Article - The Moral of the Story

[The Creator]

A lot of designers like to weave a bit of a moral into their scenarios. I'm not going to tell anyone not to do this, as I think the intent is good, even if the results are often quite poor. However, I will warn you to be very, very careful, as even the best designers are capable of screwing it up quite badly.

 

When done right, this can add an extra dimension to a scenario - you aren't just playing light entertainment, there's something much deeper to it. When done badly, you'll get reviews complaining about Big Important Ideas and that the scenario has a Point To Make. No one enjoys a lecture.

 

The most obvious example is The Valley of Dying Things. This scenario's theme can be summed up very simply - "Pollution is bad". Pollution is turned into some sort of cheesy villain. It has no motives or reason to exist in this game - I mean, it's just called 'waste'. It comes from a magical school, which apparently spent a large portion of time creating this deadly non-descript sludge. Why? No idea. What kind of bizarre magical procedure produced this stuff? No idea. What was so important that they decided it was worth the risk? No idea. We are told "pollution is bad" - but we're never told why it exists.

 

If you're going to address an issue, you need to address it properly and fully. Throwing in a moral without exploring the issue properly is asking for trouble.

 

Now, VoDT is hardly the worst offender in these cases. The scenario Bandits is a thinly-veiled lecture on the evils of Capitalism. The hero is called Karl Marx, and Capitalism (embodied in Mayor Pinochet) is portrayed as an incredibly greedy, evil entity. The characters are simply caricatures, espousing their various ideologies - the good of all (Communism) as opposed to intense self-interest and greed, greed, greed (Capitalism). It's about as subtle as a sledgehammer in a bowl of soup.

 

I firmly believe that as a designer and storyteller, you should never villify any point of view. Don't paint your baddies big and black - try to see them as they see themselves. No one believes they are evil. People who work at power plants don't see themselves as environmental vandals - they are providing a much-needed service to the community. Those who admire the principles of capitalism don't see themselves as greedy, grasping overlords - they believe in rewarding hard work and innovation. Even Hitler believed he was purifying the human race.

 

A scenario that does it right: Nephil's Gambit. Central to this game is the character Commander Groul. He's charismatic, intensely intelligent, resourceful, and brave. He's a hero. He also has no scruples whatsoever.

 

Commander Groul believes that the end justifies the means, whatever those means may be. He engineers a war for himself to win, so he can win favour and take power. Your adversary is not a cackling, black-robed, evil-loving wizard away in a dark tower - he's the hero of your country.

 

Nephil's Gambit doesn't hit you over the head with "The end does not justify the means". Instead, it takes Groul's point of view to it's natural conclusion, weaves a masterful story, and lets you decide for yourself. Do you follow Groul, or stand against him?

 

Don't TELL the player something is bad - let him see and learn for himself. No one will be convinced by an editorial comment from the designer. If you want your scenario to be deep and meaningful, you need to create a story and characters with depth and meaning - not just buzzwords.

 

In summary:

1) Making a point can be a good thing.

2) Done poorly, it can be a bad thing.

3) Making a point does not work when the scenario doesn't explore the issue properly.

4) You can't explore an issue properly with a one-sided argument.

[Donald Hebb]

Just curious here, but how does Bandits not allow you to choose your side? If nothing else, you will probably be forced to side with Pinochet. If you side with Marx, it's only 'cuz you chose to. (And I'm not sure how a political story could be told in ~10 towns, half of them being "extras".)

 

And that said, are you absolutely sure that Pinochet represents "mainstream" capitalism? The mayor's namesake- Augusto Pinochet- was a man who charged into Chile at the order of the US and assassinated the elected, Socialist president of Chile and set up a Despotism. He had no scruples, and neither did his counterpart in my scenario. Pinochet (imperialist Capitalism) murdered, Marx murdered (imperialist Communism). Heck, Marx is a BANDIT after all- I never go out and say that he's good. I'm afraid you're more-or-less interpolating from my political standpoint rather than taking it for what it is.

[Kelandon]

All in favor of telling the Creator and TM not to use each other's scenarios as example in their articles? This gets tiresome.

[Vent]

Pinochet was strongly helped by CIA to get the power, he was a terrible dictator, the few days that follow he executed about 20.000 people. Or did I confuse him with someone else? I don't think so.

 

For the advice given through the article I tend to agree, but the example of VoDT seems to me just wrong.

 

I don't remember a single comment about "the polution is wrong" in this scenario. It had prety bad effect that can be only wrong isn't it? That's all.

 

At best the little morale you can see, but is this morale? Is about politic power neglecting polution or mor specifically a waste "just" forgotten.

[The Creator]

Quote:

Originally written by TM Revolution:
Just curious here, but how does Bandits not allow you to choose your side? If nothing else, you will probably be forced to side with Pinochet. If you side with Marx, it's only 'cuz you chose to. (And I'm not sure how a political story could be told in ~10 towns, half of them being "extras".)

And that said, are you absolutely sure that Pinochet represents "mainstream" capitalism? The mayor's namesake- Augusto Pinochet- was a man who charged into Chile at the order of the US and assassinated the elected, Socialist president of Chile and set up a Despotism. He had no scruples, and neither did his counterpart in my scenario. Pinochet (imperialist Capitalism) murdered, Marx murdered (imperialist Communism). Heck, Marx is a BANDIT after all- I never go out and say that he's good. I'm afraid you're more-or-less interpolating from my political standpoint rather than taking it for what it is.

A. You don't actually force the party to side with Marx, but you do paint Pinochet big, bad and black while Marx is presented as the victim. He is never portrayed as doing anything bad - sure, he leads a bunch of bandits against the evil mayor, but he's just trying to get his family back. Also, the sequel assumes that you sided with Marx.

B. Did I say anything about mainstream capitalism either? If, as you say, Bandits is about imperialist Capitalism vs imperialist Communism, it still leans heavily in favour of the latter.

I'm not having a go at viewpoints here, just techniques. The "Family is important" moral of Baba Yaga was handled just as clumsily, but I used Bandits as an example because the moral is central to the entire scenario rather than tacked on at the end.

Vent - The pollution is there, causing problems. It's bad. Why is it there? Magical waste produced by schoolkids (or something). It's clearly based on modern-day pollution, since it doesn't make much sense in a fantasy setting. The scenario ignores all the difficult issues associated with pollution (such as how to fix it - there's a handy mechanism that no one bothered to activate before they left) and just makes a dodgy villain out of it.

