Critical Save Versus Corporate Influence

I like to think myself above certain corporate influence.  For example I watch commercials but I rarely remember what they are for.  I really don't much care.  I like what I like and for the most part I am just not the demographic for advertisers.

And then the Halloween season rolls around and I find myself unable to resist anything with seasonal packaging.

Which explains why I bought the item below at PetSmart yesterday.

It's for the dog.  That makes it okay.

Yes, those are dog biscuits.  I have a dog.  He likes biscuits.  (Okay, he likes cat shit too, but I'm justifying here) There is Halloween packaging.  Yes, I bought them.

But he can't have them yet.  Not until at least September.

Damn you, corporate devils!

Is Robin Hood a Ranger?

Lest you think the title of this post is a strange, out-of-left-field type of question, let me explain.  With the 5th edition of Dungeons and Dragons Player's Handbook mere days away from release I find myself thinking of all the editions that have come before.  Each edition can be viewed as part of the larger history of a still developing game or as an entity unto itself.  How you choose to view it is up to you.  Some persons of my acquaintance have strong feelings, both positive and negative, about each edition, others less so.  In 1989 TSR released the 2nd edition of the AD&D game (AD&D 1st edition was released in 1978 and represented the first great split in the game that itself started in 1974 with 3 booklets in a box.  In my opinion the 1st edition AD&D was not much different from the OD&D of 1974.  It was still a fantasy game that took inspiration from a wide variety of sources, many of them what we would call science fiction (and even cosmic horror, yes, I'm talking H.P. here).  The 1989 2nd edition was, at least in terms of setting and tone, a great departure from that which had come before.  The Player's Handbook (PHB), and indeed the 2nd edition as a whole, was chiefly the design work of one David "Zeb" Cook.  Zeb's 2nd edition PHB had something that was absent from the 1st edition PHB, namely little blue boxes that helped explain things in the text.  Sometimes these were just notes to clarify the rules but at other times they were background information.  Looking at these blue box notes we can see that the 2nd edition shifted focus from the wide ranging fantasy ideas of the 70s' work and into a more historically-based fantasy tone.  (You, in the back, stop snickering)

If a player in the 1970s wanted to make a character the PHB assumed (inasmuch as an inanimate object can be imbued with an anthropomorphic behavior) that the player was already familiar with RPG, possibly also wargaming, and had an idea, likely gained from Tolkien, what a Ranger was.  Generally speaking.  A look at the abilities of the AD&D 1st edition Ranger shows us a character that is very much Strider (or Aragorn if you like) from LOTR.  A look at the OD&D Ranger (from Strategic Review) shows us the roots of the character.  It's Aragorn.  Bonuses against giants (into which group Trolls and even Orcs were placed), healing abilities, extra hit dice, required to travel alone (well not allowed to group with a bunch of other Rangers) for the most part.  This was the Middle Earth Ranger all over.

Keep in mind that this was in the days before anyone named Do'Urden decided to run around swinging scimitars and fucking up gaming for everyone.

In 1989, however, Zeb, et al, decided that new players would not, necessarily, have an extensive gaming and/or fantasy background.  To help the players choose and understand the classes available to them, and to keep those players into the new way of AD&D thinking (a way that removed the words "demon" and "devil" from the product due to some unfortunate press in the 80s) the PHB included inspiration notes for the classes that referenced historical or literary antecedents for the classes themselves.  The Ranger class read as follows:
     The ranger is a hunter and woodsman who lives not only by his sword, but also by his wits.
     Robin Hood, Orion, Jack the giant killer, and the huntresses of Diana are examples of rangers
     from history and legend.  The abilities of the ranger make him particularly good at tracking, 
     woodcraft, and spying.

There it is.  The PHB specifically refers to Robin Hood as a Ranger.  We all know Robin Hood, right?  He's that guy that split an arrow with another another arrow at an archery tournament and had a band of Merry Men wearing tights.  You know, that guy.  Green Arrow.
What else do we know about Robin Hood?  Robbed from the rich and gave to the poor.  Yep, that seems like a thief.  Only he did it by waylaying people in a forest so that doesn't really fit the urbane nature of the housebreaking, lock picking, hiding in the shadows to stab you in the back thief type.
I seem to remember his having an animal companion.  A bear I think.

