Spain is different

Mi padre me envió hace poco dos noticias interesantes, más interesantes aún por el contraste entre ellas.

Por un lado, tenemos que Holanda hizo un proyecto de ley para cobrar a los presos.
En la noticia hablan de 16 euros diarios (lo que supone unos 480€ por mes o 5840€ por año). Calculan que este pago compensaría unos 65 millones anuales de euros debidos a costes judiciales y policiales. El proyecto lo ha impulsado la coalición que está en el poder, un conjunto de liberales de derechas y socialdemócratas de izquierdas.

Es una idea que posiblemente más de uno habíamos tenido ya, pero ellos ya la han llevado a la práctica: la noticia anterior es de enero de 2014, en diciembre ya estaba en práctica. El dinero se cobra al reo de los ahorros que tuviera antes de entrar; si no tiene suficiente, se cobrará cuando tenga un sueldo. Se puede cobrar a plazos para no dificultar mucho (más) la reinserción y, además, como mucho se les cobrarán dos años, aunque la condena sea más larga.

No es el único país que lo hace: en Alemania y Dinamarca, sólo pagan los que están en regímenes abiertos, no los que están encerrados todo el día. El dinero que se saca así se destina a las víctimas de sus crímenes, a pagar costes judiciales y policiales, lo que se hace también en Noruega, Italia, Portugal, Austria y Suiza. Trabajar para la prisión te exime de la deuda.

En Estados Unidos el ejemplo está en Elko, Nevada, donde es el sheriff del condado el que ha impuesto las medidas. Se cobra algo de dinero por la comida, por visitas médicas y por lo que van necesitando (ropa, artículos de higiene, etc). Si no tienen dinero, acumulan la deuda para cuando salgan.

Hay organizaciones de derechos humanos que se quejan de eso, me pregunto en base a qué. En la declaración de derechos humanos de naciones unidas se incluyen unos cuantos, pero no parece que haya ninguno en la línea de "si una persona está castigada por sus crímenes, tiene derecho a que le mantengan las personas inocentes"

Visto ese aspecto de otros países, podemos pasar a una propuesta conjunta de un grupo de nuestro Senado, el formado por Podemos, En Común, Compromís y En Marea. La propuesta pretende "reconocer los derechos laborales de los presos". Esa idea no aparece sólo en ese periódico, que podría ser tendenciosa, sino en la propia página de Podemos.

En breve, los presos que trabajen en la prisión tienen que cobrar (al menos) el salario mínimo inter-profesional incluyendo las horas extraordinarias. Por supuesto, como trabajadores que son, también tienen que poder sindicarse. Además, una vez que termina su condena, termina también el trabajo, y entonces tienen derecho a cobrar por desempleo. Estos senadores lo ven injusto, porque ese subsidio de desempleo es menor que el de excarcelación. En mi opinión, el hecho de que haya un subsidio de excarcelación ya es motivo de queja. (¿Has sido condenado por un crimen y te dan dinero cuando se termina tu condena? ¿En serio?) También lo es que ese empleo no aparezca como tal en su vida laboral.

En España, trabajar durante tu condena todavía reduce ésta, de modo que la idea sigue significando mejorar la vida de los presos con respecto a la que tienen. En muchos casos, significa mejorar la vida de los presos con respecto a la que tenían cuando no estaban en la cárcel. ¿Es que soy el único que recuerda que la cárcel se supone que es un castigo?

70.000 presos en España, a 655€ por día, saldrían a más de 550 millones de euros por año que vamos a pagar los que no hemos roto las leyes, los que nos comportamos de forma honrada, además de lo que ya estamos pagando por el coste de sus celdas, de su comida, de su ropa, de sus estudios y el resto de cosas que necesitan, incluyendo gimnasios, piscinas y televisión. Las cárceles de España están entre las mejores de Europa, y su población, a pesar de haber disminuido en los últimos años, está un 30% por encima de la media Europea.
Cárceles más cómodas para los presos, más cantidad de presos por la misma cantidad de habitantes... ¿Soy el único que piensa que hay relación?
¿Soy el único que piensa que mejorar esas condiciones no hace más que desincentivar la honradez o incluso incentivar el crimen? Después de todo, mientras no te pillen, son todo beneficios, una vez que te pillen, te pones a trabajar y ya tienes historial laboral (oficialmente, para la Administración), reduces tu condena, tienes cama, techo, comida, entretenimiento, incluyendo la posibilidad de hacer ejercicio o sacarte unos estudios...
Añadido a las relaciones que puedes hacer con otros presos que están en "negocios" similares al que te llevó dentro, un efecto de la separación por delitos que influye en la raíz de las organizaciones criminales: el intercambio de trucos del oficio y el desarrollo de amistades/relaciones "profesionales".

Esta es sólo una de las cosas que voy a recordar en las próximas elecciones.

