Defining the pretty easily definable, the alignment of Rorschach, Scar, and Light (some spoilers) part 1 Rorschach

Don't try this at home..........however cool it might have been

Vigilantes are interesting.  They ignore the rules of law, and go fight evil, unhindered by petty concerns like the government, morality and basic decency.  America has a kinda hero worship of these people who go outside the law and hunt down and assault people they don’t like.  Personally, I dislike vigilantism, or the glorification of it, as in real life, it is almost always….well evil.  We always have people without professional training going out and causing massive damage to those around them, even if they are doing it for a good cause (Damnit John Brown).  And in fiction, we have these kinda disturbing glorification of these people, as the movie dramatizes there torturing people for information and murdering people who can’t fight back, see also Dirty Harry and anything by Frank Miller.  But here I’m going to do the alignments of the three vigilantes I like best, because the writers didn’t try to glorify there ideals while making them badass.  And I’m in a comic mood, so yeah, theme there.  But lets do the Watchman one first

"This city is afraid of me. I have seen its true face.

The streets are extended gutters and the gutters are full of blood and when the drains finally scab over, all the vermin will drown.:

The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout "Save Us!"...:

...and I'll look down, and whisper, "No".:

 

“I'm not locked up in here with you. You're locked up in here with me”

“No.  Never compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon”

 

Right, going on with the Watchman theme, I’m going to briefly go with the alignment of my favorite character from the series, which says a lot to Alan Moore’s writing style considering that I am morally opposed to everything this psychotic believes in.  Rorschach is a moral absolutist, a radical right wing anti communist vigilante, who is determined to hunt down and destroy evil wherever he can find it.   He is basically  the personification of what real vigilantes are, and why our justice system is designed to prevent that from happing (see also, vigilantism is horrible).  Rorschach tortures people for information, innocent or not, murders anyone who he feels is in his way, and generally acts upon a very utilitarian ideal (a letter he writes as a child reveals that he supported Truman’s nuking of Japan, innocent civilians there be damned).  So why do I like him?  Because he is the most interesting character, and unlike many people who espouse utilitarian ideals , he honestly believes in it, and in a bit of a quintessential vigilante, considering his mask his “true face” and going so far as to not eat or bath, but just walks around New York killing crimes.  I like him because he is the only character who doesn’t compromise his beliefs, and is brave to the point of absurdity, but both of those come because he is a freaky psychopath but hey.  Anyways, alignment.  Now lets make this clear, he is evil.  Even before his “Transformation”, he tortures at least 20 innocent people before he tortures the right man to get information.  When he captures a serial killer, he chains him up and burns him alive as the man is burned alive.  Yes, you might say “But he is a serial killer” but as I’m a fan of Fitz Lang’s “M” even child murderers are people, and deserve a fair trial.  He tortures anybody who gets in his way, murders peoples people who are trying to beg for mercy (the midget) after his transformation.  So evil, certainly, but what kind?  Well, I’m going to assume the Chaotic Evil is not in there, as he certainly has a motive and a code he keeps too.  So its between NE and LE.  Now, I’d be tempted to say NE, because while he has a code, it isn’t a very clear one, I mean, as he will break any rule to accomplish his current mission, so it is kinda variable.  But based upon the way he generally acts, I’d say LE.  He is very orderl in how he handles himself, as seen by his mechanic, detail oriented manner of taking notes and talks to people, straight to the point, stating the facts in a very robotic manner.  He also has a very strict code, flexible his methods might be.  For example, his deal with the unlicensed gun, and not trying to deny murders he had committed.  Or for that matter, the strict life style he leads.  So I’d saw Lawful evil.

from

EE

Slumdog Millionaire actually was...really good

"Get one more right and I'll crush you head like this"

