DShomshak

My "Magozoic" D&D setting has many pantheons, and only one. Theologians know there are 10 transcendent Godheads, called Archons, each associated with one of the celestial planes. However, mortals cannot interact directly with Archons -- only with avatars of the Archons, shaped by mortal imagination, whom mortals call gods. Gods seem to have distinct forms and personalities, can be born, die and reborn, get in fights, and generally behave like people with big magic powers. None of this affects the Archon, any more than a battle between two hand-puppets affects the puppeteer. A god can be forgotten for ages, but can be re-created if the ancient myths are rediscovered and the rites performed again. (One of the PCs just became the first cleric of such a long-forgotten god.)
 
This permits an unlimited number of pantheons, which are all true and all false. Humans tend to have pantheons modeled on human royal families, because that's such a common human system of authority.
* The Yidmiri pantheon (modeled rather obviously on the Greco-Roman pantheon) has a multiple generations, and many of the gods are children (legitimate or otherwise) of the ruling sky-and-storm god.
* The Marolici pantehon (modeled on Norse) has two families, with some intermarriage, and a few oddballs of obscure origin.
* The Drohashgi pantheon (modeled on Egyptian) has a primordial creator sun-god with several generations of descendants.
 
But there are exceptions. The broad Macrine plain is a land of city-states who have spent millennia conquering each other. Each city had its own pantheon: the gods were nearly identical, but the names and relationships differed. When one city rose to dominate the rest, it declared its own gods the "real" versions and the gods of the conquered peoples were versions of them. After many millennia of this, the Macrine people stopped giving their gods names and just refer to them by the roles: the Thunderer, the Emperor and Empress, the Hierophant, the Overseer, the Priestess, the Charioteer, the Star-Maiden, the Fool, and so on.
 
Nonhumans have different models of authroity and, consequently, different pantheons.
* The region's dwarves seem to have a divine family -- but the other gods aren't the children of the dominant creator-god; they were made in the creator's forge. Dwarves take the artisan, rather than sexual reproduction, as their model of creative power.
* The region's elves have a pantheon of deified heroes whose deeds made them living expressions of the Archons: for instance, the great general Ferrai became one of their war gods, while the mage Eboriax became their God of Magic by codifying the eight schools of wizardry. Most of their gods are deified elves because, well, obviously no one is more perfect than an elf (Admit it. In your heart you know it's true.) But not all.
* The gods of the gnomes are also deified mortals, but they are gnomes who ascended to divinity through various comical or unlikely means; they are modeled on the Chinese Eight Immortals.
And so on.
 
Prophets are important in this system, because they shape mortal belief and so change the nature of the gods. This may result in radical re-interpretation. For instance, the cult of Jeduthon Soteira turned a randy and temperamental sun-god into a figure of mystic enlightenment. Many people worship Jeduthon Soteira who don't give a rat's ass about the rest of the Yidmiri pantheon. Another prophet re-interpreted the Drohashi sun-god Sorath (son of the primordial god Suzeratos; "active" ruler of Heaven to his passive authority) as the true and supreme god whom all must worship; and invented, basically, Jihadism.
 
Conversely, there's also a lot of syncretism, as believers in Macrine gods assimilate gods from other pantheons to Macrine deities: as the Marolici storm-and-war god Talse and the Drohashi storm-and-war god Barakel are assimilated to the Thunderer.
 
All this is in support of a campaign whose premise is one of mortals being responsible for the world they live in. There is no supernatural Big Bad, whether Satan, Sauron or Cthulhu, to blame troubles on. And if mortals get it wrong, there is no Daddy in the Sky to save them. Or even to tell them what the right course is.
 
This is of course not suitable for every campaign. (And I threw out most of the bog-standard D&D cosmology.)
Dean Shomshak

My "Magozoic" D&D setting has many pantheons, and only one. Theologians know there are 10 transcendent Godheads, called Archons, each associated with one of the celestial planes. However, mortals cannot interact directly with Archons -- only with avatars of the Archons, shaped by mortal imagination, whom mortals call gods. Gods seem to have distinct forms and personalities, can be born, die and reborn, get in fights, and generally behave like people with big magic powers. None of this affects the Archon, any more than a battle between two hand-puppets affects the puppeteer. A god can be forgotten for ages, but can be re-created if the ancient myths are rediscovered and the rites performed again. (One of the PCs just became the first cleric of such a long-forgotten god.)
 