Falacias

No hace mucho oí a una persona usar la palabra "falacia" como si significara mentira, lo que ha llamado mi atención sobre la diferencia entre lo que la mayoría de la gente entiende por falacia y lo que significa realmente. El diccionario de la RAE (dado que registra cómo se habla y no cómo se debería, aunque eso es tema para otra entrada) prácticamente identifica ambos conceptos, la única diferencia que considera es que la falacia intenta dañar a otra persona, mientras que la mentira no tiene porqué. Sin embargo, el concepto original de falacia, que aún se utiliza en discusiones y debates cuando el rigor tiene alguna importancia, no es el de mentira, sino el de un argumento que, pareciendo lógico, no lo es.

De nuevo, el concepto "lógico" se malentiende de forma habitual, igualando con "obvio", "de sentido común" y demás, cuando no es exactamente eso. Un argumento lógico es el que lleva de una idea A a una idea B, de modo que B se prueba tan cierta como sea A. Para empezar esa cadena lógica hay que comenzar por una idea sobre cuya corrección no haya dudas, como por ejemplo un hecho. Una cadena como esa es lo que llamamos habitualmente "deducción".

Un argumento se dice que es válido cuando es imposible que las premisas (las ideas iniciales) sean ciertas y la conclusión sea falsa. De otro modo, el argumento es inválido.
Una deducción es correcta cuando todos los argumentos son válidos y además las ideas iniciales son ciertas.

¿Por qué es importante prestar atención a estos conceptos? La deducción es una herramienta fundamental en cualquier actividad que implique el pensamiento analítico o crítico. Cuando estamos equivocados en algo, la deducción es lo que nos permite darnos cuenta. Cuando estamos en lo cierto, la deducción es lo que nos permite demostrarlo a otros. La mayor ventaja de una deducción correcta es que puede compartirse. Me explico: una opinión subjetiva es particular de una persona y por ello puede convencer a algunas personas y a otras no. Ante una deducción correcta sólo puede optarse entre aceptar la conclusión o rechazarla - y con ello mantenerse en un error.

Veo que los pétalos y las hojas de esta rosa son del mismo color, aunque tengan un matiz distinto. Todos los que estamos aquí coincidimos en ello. Por tanto, esta rosa es de color verde. Este razonamiento es incorrecto porque el hablante - y el resto de las personas de la sala - pueden tener un problema visual como el daltonismo.

Nuestro cerebro funciona con dos tipos de razonamiento que se influyen mutuamente. El razonamiento analítico se basa en deducciones, y es en el que se fundamentan los avances de cualquier ciencia, sea física, medicina, biología... Cuando tenemos información en la que basarnos para llegar a una conclusión o estimar la probabilidad de varias, estamos utilizando este tipo de razonamiento.
El razonamiento emocional es el que hace que hagamos cosas llevados por emoción.

Una ruleta tiene 38 números, nuestro razonamiento analítico es el que nos dice que apostar a un número tiene una probabilidad de 1/38 de redundar en nuestro beneficio, y 37/38 de resultar en perjuicio. Nuestro razonamiento emocional es el que nos dice que hoy es nuestro día de suerte.

Cada día nos vemos sometidos a manipulaciones más o menos disimuladas y más o menos sinceras. Cuando un amigo tiene una cara triste lo vemos, nos damos cuenta, nuestro razonamiento emotivo nos hace sentir tristeza en simpatía y nos impulsa a preocuparnos por él. Lo que hagamos está menos claro, depende de cómo somos nosotros y lo que sabemos de él: ¿es de contar las cosas sólo cuando le preguntan? ¿es de decir que no pasa nada hasta que está listo para hablar y dar detalles? ¿somos de los que esperan hasta que un problema puede resolverse? ¿somos de los que intentan resolver el problema tan pronto como lo ven?

Los efectos emotivos se producen como reacciones independientes de la realidad. Ver una cara triste inspira tristeza, ver una sonrisa inspira confianza (según la sonrisa, claro), ver una cara de enfado dirigida hacia nosotros puede inspirar temor o enfado... Y esos efectos se producen sin importar si lo vemos en un desconocido a seis metros o en un actor en una película. Nuestro razonamiento analítico matiza las acciones que pueden ser impulsadas por el efecto emocional: "Es un actor y no es de verdad", "Es un amigo y es sincero", "Es un amigo pero siempre es un exagerado"...

Las manipulaciones emotivas directas, por expresiones de pena, furia, alegría, no son fiables. Es muy probable que causen una emoción, es bastante probable que causen la que pretendemos, pero también pueden producir reacciones opuestas según a quién se dirijan. Tienen otro defecto como táctica de manipulación, y es que es fácil identificarlas tanto como emocionales como manipulaciones. Además, las respuestas emocionales que provocan no suelen generar acciones a largo plazo: no te enamoras de alguien la primera vez que sonríe ni consideras a alguien un enemigo la primera vez que te grita. Por mucho que pese la primera impresión, una respuesta emocional a largo plazo es algo que se inspira provocando reiteradamente la misma reacción emocional.