[Lilith]

In my opinion, there are also a few scenarios that need a moral message and don't have one. I'm thinking specifically of Changing Faces here; you can't have a player work up that much moral outrage without doing something with it. That scenario was crying out for a better resolution than "wait centuries for the land to be rebuilt to the state of orderly, crystal-imposed bliss it once knew".

 

Regarding Bandits, I sided with Pinochet and I lean very much to the left side of politics. Marx never does anything bad? What about having most of the population of the lumber camp murdered, not to mention burning down Pinochet's home? Perhaps TM didn't emphasise these events as much as he ought to have, and perhaps he made Pinochet try less hard to present a convincing case than he should have, but Marx is hardly portrayed as a saint. Taken literally, siding with Marx in Bandits is tantamount to saying that adultery is a justification for murder.

 

Regarding VoDT, I have ideas about why the waste disposal mechanisms weren't used when the school was sealed, but they involve more thought than the plot really deserves.

 

One other point I'd make is that if you let a player make a moral choice, make the choice mean something: having both paths lead to the same result in The Nature of Evil was a convenient way for Measle to get his message across, but it's just plain inconsiderate to the player.

[coreyh]

I personally liked the plot of The Valley of Dying Things. I've only played the blades of exile version so I can't say if things changed. I didn't memorized the plot so sorry if this is off.

 

The school was too independent for the empire. It was quickly shut down with at least some of the people running it killed by someone else in the school who was more loyal to the empire. The people running it saw this coming and made a ghost to tell you how to get rid of the waste that was still there because of the machines that were used to get rid of it being shut down. The waste was just whatever was left from magical spells and such. I imagined the chemical waste from a school laboratory. It was gotten rid of in a furnace. It was probably done in a more controlled way then what is done in the end of the story.

 

I mostly liked it because it had the same feel as Geneforge or Resident Evil. The exploring a place left suddenly is in all these games. They are mostly setting and not characters.

 

A few of these articles seem to basically say don't write badly. Which is hard to do as amateurs who may be mediocre writers. I personally imagine having quite a hard time writing good dialog. Which is one of the things I love in a game or writing in general.

 

I personally don't mind good vs evil plots either. As long the characters and

settings are interesting.

[Lilith]

My theory was actually that the experiments were continuing on their own while the School was officially sealed. One of the wisps mentions that the experiments conducted at the School had to do with artificial life, after all. The experiments were presumably conducted in secrecy in the sealed School because they were highly dangerous; the murders were probably an attempt to silence opposition to them.

[Rufo]

Quote:

Pinochet (imperialist Capitalism) murdered, Marx murdered (imperialist Communism).

Maybe I'm just entirely stupid , but if you refer to the "real" Marx and Pinochet, I actually don't think Marx ever murdered (or sent someone to murder) anyone. Lexicons says he "participated in the revolution", but then mostly as a writer and not as some kind of killer.
Pinochet, however, clearly ordered lots of people to be killed. So I think it's kind of fair to portray Pinochet as more evil, whatever you may say about Marx politics.
But let's not make Spiderweb Message Boards into a political or historical forum - to the point.
Creator, I really do think you got a point, but there are different types of scenarios. BoA takes place in a fantasy world - and after all, almost every old fairy tale has this simple "he-is-a-evil-wizard-and-he-wants-to-be-evil-just-because-he's-so-evil" concept, and thought it may make people feel a bit stupid playing it, you can make a good story out of that too. Remember that in Lord of the Rings (and now I'm talking about the the books, not the scenarios) Sauron didn't really had a good reason to not just join up with the good people, tell them to please give him his ring, and living happily with the Vala for eternal time. He's just evil. And Lord of the Rings seems good to me anyway...
Is a scenario very different?
I don't say all scenarios have to be this simple, I just say they don't all have to be that advanced. We all need some fairytales.

[Donald Hebb]

Quote:

Originally written by The Creator:
A. You don't actually force the party to side with Marx, but you do paint Pinochet big, bad and black while Marx is presented as the victim. He is never portrayed as doing anything bad - sure, he leads a bunch of bandits against the evil mayor, but he's just trying to get his family back. Also, the sequel assumes that you sided with Marx.

But to an extent, Marx is a victim. (His child was, for reference, robbed from him.) The question is whether or not he is moral. The only reason that he is portrayed as being good is because he leads you to his home, complete with charming little memoires of his days past. He acts like he is the victim, he acts like is good. Still, he did commit, um, murder. Of his wife.
And saying that the winners are the good guys is a pretty piss-poor assumption on your part. Pinochet beat the Chileans, was he moral in doing so? History doesn't tell us who's right or who's wrong, only who's left.

Quote:

B. Did I say anything about mainstream capitalism either? If, as you say, Bandits is about imperialist Capitalism vs imperialist Communism, it still leans heavily in favour of the latter.

See the previous (and Thuryl's) point. Marx tries to murder Pinochet, Marx tries to murder the party, Marx successfully massacres plenty of innocent folks. He is not the "Good Guy" here. Not necisarily, anyway.

Quote:

Originally written by Rufo:
Maybe I'm just entirely stupid , but if you refer to the "real" Marx and Pinochet, I actually don't think Marx ever murdered (or sent someone to murder) anyone. Lexicons says he "participated in the revolution", but then mostly as a writer and not as some kind of killer.

Bandits isn't exclusively about Marxism. Let's remember that Marx was also homeys with Lenin- then it would be safer to say that this scenario deals with Marxist-Leninism, which is definitely a more pro-murder philosophy. Portraying both ends as being Bad- ie. both Pinochet and Marx- was the point I had more-or-less intended. Pinochet (imperialist Capitalism) is a dirty robber, but is revolution (Marxist-Leninism) really worth it? If you sided with Marx, your answer is yes, Creator.

[DesertPlah]

What is it with Lenin? Was I fed a bunch of crap in that book from 5th grade?

 

Eh, in any case, VoDT could also be against oppression and stuff from the Empire. Because the Empire didn't want anyone else controlling magic, they shut the school down hastily, which is why they had the killings.

[The Creator]

Whoops. I guess my memory of that scenario is a bit hazy. I certainly don't remember anything about Marx murdering his wife.

 

In reference to Sauron, there are reasons behind his actions, if you really want to study the Silmarillion.

[Lilith]

I don't think it's explicitly mentioned, but I don't think we ever see her again after the fire either. Come to think of it, that's probably why Pinochet's so ticked off at that point.