This permits an unlimited number of pantheons, which are all true and all false. Humans tend to have pantheons modeled on human royal families, because that's such a common human system of authority.
* The Yidmiri pantheon (modeled rather obviously on the Greco-Roman pantheon) has a multiple generations, and many of the gods are children (legitimate or otherwise) of the ruling sky-and-storm god.
* The Marolici pantehon (modeled on Norse) has two families, with some intermarriage, and a few oddballs of obscure origin.
* The Drohashgi pantheon (modeled on Egyptian) has a primordial creator sun-god with several generations of descendants.
 
But there are exceptions. The broad Macrine plain is a land of city-states who have spent millennia conquering each other. Each city had its own pantheon: the gods were nearly identical, but the names and relationships differed. When one city rose to dominate the rest, it declared its own gods the "real" versions and the gods of the conquered peoples were versions of them. After many millennia of this, the Macrine people stopped giving their gods names and just refer to them by the roles: the Thunderer, the Emperor and Empress, the Hierophant, the Overseer, the Priestess, the Charioteer, the Star-Maiden, the Fool, and so on.
 
Nonhumans have different models of authroity and, consequently, different pantheons.
* The region's dwarves seem to have a divine family -- but the other gods aren't the children of the dominant creator-god; they were made in the creator's forge. Dwarves take the artisan, rather than sexual reproduction, as their model of creative power.
* The region's elves have a pantheon of deified heroes whose deeds made them living expressions of the Archons: for instance, the great general Ferrai became one of their war gods, while the mage Eboriax became their God of Magic by codifying the eight schools of wizardry. Most of their gods are deified elves because, well, obviously no one is more perfect than an elf (Admit it. In your heart you know it's true.) But not all.
* The gods of the gnomes are also deified mortals, but they are gnomes who ascended to divinity through various comical or unlikely means; they are modeled on the Chinese Eight Immortals.
And so on.
 
Prophets are important in this system, because they shape mortal belief and so change the nature of the gods. This may result in radical re-interpretation. For instance, the cult of Jeduthon Soteira turned a randy and temperamental sun-god into a figure of mystic enlightenment. Many people worship Jeduthon Soteira who don't give a rat's ass about the rest of the Yidmiri pantheon. Another prophet re-interpreted the Drohashi sun-god Sorath (son of the primordial god Suzeratos; "active" ruler of Heaven to his passive authority) as the true and supreme god whom all must worship; and invented, basically, Jihadism.
 
Conversely, there's also a lot of syncretism, as believers in Macrine gods assimilate gods from other pantheons to Macrine deities: as the Marolici storm-and-war god Talse and the Drohashi storm-and-war god Barakel are assimilated to the Thunderer.
 
All this is in support of a campaign whose premise is one of mortals being responsible for the world they live in. There is no supernatural Big Bad, whether Satan, Sauron or Cthulhu, to blame troubles on. And if mortals get it wrong, there is no Daddy in the Sky to save them. Or even to tell them what the right course is.
 
This is of course not suitable for every campaign. (And I threw out most of the bog-standard D&D cosmology.)
Dean Shomshak

Undoubtedly. Vigilante lawsuits against "Critical Race Theory" as a way to prevent teachers from teaching any history or law that might challenge White Supremacy. Or block evolution from biology classes while mandating "Creation Science."
 
Yep, it's the New Redemption, only carried out by lawsuits instead of lynchings. But -- as with the laws criminalizing even the tiniest error in restering as a voter -- the aim is still to terrify a targeted populace into compliance and so protect the privilege of a particular class.
 
Dean Shomshak

Undoubtedly. Vigilante lawsuits against "Critical Race Theory" as a way to prevent teachers from teaching any history or law that might challenge White Supremacy. Or block evolution from biology classes while mandating "Creation Science."
 
Yep, it's the New Redemption, only carried out by lawsuits instead of lynchings. But -- as with the laws criminalizing even the tiniest error in restering as a voter -- the aim is still to terrify a targeted populace into compliance and so protect the privilege of a particular class.
 
