DShomshak

Love binds mortals to each other in families; and beyond that to clans, tribes and countries. But love binds all things, not just mortals. Nothing can exist by itself alone, and We tell you, O mortals, that that need for connection and interaction partakes of Love. The roots of the tree love the soil, and its leaves love the Sun’s light; and by those loves does the tree live. What greater love is there but Cadel’s, who gives light to half the world? If not, perhaps, the love of Mania, who accepts all souls into Her house and always has room for more? The moons of Olandria circle the world for love. The world holds you to itself for love of thee. Even the minutest particulars of all things adhere one to another by bonds of love, without which naught would exist but drifting dust. Secondary Domain: Connection. Well… perhaps We should clarify. Perhaps some things can exist by themselves alone. But if they have no connection to anything else, how would anyone know they exist? Listen, O mortals, to a fable: Imagine there was once a person much like you. Perhaps this person was Alfar, perhaps Human, perhaps Twilighter or Faun. It no longer matters. Nor does it matter if this person was male, female, or something else. We shall simply call this person “It.” It was angry with someone else for leaving it. “Fine,” it cried. “Leave! I don’t need you! I don’t need anyone!” The Lovers heard these words, for gods hear blasphemies against their essential natures. They thought, Have We been denied? Xarn Tarsus replied, They authority has been denied. Punishment should follow. Olandria added, For every blessing there is a curse. And the Lovers decreed, Then We give what is desired: No need for anyone. They took out Their shears by which connections are cut, and snipped. The mortal walked alone for a time. It returned to its community and found everyone gone. “Where is everyone,” it asked. Gone, the Lovers said. You said you did not need anyone, so those connections are gone. They live; you live; but you shall never see them again. It ran to its home, but snip, its home was not there, either. “Where is my house?” it demanded. Gone, the Lovers said. You said you did not need anyone. “Anyone” includes Ammonia, keeper of all houses. The house exists, but it is no longer your house. You shall never see it again. Or any other. A few more snips, and the whole village was gone. It ran, seeking anyone, finding no one. It closed its eyes in exhaustion. Snip. When it opened its eyes again, the world was all gone gray. You do not need anyone, whispered the Lovers, So you do not need Chroma. Then snip, the world went dark. You do not need Cadel or Olandria either, so they too are denied thee. For a time, it blundered in darkness, running into rocks and trees, but snip, snip, the rocks and trees were gone. After a long or short time, even the ground underfoot was gone. “Mercy!” it cried. “Give me back the world!” You did not say you needed Thrum. “Then let me die!” You did not say you needed Mania. And you did not say you needed Us, so We too are gone. SNIP. Perhaps the mortal still exists, somewhere, in a state beyond even the knowing of gods. Or perhaps at the last G’Brill took pity, for surely to be cursed by a god is a cause as lost as lost can be. Or perhaps it never happened at all, for even to be remembered as a fable is a connection of sorts. But why take that chance? Deny not the gods, or each other. Remember that you are connected, never truly alone. And by this you are loved, and owe love in return. Dean Shomshak

Unfortunately, liberalism and conservatism are not arbitrary collections of policies. Psychological research shows they arise from fundamental differences of temperament. Conservatives are conservatives because they feel a deep emotional need to come together as a unified tribe with a canon of beliefs. (Declared to be eternal principles, even when they flip completely, as free markets were replaced by Trumpian protectionism.) Liberals feel an equally deep need to assert themselves as individuals. (Even when they actually parrot the same slogans.) It enables greater compassion for outsiders, but less discipline in getting things done. "Power of the Herd" versus "Look at me, I'm special." The result is that while conservatives may argue for a while which direction to shoot, liberals tend to form circular firing squads. See Mooney's The Republican Brain for more detailed exposition. Dean Shomshak

Love isn't much for rules. Despite every Thou Shalt or Thou Shalt Not, at some point the heart whispers, I want. Or shouts. Or SCREAMS, to break the soul or shake the world. Moonlight, however, is notoriously romantic. Neither the darkness of ignorance or concealment, nor the light of full disclosure. The Lovers offer this gift to the Goddess of Moons. Though with a fixed sun placing half the world in constant daylight... Hm. Cadel and Olandris will have to work this out between them. EDIT: Love and Revenge are not totally separate, either. Because no one can hurt you more than someone you love. Dean Shomshak