[The Creator]

Checking the Bandits .exs file, it seems that Marx wasn't behind the lumber camp massacre. That was another bunch, and you walk in during negotiations about an alliance. Yeah, Marx tries to kill the party... that's been hired to kill him. Not that unreasonable.

 

I think the reason why Marx comes off as so much more sympathetic than Pinochet is that he has motives. Not that they're necessarily good ones, but just the fact that they're there makes him better by comparison.

 

In reference to Marx being presumed alive in Bandits 2, considering that the party is placed in a situation where they can decide the outcome, I assume that it would be natural to expect them to make the 'right' choice.

 

Thuryl - I agree very much with most of your comments, especially Changing Faces. The first time I played it I got stuck shortly before the end. It was better that way.

[Kelandon]

Quote:

In reference to Sauron, there are reasons behind his actions, if you really want to study the Silmarillion.

As I recall, not having the book in front of me to check it, this came down to: he follows/worships Morgoth, who is some sort of fallen angel thing, so Morgoth is evil, so Sauron is evil. Besides, I think the point was that Sauron's motives are never explained in LotR itself, and it doesn't really matter.

That doesn't make this point

Quote:

Don't paint your baddies big and black - try to see them as they see themselves.

any less valid.

I think that this sentence

Quote:

I firmly believe that as a designer and storyteller, you should never villify any point of view.

should be rewritten. There are many layers to this. The narrator probably shouldn't directly condemn an entire ideology ("Peering through the darkness, you see a three-headed monster. By the way, capitalism is bad."), but ultimately, scenarios, just like any stories, can have a point. If a designer wants to point out the evils of capitalism (or communism or fascism or Christianity or Judaism or atheism or modernism or...), then the designer can do that. Generally, as a writing technique, you don't do that by saying it directly. You show results. You portray a laissez faire capitalist system that exploits its workers to the point of serious abuse, perhaps drawing from the first decade of the twentieth century for examples. You show a communist system that collectivizes agriculture and deals with resistance by mass slaughter, as Stalin did in the 1930's. People are not likely to believe you if you say that capitalism is bad, but if you show them examples of capitalism being bad, they may think your point has some validity.

Scenarios very much can villify certain points of view. It's just that one-dimensional villains are terrible representatives of a point of view, because they don't really have anything to do with that point of view; they are one-dimensional.

I'm guessing that this sentence just came out wrong, based on the rest of the article, but as it reads right now, I disagree with it.

[Vent]

Quote:

Originally written by TM Revolution:
Pinochet (imperialist Capitalism) is a dirty robber

Ooops!

Quote:

Originally written by The Creator:
The pollution is there, causing problems. It's bad. Why is it there? Magical waste produced by schoolkids (or something).

I appreciate the attempt to lowdown the scenario quality by the use of words "schoolkids (or something)". Using "something" only would have been enough.

Quote:

It's clearly based on modern-day pollution, since it doesn't make much sense in a fantasy setting.

That makes no sense, why Fantasy should be limited? There are echoes with modern world pollution. You didn't saw them but you hadn't been a good player as there are bad readers. Or perhaps you need play the boA version?

Quote:

The scenario ignores all the difficult issues associated with pollution (such as how to fix it - there's a handy mechanism that no one bothered to activate before they left) and just makes a dodgy villain out of it.

That's not the morale problem behind nowadays pollution. It's not a fix problem or any thechnics or risks evaluation.

It's a problem of "Ha well for now it's ok, let future generation solve the problem when it will be really needed.". That's the core of the pollution problem and VoDT clearly goes in front of that point and I'm surprised you didn't saw that.

Yes, the approach isn't subtile, a massive artillery is used, we are fully in a black&white point of view.

I won't condemn the author about this choice because we blind ourself too much and we need more strong messages instead of possible confuse message that let people think, ha well it's ok future generation will solve the problem.

About the grey point of view, you didn't mentioned a problem that think important. Except if you are a master writer you should put a lot of care when you try to avoid the black&white problem. You could easily end in something that seems to justify anything like child murder, serial killer, and so on. So I agree it's a point of improvement but a lot of care is required and it's not always a necessity as soon as the morale message isn't direct.

A quote, in a morale article, in a BoA forum, do not mention A Small Rebellion is very surprising. Too complicate?

[Kelandon]

Vent, the pollution in VoDT is pretty shallow. Pollution in the modern day is a complicated issue (being discussed starting around here in a thread in the General forum), and it doesn't boil down to, "For now it's okay, and we'll let future generations solve the problem when it's necessary." It is a matter of choices between alternatives that each have their disadvantages. Besides, even if that were the case, VoDT contains absolutely no explanation for the reasons that the mages didn't activate the anti-pollution mechanisms when they left. You're just guessing at their rationale, but VoDT doesn't even supply that.

 

Quote:

A quote, in a morale article, in a BoA forum, do not mention A Small Rebellion is very surprising. Too complicate?

Despite some legitimacy in the complaint, the Creator has made it clear with his actions that he is not going to draw only from BoA examples, so you should probably quit objecting.

 

ASR's ambiguous morality is one of the main reasons that people like it. It is an example of the success of the Creator's description above. Nephil's Gambit is probably more successful and more liked. Nephil's Gambit is therefore probably the better example. Articles need not mentioned *every* scenario that relates.

[Vent]

Quote:

Originally written by Pronounced Kel-LAN-don:
[QB]VoDT contains absolutely no explanation for the reasons that the mages didn't activate the anti-pollution mechanisms when they left. You're just guessing at their rationale, but VoDT doesn't even supply that.

There are plenty good reasons to explain a goverment refused to sign a wordwide treaty despite it is the first pollution maker and all other industrialized country had sign.

I'm confident we could find many good reasons not doing something with an effect not in near future. I agree it's complicate but if there's a blocking in governments and everyday everybody behavior it's not because of good reasons to not doing something but because a mentality need to change and I think it's far to be done.

Quote:

Despite some legitimacy in the complaint, the Creator has made it clear with his actions that he is not going to draw only from BoA examples, so you should probably quit objecting.

Am I dreaming or why there's a BoE forum? If there are only BoE example I don't see why put this article here. Well when none of the few BoA scenario could apply, why not, but when it's possible...

So you should better quit objecting my objecting.

[The Creator]

Sure, you could find reasons. I'm sure Jeff Vogel could have too. But he didn't bother.

 

I don't think A Small Rebellion is a good example. It has a moral dilemma, but it doesn't have a moral. This doesn't make it a bad scenario, of course.