Dean Shomshak

Why Satanists may be the last hope to take down Texas’s abortion bill

It makes me think of "Redemption," the White Southern aristocracy's campaign of political violence and violent politics to force Black people back into de facto slavery after Reconstruction ended. But this time aimed at women, or at least women outside of a particular class and ideology: As mentioned, white women of a certain income and social standing will still be able to do as they please. There have always been different rules for aristocrats and commoners. What continues to baffle me is how so many "commoners" approve of this, too.
 
Dean Shomshak

Wow.  Starting in January, All American Astronomical Society Journals will be full Open Access
 
No one thinks that there'll be as great a demand for all the papers in those journals, but as the spectacular example, the open-access Astrophysical Journal Letters 2019 paper with the famous shadow of the black hole in M87 image (here) has been downloaded more than a third of a million times.

https://www.newsandsentinel.com/news/local-news/2018/10/councilman-blasted-for-coat-hanger-comment/

It makes me think of "Redemption," the White Southern aristocracy's campaign of political violence and violent politics to force Black people back into de facto slavery after Reconstruction ended. But this time aimed at women, or at least women outside of a particular class and ideology: As mentioned, white women of a certain income and social standing will still be able to do as they please. There have always been different rules for aristocrats and commoners. What continues to baffle me is how so many "commoners" approve of this, too.
 
Dean Shomshak

It makes me think of "Redemption," the White Southern aristocracy's campaign of political violence and violent politics to force Black people back into de facto slavery after Reconstruction ended. But this time aimed at women, or at least women outside of a particular class and ideology: As mentioned, white women of a certain income and social standing will still be able to do as they please. There have always been different rules for aristocrats and commoners. What continues to baffle me is how so many "commoners" approve of this, too.
 
Dean Shomshak

An article in the August '21 Harper's may help. It's primarily about the recent fad for quoting Hannah Arendt re: fascism, totalitarianism, and lies by governments. (Summary: People quoting Arendt to condemn Donald Trump are mis-applying what she wrote.) But one subject is about the state of mind people often fall into when they have been lied to about something big, or lied to many times: a condition of all-encompassing disbelief and cynicism. Anything might be a lie, and probably is; the effort to sift truth from falsehood is futile; so while nothing is true, anything is possible.
 
Though this goes beyond the article, it follows that the normal, sane standards of competent authority are turned upside down. The more the source of a claim is perceived as an established authority, the less it is believed -- because the Establishment, of whatever kind, must be lying to maintain its position of presumed power. Conversely, the suppressed message is more likely to be true, precisely because it is suppressed. Ad if you don't know anything about the subject, whether it's science, medicine, or what-have-you -- how are you to recognize deranged nonsense when you hear it? Why wouldn't a malaria drug, a deworming drug, or, heck, shooting up with bleach,  be effective against Covid?
 
(Or, getting back to Arendt, why wouldn't you believe a blustering madman who claims all your problems are caused by Jews? [Hitler] Or counterrevolutionary capitalists? [Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot] Or Communists? [McCarthy] Or gays, or Central American migrants, or witches. You are the perfect citizen for a totalitarian state and its world of ideological fantasy, because you will never break and say, "No, this isn't true.")
 
Unfortunately... Between government, political provocateurs and advertising, we swim in lies. And I suspect we all know it. Is it any wonder that some people drown?
 
Dean Shomshak

An article in the August '21 Harper's may help. It's primarily about the recent fad for quoting Hannah Arendt re: fascism, totalitarianism, and lies by governments. (Summary: People quoting Arendt to condemn Donald Trump are mis-applying what she wrote.) But one subject is about the state of mind people often fall into when they have been lied to about something big, or lied to many times: a condition of all-encompassing disbelief and cynicism. Anything might be a lie, and probably is; the effort to sift truth from falsehood is futile; so while nothing is true, anything is possible.
 
Though this goes beyond the article, it follows that the normal, sane standards of competent authority are turned upside down. The more the source of a claim is perceived as an established authority, the less it is believed -- because the Establishment, of whatever kind, must be lying to maintain its position of presumed power. Conversely, the suppressed message is more likely to be true, precisely because it is suppressed. Ad if you don't know anything about the subject, whether it's science, medicine, or what-have-you -- how are you to recognize deranged nonsense when you hear it? Why wouldn't a malaria drug, a deworming drug, or, heck, shooting up with bleach,  be effective against Covid?
 