Ooo-da-lolly, ooo-da-lolly, and so forth.

I might be wrong.

Ultimately this image of the 2nd edition Ranger, at PHB launch, was the idea of a woodsman-warrior.  Aragorn could still apply, but the idea was to make him more of a man of the forests in a pseudo-medieval sense.  To appreciate this we have to forget all that business about King Richard and Prince John and look at a Robin Hood from a much lower social class.  A forester, not a noble in hiding.  Ranger seems a good candidate for Robin Hood.

Admit it, you prefer the fox.  This is not Robin Hood.  I don't know what this is, but it is not Robin Hood.  Dances with Outlaws?  

Or it did.
3rd edition really changed the way we saw Rangers.  Arguably the change was a slow evolution that started with the 2nd edition's Complete Ranger's Handbook, a book that put forth many other types of Rangers, many of them more woodland protector than woodsman-warrior.  By the time of 3rd edition the Ranger was on his way to becoming the martial hippie of the D&D world.  3rd edition gave Rangers animal companions nearly from the start where before animals were possible followers a Ranger could gain at 10th level (along with fighters, other rangers, and similar character types).  Rangers had much more reliance on dexterity and archery became a line of improvement for them if they so desired (with the other being that heinous two-weapon fighting bollocks...thank you Drizzt...ass).  The key shift here is from the 1st and 2nd edition warrior who is at home in the forests, experienced in that dangerous and rugged terrain, to a character that is some sort of mystic mumbo-jumbo protector OF the forests.  Greenpeace but more effective with weapons.  Which is to say effective at all, really.

There is an actual feat for this in 3rd edition.  I shit thee not.

4th edition, I don't want to talk about 4th edition.  The obsession with Rangers shooting things, a very MMORPG concept no doubt linked to a simple misunderstanding by MMO developers involving the RANGE portion of RANGER, continued on and players were not having it any other way save for that duel weapon nonsense.  I don't know what to expect from 5th edition but I hope it is not the trend that started with 3rd and kept spiraling downwards.  A tracker, a survivor, a man at home in the forests who lives in defiance of the dangers there, always aware and a guide and protector of humanity in the wilds.  You know, like this guy:

That guy, up front...come on, you know who I'm talking about.

Yep, that's a Ranger.
And so, I think, was Robin Hood.

But What About the Paladins?

The 5th edition of Dungeons and Dragons will officially release on the 19th of August.  I have already pre-ordered my copy partly because I am damned curious about the full new release and partly because I entertain notions of actually playing.  I have downloaded and read through the free basic rules, 100 pages of pdf with no pictures but the essentials to play.  I was impressed enough with the basic rules to make the order.  One thing that the free rules do is point to the Player's Handbook as having more options and I want to see those options.  I have reason to believe there will be paladins.
I have reason to believe this because the Basic Rules mention paladins a few times (and bards as well) but only has the four basic classes of Fighter, Cleric, Rogue and Wizard.  I have every confidence the other favorites will be in the full PHB but what I do not have every confidence in is that they will not suck.

This is my major concern then: will the paladin suck this go round?