 

It's hard for me to draw from BoA scenarios considering I'm on PC. I would if I could, but I can't so I won't. Besides, there are way more good scenarios for BoE and everyone should play them.

 

Kel - I think the word 'villify' means different things to you and me. Commander Groul is the antagonist of Nephil's Gambit, so it would be fair to say he's the 'bad guy', but I don't believe Tormod Strangeland villified him. He actually got into the mind of his 'villain' and understood him. He treated Groul as a character, not a baddie.

 

So basically, I think we agree on concept, but differ on terminology.

[Lilith]

Quote:

There are plenty good reasons to explain a goverment refused to sign a wordwide treaty despite it is the first pollution maker and all other industrialized country had sign.

Yeah, but in this case all that the researchers at the school had to do was push a freaking button and the waste would be all gone.

My problem with VoDT is that it tries to make an external point about society that simply doesn't make sense within the internal logic of the scenario.

[Vent]

Ok, I agree pollution morale isn't the center of this scenario. I disagree it must be the centrale subject for all scenario related to pollution. Also it changes from the too often seen plague. I disagree it has no link with any nowadays pollution problems.

 

About a Small Rebellion, it follows many advices of the article plus morale is more in its center than most other games I ever played. That doesn't means it gives you the solution but that's what is very difficult with morale, give your solution to the player. And that's a little what you advice to avoid. Finally it would have been the perfect example for your "avoid black&white" advice.

 

Even more, what makes this scenario popular is certainly a lot that aspect. At least myself I get hypnotized by this.

[Lilith]

I don't think anyone's said there isn't a link between VoDT and real pollution; the link is obvious. What we've been saying is that the link is an illogical one; Jeff forced a political ideology into a place where it doesn't really fit.

[Vent]

I disagree and I'm tired to try to explain, there's a pollution morale in this scenario that's all I mean. And I also disagree that it's a good example of a wrong use of morale. That's also a great scenario.

[Donald Hebb]

Quote:

Originally written by The Creator:
I think the reason why Marx comes off as so much more sympathetic than Pinochet is that he has motives. Not that they're necessarily good ones, but just the fact that they're there makes him better by comparison.

And hey, Marxist-Leninism had motives too! Damned good ones, and far better than "we-want-power" motives of both Imperial Capitalism and the Czars who were rebelled against. Does that make a Bolshevik Republic a morally feasible response?
Eh, it's the party's choice.

Quote:

In reference to Marx being presumed alive in Bandits 2, considering that the party is placed in a situation where they can decide the outcome, I assume that it would be natural to expect them to make the 'right' choice.

Your link is rather weak. The party is not "presumed" to make the correct choice, they're only presumed to make the choice that I have them make in the next scenario. (In this respect, I was more-or-less chosing the outcome that would give the two a reunion fight- Katothen most definitely would not go out of his way to revive Pinochet, and Deacon would also have no reason to re-animate Marx.)

Part of the reasoning is that this scenario is taken from the Sanctuary perspective. Katothen is, unless you haven't picked this up, fatally emotional. Pinochet by his nature has no real motives, and even though Marx uses violence to achieve his means, he at least has a "good heart" (quotes representing ambiguity). Katothen also uses violence to achieve his means (although admittedly, his case is different in many other ways). Unless B2 is to occur from the perspective of Deacon (which would be quite interesting indeed!), it would make sense to have the party choose not necisarily the right choice but the pro-Sanctuary choice.

Thuryl - I agree very much with most of your comments, especially Changing Faces. The first time I played it I got stuck shortly before the end. It was better that way.[/QB]

[Donald Hebb]

Quote:

Originally written by The Creator:
I think the reason why Marx comes off as so much more sympathetic than Pinochet is that he has motives. Not that they're necessarily good ones, but just the fact that they're there makes him better by comparison.

And hey, Marxist-Leninism had motives too! Damned good ones, and far better than "we-want-power" motives of both Imperial Capitalism and the Czars who were rebelled against. Does that make a Bolshevik Republic a morally feasible response?
Eh, it's the party's choice.

Quote:

In reference to Marx being presumed alive in Bandits 2, considering that the party is placed in a situation where they can decide the outcome, I assume that it would be natural to expect them to make the 'right' choice.

Your link is rather weak. The party is not "presumed" to make the correct choice, they're only presumed to make the choice that I have them make in the next scenario. (In this respect, I was more-or-less chosing the outcome that would give the two a reunion fight- Katothen most definitely would not go out of his way to revive Pinochet, and Deacon would also have no reason to re-animate Marx.)

Part of the reasoning is that this scenario is taken from the Sanctuary perspective. Katothen is, unless you haven't picked this up, fatally emotional. Pinochet by his nature has no real motives, and even though Marx uses violence to achieve his means, he at least has a "good heart" (quotes representing ambiguity). Katothen also uses violence to achieve his means (although admittedly, his case is different in many other ways). Unless B2 is to occur from the perspective of Deacon (which would be quite interesting indeed!), it would make sense to have the party choose not necisarily the right choice but the pro-Sanctuary choice.

Quote:

Thuryl - I agree very much with most of your comments, especially Changing Faces. The first time I played it I got stuck shortly before the end. It was better that way.

The first time I played it, I got stuck towards the beginning. It was better that way.

[The Creator]

So... the player is given a free moral choice. The rest of the series assumes you choose to help Marx. The sequel hinges on your party coming to help Marx - as a friend - in response to a letter from him. However, you insist that the scenario does not paint Marx as the 'good guy' and choosing to help him is not assumed to be the 'right choice'.

 

Correct?

[Donald Hebb]

Correct.

 

For instance, how do you know that Katothen is the good guy?

[Imban]

Well, Creator, almost any sequel to a multi-path scenario has to assume that one (and only one) of the paths was followed.

 

On its own, Bandits may present an ethical dilemma - Thuryl, among others, sided with Pinochet, feeling that it was the right choice.

 

On the other hand, Bandits 2 does a fairly good job of telling you which choice was right.

 

*shrugs* It's an entirely different scenario, though.

[Donald Hebb]

Clearly, B2 presents who's "right" in the traditional sense. I'd be able to argue a case for every single character in Echoes, but that's beside the point.

The point is that there's more ambiguity in Bandits seems to acknowledge.

 

EDIT:

Quote:

In reference to Sauron, there are reasons behind his actions, if you really want to study the Silmarillion.