The Lovers we are, for Love exists only as a relation: a lover and a beloved. We take no name or image for Ourselves, for We are seen in the face of the one you love. We are all forms of love: the mad crush, the comfort of spouses grown old together, the parent and child, the child and parent, friend and friend, and so many more. O mortals, you can live without Us, but rarely do you then find life worth living. Do these gentle sentiments encompass Us? No, mortals, no. For Us do parents toil their lives away, suffering that their children may live. Yet for Us do mortals abandon their families and betray their countries. A lifetime thrown away for a moment of passion. For Us will you tell any lie, commit any theft. For Us will you murder the rival, or die for your despair. Be warned, O mortals. We are the most terrible of gods. The Tyrant thinks he is mighty, but Love conquers all. Primary Domain: Love in all its forms, from raw lust to patriotic fervor... and all things done becauswe of it, from the highest self-sacrifice to the most appalling crimes. Dean Shomshak

That rules out my other choices, so I choose The Lovers. A domain others have used before, so no bonus, but I trust I can make it interesting. Dean Shomshak

Just heard on BBC: Over the weekend, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov opined that there was nothing nutty about accusing accusing Ukrained Jewish Pres. Zelenskyy of Nazism because, after all, Adolf Hitler may have been part Jewish. Reaction from Israel has been, hm, vehement. Here's a story with the details: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-61296682 Up until now, Israel has kept quiet and tried not to take sides in the Russia/Ukraine conflict. Ye gods, is Russia's government trying to gin up more enemies? Dean Shomshak

This is kinda stupid of me, but I have three concepts I'd like to try (which I don't see how to merge). So I'll let other people decide which I take. Two of them involve defining the Shape of the World, so consider that as you vote which you'd like me to do. * The Lovers, God/Goddess/Nonbinary of Love. Plural, because Love exists only in relation to another; nameless, because the name and face of Love is the name and face of the one loved. Or hated. Love can be complicated, and often is not kind. * Tethras, God of the Sun and the Center. When Tethras emerged, His light drove back the Nonebefore and set the boundary of the World. All live in the hollow sphere of the World, with Tethras shining in the center. Blessed are the gifts of light and life, which come from Tethras. Honor and repay him with blood! * Etterskell, Goddess of Multiplicity. When the Gods shaped the World, Etterskell was supposed to add her part and pass it on to the next God. But, butterfingers, she dropped it and it broke. There are now seven suns and dozens of worldlets, swirling in a cloud. Fortunately, they don't collide very often. Etterskell divides greater wholes into lesser parts, and decrees that nothing shall be unique except by special creation of the Gods. Then too, if someone else realy wants to present a Love God, Sun God, or (less likely) Multiplicity God, I am willing to step aside and develop one of the others. Let me know which deity I should choose. Dean Shomshak

Legend of Vox Machina. Okay, so the drama is not on the order of, say, Ibsen or Chekhov, and it's possible that Aaron Sorkin writes better dialogue. But it tires to be fun, not to be Great Art. This 12-episode animated series, adapted from the "Critical Roll" D&D online game, is amusing and captures the feel of a well-run game. (Including the moments, aggravating at the tine but funny in hindsight, when the dice screw you over and a task that should be simple becomes impossible.) The charaters are pretty standard Fantasy types, but introduced clearly and promptly. It is generally clear what everyone is doing. I have seen worse storytelling on TV. I will note it is quite a free adaptation. For instance, the spellcasting characters don't run out of spell slots: They exhaust their magic because they get tired. They also push their magical powers, suffering additional fatigue as a result, and "stunt" their magic to do things that do not fit within the narrowly defined affects of D&D spells. The result is that the whole series feels a lot more... Hero System. Dean Shomshak

Possibly of interest as another case of, "Um, that wasn't the plan": Some in the British Parliament want to reform libel laws that make it very easy for well-heeled malefactors to squelch inquiries into them and their ill-gotten gains -- laws that Russian oligarchs use with great enthusiasm. https://www.marketplace.org/2022/04/29/brits-push-back-against-slapp-lawsuits-that-gag-critics-of-oligarchs/ Linked from this, an interview with a sociologist who studies oligarchs. He says the sanctions are hitting the oligarchs a lot harder than the mere financial impact -- because the world of the giga-rich is a lot more like middle school than you may have thought. https://www.marketplace.org/2022/03/11/russian-oligarchs-elite-sanctions-sociology/ Dean Shomshak

I hope you're right. Paradoxically, defeating Russia might require convincing the people around Putin that Russia will not be defeated so completely that its territorial integrity will be at stake. NATO tanks rolling over the border into Russia? At that point, I'd expect a nuclear response. Russia hemmed in, left to rot until Putin dies (by whatever means) and the new regime decides it'd like to rejoin the world? That may be the best we can do. It doesn't give justice for the people of Ukraine, but they may have to settle for living well. Dean Shomshak

Heard on The Daily yesterday: Ukrainian soldiers are already being flown out of the country to be trained on NATO weaponry, so they can train the rest of the Ukrainian military. NATO's running out of old Soviet/Russian castoffs, but that's only been a stopgap. The plan is to make Ukraine's military "fully inter-operable" with NATO.