Por otro lado, se puede manipular a alguien aprovechando sus carencias (su falta de práctica o atención, nada más) en razonamiento analítico, haciéndole creer que estás dando pruebas o siguiendo un razonamiento lógico cuando éste no es válido. Ese tipo de razonamiento es el que se llama falaz, y esa manipulación sí puede producir acciones a largo plazo porque al convencernos de algo, hacemos nuestra esa idea. Al haber llegado a esa idea mediante un razonamiento asumimos que es correcta y la mantenemos aunque olvidemos el razonamiento, a diferencia de las respuestas emocionales, que se recuerdan pero no perduran del mismo modo ni con la misma facilidad. Esta asunción se hace porque es el método en el que nuestro propio cerebro aprende del mundo que le rodea para adaptarse y resolver problemas

Precisamente por la eficacia de los engaños basados en falacias tendríamos que prestar más atención a éstas, de modo que podamos reconocerlas cuando las usan. No siempre las usarán para dañarnos, a veces el que las usa lo hace sin darse cuenta de que su razonamiento es incorrecto y está convencido de una idea equivocada que puede o no hacerle daño.

Por último, hay que destacar que el hecho de que un razonamiento sea falaz ni significa que las premisas sean falsas ni que la conclusión sea falsa, al igual que no implica que sean ciertas. Lo único que significa es que a partir de las premisas no puede deducirse la conclusión.

Este tipo está loco, así que por mucho que lo repita, se equivoca diciendo que el cielo es azul. La locura de ese hombre no tiene porqué hacer que se confunda al reconocer colores

Shadows of Esteren

I just finished reading Shadows of Esteren (Book 1) and I wanted to share my impressions about this game.

Shadows of Esteren is a little world. The setting is based in a peninsula called Tri-Kazel which is spiritually linked to a somewhat celtic inspiration. This peninsula is isolated from the continent by an almost impassable mountain range, and the sea surrounding the rest of it is so stormy and furious that it's equally impassable. This continent is simply called the Continent, although it's known it has at least two different nations, one of it is a Theocracy, and another is a more scientific nation.

This setting is a low fantasy one, meaning medieval fantasy, with no elves, dwarfs or any other creature usually imagined in such settings. The supernatural part is represented by the Feondas, which is just the common name of an array of creatures that tries to kill other living beings. These feondas seem like twisted versions of vermin, animals, plants and humans, and nothing is explained about them except what they are thought to be.

There are three supernatural-kind-of ways to understand world. The native way is based on spirits of nature. Under this perspective, the Feondas are the expression of the fury of such spirits for not having been paid the proper respect. From the Continent came a faith in a one god, creator of everything, and to the faithful of it, Feondas are demons, enemies of that one god. From a different country of the Continent came the Magience, a kind of Magic-Science based on the fabrication of artifacts that use a kind of energy called "the Flux". For magientist, the Feondas are just part of the natural world, just not yet understood.

After reading the ambientation, one is under the impression that Feondas are far from being the the most important topic, while the differences between the traditionalist nature-spirit-believers, the one-god faithful and the magientist are truly important.

The writing generally do a good job at presenting each part of the world under a different, subjective vision, stating that is a collection of testimonies of different sources about the peninsula, gathered by a noble and delivered to his counselor. Reading it is very enjoyable and actually makes you want to play stories in this setting. It has enough details to feel defined but not enough to make it constrained, so each group of players can (and should) define its own Tri-Kazel to reflect what they prefer regarding how precise each represented viewpoint really is.

The rules are simple, just 1d10 plus some modifiers and versus a target number to be reached (or surpassed)

The skill system has a nice detail: there are several narrow skills called Disciplines. To access one particular Discipline you need a general skill that includes that Discipline. This general skill is called Domain, and some Disciplines are accesible from several Domains. Domains are from 0 to 5 points, while Disciplines are from 6 to 15. Some Disciplines, like weapon disciplines, have to specialize again from 11 to 15, so you can be a legendary swordman with Longsword 15, but you use other one-handed blades at 10 and any Close Combat way of fighting with 5. It's a nice point that all artisans know a bit about other crafts, and any specialist in a particular science has a basic knowledge on all of them, because it helps reflecting how most skills actually work in the real world, more related than isolated.

The most different thing about the system is that the place of attributes like Strength or Intelligence is taken by personality traits called Ways. Everyone is average in Strength, Intelligence and the rest of traditional attributes/characteristics/abilities, except when they buy a particular advantage or disadvantage related to it, and when you divide people in a 1d10 range, pretty much everyone is average.

The definition, then, is about how the personality is. The ways are Combativeness, Reason, Creativeness, Empathy and Conviction, and are evaluated from 1 to 5. Most usually, more is better, but there is a caveat. Since they express personality, to "help" playing your character as it is, there is the "test" idea. For instance, if your character is in a very emotional situation you're probably portraying that and behaving in a way the emotion is getting the upper hand instead of the tactical advantages, but if you are not, you will have to make a "test". You'll roll 1d10 and compare with a target number equal to your Combativeness (which also represents how much you tend to let yourself go with your emotions) plus a modifier.

It's a nice thing to see how personality actually influences what you can do, and even with its limitations (a person with high Combativeness and Reason would not be as emotional as one with high Combativeness and low Reason) it is interesting. After all, in the instance of a fight (a particular easy one, when you are used to think reallistically about them) what you can do is obviously important, but it's far more important what you're willing to do.