The reason behind his actions is the destruction of Postmodern thought.

http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/10/mooney-c.html

[TiaraLi]

Hey, this is my first post so please forgive me if I get things wrong. My view of VoDT is that the message is far more complex than 'pollution is bad'. There is an official order from the Empire saying that all magical processes in the school must be ended. This includes the waste disposal system. There is not time to get rid of all the waste first, what with everyone needing to pack and try and finalise other experiments which were potentially dangerous. Heck, just look at all the loot that got left behind, that wouldn't have been left there if there was time to deal with everything before leaving!

 

My view of it is this: the Empire makes a declaration. When the Empire makes a declaration, you obey or you lose your life. The problem is that the Empire is a government organisation that has no understanding of the way a magic school works, or the potential dangers of closing it down without the time needed to deal with issues like waste. They just say the command, and chop the heads off those who haven't immediately obeyed.

 

In the school, there were those who understood the dangers. Some were frightened enough to be loyal to the empire, and others tried to deal with the issue of the waste. There was a battle, and those loyal to the empire won out. The others died, but not after trying to leave instructions so that others could fix the problem later.

 

To me, the issue isn't a poorly disguised 'pollution is bad', but a discussion as to who should be making decisions about dangerous situations. Is it wise to have a government making decisions on things they have no knowledge about? Is it wise to simply trust your government to do the right decision, despite your own knowledge of a subject telling you that they are making a foolish decision?

 

I hope someone else can see my point of view.

[Kelandon]

Look! A newbie!

 

I think this interpretation is a reasonable one. However, I don't know if the scenario says anywhere that the mages in the school didn't have time to start the cleaning mechanism. As far as I could tell, Jeff didn't want us to know why the mechanism wasn't started. When you pull the lever to clean things up, part of the dialog that comes up says, "For whatever reason, the waste destruction mechanisms weren't used when the School was closed" (town 11, state 27, emphasis added).

 

The explanation I came up with while playing was that they didn't have a good energy source. After all, you have to get that Crystal of Power from the vahnatai before you can activate the waste cleanup system. Still, I'm just speculating. I don't know that VoDT says anywhere what the real reason is that the mages didn't activate the controls.

 

I suppose I could quibble with one of the paragraphs in the article, because VoDT does kind of try to say that the experiments were important -- when you walk into the Control Chambers: "There can be no more doubt. The School of Magery was not just a teaching institution. Some remarkable research was going on here as well. The strange devices in front of you are evidence enough of that" (town 16, state 14) -- but insofar as it doesn't really detail any of them, the point is still pretty valid.

[Lattan]

And since the original scenarios are supposed to show what's possible with the engine, Jeff may have just been giving new designers possible topics for scenarios. You could set one when the school is closed explaining what happened, for instance.

[TiaraLi]

Good idea, SNM, my only problem is that if everyone has their own specific idea of what happened, then if you make a scenario that doesn't fit in with that idea, lots of people will be annoyed with your scenario to start with because it won't fit the 'facts', whereas if you start with a relatively neutral idea they may or may not like your setting, but it's more difficult to actually argue with its accuracy.

 

Although lots of people seem to like arguing about others' scenarios around here... maybe i'm just a chicken!

 

I guess the same kind of goes with putting a 'moral' in your story. If you pick a moral that isn't mainstream, for example a specific religious idea, then you must be prepared for backlash. So its up to you; are you doing this for other's entertainment, or to try and preach? Or are you just trying to put a moral in to make the story seem more real, as if it really matters what happens in the scenario?

 

I'm on the pc, so i haven't played any user scenarios for BoA yet, but I have read through the reviews of the two that are there. One of them got some scathing reviews because it was preachy. However, on the tables list it actually says a description something like 'when god declares war on the modern' (i think) so at least people were warned.

 

Hmm I don't really think I have an argument here, just a listing of ideas. If you have a well done moral to your story, it can add realism to it. If you have a preachy moral, it can bug people who are just here for entertainment. If you can handle the criticism, you can at least be happy that some might listen to your 'message'. But those who are annoyed may avoid any scenarios you make in the future.

[Lilith]

Quote:

Originally written by TiaraLi:
I'm on the pc, so i haven't played any user scenarios for BoA yet, but I have read through the reviews of the two that are there. One of them got some scathing reviews because it was preachy. However, on the tables list it actually says a description something like 'when god declares war on the modern' (i think) so at least people were warned.

That is... a sort of warning, but it is not the sort of warning you think it is.

(Since you're new, the above sentence probably needs further elaboration. TM, the designer of that particular scenario, is one of the more... unique and prolific scenario designers in the community. He's also a strident Communist and post-modernist.)

[Qalnor]

I disagree with the article in just about every way except of course the core spirit of it. Nobody wants to be preached to, and when things are too preachy people turn away from them.

 

Now I haven't played the Karl Marx scenarios, so I can't say for sure that it doesn't go too far. But you brought up VoTD as an example as well.

 

I'm not going to sit here and tell you that VoTD's plot is sheer genius, but if it is your idea of preachy then your idea of preachy is too extreme.

 

Every story must be told in a moral context. You seem to forget that in your comments.. oh you pay lip service to it by saying that in theory it can add a lot of depth to a story if carefully done, but even this betrays the logical flaw of what you're saying.

 

I would rather a story with a little preachiness than no moral context at all.. adds depth? A story is barely two-dimensional without presenting some ideas as good and others as bad.

 

I'll agree that a story is even stronger yet when the morality of it becomes confused by the complexities of 'reality', but at the very core of a story there are heroes and villains.

 

But you seem to want all villains to be insane; murderers, rapists or otherwise so far outside of social norms that you don't feel guilty considering them the bad guy.

 

Well those romantic notions are fine for a childrens story, but if you want anyone over 12 to take something you create seriously, the villains need motives apart from being kill crazy warlords.

 

I agree with you that sometimes it's possible for an author's voice to become too apparent, but your expectations as described in this article are quite honestly ridiculous and anyone trying to follow the guidelines would almost certainly create a very very boring scenario.

[Kelandon]

I think you misunderstood the article almost completely. If you read it in the context of the Creator's other articles , particularly Creating Compelling Characters and Good Bad Guys, then you'll notice some things in the article that show that he knows what you're saying already.

 

Speaking for myself, my issue with VoDT is not that it is preachy -- which would imply an excess of moralizing, where there isn't all that much -- but just that the moral for real life doesn't follow from the story. The moral in VoDT is that pollution is bad. Why? Because it is. So don't pollute. Why does pollution exist? How is this more than just a black and white issue? These are questions that VoDT does not even attempt to address. My point is that while VoDT is not overly preachy, the only moral that one can draw from it is a shallow one.