I suspect the nuclear bluster from Putin and Lavrov hints that *they* fear losing, and how *badly* they might lose. That maybe they *can't* just write off Russia's losses, keep slogging away, and win something through sheer persistence and numbers. Yes, I find that hint of desperation terrifying. But reducing the aid to Ukraine could be just as dangerous as maintaining and increasing it. Dean Shomshak

Speaking of Ukraine's intelligence on Russian movements... Today's All Things Considered had a story on one important source the Russians seem unwilling or incapable of doing anything about: Cell phones. When Russia invaded, soldiers of all ranks carried cell [hones. Ukrtaine had the country's service providers block service to any phone registered as Russian. Oops, the Russian generals don't seem to have thought of that. No problem: They take cell phones from Ukrainians. If those Ukrainians are still alive, they report the stolen phone to their service provider and the government, which then knows whch numbers and signals to listen in on. The Russians don't seem willing or able to set up their own secure communications system. As Judge Judy would say, "Stupid stupid, stupid!" Dean Shomshak

Addendum to above: Could this be malicious compliance? IE, somebody in the FSB does not approve of the invasion of Ukraine (whether morally or just from recognizing that it's a fiasco and the longer it goes on, the worse the damage to Russia). They are sabotaging the hoax while pretending to follow orders... to the letter. I mean, sure, Occam's Razor. When something seems to be done by an idiot, the simplest explanation is that it was done bhy an idiot. But I remain open to other possibilities. Dean Shomshak

The article mentioned the online group Bellingcat. By coincidence, yesterday's All Things Considered interviewed the maker of a documentary about Alexei Navalny. You may recall that Bellingcat found the chemist who cooked up the poison used against Mr Navalny, and that Navalny called the man, pretending to be an FSB agent involved in the failed plot. The director was actually present at that scene and filmed it: You can see it in the documentary. Like LL, the director pointed out then that, yeah, Russia's reputation for incredible spycraft may not be deserved. Not that it takes great skill to murder civilians as they go about their lives, which seems to be the FSB's forte in foreign operations. Shoot or poison, then run back to Russia. (Or killing the chemist to whom Mr Navalny spoke -- the director noted that the man seems to have disappeared several months ago.) Now, if it's actually a Ukrainian setup to make the FSB look dumb, it's brilliant. But I find it easier to believe the FSB really has people who are that stupid. Dean Shomshak

I meant that I don't see the advantage in deliberately prolonging the Ukraine war as a way of tying up Russia, which apparently some people thing is the plan. If NATO & allies can turn the Ukraine invasion into a humiliating and catastrophic defeat for Russia, without firing a shot themselves, doing it quickly might make a better show of power than dragging it out just to show we're willing to keep going that long. If it becomes a direct shooting war between Russia and NATO, well, that's a whole different calculation. The issue also has articles on escalation and nuclear strategy, but that's a whole other discussion. Dean Shomshak

Beat me to it! Yeah, that's pretty much how I'd do it too, except I wouldn't bother with the Extra Limb. You still have to strap on the bag, or carry the handle, or whatever. Reviewing the Bag of Holding description in the 5e DMG, what does it do? It lets you carry around 500 pounds of stuff, without the exertion and encumbrance of carrying around 500 pounds of stuff. 500 pounds works out to 16 STR, separate from the STR of whoever carries the bag, and 0 END. It's an Inobvious Focus, to represent that people don't see that you're carrying around up to 500 pounds of stuff with no apparent effort. The other restrictions -- everything has to fit through the mouth of the bag, nothing can be more than 4 feet in any dimension, maximum total volume of 64 cubic feet, ripping the bag results in the contents being lost in the Astral Plane -- add up to another Limitation, probably not more than -1/2. (Okay, you might want to remove the "Losing stuff on the Astral Plane" aspect. In a Champions campaign, I can see PCs deciding they're willing to lose their Bag of Holding in order to quickly and easily dispose of the bad guy's suitcase nuke, or the like. If the PCs can make or obtain more Bags of Holding, that would actually be a useful Power for which they'd need to pay points.) The "Extra-Dimensional Space" Power may represent the whole thing most precisely. (And I'd probably insist upon it for a Portable Hole.) But if you don't have the APG books, the essence of a Bag of Holding is just that it makes it easier to carry a lot of stuff. As Hotspur says, the rest is mostly just special effects. Dean Shomshak

The Russia-China entanglement was the cover story for the March 19, 2022 issue of The Economist. Their analysis is that Xi Jinping finds Putin and his war useful as a tool to gauge the power and resolve of the West in general, and the US in particular, as a guide for his own geopolitical strategy -- and as a tool to weaken American power. As such, they suggest how the US responds to Putin's invasion is a way of dealing with Chinese ambitions. If the alliance to support Ukraine goes wobbly, Xi may conclude that he can afford the price to move against Taiwan or ramp up his bullying of other East Asian neighbors. Conversely, if the US, NATO and further allies back Ukraine to the degree of dealing Russia a catastrophic defeat -- its military exhausted and humiliated, its economy shattered, and Putin possibly deposed and dead -- why, Xi will decide he needs to play a longer game in his quest to seize primacy from the US. It seems to me that by this logic, the swifter Russia's defeat, the better for curbing China. Dean Shomshak

