think, more than anything. Though since you took offense (as did I) at that statement, it would lead me to believe you are still passionate about anarchy. This gladdens me. I don't know any anarchists anymore.

--Avenger

------------------

Don't try to run, you son of a bitch. You'll just die tired.

avengingcrusader@hotmail.com

[Argent_]

Well, glad to hear it - I mean, it´s always good to feel appreciated, especially since you thought that you were the annoying joker in the deck, so to speak.

An email is on its way, Avenger.

------------------

"It always begins in the same way: The first pawn moves. The first shot is fired (usually at the first pawn)."

[Final_Knight]

First post from me since the 11th.

I'm not going to get into a debate about this. Debates tend to be counterproductive when certain types of people are involved. And Avenger and I are both that certain type of people. Thus, while I respect the fact that Avenger took considerable time to type out his critique, I'm not going to comment on the critique directly. On the other hand, I am far from offended by his critique. I found it rather interesting.

Instead, I'm going to give a little bit more information as to why and what was presented:

First, the prologue which obviously had nothing to do with the article: I included this to inform others as to why it was written. You can disagree or agree with me, and it really doesn't matter. Having written more than a little, I've found that it never hurts to inform one of your inspiration for a particular idea.

Second: Who (in game) came up with this? Why? Etc. I left this out simply because IF anyone decides to use this, then they can fit it's origins in their individual campaigns however they choose.

Third: Why don't I add more comment on how different religions would approach this? For the same reason as #2. I can't assume that people are going to be universal or exclusive. Some from either spectrum might pick this up. Thus, I kept is open. That, and because I know how I'd run it, and that wouldn't be to everyone's taste. This keeps it simple: ST's choice.

[Avenger]

ST's choice is a noble enough reason, FK, but you know me, I'm a canonical sort, and I just thought it would have been stylin' if you'd included perhaps a proposed history or suggested list of practicioners.

Other than that, I respect your choice to keep those issues neutral and can see why you would. But I'm a sucker for background.

-- Avenger

------------------

Don't try to run, you son of a bitch. You'll just die tired.

avengingcrusader@hotmail.com

[Avenger]

To anyone other than FK who may be reading this;

You're still expecting the shot heard 'round the world, aren't you? Still cringing, waiting for me to prison-rape FK here?

Unclench. It's not going to happen. I'd like to think that FK and I have buried the hatchet, even if it's in each others' backs.

-- Avenger

------------------

Don't try to run, you son of a bitch. You'll just die tired.

avengingcrusader@hotmail.com

[Final_Knight]

Quote:

Originally posted by Avenger:
ST's choice is a noble enough reason, FK, but you know me, I'm a canonical sort, and I just thought it would have been stylin' if you'd included perhaps a proposed history or suggested list of practicioners.

----------------------------------
If things calm down over here enough for me to put my thoughts down on paper, I'll see what I can't do to get that to you.

[Final_Knight]

Quote:

Originally posted by Avenger:
I'd like to think that FK and I have buried the hatchet, even if it's in each others' backs.

Sounds about right.