 

The issue here is that the characters lack motivations for their negative actions. Why do they leave behind the waste? We never know. If anything, that makes them closer to insane villains rather than to multi-dimensional people. It is not the most egregious example in Blades history, but it is one that most people are familiar with.

Quote:

Originally written by Qalnor:

But you seem to want all villains to be insane; murderers, rapists or otherwise so far outside of social norms that you don't feel guilty considering them the bad guy.

Did you even READ this article? Commander Groul in Nephil's Gambit is THE BAD GUY (kind of). He is "your adversary." And the Creator cites him as a good example because he is NOT insane. He is very rational, perhaps too much so.

Quote:

Originally written by Qalnor:

your expectations as described in this article are quite honestly ridiculous

Which expectations? These?

Quote:

Originally written by the Creator:

If you're going to address an issue, you need to address it properly and fully.

I would hope not.

 

EDIT: I think what you're reacting to is the same thing that bothered me at first, namely that one paragraph (but NOT the whole thing) almost sounds as though he's saying to make everyone a good guy. But if you look closely, you'll notice he's saying to make everyone a good guy FROM THEIR OWN POINT OF VIEW. Virtually no one who ever lived has ever thought of himself as a bad guy who did bad things all the time because he was bad. For realism, none of your characters should, either.

[The Creator]

Reread Kelandon's post if you want my response. He more or less said exactly what I would have if he hadn't.

 

Summed up, my point of view is:

1) Making a point can be a good thing.

2) Done poorly, it can be a bad thing.

3) Making a point does not work when the scenario doesn't explore the issue properly.

4) You can't explore an issue properly with a one-sided argument.

 

Do you disagree with any of this?

[*i]

Creator, you should append the previous post to the bottom of your article as a summary.

[Qalnor]

I agree with 1, 2 and 3 certainly.. I'm just not sure about 4.

 

A storyteller is not required to ignore his or her own beliefs in telling a story. Should they harp on them heavily and slap you in the face with them? No. But does every story with moral implications need to describe the opposing viewpoint with equal attention to detail?

 

I don't really think so, as long as you never get the sense that the storyteller is trying to prove something to you, he has no motive much less responsibility to be fair to all sides of an issue.

 

If someone wanted to make a scenario that was deeply exploring issues.. then I would agree with you, because if we're seriously exploring something and trying to come to some real and honest conclusions about something, it's not all about what moves the story anymore, it's about the underlying truths. And in the end when it's all fleshed out it can be a good story too, but it isn't the only way to make a good story.

 

I guess my reaction to your post was based on you pointing your finger at VODT as an example of what you considered preachy and over the top.

 

I don't specifically disagree with anything you said on the subject, really, it's just that your example of VODT to me indicates that your standard is much different than I think is reasonable.

 

And why? Because I don't think VODT seriously explores the issue of pollution. I don't think the scenario has an axe to grind with pollution, and I don't think it's trying to convince anyone that the analogue of magic, science, is some great evil in society because it pollutes up the world.

 

Maybe I'm being naive, but I really never felt like the scenario was trying to tell me ANYTHING about pollution. Was pollution a part of the story? Yes, but did it take on a character, did it have good or evil firmly attached to it? No I don't really think so.

 

To be honest, if I had one complaint about VODT, it would be the lack of a villain or foe. It was a mystery story and in the end the responsible parties were all long dead and their motives were sketchy at best.

 

So at the end of the day, I agree with your thesis, I just don't see how it applies to the example you listed.

[*i]

I don't think you need to give everything equal time, so long as you give all aspects some explanation and perspective. Things that are evil and wrong for the sake of being evil and wrong are not good storyline devices.

 

The point with VoDT is that if you consider pollution to be your villain, it is ultimately shallow and the moral gained from the story is as well. We can debate about any implied moral all we want. All that matters is that if one was attempted, then it failed. Future attempts that present morals should be able to look at VoDTs shortcomings and improve upon them.

[Vent]

Using VoDT as an example in this article is a bad idea, in my opinion! I note two reproaches which are still due vis-a-vis to contradiction:

1. VoDT doesn’t treat pollution according to a contemporary angle.

2. One reproaches him a coherence problem of the story, and NOT a problem of treatment of morals. The reproach is this question, “Why the deposit of waste had not been destroyed?”.

 

1 - Concerning item 1, indeed, this type of pollution is out of our current main concern. The contemporary concern is to be unable to control a global degradation of planet.

However, the type of pollution, which VoDT shows, is a pollution that is much localised on the scale of the planet. Blow, in our eyes, this aspect can appear out of the contemporary subject.

 

For the defence of VoDT, there are three aspects:

* Initially, the scenario occurs 100 years later from what will be the cause of pollution. It’s not specified when really pollution starts, however, its devastator effect will take place in 100 years later, but the polluted area is very limited. It’s true that that can seem a minor problem of pollution in comparison with the contemporary problems in the center of the debates. However, pollution is a vast problem, and this type of pollution remains completely current. This scenario doesn’t cover a subject on the spot of the lights, but it points out an aspect of the pollution, which is forgotten a little. I think that it’s not justified to reproach it this choice.

 

* Obviously, when one speaks about warehouses of waste, one thinks of those of radioactive waste. In this direction, the scenario covers the subject rather well.

 

* Concerning the moral approach, the major design choice of the scenario, 100 years later, leaves little place to an effective debate. It’s difficult to present the reasons justifying the choices involving this catastrophic situation. That can even pose a serious problem of morals by giving the impression to justify murders of children. On this subject, I repeat myself, it is an interesting choice to present and develop two aspects of morals, the white and the black. Advising it systematically is an error. The trap is to justify the unjustifiable one, at least, for certain players. Moreover, for certain subjects, that can be very delicate and it is preferable to be a Master writer to do this type of treatment.

 

2 - Concerning item 2, this question has nothing to do with the morals of the scenario. The moral problem is linked to those who wanted to hide the potential problem. It’s not linked to know why those who feared the future danger did not act. This last point is purely a possible coherence problem of the story.

 

To answer this point I am not yet ready to make an interpretation. I played only once VoDT BoA. In this moment, I play VoDT BoE. I already noted differences, but I did not finish this version yet. It will be necessary then that I play VoDT BoA again because I am not certain to point out some of the indices well to me.

[Kelandon]

Vent, a few things. To your first bullet point in point 1: I don't think anyone has made that criticism. No one has said that a scenario need cover only the most pressing and important aspect of a contemporary issue.