Now before we go into this, I92d like to let you know, I hate romance stories as a rule. The idea of love at first sight, divinely inspired luck, and people who are perfect for each other is something I find silly and simplistic, not to mention absurdly corny and a waste of time. So this should give you an idea of how well this story is. If you don’t know by now (seriously, why the hell don’t you know) SM is about a young Slumdog,
IE a dude who grew up in the slums of India (IE, a really crappy place to live) is on there version of “Who wants to be a millionaire and keeps laying, trying to get the ultimate prize. The story and back ground are actually good enough that I won=92t spoil it, which should say something about its quality. The important thing I want to say is that it is very much like a Charles Dicken’s novel (which is a compliment), IE poor boy who lives in the slums but has some amazing luck. While the story is romantic and
kinda unrealistic, the extremely vivid portrayals of the impoverished lives of the young Indian people says a lot about its quality. All and all, highly recommended. I won’t say more because yeah everybody is talking about this. Oh also great music, (through I’m impartial to Indian music anyways) wonderful, quite good actors, even the child actors, and the filming is wonderful. Basically…yeah I don’t like happy reviews.

from

EE

P.S. This is yesterday's article, which didn't work. Today's will be up later tonight

Watchmen Trailer Expectations

This pessimistic message is brought to you by Grouchy the Dwarf, remember if the majority think something is good, it most likely isn't ;)

Now as everyone with any remote connection to the nerd world knows, the absurdly anticipated Watchmen movie is coming out next Friday, and people are getting really excited. Now, I like Alan Moore, but I’ve never been a big comic book guy, through I thought V for Vendetta and Watchmen were excellent (I hate Frank Miller, and I think he is a wonderful departure from his idiotic idea of “realistic” world design), but lets talk about my expectations. Now what I like about the book is its that it not only shows multiple viewpoints and perspectives, but also that Moore doesn’t try to force his own personal beliefs upon the reader as much as to tell a good story with many different viewpoints. Now I know the movie won’t be perfect, but there are something that worry me. I actually wouldn’t mind if the movie was horrible, it would be forgotten, and people would go back to reading the book. If the movie was great, like “Godfather” great, well so much the better, that’s the best case situation. But the worst that could happen I think is if they made a mediocre movie, one with enough special effects and badass fight scenes that’s it becomes popular, but makes lots of mistakes so people don’t bother to read the book, and the movie kinda ruins the perception of the book. Its not horrible, but it’s a risk.

The film seems good, but there is one nitpick that makes me worried. One thing I loved about the comic was how filthy everything looked. Rorschach appearance was that of a guy who never bothered to bath or take care of himself, just enough to keep fighting, which fit his idea of the “true” moral extremist. This adds to the idea of the comic, that the super heroes are real people in the 1960s, and goes into the theme of it feeling really “real”, IE that you could see a dude doing these sort of things while walking through the city. And the adds seem to fancy, too clean, too modern. The appeal is really in the fact that these super heroes aren’t that super, its normal people (with one exception) who are trying there best to fight for there beliefs, against realistic forces. What makes it dramatic is that they are fighting guns and guns are dangerous. I’m only going on gut instinct here, but if everything looks so fancy, I feel like it might be too action focused with people doing stupid looking fight. But whatever, hopefully I’ll be wrong lol

from

EE

Political personal views ahoy

Well I have been given a huge english paper on House of the Spirits, so i have been unable to update, so i will update on this weekend.   Until then i will just say...Obama's speech was amazing. I love how he actually treats his viewers as smart people and doesn't resort to dumbing things down for use to understand.  I've also read his book, Dreams of my Father....basically he is as honests as he acts, or he is the most badass evil mastermind in history, who has planned this for 23 years.  Either way, i support him

from

EE

Mongolian Film on the World Conquerer

When I grow up, I want to be a lawyer.

Mongol

I’m in a movie mode, so lets talk last year, an interesting film came out called “Mongol”, telling the story of history’s favorite mass murdering horseman, Genghis Khan. Now the Khan is one of my favorite people in history, as the fact that he was a random dude who went on to dominate most of Asia, and who’s decedents went on to create the second largest empire in the history of the world. So he is one of those really epic badass people who pull off some really impressive things despite being a bit of a sociopath. Now the popular portrayal of the Khan is a mass murdering barbarian who eats babies for breakfast and kicks puppies. In reality, he was a mass murdering nomad, but he was certainly an intelligent man, and wasn’t just a mass killer. By his people’s standpoint, he had a valid reason for attempting to take over the world, and certainly cared for his own people. So I was glad to see that a movie was coming out that would show him in a positive light.