Update: After I posted above re: Russia's history with the Mongols, I heard today's episode of "The Daily" radio show about Putin's recent speeches. And yep, Putin is playing the "Horde Card": Russia is surrounded by enemies fanatically determined to invade and annihilate it. Plus a hint of Stalin, in warning of the need to find and neutralize internal traitors -- defined as anyone who is not fully in support of his government and the invasion "special military action" in Ukraine. And the Russian people are falling into line. Majority public opinion has shifted from disbelief in the war to enthusiastic endorsement of invading Ukraine. There are already incidents of people being denounced to the police for expressing doubt about the official war narrative: They talked to a schoolteacher on Sakhalin Island who showed her students a You/tube video of children singing a song about peace in Russian and Ukrainian. Many of her 8th graders were outraged. The police soon arrested her; she was tried and convicted under a new law that punishes any speech deemed to disparage the military; and fined the equivalent of $400... more than a month's wages. She says she won't shut up, though. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/19/podcasts/the-daily/putin-russia-ukraine.html Dean Shomshak

Possibly of interest: Military historian and, I am told, conservative pundit (though I no longer know what "conservative" means, post-Trump) Max Boot wrote this op-ed for the Washington Post on the difference between Russian and Ukrainian military culture. Particularly of note, citation of an 1854 The Economist article on Russian failures in the Crimean War that well describe the Russian army today. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/04/12/ukraine-military-culture-advantage-over-russia/ Dean Shomshak

My Russian History professor said the Mongol conquest was the single most important event in shaping the Russian worldview, especially in foreign relations. As he put it, more or less: Deep in the Russian imagination, the Horde is always coming. The face and flag changes -- Teutonic Knights, Mongols, Germans (repeatedly), Napoleon's French; Americans (among others) in the Russian Civil War; now NATO (in Putin's telling); but it is always the Horde. The Horde has no mercy, so neither can you. And the "Tatar Yoke" lasted more than 200 years! Those centuries of brutal absolutism shaped Russian ideas of what power looks like. See: Ivan the Terrible. Yes, Ivan the Terrible was a maniac prone to outbursts of homicidal rage, to the point of killing his own son, but he beat the Mongols and freed Russia. Which is why Western folk err in translating Ivan's epithet as "the Terrible." Russians mean "the Awesome." Of course he's frightening! That shows how great he is! Or Stalin: Yes, he killed millions of his subjects in his purges and forced collectivization, but he beat the Horde when it came in the guise of Nazis. So for many Ruddians, he's still a great leader. So I do not expect Putin to scruple at, well, anything. Dean Shomshak

This is long, but IMO worth it. Academic who studoes corrup;tion assesses the US, China and (for the updated edition) Russia. Biggest takeaway: There are multiple forms of corruption, causing harm in different ways. If you want to reduce corruption, first you need to know what forms of corruption actually take place. https://freakonomics.com/podcast/is-the-u-s-really-less-corrupt-than-china-and-how-about-russia-update/ Insight from the update: The oligarchs who rule/own Russia never had much reason to care about sanctions, and still don't. China is in a very different situation. (Sanctions might be difficult, but they would be different difficulties.) Dean Shomshak

Ah, thanks for the names. (It's been a while since I ran the adventure.) Dean Shomshak

I don't really have anything useful to add, but when I set an adventure in Pittsburgh, just a couple tour guidebooks from my local library convinced me it's an excellent city for supers. Multiple world-class research universities, always reliable sources for characters and scenarios. One of which has the Cathedral of Learning, which is not only a cool setting for a super-scenario, it could also go in the old "Real Locations That Could Be Fantasy" thread. The PPG company HQ, which one guidebook described as resembling Superman's crystalline Fortress of Solitude. At least one of the surrounding mountains is riddled with old coal mines, ready for villains, monsters, or Mole People to inhabit. Cable cars. A histpory combining immense wealth, post-industrial blight with attendant crime, and a dazzling renaissance (but some of the old "bad parts of town" might still be there). It all worked out really, really well! If that campaign ever re-starts, I may have to send the PCback for another visit. Dean Shomshak

According to the report on All Things Considered, Russian state media denies that Ukraine sank the Moskva using a pair of "Neptune" missiles. They say it was an accidental fire that reached the ship's ammo stores. Is this claim supposed to make Russia's military look better? Dean Shomshak