Ways mean personality, then, not ability as it, so Combativeness means how quick you are to anger (and any emotion, really) and prone to solve problems through force (of will, shouting or fighting, that depends on your details). Reason represent how prone you are to think about things, not how well you do, and likewise with the rest.

Overall, it is a system with nice ideas to experiment and to represent the normal world, but it has a few problems.

First of all, the supernatural systems (Magience, Druid-kind-of and One-God religion) are not coherent with the low-fantasy the setting is presented to be, nor with the ambientation presented through the book. The first problem is that the Druids and Faithful have what amounts to powers. Powers that most usually work to some extent in a clear way. For instance, both have magical healing, the Druids can make lighting fall on you from the sky and the Clerics can freeze you to death. When a person is able to freeze somebody to death in the six seconds a combat round represents, with but a prayer, its religion is not a matter of faith anymore. The same happens with the Druids and the nature-given favors, such as petrifying an enemy. And both are not coherent with a low-fantasy setting, at any rate.

As for Magience, it could have been a bit more coherent, but it is not in a different way. Magientist artifacts are usually difficult to use (to switch them on you usually have to expend a round and a roll) and breakdown prone, and that I could understand. It's a way to mix a kind of steampunk in the setting and I'm ok with such more or less experimental artifacts to be difficult to use, specially in a rainy, cold place like a celtic peninsula, with mountains and swamps and whatnot. What I find most incoherent about Magience is Flux. Flux is an energy extracted in a liquid form, from just about anything. There are different types of flux (mineral, vegetal, animal and fossil). Fossil flux is already "extracted", while the other types are depending on what you have grind to extract flux from. It's a bit like Mage's quintessence, that is everywhere, in everything. In the ambientation you are told that magientists are most famous as the inventors of Nebulars, a kind of lamp. They use these lamps often and the greatest cities have nebulars to light the streets (at least, on the good neighbourhoods) Then you get to the system and see that a single, portable Nebular uses one Flux charge every 12 hours. How many charges do a whole neighbourhood worth of Nebular lamposts use? Keep that number in mind, because you need to grind about 400 pounds of rock to get one single charge. Now multiply and see if it's reasonable to use that amount of matter. Add now that the refined charge is about three ounces of mass and the rest of the matter grind is turned to a contaminant amount of something ashy, nothing you could do something with, and then it's even more incoherent the world that has been presented to you with its rules.

And, of course, magientist weapons use one charge per use, while damage is about the same of a bow. Honestly, if the first portable firearms had had no advantage over a bow but required a process of a whole day and a couple hundreds of minerals for every shot... we'd still be using bows or crossbows.
In conclusion, it seems a nice setting to play stories about intrigue, mysteries, thrillers... but it needs to tune way down the powers of druids and clerics and a deep revision of the magience thing.

The interview

Every time the interviewer asks a question, she sits slightly back. She has a nice face, a nice handshake, a nice looking smile, a nice suit
And her body is not bad either, even if it's not right to say it aloud.

That's one of those slightly incoherent things: people who say in every occasion that they're not to be judged physically, but still devotes time to choose favoring clothes despite comfort. Just like I do in a job interview like this one, with a suit's jacket over the sweater.

I guess that people do realize we are not judged solely by how we look our looks influence the judgement from the moment they're perceived; it's only they dislike the idea enough to make themselves unable to acknowledge it without been confronted to. Some even after been confronted.

There was an actress, don't remember her name, she was a latin actress in Dick Tracy or Sin City or something... She said something like being pretty, helps, being not, doesn't, and I couldn't agree more. I know there are other opinions, but just seeing how reality is proves those other opinions are just wishful thinking.

Of course looks are not the most important trait for almost anything, but help, they do, just as manners or a nice smile.

And the interviewer has a nice smile, but it seems too much a professional smile. It's an effort worth noting and worth thanking, but it's just a professional habit, an unconscious gesture that can't deceive someone with enough talent to see the real emotions or someone who has so little talent that is continuously paying attention, for that is what it takes to understand the everyday people.

I answer her questions as honestly as I can. When she asks about defects, I say perfectionism, but since most people think that is kind of a bliss in disguise, I feel in the obligation of clearing the misunderstanding.

I know it seems just something to say in a job interview to make the interviewee seem better, but it is not: sometimes we need to end a program or a feature in a deadline and our clients are more worried about having it now than having it later but more reliable and more easily and quickly repaired or adapted, should need arise.
And then I want to devote time to code quality tools to let us discover the bugs we left before the client does, but nobody wants to pay for that. Or almost nobody does, my current company has enough liberty for us to decide how we do things, and though it's not always respected, most times I can indulge that impulse and not only do things, but do them right.
That is a real defect for a company focused only on delivery, but I think it adds value not only to the clients, even if they don't realize, but also to the programmers, who have a company's enforced chance to improve as professionals instead of having only their free time.

I keep answering questions, where I've worked, what my positions where, how much money I would like...