Now the film itself is very good. It is filmed in Mongolia, which is a beautiful country and there re some really incredible landscape shots. And kudos to the film for the prop department, because it really gives you the feeling of what it must be like living in a vast plan back in the middle ages. The clothing is wore and looks like it was hand made and unkempt, as if they really were being used to ride around on a sweaty horse all day. The warriors look like they just using what ever weapons they happened to get there hands on, the food looks like its really been made at home back in the middle ages and I’m going on a tangent, but you see what I mean. And while the fight scenes (except for the last one) aren’t that impressive, I like that they aren’t absurdly over the top and are pretty realistic. And the horse riding is breath taking, which makes sense because its well….the Mongols. And the film does offer a pretty good window into the Mongolian way of life. I was shocked on the similarities to them and the western Native American tribes, in fact the Mekeeti use are like teepees. It makes sense through, the Native Americans originated in the same area, and live under similar conditions, but its still a note worthy comparison. The movie is also unique because of the Mongolian actors and back ground music, which is really fascinating. The Mongolian music is this guttural back of the throat singing, which is really odd at first, but actually is quite harmonic. The movie also is a good introduction to the Ancient Mongolian way of life.

Now here is what I don’t like. The portrayal of Genghis. Now I’m glad they didn’t show him as an inhuman beast, and they did show his human elements, but they took it to far, and essentially made him into a messiah like figure (literally if you pay attention to the scenes involving the wolf god). Genghis is show as an ideal hero, who is doing what is best for not only Mongolia but for Asia as a whole, divinely chosen as a great leader and a figure of inspiration. Now I’ll admit it, the Khan was an amazing person, and he did do a lot of good things for Asia, but we can’t ignore the fact that he killed millions of people, raped thousands personally (8% of Asian males are directly related to him), destroyed hundreds of cities and ruined the lives of whole nations, all for his own ambition. Now, the Khan certainly believed he was doing what was best for Asia, or at least his own people, and to an extent he was right, the Mongolians prospered with there empire, at least for a time. But he was also a brutal man sociopath at the same time. Yes I know the film is made by Mongolians, but the fact remains that glorifying your national hero is expected, but kinda dishonest. I know the US does it, but it can get kinda upsetting for the same reasons.

I mean, Confederate heroes such as General Lee, Stonewall Jackson, Nathan Bedford Forest and other major generals at the time are often shown dramatically as stalwart defenders of there home states, gentlemen who stand for the old traditions and customs of the South, and are fighting a romantic lost cause to protect there way of life, at the same time being good family men and kind people. And yet, we cannot allow ourselves (southerns) to forget that at the heart, they were still fighting for a ruthless and oppressive system of human slavery, however much they might have wanted to avoid the issue (except for Forest, who was a slave trader himself before becoming a Calvary man) and many of them (well not Lee, but hey) were slavers themselves, which means that they lived there lives off the sufferings of African Americans. The North does this as well, as we tend not to talk about the negative points of Grant (IE his presidency), John Brown (this one is mixed actually, he is either a saint or a serial killer), Abe Lincoln’s own racism or Sherman’s brutality (actually Sherman himself was pretty honest about it). Or on a more national level, Washington’s victory by attacking on Christmas, Theodore Roosevelt/Andrew Jackson’s extreme racism, Davy Crocket being a possibly serial killer or Custer position as a child murderer. All heroes have there bad points, and a good historical portrayal should show that. If I made a movie on Napoleon for example, I’d certainly show him as a brave and extremely intelligent man, who was thinking out side the box and in the long run most likely was good for France (and the people he was fighting against were all dictators so he wasn’t that bad compared to them), as well as an extremely charismatic and charming characters. But I’d still show his ruthless ambition and single minded dedicated to his own self interest, his abandoning his men in both Egypt and Russia to save his own skin, (through he often risked his life to defend his men as well) and he was at heart a rather self centered, if epically awesome man. Genghis Khan was a genius, and one of the bravest men in history, as well as the single most badass person in the history of the human race. But he was still a ruthless and cruel man who was looking out for his own (and his people’s) best interest before others, and oversaw some of the most brutal massacres at the time. Now, this film gets nowhere near as simplistic as say, Braveheart or the Patriot (I hate Mel Gibson) but it is very grating there.