I've explained this before, I seem to recall.  Twice to be more accurate.  In the days before the horribly egalitarian method of play we see today, the post MMORPG method of play, paladin was one of those special classes that had entry requirements.  Yes, it is a pain when you don't roll well enough to get the requirements but that was what made those classes special.  These days not so much.  Of course once everybody can be everything everybody has to be on par with each other and play their role and the poor paladin gets left out in the cold.  Doesn't heal or turn as well as a cleric, doesn't fight as well as a fighter.  It's a sad hybrid if you take away the special qualities required to get the job.
Then of course there is the problem where players confuse a special ability with the "only thing a class can do".  That's a shame because the ability to put a hurting on evil, into which undead and demons fall, should not be the only thing a class can do.  However it happens, with the stat addiction fully in effect players foolishly think that if there is no bonus to something then that is something a class or character does poorly.  "Oh you don't even get a +1 unless we are fighting undead.  You should just let the real damage dealers handle it."
Which is total bullshit but that's people for you.  Now if you are getting negatives I can understand that attitude.
"I shall pick the lock!" Sir Hopeless said bravely.
"Let me handle that, plate-boy," said Skulky McShadow, the party thief.
That makes sense.
So I don't know if I should be foolishly optimistic that with the new streamlined rules I will again see the furious warrior paladin or be stuck with the less useful than a stick of spaghetti in feeding frenzy paladin.
I've got my fingers crossed for a return to the glory days.  I'll keep you posted.

Less of this:

And more of this:

Now.  Dammit.

Ah Hell

Well I'm watching Hell On Wheels again.  I know, I swore if off last season because I felt the season finale was complete and utter bullshit.  I wasn't going to watch it.  I really wasn't.  Then the Chief (my father-in-law) talked me into giving it another go this season.  He was quite looking forward to it, you see.  So I DVRed last week's premiere and watched it.  I DVRed last night's episode and watched it today.
I guess I'm watching Hell On Wheels this season.
I'm big enough to admit when I have been a bit hasty.

This season's new baddie for Durant and Bohanon...provisional Wyoming governor and General Grant's bully boy, Governor Complete Bastard

This week's episode.  What can I say?  Preach, Cullen, preach.  That's my summation.
Anyway, where the hell else am I to get my fix for westerns and trains?
So far a promising season ahead for the only western about the building of the transcontinental railroad on television currently.

In other news...

I'm trying to fight it.  I really am.  I'm trying to keep my mind on Summer things so as not to rush into THE season too soon.  If the weather in Virginia would just comply instead of providing an August that seems like Autumn too much too soon, I think I can make it.  There's too much crossover.  My general love for all things spooky, the end of the Pirate Renaissance with the cancellation of Crossbones, and the presence of pumpkin scented candles showing up in stores are all conspiring to blur the lines.

Bugger.

Crossbones: It's not like I actually TOLD you so

I mentioned that the Pirate Renaissance was drawing to a close, but then I sounded hopeful for NBC's Crossbones, so you would be well within your rights to tell me that I didn't say specifically that Crossbones was not going to do well.  So I won't say, "Told you".  If we consider that great post linked above, however, well...I told you so.
According to my online sources Crossbones started strong with the target 18-49 demographic (how the hell is that a single demographic) with over 5 million viewers of its opening episode but dropped to less than 3 million shortly thereafter.  Oh shit.  Only 3 million people to see the commercials?  If Lifetime or FX used that metric they'd never have a damn show on the air.
Now who to blame for this?
Well I start by blaming NBC.  Friday night at 10 PM for a demographic that is traditionally out at that time, you know, 18 to 49 year olds.  Having dinner, going to sporting events and such.  Then we have to consider that it ran during the Summer.  It's still light out until after 8 PM during this time.  People are doing things.  That's why they have DVR.  They also preempted the July 4th episode.  You know, because people are out doing things.
When you put a show in that time slot you are basically cancelling it at launch.
So, yes, I blame the network.
The show was actually quite good.  I admit if it were on HBO, Showtime or STARZ it probably would have done better, but even then I have said before that the Pirate Renaissance is basically over.  It's back to the geeks and hardcore fans now.  Away you day sailors.  It ended on an appropriately dramatic note and I thought the story was well told.  Maybe it is better to have one good season instead of hitting that horrible third season nightmare slump.
And now a short emotional outburst:

Fuck you, you lackwitted bastards at NBC and the bloody demographic at which you pander you whores shilling product for a brainless consumer base.  You soulless, dickless turds who would not know quality if it came up and waved its naughty bits in your collective faces.  And a double fuck you to the jaded television viewing audience that can't appreciate story or character development, you who cannot handle even 3 minutes of exposition unless some naked hookers are fisting one another in the background for your sordid amusement.  Go back to watching your witch porn on WGN that has done more to harm the reputation of actual Wiccans and the victims of Salem than 300 years of inaccurate history ever could.  And finally fuck you to Johnny Depp for making pirates marketable and then ruining them all in one fell swishing Nancy Boy swoop.