After some more time, she looks to the papers she's been taking notes in, and smiles "well, I have no more questions. Do you want to ask something?"
As always, I express my curiosity about what kind of projects I would be working in, but of course she doesn't know. "Human resources". I understand some people needs to specialize in judging honesty in would-be workers, but it would be nice to have them know at least some information useful for the interviewees.

Killing my nemesis

It has been a long journey, not a chase as much as a long hide-and-seek game with bouts of struggling, but in the end, here we are, in his own house. The fight has ended at last, he has surrendered to the inevitable fate.

He has stopped trying to defend himself, just lying there, breathing heavily so I can take my time, do it nicely.

I am not merciless. I have imagined so many ways... Push him in a car's way, or a bus' or a train's; an overdose; hang him or suffocate him with a bag or the car's escape trick; cut his belly open or even involve him in a fight and get others to actually kill him.

But I can take my time and prove I have mercy, so I cut him in his inner thigh.
If done right, a half stab, half deep cut, between the muscles, there is not too much collateral damage, not too much pain.
I do the other one too, to accelerate things. With a single femoral artery bleeding it is about two to three minutes until you lose consciousness due to loss of blood, and then about one more minute until actual death, but being unconscious, that doesn't matter. A relatively pain-free death, not a bad way to die.

He keeps bleeding, still looking at my hands and the knife while I clean the blade, but his blinking is slower, and slower.

...

Maybe the adrenaline is keeping him awake a little longer than I thought, but the strength is abandoning his fingers.
This is almost a spiritual moment and I put the knife away and sit back.
He slides until he lies on the floor, and so do I. He blinks
once more, and then he close his eyes. Even with
my own eyes closed, I can feel him
finally descending on
unconsciousness.

Then he's gone,
and so
am
I

La escuela de baile

Hacía frío, o más bien entraba de la calle. El baño del vecino de arriba perdía agua y se había filtrado tanto tiempo que el moho ya había tomado un color entre negro y verde.  El dueño del piso era quien tenía que hacer las reparaciones pero, como tantas veces ocurría, hacía oídos sordos a lo que no fuera cobrar la renta, así que todo se había alargado meses más de la cuenta, y los afectados por la gotera mantenían la puerta de la calle abierta todo el tiempo que podían con la intención, o quizá sólo la esperanza, de contribuir a secar la humedad o al menos reducir el olor de yeso mojado.

Era una pena, porque no hacía tanto tiempo que las salas habían sido arregladas y adecentadas en la medida en que el dinero lo había permitido, pero con los edificios del centro es siempre lo mismo: construcciones viejas con más años que cuidados, pero situadas en el mismo sitio que tantas y tantas personas que un negocio tenía fácilmente más futuro allí por la afluencia de público que en otro lugar donde las instalaciones pudieran ser mejores y costara menos mantenerlas.

La pintura y los nuevos espejos de las salas habían mejorado el aspecto, y apartar al antiguo dueño y, sobre todo, su continuo fumar, habían cambiado por completo la sensación inicial al ver la recepción, transformando el lugar cerrado y claustrofóbico que parecía antes en una sala abierta donde podía esperarse cómodamente a que empezara la clase de uno.

Algunas clases, como la de claqué, hacían pensar que una cierta insonorización podría evitar interferencias entre las actividades de las distintas salas, pero las clases de flamenco ponían por delante reforzar el suelo, sobre todo al escuchar a los alumnos que daban clase debajo y comentaban entre risas cómo se sacudían las lámparas y el propio techo.

The Silver Spider, as PC

That story was originally focused on a dark elf monk, serving the interests the Elf Queen could not express.

He has a 3 point complicated relationship with the elf queen, because he's part of her forces but they do not always know it or are at liberty of showing such knowledge.

His backgrounds are probably divided between his public occupation and his secret occupation. 

Maybe secret agent sounds too modern, but elf queen's spy, ...saboteur or even ...assassin are good. The public backgrounds could be dark elf exiled mercenary, ...hunter, ...trader or ...wanderer. I would probably put 4 points on the secret one and 2 each on a couple of cover ones.

The original thought was to make him a monk, but the same relationships and background ideas could work with a rogue, sorcerer, fighter or ranger. And bards make usually good spies.

As Bard I think the Spider would be primarily a Charisma bard, with the talent Balladeer to help him blend in. Also, Spellsinger and Jack-of-Spells seem nice enough, considering the Elf Queen's status as one of the best sorceress in the world. If he was to primarily spy on a particular group (in particular, Archmage, Lich King, Priestess or Great Gold Wyrm), Mythkenner or Loremaster could help making a cover, with the two additional background points and the extra icon relationship.

As Fighter I imagine him being the quick, expeditious kind of fighter, favoring Strength and Dexterity, fighting with two longswords or maybe scimitars. The talents Comeback Strike and Counter-attack help making that image, letting him taking advantage of a foe's failed attacks and having less chances of failing his own. The third talent could be Deadeye Archer to bring in the idea of covert killer. His initial maneuvers would probably be among Carve an Opening, Deadly Assault, Precision Attack, Second Shot and Two Weapon Pressure.