(Or, getting back to Arendt, why wouldn't you believe a blustering madman who claims all your problems are caused by Jews? [Hitler] Or counterrevolutionary capitalists? [Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot] Or Communists? [McCarthy] Or gays, or Central American migrants, or witches. You are the perfect citizen for a totalitarian state and its world of ideological fantasy, because you will never break and say, "No, this isn't true.")
 
Unfortunately... Between government, political provocateurs and advertising, we swim in lies. And I suspect we all know it. Is it any wonder that some people drown?
 
Dean Shomshak

An article in the August '21 Harper's may help. It's primarily about the recent fad for quoting Hannah Arendt re: fascism, totalitarianism, and lies by governments. (Summary: People quoting Arendt to condemn Donald Trump are mis-applying what she wrote.) But one subject is about the state of mind people often fall into when they have been lied to about something big, or lied to many times: a condition of all-encompassing disbelief and cynicism. Anything might be a lie, and probably is; the effort to sift truth from falsehood is futile; so while nothing is true, anything is possible.
 
Though this goes beyond the article, it follows that the normal, sane standards of competent authority are turned upside down. The more the source of a claim is perceived as an established authority, the less it is believed -- because the Establishment, of whatever kind, must be lying to maintain its position of presumed power. Conversely, the suppressed message is more likely to be true, precisely because it is suppressed. Ad if you don't know anything about the subject, whether it's science, medicine, or what-have-you -- how are you to recognize deranged nonsense when you hear it? Why wouldn't a malaria drug, a deworming drug, or, heck, shooting up with bleach,  be effective against Covid?
 
(Or, getting back to Arendt, why wouldn't you believe a blustering madman who claims all your problems are caused by Jews? [Hitler] Or counterrevolutionary capitalists? [Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot] Or Communists? [McCarthy] Or gays, or Central American migrants, or witches. You are the perfect citizen for a totalitarian state and its world of ideological fantasy, because you will never break and say, "No, this isn't true.")
 
Unfortunately... Between government, political provocateurs and advertising, we swim in lies. And I suspect we all know it. Is it any wonder that some people drown?
 
Dean Shomshak

An article in the August '21 Harper's may help. It's primarily about the recent fad for quoting Hannah Arendt re: fascism, totalitarianism, and lies by governments. (Summary: People quoting Arendt to condemn Donald Trump are mis-applying what she wrote.) But one subject is about the state of mind people often fall into when they have been lied to about something big, or lied to many times: a condition of all-encompassing disbelief and cynicism. Anything might be a lie, and probably is; the effort to sift truth from falsehood is futile; so while nothing is true, anything is possible.
 
Though this goes beyond the article, it follows that the normal, sane standards of competent authority are turned upside down. The more the source of a claim is perceived as an established authority, the less it is believed -- because the Establishment, of whatever kind, must be lying to maintain its position of presumed power. Conversely, the suppressed message is more likely to be true, precisely because it is suppressed. Ad if you don't know anything about the subject, whether it's science, medicine, or what-have-you -- how are you to recognize deranged nonsense when you hear it? Why wouldn't a malaria drug, a deworming drug, or, heck, shooting up with bleach,  be effective against Covid?
 
(Or, getting back to Arendt, why wouldn't you believe a blustering madman who claims all your problems are caused by Jews? [Hitler] Or counterrevolutionary capitalists? [Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot] Or Communists? [McCarthy] Or gays, or Central American migrants, or witches. You are the perfect citizen for a totalitarian state and its world of ideological fantasy, because you will never break and say, "No, this isn't true.")
 
Unfortunately... Between government, political provocateurs and advertising, we swim in lies. And I suspect we all know it. Is it any wonder that some people drown?
 
Dean Shomshak

An article in the August '21 Harper's may help. It's primarily about the recent fad for quoting Hannah Arendt re: fascism, totalitarianism, and lies by governments. (Summary: People quoting Arendt to condemn Donald Trump are mis-applying what she wrote.) But one subject is about the state of mind people often fall into when they have been lied to about something big, or lied to many times: a condition of all-encompassing disbelief and cynicism. Anything might be a lie, and probably is; the effort to sift truth from falsehood is futile; so while nothing is true, anything is possible.
 