Outburst ends.

So farewell and following seas to Crossbones and the Pirate Renaissance.  We'll see you again in an another 20 years when the cycle comes back around.

Crossbones on Crossbones

I talk about wizards on this blog.  I do this quite a bit.  I do this because it interests me.  Pirates interest me as well, but I don't seem to talk about pirates that often, especially not when compared to wizards and other game bullshit.  There is a good reason for this.  Despite what it may seem, all evidence available posted on this blog, I do like to wait until I have something reasonably intelligent or entertaining to say.  Or write.  As the case may be and most definitely is.
This is one of those times...

Having recently spent time enjoying Black Sails (thanks to a couple of pirate friends of mine who should probably remain nameless for legal reasons but we will call them Leo and Bobby) and the first episode of Crossbones, and being an avid reader and student of all things pirate, I have come to the decision that there are really two conceptions of pirates.  The first is the larger conception, or if you prefer the conception held by the larger portion of the population and thus the more popular one; let us call it the ideal of pirates.  This is typified by the Disney attraction The Pirates of the Caribbean and the films that were inspired by, and share the name of, that attraction.  This is the sort of swaggering, arrrr matey, Talk Like A Pirate Day bollocks that sells so well in the form of merchandise.  It is a mythical type of ideal, as so many are.  When you think about talking like a pirate you are thinking of talking like Robert Newton who "invented" the pirate speak by exaggerating his native Dorset accent when he played Long John Silver for Disney.  This is the sea food restaurant, drinks with umbrellas in, treasure hunting, plank walking, hook-hand-having, eye-patch-loving, raping, robbing, pillaging, freebooter lifestyle that inspires miniature golf courses and Halloween costumes and is typified today by Jack Sparrow.
Then there is the other conception, held by a very few (by comparison) and enjoyed fully by even fewer; let us call it the reality of pirates.  To the larger group, when asked about the reality of the pirates they so love to emulate, they will most likely sheepishly admit that pirates were bad, bad people who engaged in theft, murder and destruction.  Sadly that does not accurately or completely describe the reality and is akin to tarring all of a social group with the same brush for the rather public actions of a few.
Television and films, of course, are designed to appeal to the widest possible audience to garner the greatest possible market share.  This means that the overwhelming majority of piracy shown is of the first type.  When you do see more realistic piracy it is likely of the type seen in Captain Phillips, where Somali pirates hijacked the Maersk Alabama.  Desperate men taking desperate actions.  Yet this is not the same sort of thing as we would have seen during the age of Blackbeard.  To some degree it is, but the exact specifications are a bit different.  During the time of Blackbeard the vast majority of pirates were sailors, not just thieves and ruffians looking to make a buck.  Those were bandits and lived on land.  Ships at sea need skilled hands if they had any hope of staying at sea and those hands were accustomed to a certain amount of natural discipline.  Not the lash of the cat type of discipline, but the sort of routine that kept their ship afloat, which was the difference between life and death.  Piracy was, essentially, a business.  It was the livelihood of the men (and yes, occasionally women) who turned pirate.  If we look past the Hollywood and popular imagery and read the actual documents of the era we see a very different picture of piracy.  We see real people with varied attitudes and personalities banding together to achieve common goals of survival, revenge, and even political achievement.  Some of them, according to the documents of the era, where quite charming and intelligent even.