As Ranger I think he's probably a good candidate for Favored Enemy: humanoid. A spider Animal Companion is drow-flavored, but he's supposed to be undercover, so I wouldn't take that one. First Strike, Lethal Hunter and Two Weapon Mastery match the assassin kind of character, while Fey Queen's Enchantments connects him with the powers of Elf Queen.

As Rogue, the talents Improved Sneak Attack or Murderous make him the assassin type, while Smooth Talk is more spy-like and Shadow-Walk links him with the darkness drow character everyone expects him to be.

As Sorcerer I would clearly take the Fey Heritage talent and probably Sorcerer's Familiar. Blood Link is interesting to let another relationship into the character and help his cover.

Finally, as Monk, the forms that most call my attention are Greeting Fist, because it seems like a good way to end a fight quick, Heaven's Arrow match the secret, stealthy and ranged style of ninja-style kunai, as Spinning Willow Tree gets him a nice projectile dodge ability and Leaf on Wind gives him the extra movement I expect from a mainly infiltration ninja kind of character.

There you go, six different characters with the same story.

Critic thought

When I talk about religion some people ask what damage it does?

Of course, the first thing that comes to mind is jihadists suicide bombers (or worse, non-suicide terrorist, at least the suicide ones kill themselves too) or christian fundamentalists denying medical care to their own children because it goes against god's will.

Then they specify that they were talking about the more discreet believers. You know them, the ones who don't read their holy books, wouldn't believe what is written on them but couldn't care less anyway. Those are the ones attending their services without thinking about what they mean and whose behavior is hardly influenced in any way by the religion they say they follow.

Actually, they are not far from behaving as atheists, except for a few things.

First thing is they waste their time attending those services.

Second thing is they keep teaching their children that religion, in the best case making them the same kind of person they are. In the worst case, they're easing those children way into damaging others because of their religious beliefs. Any way you look at it, any believer is more easily converted into a religious extremist than an atheist is.

Third, and this damages their children even if they never go farthest than their parents went, even the discreet kind of believer is used to discards any fact in conflict with their beliefs, and that is a custom easily extended to fields different from the religious one. Usually politics, economy and society opinions are the first ones being fixed thanks to that disregarding of anything conflicting with the opinions they hold, but they often don't stop at that.

That third damage is the more dangerous, because it's more subtle but more easily taught, and a necessary condition to advance from normal believer into hardcore believer. That third problem can be summarized as having the ability to turn their critic thought off, except it's not under their control.

The critic thought is what makes us react when something is incoherent or inconsistent, what makes us realize when somebody is trying to manipulate us, because they are usually incoherent with other things they say or do, or because they're incoherent with what reality is.

So, that lack of critic thought is what lets other people take advantage of us, and teaching our children that normal, standard religious way, no matter what particular religion, is making more difficult to them to develop that critical thought, so necessary in our lives

That's one subtle way the "normal" believers of every religion burden and damage everyone (else and themselves).

Empezando de nada

Nada.
Un adulto sentado en una silla, una niña tumbada en la cama.
Dormida.
El adulto le ha contado un cuento.
La cadencia de su voz ha distraído a la niña de los juegos de una hora antes, distraído, si corazón ha ralentizado sus latidos. Distraída con el cuento, se ha calmado su respiración. Bostezaba sin darse cuenta hasta que se le abría tanto la boca que no podía no cerrar los ojos, y mientras escuchaba las últimas palabras que pronunciaba su padre, intentaba en vano no dormirse, escuchar el final

Respect other people's beliefs

Too many times people say things like this when what they really mean is "respect my beliefs", and especially often when it's about religious beliefs. I know a lot of people feel their religion as a part of who they are, not only something they do. A lot of them even have good memories related in some ways with their religion.

Most times those beliefs are what they were told since little children who believed whatever their parents told them, but there is time enough for that part.

The point of this post is specifically that beliefs are not something to be respected. None. But why?

Let's start with some easy ones. Think about the times you've said or been said that "you have to respect other people's beliefs" line and now think about beliefs you or they would never agree with. Like black people being inferior to white people, or women being inferior to men, or women being property, or Nazism.

If you are in a group believing the above, think about the belief that all people should be equal before the law, regardless of race or gender. Now it's easier to see that at least some beliefs don't deserve respect, right?

Now think about the occasions of that respect-beliefs sentence and realize most happen when someone openly disagrees or challenge them, often emphasizing whatever bad things it has brought in the past. That's related but a bit out of today's point. This paragraph's idea is to realize that any challenge to some beliefs is considered disrespectful by believers, so what that sentence usually mean is "you shouldn't challenge other people's beliefs"

I guess that taboo is precisely because religion or similarly held beliefs are considered a part of the believer's identity, at least by the believer, and we are supposed to respect who other people is.

First of all, no belief should be considered part of anybody's identity especially by that somebody. A belief is, by definition, something we think is true or probable, but that we can't prove, and usually something we can find arguments against. That means a choice even when usually it's not an intellectual choice but an emotional one, and as a choice is susceptible to change. That is why we shouldn't held somebody's belief as their identity.