Finally, the fact that the People’s Republic of China was involved in making the movie. We find some…..interesting….elements thrown in the movie. For example, a Chinese monk frees the Khan after traveling across the world before dying, saying it is “fated’ that the Khan will conquer China, and making the Khan’s invasion seems as part of China’s fate. Not only does this make the Khan into a more godlike figure, but it also effectively makes the Mongolian invasion happen only because China let it happen, which is interesting because in real life China (or what was china back then, the Jin and the Song) was totally wiped out. We also get some of the “Hero” styled communist propaganda thrown in, with the Khan’s speech near the end of the movie about “Uniting Mongolia, even if I have to kill half of them” “The rights of the few matter little compared to the good of the many” “We must unite to be strong” “People must be given order and keep in there place, so you shouldn’t kill a Khan even if he opposes me”. But meh, what do you expect

In closing, it’s a very good movie, and I recommend watching it, but don’t take it to heart as the way to view the real World Conqueror. And um, yeah, I hate hero worship. Oh yeah, I wrote this in a day, ergo why it is late, and while I am updating the blog every day now, not on weekends.

from
EE

Is D&D really Pagan?

What? It could happen

Now since this is just another random topic that came to me while I was talking to my dad. He was reading a book called the “Elfish Genre”, a book about an English dude who was into D&D, and how one of the things he noted about the subculture is its relationship to heavy metal rock music, both in its kinda escapist fantasy and in the sort of medieval pagan theme that goes into it. My dad, who is pretty open minded towards D&D generally, noted that the whole medieval escapism is actually very much sort of a way people are reverting back to paganism. He has noted upon pagan elements within D&D several times before, and many radical Christian nuts (by that I refer to Jack Chick) have accused D&D of full blow satanic influences. Now we all know the latter claim is BS, but lets look at the much more mild claim of the game being Pagan. First off, that’s a rather borad generalization, pagan is one of those really tricky to define words out there, as literally hundreds of thousands of faiths, dead or alive can be thrown under that category. But lets just focus on the more obvious ones. You have a polytheistic world with many deities based upon various elements of nature worships (FR is the most promenade example of this), who are appeased through faith and various forms of sacrifices (if not human all the time). Magic is a very literal and powerful force, often serving as a part of magic itself and most worship boils down to some form of nature reverence (something monotheistic worshipers tended to move away from, focusing more upon the ideas of acting good within a society). Other people have stated that D&D is outright satanic, with its vivid descriptions of hell and the underworld.

But I actually disagree with both of these points. The latter should be obvious, D&D is about fighting crazy evil creatures, not being them (through you can be). But the pagan thing I have to disagree with. If you read closely, D&D is actually remarkable Christian/Jewish/Islam. The alignment system’s definition of good, while certainly not totally Christian Certainly (the Pagan images thing/honor your parents/no adultery/only shall worship one god stuff isn’t there) but the general ideas are still there

1) Murder is evil. Killing is acceptable, but hopefully avoidable

2) All mortals (IE not ‘Always Evil’ creatures) can potentially be good in theory and avoiding fighting is better than not

3) Stealing is sometimes ok, but normally evil

4) Pride is bad, as its zealotry and ends justifies the mean

5) Torture is bad

6) Rape is bad

7) Protect the innocent from oppression and harm

Ok, a lot of faiths have this as well, but considering this is an American game, it’s really a rather Christian ideal system more than anything else. Sure, you are allowed to be evil, and there isn’t anything wrong with that (considering what a broad range evil is, I mean, Andrew Jackson would certainly be NE), the ideal of good is a very much based upon the beliefs of good is rather Christian in terms of the belief system rather than a more ‘Pagan” ideal of good and evil being decided by what ever god you worship.

But in the end, this whole argument is really moot. D&D draws influence from any fantasy source it can, regardless of source. And the only real purpose this kind of argument serves is to discredit people who claim D&D is involved with satanic worship. So um...yeah. Daily articles are more musings then real thesis i've noticed, but i hope you've enjoyed

from

EE

A new blog deal

Game Informer, in a nut shell

A New Blog Deal/Game informer in retrospect

Right so I’m still new to the whole blog idea, and I’m still trying to adjust to this. I made it when I had a lot of free time and now I well…..don’t. But I’m figuring this stuff out. Now I write uber mega long articles and as my editor can attest, they tend to be full of grammatical errors, so even after I get it back, it’s a week before I can put it up. And now my editor (WG if you don’t know) is writing his own review at the same time, so it’s a very slow process (good luck to you WG). To make things worst, my email has been faulty, and communications aren’t working to well. But I feel guilty about not writing anybody anything for long periods of time, I’ve imagined a possible system. Since it’s a blog more than a review site, I figured that I might just write a short piece, maybe a page ½ long every day, just on things I’m feeling right now and what not.