A pirate (no really, just ask the British)

So what, if anything, does this have to do with Crossbones?  Specifically this has to do with John Malkovich's portrayal of Blackbeard.  Malkovich is portraying a pirate lord, a self-styled commodore that is anything but Jack Sparrow.  Seafaring types tended to pick up odds and ends from across the globe.  Bits, baubles, interesting diseases, and customs were assimilated into an already alien (to a landsman) lifestyle.  A sash of fine silk from the Far East, a Mameluke sabre taken from a plundered enemy, or a fine hat obtained in some foreign port looking quite out of fashion to the homeland were the sorts of things a sailor could (and often did) obtain, along with strange habits gained from living in such close quarters as ships require.  The pirate lifestyle demanded election of leaders from among the crew, which meant that those who rose to such ranks tended (with varying degrees of success) to be cunning, charismatic, tough and skilled fellows.  Malkovich's Blackbeard does take something from Colin Woodard's The Republic of Pirates, although it seems more like the behavior of Benjamin Hornigold (who had been Teach's mentor as both a privateer and then a pirate).  In his decorating tastes, styles of clothing and habits there is a flair of the East.  He loves the silks and his outfits are often white and floral when not looking like a Han Emperor.  (Believe it or not fine gentlemen's coats were once very much in the pattern and style of your maiden aunt Sally's favorite sofa...the one in the living room, that she called the "parlor" where no one was allowed to sit unless they were a guest and there was no television and it always seemed cold...no?  Just me?...carry on)  He seems to have a dangerous intelligence about him.  A desire, as far as we have seen, to maintain the sanctity of his fledgling republic seems to motivate him.  He speaks with a somewhat cultured air of topics outside of rum and wenching, but is also keenly aware that he has built a legend that must be maintained.  He makes threats that are far more effective than blustering boasts normally seen in such fare.  None of this, "I'll have yer guts for garters, you damned lubber" business.  You could imagine him as J.R. Ewing in Dallas, using his reputation and willingness to go to extreme measures to get what he wants.  Indeed this reminds us of Long John Silver as he was written by R.L. Stevenson in the novel Treasure Island.  Not physically imposing, Silver controlled men with his cunning and will.
We see this in Black Sails as well to a far larger degree.  In the persons of Captain Flint, John Silver, and Jack Rackham, among others (landsmen included).  With a show primarily about pirates each character must be a character, that is, must not be a simple stereotype, although plenty of extras will be.  It's only natural.  The swaggering, the "arrrs", the fannying about like a swishy gypsy rent boy (i.e. Jack Sparrow) are all absent.  This is not the ideal of piracy, nor is it, strictly speaking, the reality, but it lists far more to the reality, and that's a good thing.

Not a pirate.  Not even close.  Nancy the Swaggering Rent Boy, yes.  Pirate, not so much.

Of course the fact that these works are not engaging in the exploitation of the ideal of piracy is probably a sign of doom in terms of market share.  The vast majority expect the swagger and, sadly, want the swagger.  The swagger is fun.  I'll admit it.  It's an image that instantly says "Pirate!" and that visual shorthand is part of the nature of storytelling.  The audience doesn't want to be TOLD that Jack Tar is a pirate, they want to see Jack Tar and instantly KNOW he is a pirate.  So if it is a situation of image, of LEGEND, then perhaps the polyester pirate of Hollywood (and thousands of fan girls' disturbing fantasies...including the cross-dressing...oh Manga what have you wrought?) is what is needed to keep this sort of salty fare viable in the market today.
Even so, I confess that I do like Malkovich's portrayal thus far.  It is more cultured master villain than pirate, but to me it is far closer to the reality of the legend than all the Jack Sparrows combined.  In the hold.  Of a ship.  That is sinking.