Once we've taken that out of the way, let's focus on the evidence part. Nothing that can't be proved with enough logic should remain unchallenged. Nothing at all. If among the reasons to belief something is that it's nice to believe it, that is reason enough to doubt that belief and challenge it as soon and as hard as possible. At the very least, we should acknowledge, to ourselves if not to anyone else, that it's an opinion and that we are not trying to make other people see the truth but to convince them of our own opinion.

That is not going to prevent violence: the opinion that those things should be mine, yours or theirs have historically being argued violently. Opinions like some people are not other people's property has been violently defended, mostly by the ones being considered property. And of course the opposite opinion has been so by the aspirants to owners.

So, opinions are not to be part of what a person is, opinions are not truth, and opinions don't prevent violence in their sake. Now, what else?

Opinions should be challenged. Opinions must be challenged. First of all, by their owners and defenders, then by everyone else. No opinion deserves special treatment. No belief deserves not to be challenged, debated, argued. And, above all, opinions about how a particular god wants you to act. That's religions, the beliefs most usually getting the "respect my beliefs".

No, you don't have to respect anybody's beliefs. You should challenge every belief.

Mar

Es profundidad. Fuerza. Estable, siempre en el mismo lugar, aunque nunca igual, siempre en movimiento, siempre vivo. Vida. Inmensidad.
Inmensamente vivo, inmensamente fuerte, inmensamente profundo.
Tan inmenso que fuerza o profundidad son palabras demasiado pequeñas, no se puede abarcar con una sola mente.

Te sostiene, te agarra, se mezcla contigo si le dejas, haciéndote una parte de sí mismo y, después, durante un rato, eres menos tú de lo que eras pero también eres más de lo que eras.

Acaricia tu piel mientras apenas sostiene tu peso, flotando. Tú eres responsable de ti mismo, él sólo te ayuda tanto como tú te ayudes y las corrientes te acarician y te hacen olvidarte.

Olvido. Sólo eres algo que se disuelve en su lenta respiración. ¿Qué son problemas? ¿Qué son ilusiones? ¿Qué son planes? Respira hondo, despacio, despacio, duerme en mí... Cuando despiertes, tu frente estará relajada, aunque ahora sólo sabrías que está tensa si le prestaras más atención. ¿Preocupaciones? ¿Decepciones?
Olvida.

Es una tormenta en una montaña. Los árboles a tu alrededor, pero a unos metros de ti. El agua cae tan rápido que forma un río sobre el suelo que antes pisabas. Te empapa y te llena de risa y de energía, de felicidad por estar en el momento en el que estás. Ves los rayos como líneas fugaces de color azul y te das cuenta de que aunque supieras que vas a morir aquí y ahora nada puede disipar esta felicidad, la inmensidad del aire a tu alrededor, nubes oscuras hasta donde alcanza tu vista, árboles hasta donde puedes ver, la montaña que se alza junto a ti y bajo tus pies, demostrando lo ridículamente pretencioso que son los que se creen capaces de destruir este mundo sin darse cuenta de que nada que pudiera hacer la especie humana al completo es tan destructivo como las cosas que ya ha sufrido.
Y les ha superado, como nos superará a nosotros.

Es una niña que no existe y posiblemente no exista nunca. Una niña a quien su padre quiere absolutamente. Aplaudida cuando piensa en lo que lee, lo que ve, lo que cree. Con pensamientos sobre lo que dice, sobre lo que piensa y sobre los pensamientos que tiene sobre sus pensamientos, y más allá. Una niña feliz en el conocimiento más que tranquila en la ignorancia.

Mountain's son, as 13th Age PC

Today I just want to elaborate on the different versions of character that (almost) the same story can make, in particular, Mountain's Son.

We left him as a dwarf, with the unique of having been born from a geode. I think he has 3 points in a positive relationship with the Dwarf King; as for backgrounds, he's Miner in the north mountains 4 since it's been most of his life, and then Dwarven traveler 2 and Legend seeker 2, because of the travels he's made searching clues about the meaning of his birth.

And the class is the point of that post I mentioned before. The Dwarven armored Fighter is the first image of a lot of people. He would dress in heavy armor, carries a shield and a war-pick. Maybe his helmet is made from the geode he was born from. He definitely has the Tough as Iron and Heavy Warrior talents. Defensive Fighting is a combat maneuver that makes him even harder to hurt and Carve an Opening brings me images of hacking at a foe as he picked at the mine.

Now let's make him a more primal warrior. He has not any training, after all, just natural toughness, mulishness and muscles made from mine work. Now he's a Barbarian. His gear is the same but for the armor, now lighter, maybe the hides he used to protect from cold weather or burning from melting ore. As Barbarian, two talents are clearly Unstoppable and Strongheart, letting him shrug off his foes' hits. I would probably give him the Cleave talent too, mostly because of the adventurer feat to let him heal (again), although at first level I would probably select the Unstoppable feat.

If that's not primal enough, we can make him a druid, most probably Terrain Caster adept since he has such a strong connection with earth in general and mountains in particular.