Though this goes beyond the article, it follows that the normal, sane standards of competent authority are turned upside down. The more the source of a claim is perceived as an established authority, the less it is believed -- because the Establishment, of whatever kind, must be lying to maintain its position of presumed power. Conversely, the suppressed message is more likely to be true, precisely because it is suppressed. Ad if you don't know anything about the subject, whether it's science, medicine, or what-have-you -- how are you to recognize deranged nonsense when you hear it? Why wouldn't a malaria drug, a deworming drug, or, heck, shooting up with bleach,  be effective against Covid?
 
(Or, getting back to Arendt, why wouldn't you believe a blustering madman who claims all your problems are caused by Jews? [Hitler] Or counterrevolutionary capitalists? [Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot] Or Communists? [McCarthy] Or gays, or Central American migrants, or witches. You are the perfect citizen for a totalitarian state and its world of ideological fantasy, because you will never break and say, "No, this isn't true.")
 
Unfortunately... Between government, political provocateurs and advertising, we swim in lies. And I suspect we all know it. Is it any wonder that some people drown?
 
Dean Shomshak

Ed Asner Dies: TV Icon Who Played Lou Grant Was 91

One may recall that a few years back, Vladimir Putin claimed that Russia was developing devastating new hypersonic weapons -- basically, cruise missiles traveling above Mach 5, with 'round-the-world range -- that could strike the US without warning, impossible to defend against. China and the US are also said to be working on hypersonic weapons, and even to have deployed some.
 
"Hyped"... but not real, says an article in the August, 2021 issue of Scientific American. Or at least not nearly as revolutionary as claimed. Physics and aerodynamics put severe limits on such weapons, at least with any technology we have now or are likely to develop in the near future. Nor is the idea new: Various governments have tried developing hypersonic weapons since Nazi Germany, and haven't made them practical and effective. And anything current hypersonic weapons can do, can be done as well or better by other existing weapons.
 
Sorry, Pooty, but it's a big step from spiffy animations of weapons system to actual deployment of something that works. Something we in the US should remember from Reagan's 'Strategic Defense Initiative.' When that was new back in the 1980s, Scientific American printed another article that detailed the physics that stood in the way of the fantasy. And sure enough, we still don't have gamma-ray lasers, particle beams, or any of the other gaudy sci-fi technologies from that era's spiffy animations. RL missile defense remains a lot less dramatic.
 
So, I can't resist the joke. The next time someone tries to scare you or sell you on Mach 20 cruise missiles or whatever, an apt response would be, "Not so fast."
 
Dean Shomshak

One may recall that a few years back, Vladimir Putin claimed that Russia was developing devastating new hypersonic weapons -- basically, cruise missiles traveling above Mach 5, with 'round-the-world range -- that could strike the US without warning, impossible to defend against. China and the US are also said to be working on hypersonic weapons, and even to have deployed some.
 
"Hyped"... but not real, says an article in the August, 2021 issue of Scientific American. Or at least not nearly as revolutionary as claimed. Physics and aerodynamics put severe limits on such weapons, at least with any technology we have now or are likely to develop in the near future. Nor is the idea new: Various governments have tried developing hypersonic weapons since Nazi Germany, and haven't made them practical and effective. And anything current hypersonic weapons can do, can be done as well or better by other existing weapons.
 
Sorry, Pooty, but it's a big step from spiffy animations of weapons system to actual deployment of something that works. Something we in the US should remember from Reagan's 'Strategic Defense Initiative.' When that was new back in the 1980s, Scientific American printed another article that detailed the physics that stood in the way of the fantasy. And sure enough, we still don't have gamma-ray lasers, particle beams, or any of the other gaudy sci-fi technologies from that era's spiffy animations. RL missile defense remains a lot less dramatic.
 
So, I can't resist the joke. The next time someone tries to scare you or sell you on Mach 20 cruise missiles or whatever, an apt response would be, "Not so fast."
 
Dean Shomshak

One may recall that a few years back, Vladimir Putin claimed that Russia was developing devastating new hypersonic weapons -- basically, cruise missiles traveling above Mach 5, with 'round-the-world range -- that could strike the US without warning, impossible to defend against. China and the US are also said to be working on hypersonic weapons, and even to have deployed some.
 