Crossbones Episode 1: A Review

Danger: Spoilers ahead
Now that the obligatory warning is out of the way, let us proceed.
Friday 30th of May saw the series premiere of the newest NBC nighttime drama, Crossbones, a story of intrigue and human drama set in the 18th century Caribbean and loosely connected with pirates.
The tale presented in the premiere, and thus setting up the driving plot of the initial season (assuming that there will be a second and subsequent seasons, which I am not willing to do at this juncture), is of the British Empire ruling the waves, unmatched, but for pesky pirates in the New World, the worst among them, Blackbeard!  Secret Agent Tom Lowe (played by Brit Richard Coyle who famously played Jeff Murdock in the BBC's Coupling and starred in the adaptation of Terry Pratchett's Going Postal as Moist von Lipwig) is assigned cover as a ship's surgeon by the governor of Jamaica (played by Julian Sands of Warlock fame) as a prized chronometer, the plans for said device and the inventor are being transported back to England to present the marvelous MacGuffin to the king.  This device will allow sailing ships to accurately determine longitude at sea (if you know nothing about seamanship and navigation then just think of it as a GPS) and thus the British can immediately overcome all pirates everywhere all the time.  Take that, Blackbeard.  Only that's silly.  Plot contrivance notwithstanding, Lowe is NOT there to prevent the chronometer from falling into enemy hands.
He's there to kill Blackbeard, the infamous freedom fighter pirate who Lowe believes to be dead already; killed by the governor's own hand.  Only he's not. This fact the governor confirms and so off Lowe goes to, presumably, get captured on purpose as not a soul knows where Blackbeard hides out.  There are just so many islands out there and nobody has a chart...I guess.
As happens in these stories Lowe is captured after blowing up the chronometer, partially burning the plans for its creation and poisoning the inventor, but he is kept alive to keep the inventor alive as the pirates WANT THAT GPS.  But he dies anyway and Lowe buys his life by saying that he will decipher the unburned parts of the plans, which are encoded.
His meeting with Blackbeard reveals a worldly, intelligent, cultured man (played by the esteemed John Malkovich), who does have cruel streak and headaches with weird visions and nosebleeds.  Through a series of spy events Lowe successfully poisons Blackbeard and as he makes his escape discovers a plot forming between Spain and the pirates and so he turns back and risks his all to SAVE Blackbeard because if Eddie dies, Lowe will never know what the plans are to be with Spain to the demise of England.  And thus is the series set up.

Tom Lowe (port side) and Blackbeard (starboard)

This series is supposedly based on Collin Woodard's non-fiction account of the pirate republic in the Bahamas in the early 18th century entitled The Republic of Pirates, but I've read that book twice and it seems more like NBC's attempt to make STARZ's Black Sails without all the tits adrift.  Crossbones has the feel of the type of drama currently very fashionable on pay television, but taking that Game of Thrones market share is going to be damn nigh impossible.  As comfortable as prime time network TV is getting with lewd behavior, fisting on the big 3 is still many, many years away.
As with any series a certain liberty with historical accuracy is expected and not too jarring...yet.  There is a definite poetic comparison between Eddie Blackbeard, who calls himself commodore of the island, denounces kings, speaks intelligently about a variety of subjects (God is a clockmaker...supported by the imagery of many clocks surrounding him), and claims to govern by the authority of his people and the governor of Jamaica, who in the few scenes we see of him seems completely at home with torture and brutality, torturing and murdering a captured pirate while seeking information about Blackbeard.  In the middle is Lowe, loyal to his King and Country, seeking to kill Blackbeard upon orders but saving him for a higher purpose.  No doubt the two of them will have much cat and mouse playing and verbal fencing as the plot continues.
After the cancellation of NBC's Dracula, one cannot help but think that Crossbones is likely doomed to a single season.  Unlike the latest police procedural, shows such as this must go up against similar shows on pay channels that give the same intrigue and character development, but throw in lots of sex and language to get the jaded viewers to commit.  As it stands, Crossbones was more swashbuckling than I expected given the supposed basis (Woodard's book) and felt more like Black Sails than was comfortable (including the key, "I've got the secret code stored in my head so you can't kill me, ha ha" scene), but Black Sails, for all its fancy does seem to have more, dare I say it, historical verisimilitude.  Black Sails seems to focus often on piracy as a business and for all their bluster the pirates of Black Sails seem more like real people, not just stock villains, while much of the pirating on Crossbones seemed of the POTC variety.
I won't praise nor condemn the show on a single episode and I am intrigued enough to watch again next week.  It is a pirate show (well, there are pirates in it) after all.
If you are looking for Pirates of the Caribbean, however, you will be sadly disappointed.  There is not a swishing sugar-pants Jackie Sparrow amongst them.  Yet.