 

Quote:

Obviously, when one speaks about warehouses of waste, one thinks of those of radioactive waste. In this direction, the scenario covers the subject rather well.

I disagree. As Thuryl pointed out, all they had to do to dispose of this pollution was to PUSH A BUTTON. And they didn't do it. Radioactive waste is nothing like this. There is no magic button to push to get rid of it.

 

I'm sorry, but the English in your third bullet point is so bad that I'm not sure that I understand you at all. Let me at least address a part of it.

Quote:

the major design choice of the scenario, 100 years later, leaves little place to an effective debate. It’s difficult to present the reasons justifying the choices involving this catastrophic situation.

1. Again, I don't think the part about VoDT taking place one hundred years (or eighty, technically -- t13Libraries.txt, state 13, string 5) after the fact is the most important part to most people here.

2. It would be easy enough to leave behind a note that indicated the reasons for the waste not being cleaned up, or to provide some sort of evidence to allow the player to speculate, or whatever. JV could've done this if he wanted to. As I wrote above, I think he didn't want us to think about the reason the school wasn't shut down.

Quote:

The moral problem is linked to those who wanted to hide the potential problem. It’s not linked to know why those who feared the future danger did not act.

We have only your say-so on that. Either way, why did people want to hide the potential problem? Or why was the waste not destroyed? Why did any of the events unfold the way that they did? None of the characters demonstrate motivations, one of the most important parts about the writing of any sort of story. That was my objection: whether the cover-up was central, as you say, or the pollution was central, as others have said, why did people behave the ways that they did? We never know.

 

The problem here is that the school has a magic button that will clean up all the waste, one that has no downsides (at least as far as we ever know). Real life pollution is not like this at all. It is about trade-offs.

[*i]

Quote:

Originally written by Vent:

* Obviously, when one speaks about warehouses of waste, one thinks of those of radioactive waste. In this direction, the scenario covers the subject rather well.

Except it does not at all. Radioactive waste is an extremely complicated issue. I understand the school was closed in a hurry, but why did they not take means of disposing of it? Especially since this meant really pushing a button.

Radioactive waste, on the other hand, is not as easy to deal with. However, there are other issues such as whether to store, reprocess, or even transmute the stuff. If stored, then the question of how much leakage is too much and how long does it need to be stored before it is safe. Time is not such a pressing concern on this issue. If the moral of the story is not to store radioactive waste in a repository such as Yucca Mountain, then the scenario really failed to present a side. If the moral was not to leave behind messes hastily, then I suppose. However, neither were clear in the scenario.

[Donald Hebb]

I wonder if Jeff made this scenario from the perspective of an angry mother?

 

"Pick up your messes, young man, or hundreds of people will die, and you will go down as a murderer, and an awful person in general! Now don't you give me that look, young man..."

[Vent]

1 - About the closing of the school 100 years ago

The dragon mentions that, some other NPC too, like Axel that mentions a century ago. Why it's in fact 80 years? Perhaps sealing date? There are evidence that the two dates couldn't be the same like cobold invading the school and later they are closed in by mages.

 

2 - About the first effects

They apeared 6 years ago (not six month, sorry for this error).

 

3 - The push button

Quote:

all they had to do to dispose of this pollution was to PUSH A BUTTON. And they didn't do it.

That's not a moral problem not well managed in the scenario.

 

Forget one second any morale subject. Look at this fact, it is "just" a possible coherence problem of the story.

 

In fact I'm not sure it's even a coherence problem. Afterall did the mage mastered teleportation? Did they had time to set up a teleport portal? I don't think so and then pushing the button was doing a suicide. That's a good reason to not push the button when the problems aren't here and are in the long term.

 

Anyway, instead of "coherence problem", apply any that you understand:

- "logic problem".

- "realism problem"

 

It's not because this scenario is quoted in an article about morale that a coherence problem is a problem with its management of the morale.

 

Yes there's a morale problem despite this possible coherence problem.

 

I won't quote you any script line because I curently play the BoE version (and write notes since this replay) and still get a lot of fun that I don't want spoil.

 

Concerning my first approximate interpretation, it is close to what has explained TiaraLi but with certain differences that I must check.

 

The TiaraLi version isn't an hypothesis for a major part. Apart if you want consider that the various notes found are lying but that makes no sense.

 

There are evidences that:

- There are three leaders of the school.

- Vannia want to hide to the Empire any possible problems, particularly the future pollution problem.

- Vannia is agree to close, to leave and to seal up the school.

- The two other (Palhatis and Pergaltho ie P&P) are against her.

- P&P don't want to leave and close the school because of what they let behind which is a future danger.

- P&P want warn the emperor about that problem but they didn't succeed because of Vannia strategy.

- P&P take care to prepare a solution in order to solve the problem once the disaster will have started.

- They obviously can't push the button now. About that, I have a sample explanation, they don't master teleporting so doing it would be doing a suicide. A good reason to not doing it when the problems aren't here and are in the long term.

- P&P and Vannia are struggling for getting the favor of the emperor. Vannia want the power for her only and want take the opportunity to make the two other abdicate all responsibility.

- Obviously Vannia saw an opportunity to get the power for her only, through this (future) pollution problem and the closing of the school.

 

For more, more details like what happened exactely to P&P, as I explained, I need to play BoE version and BoA version.

 

So with Vannia we have a typical struggle for the power, personnal ambition. It is also a typical kind of attitude of some persons in charge. Under their responsibility, there is no problem, never.

 

Unlike TiaraLi, I don’t see there, a questioning of the responsibility for governments for this type of problems.

 

I see there more the description of the risk of a lost of responsibility for causes for which the effects are dubious and in the long term.

 

In this kind of case, the personal ambitions take the top quickly. It’s more a questioning of the companies whose first objective is the interest, of the people whom the ambition can quickly make them forget possible long-term consequences.

 

This kind of attitudes can go up to hide the facts with more or less sincere justifications: It’s not certain, it’s in the very long term, and by then, the problem will be regulated.

 

All of that is a morale problem.

 

If you want we speak about morale I can push even further. One morale of the scenario is that for dubious possible long term problems, we can't be confident in capitalism mechanism. We can't be confident in companies and personnal ambitions in order to manage long-term problems.

 

If they can hide possible long-term problems and win more money, someone will do it. That's why external controls and rules are necessessary.