"Hyped"... but not real, says an article in the August, 2021 issue of Scientific American. Or at least not nearly as revolutionary as claimed. Physics and aerodynamics put severe limits on such weapons, at least with any technology we have now or are likely to develop in the near future. Nor is the idea new: Various governments have tried developing hypersonic weapons since Nazi Germany, and haven't made them practical and effective. And anything current hypersonic weapons can do, can be done as well or better by other existing weapons.
 
Sorry, Pooty, but it's a big step from spiffy animations of weapons system to actual deployment of something that works. Something we in the US should remember from Reagan's 'Strategic Defense Initiative.' When that was new back in the 1980s, Scientific American printed another article that detailed the physics that stood in the way of the fantasy. And sure enough, we still don't have gamma-ray lasers, particle beams, or any of the other gaudy sci-fi technologies from that era's spiffy animations. RL missile defense remains a lot less dramatic.
 
So, I can't resist the joke. The next time someone tries to scare you or sell you on Mach 20 cruise missiles or whatever, an apt response would be, "Not so fast."
 
Dean Shomshak

A recent discussion on the public radio program On the Media suggested all the voter suppression is just Plan A, or even a smoke screen to keep Democrats distracted. As Plan B to control elections -- or perhaps the real plan -- is all the laws giving state legislatures the power to annul elections that they deem "marred by fraud." Which, as we have seen, is any election whose outcome goes against Republicans. But On the Media is not the most reliable source,as its guests may be, hm, excitable or biased in scholarship.
 
One of my friends suggests that many Republicans may think that all this maneuvering to control election outcomes is "just part of the game." Dems try to manipulate elections by increasing voter turnout in their reliable constituencies; so Republicans are justified in trying to reduce that turnout. This line of reasoning makes several ugly assumptions; of which perhaps the most honest is that Republican policies are hostile to large segments of the population, and always will be. If there was any chance that young people, minorities, the poor, etc. might look at a Republican candidate's platform and say, "Yeah, that's good for me and my country" -- why, the more voters, the better, right?
 
I also hear claims that blue states are generally adopting nonpartisan means of redrawing voting districts while red states go all in for gerrymandering, which if true puts the lie to the both-sidesism. One party wants to win elections by getting votes; one party does not.
 
Dean Shomshak

"For the love of God, Montresor!"

I'm not sure I can offer much help: In the last Fantasy Hero game I played in, the GM started by saying, "Spellcasters are not available as PCs. Magic is of such a nature that your characters could not possibly have access to it." Discussion over.
 
We found ways to make interesting and effective characters anyway. My PC was a fencer with Martial Arts, some Talents, and Penalty Skill Levels to make certain tactics more viable. Another PC was a burglar whose medusa ancestry enabled her to briefly paralyze people who met her gaze. (A supernatural power... but not spellcasting.) It was an edge, but not enough to dominate the campaign or, indeed, most encounters. Another PC was just exceptionally strong and tough. Etc.
 
Most importantly, we gave our PCs good personalities and social connections, and we had a GM who made use of them.
 
I would suggest that if magic overpowers everything else in a game, or there's no other way for characters to be cool and effective, that's on the designers. Fortunately, the Hero System does not compel such choices.
 
Dean Shomshak

I'm not sure I can offer much help: In the last Fantasy Hero game I played in, the GM started by saying, "Spellcasters are not available as PCs. Magic is of such a nature that your characters could not possibly have access to it." Discussion over.
 
We found ways to make interesting and effective characters anyway. My PC was a fencer with Martial Arts, some Talents, and Penalty Skill Levels to make certain tactics more viable. Another PC was a burglar whose medusa ancestry enabled her to briefly paralyze people who met her gaze. (A supernatural power... but not spellcasting.) It was an edge, but not enough to dominate the campaign or, indeed, most encounters. Another PC was just exceptionally strong and tough. Etc.
 
Most importantly, we gave our PCs good personalities and social connections, and we had a GM who made use of them.
 
I would suggest that if magic overpowers everything else in a game, or there's no other way for characters to be cool and effective, that's on the designers. Fortunately, the Hero System does not compel such choices.
 
Dean Shomshak