Right, today. Now I’ve had the debatable good fortune of getting a free year long subscription to Game Informer and my last issue just arrived yesterday. So yeah, what I think in retrospect. Kinda of a complicated question, one that requires you to go a good deal into the nature of the gaming industry, the games the’ve reviewed this year, the new technologies/conclusion we’ve had so far but in short um…..they are a bunch of hacks. Every article is just a endless stream of generally worthless platitudes and trite remarks you could get by asking any gaming frat boy there views on something. The magazine really should get credit for sticking to its title of game “informer” because that’s pretty much it, they inform you about games, but they don’t really tell you anything about them. If you read the title of the game, go onto there website and read what the game makers have to say, because your just as likely to get an unbiased option from them. Gameinformer just spends there time making broad declarations and giving you some basic details about the game, most if which you already know if you’ve been paying attention at all in the gaming industry. For example, in the most recent issue, there was a 5 page article of God of War III (actually IV but what ever), where Kratos the greatest mass killer since Genghis Khan returns with a vengeance to slaughter even more pagan deities in the most gory manner you can imagine as part of his plan to emulet Jason. The article, in short said this

1) Kratos is awesome and can kill lots of things

2) You can not fight new monsters and use new weapons to kill lots of things

3) And there are fancy and new graphically advanced ways to kill lots of things. Actually on this not, they go into vivid detail about how the new PS3 graphics allow you to beat a man to death with your hands with the most realistic appearance and noises the gaming industry has ever seen. And they are saying that without sarcasm, which is really disturbing.

Now I’m rather neutral when it comes to god of war, but the article didn’t really tell me anything I didn’t already imagine from the last game. They don’t try to ask any difficult questions (like the possibility that a gamn where you can rip a creatures eye ball out of its socket with your hand might be a tad bit of a bad influence) or if they want to avoid controversial topics, at least go into some detail about why they like it. They just go “Blood, gore, violence, good”, which is good enough for some people I suppose, but when I hear people talk about good games, its like when I want people to recommend me books. “Its awesome” isn’t actually a very good recommendation. For example, they mentioned and praise the amazing story line, but they don’t really say anything about it that makes it amazing. I mean, the story line isn’t bad I imagine, but it certainly doesn’t compare to the much better stories out there. Another example is when they declare Resident Evil 5 the most scary video game to ever been seen. Now Resident Evil is kinda fun, but its hardly scary, its more like shock humor (Silent hill, now that’s scary), and giving it such a big fancy title without any backing just seems trite. But in the end, what annoys in the end is that these recommendation just seem so…flat. I mean, if you know the public option of a game, don’t even bother reading the articles. Gears of war was popular, they give its sequel good marks. People expect to like God of War III, they say it is good. People liked Resident Evil 4 so they declare it the best, despite the total loss of the survival horror genre with hardly more than a comment. I mean, love or hate him, you have to admit that Yahtzee at least addresses game from a critical perspective, rather than just saying “Its awesome”.

So in the end, you cannot expect much, it informs, doesn’t offer any more. So I won’t miss it. And this is my gripe for the day, I hope you enjoy

From

EE

Dawn of War: Dark Crusade follow-up

Warty Gobliin here. Since I posted a review of this earlier, and some people expressed interest in this, I thought I'd post this.

Impulse, which is more or less Stardock's version of Steam although with less of a DRMish feel to it, is having a sale this weekend, and selling Dark Crusade for $3.99. If you've got the slightest interest in this game and don't already own it, I'd be hard pressed for a reason you shouldn't buy it, unless of course you use dial-up, in which case I advise praying to the internet gods for forgiveness.

I've Finished mid terms

Right, mid terms are oven, and a new semester has begone, wish some really cool classes.  After some time adjusting, i've finally gotten back to work.  Exalted part 1 is being edited as we speak, and i'm writing part two now.  Thank you all for your patience.  

from

EE