 

Furthermore, to keep working the capitalism mechanism, many of those sort of agreement need a worldwide treaty. What to think about a country that refuses to sign some when it has nothing better to propose?

 

There are worse, some other countries had already decided to sign but they get pressured to make them change their decision and some finally didn't sign.

 

4 - 100 years later

Quote:

Originally written by Kelandon:

Again, I don't think the part about VoDT taking place one hundred years after the fact is the most important part to most people here.

Then I doubt those people succeed to enjoy this scenario:

- What makes special this scenario is exactely that.

- What makes the more subtil fun of the scenario is exactely that.

- Searching to find all clues, notes and evidences is a big un of this scenario including from a replay point of view.

 

I think BoA version is a bit improved on that part.

 

5 - About link with nuclear waste and warehouse (submarin or not)

I agree that that doesn't fit well. But the the point of comparison isn't a current science problem, as you seem to suggest (I don't see any morale problem here).

 

It's about leak that could appear 100 years later, and cause a pollution in a limited area. Sure there won't be any push buttons.

[*i]

I shouldn't say anything but, a few definitions:

 

morale - The state of the spirits of a person or group as exhibited by confidence, cheerfulness, discipline, and willingness to perform assigned tasks.

 

moral - Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character.

 

[Kelandon]

Quote:

Why it's in fact 80 years?

Because of the line cited above, specifically the fifth string in the dialog box from state 13 in the text file t13Libraries.txt -- only applicable in the BoA version, because the BoE version gives different dates. I think (although I haven't checked, so correct me if I'm wrong) that the others say only "about a century" or something along those lines.

Quote:

Vannia want to hide to the Empire any possible problems, particularly the future pollution problem

But why? The issue is that she doesn't have any motivation not to tell the Empire about possible problems, at least not any given in the games. And the reason that her motivation is important is this: without additional motivations, Vannia appears to choose not to clean up the pollution because she is in favor of pollution. No major point of view in real life has been pro-pollution; they've been pro-business and willing to allow some pollution in order to get their business done, or something like that. No sane person has ever viewed pollution as a positive good, but if Vannia gets nothing out of the cover-up except pollution, then she must view pollution as exactly that: a positive good.

That means that we see two views represented: anti-pollution and pro-pollution. The choice is obvious. But real life pollution isn't this simple, pro-pollution and anti-pollution. One can be anti-pollution but pro-business, and then that person has to make the difficult decision of which is more important. Any decision has its drawbacks. Since VoDT simplifies the issue beyond any reasonable level, it does not represent the issue of pollution faithfully or accurately.

It is NOT a continuity issue. It is critical to the moral of the story. Since VoDT does not explain the reason that the pollution was not cleaned up, it treats the pollution issue superficially.

Quote:

If they can hide possible long-term problems and win more money, someone will do it.

But you're assuming that they got something out of the cover-up, which VoDT never says.

Quote:

The TiaraLi version isn't an hypothesis for a major part.

Except for the part that I questioned, which is that time was the biggest deciding factor in why the waste mechanisms weren't activated. All I said was that we don't know why the waste mechanisms weren't activated, which is, as above, critical to the moral of the scen.

Quote:

Furthermore, to keep working the capitalism mechanism, many of those sort of agreement need a worldwide treaty.

Now you're inserting your own views into the scenario. VoDT never mentions anything even remotely close to this. It's a related issue, but VoDT does not cover it at all.

About 4: I should've said, "I don't think that's the most important part of what we're discussing here, in that no one has mentioned it yet (other than you)." It is an interesting narrative technique. It just doesn't have anything to do with what we're talking about.

EDIT: Wow, I just read point 5, added while I was writing this. Vent: if this

Quote:

But the the point of comparison isn't a current science problem, as you seem to suggest (I don't see any morale problem here). It's about leak that could appear 100 years later, and cause a pollution in a limited area.

were true, then let's explore what VoDT has to say about radioactive waste.

It says that you shouldn't store radioactive waste in containers that could break in 100 years, because that could cause death in a nearby environment. What should you do instead? Press a button that magically disposes of it.

Sadly, real life radioactivity has no such button.

VoDT does not reflect the issue of radioactive waste at all. The fact that the analogy breaks down with even a superficial analysis indicates the faultiness of the analogy between VoDT's pollution and nuclear waste.

[Vent]

1 - I*, thanks for the precision, I always wanted to write moral.

 

2 - Kelandon, so my explanation about the non use of the push button is ok? In fact you didn't read it, I added it in an edit.

 

I mention it again:

 

Did the mage mastered teleportation? Did they had time to set up a teleport portal? I don't think so and then pushing the button was doing a suicide. That's a good reason to not push the button when the problems aren't here and are in the long term.

 

3 - About the 100 years

I quote a dragon phrase:

"For over 100 years she waits after they leave". Over 100 years so I don't see how it could be 80 years appart if it's another date, the sealing date.

 

4 - About the importance of 100 years later quoted by nobody

Wrong at least once, read coreyh post.

 

5 - Why Vannia act like that?

I already explained, an oportunity to get the power for her alone and to discard the two other mages. Some quotes from the beginning of my play of the BoE version:

 

Vinnia plans something I dunno what, she means us no good. Desperate time my friend, I have done my best in master control to make sure disaster can avoided. We ca only hope someone makes it down here, before disaster strikes.

 

At this point Palathis understand nothing of Vinnia plans.

 

Quote also, that "makes it down here" seems to be a problem.

 

Later:

Curse that Vinnia! It is bad enough that we are being shut down. Must she also force us to abdicate all responsibility?

 

For me it's clear that vinnia wants eject the two other mages. It isn't for you?

 

So more:

It is clear that she listen to the Empire ad no one else. She works against us as well. I know that she speaks against me. I can hear now. 'Palathis schemes against us. Palathis is a traitor. Palathis spread rumors."

 

Particularely obvious, the reason, as I already wrote, just to eject two concurents and get more power.

 

A last quote:

I don't know what she plans against me, but my speaking our against the evecuation and what we're leaving behind have only made me enemies. I wonder what is to become of me."

 

Oops, all seems going wrong.

 

About links with nuclear waste problem, I won't discuss. I strongly doubt that all points need to be exactely the same. Anyway, You can't predict what will happen in 100 years.

[Kelandon]

Vent, you're not going to understand me regardless of what I say, so I'm not going to try anymore.

[Vent]

Well what to answer to that? I gave you plenty quotes of BoE, did I really didn't understand them? I don't think so, I could be wrong. I'll read again your previous post but I doubt I didn't undertood it.