A final option, maybe more surprising to other characters and players, would be to make him into a Bard. He should have the Mythkenner talent to let him use Wisdom instead of Charisma and raise his Legend Seeker background to 4. Since he's legend seeker and not song seeker, I would take the Storyteller talent too, and probably the Battle Skald talent, to not forget dwarves are famous warriors.

Now, he does not use a shield and probably he sings without instruments, with his low, rumbling, dwarven voice. In this case, though the typical bard we have in mind is more a rapier or sword swashbuckler, I would want him to use the pick he used when mining, to not forget where he came from.

The Silver Spider

Kumoel had been living at the monastery for so long he barely remembers his parents as blurry faces. Kumoel is a silver elf, as they call themselves, a dokkalfar as they were called in old times or a dark elf, as most people calls them nowadays. Kumoel has grown in the monastery since he was adopted, or so he's been told, it's not that easy to trust in what another person tells you, specially when that person gains something out of that trust.

Kumoel sits patiently, waiting for one of the masters, the highest he's ever seen, though not the highest there is. While he sits, he observes the room. The tactical factors were noticed in the first moments after entering, while the monk who showed him the way told him to wait there. A dark oblong room with luminescent fungi in pots at the points; eight columns, thick as a man, so he sat against the column in the dark enough limit, having it between him and the door.

Nothing else to do until the master arrives, so he observes the bas-relieves in the walls picturing spiders and half spider half elf creatures, the carvings in the floor making it look like a spider web, the ceiling adornments as a giant spider's abdomen, the columns sculpted as the spider's legs...

Kumoel pressed his lips: the whole monastery seemed designed by a spider fetishist, no wonder other people had prejudices against silver elves. Not that Kumoel has anything against spiders, but enough is enough.

Kumoel got up when he heard soft footsteps getting near the door, and he was ready as it opened. The soft footsteps got to the room's center and, after some moments, its owner's voice broke the silence.

You have trained for many years, we have taught you as much as we could, but there are lessons that are better learnt than taught and there are needs that need to be taken care of. Tomorrow, you will leave the monastery, you will be known as The Silver Spider and you will walk, speak and fight to help our Queen in whatever task she can't say out loud.

We, Silver Folk, have been feared and hated. Even our cousins of Wood and Sun fell under that deception, but be not angry for that hate or mindful of that fear, for it is the way of this world. Forgive their actions, for they are ignorant, for the End Times are near and the survival of the Shards lay in those who further the same goals.

Go, now, find your weapons and sleep for the last time in our sheltered refugee, for tomorrow you will be shown the sun for the first time and sent in the surface world as another thread of the web that serves the Queen.

Kumoel waited until he heard the visitor go outside and then he went out of his hiding place as quietly as he could. When he got to the room he had been sleeping for the last years of his training, he found a black leather backpack, a wire with spider shaped handles to strangulate people and throwing knives with handles in the shape of, yes, spiders. Kumoel inspired deeply, resolving to sell that conspicuous gear as soon as he could and getting something more ordinary.

For now, though, he packed everything and lay in the bed to rest, thinking. He had been training all his life to reach this point, when he'd be allowed outside, to have his own way. Of course he was willing to help the Queen of Elves, it just wasn't the only thing he wanted to do.

The monastery taught that the Sun Elves were to further the magic's knowledge and power in visible places of power throughout the lands and that the Wood Elves were to keep the natural elven lands strong and protected with more mundane methods. That was obvious enough for everyone, but the masters taught that the Silver Elves were to find ways to help the Queen that she would not be able to ask out loud without damaging her reputation with her allies. An example was the conquest of dwarven underlands through guerrilla, assassination and poison tactics, something that brought metal resources to the three Shards of the Court, while keeping the reputation damage only on the Silver Folk. The monastery of the Spider was devoted to train spies, thieves and occasional assassins, and the particular order that raised Kumoel taught that the most dangerous assassin was that who didn't looked the part. That's was the reason behind all the emphasis on unarmed and unarmored combat, since a commoner with no weapons or armor wasn't thought of as that much dangerous. Kumoel had his doubts, since the idea of calling himself a creepy name like "Silver Spider" or carrying spider-themed gear all around kind of was the opposite idea. Above all, he wanted to go out and actually see the sun and all the lands he could see. He had been in the surface a few times, but only at night, and knew more of maps and pictures of sun-lighted lands than about the actual soil and sunlight. He smiled, happy and wondering what wonderful adventures would live and what interesting people he'd know in the years to come.

Finally, he had actually started a real life.

Player characters in 13th Age

13th Age is a game so different from D&D versions I've played (3-5, including Pathfinder) that I just don't know where to start with what I'm enthusiastic about, but the main thing I was thinking when writing this post was that the character has a lot of times between little and nothing to do with its class.

Something that used to set me back from class-based games was precisely the rigid class/archetype thing, with multi-classing being a half-solution attempt to more flexible systems such as Ars Magica, World of Darkness or Fading Suns, in which you get a set of points for skills, talents, etc and you make whatever you can with them. Of course they have archetypes too, but the archetypes are either character concepts or lore things, not only creation constraints.

In some cases, the archetype includes personality traits because they're educated in a particular way and culture (just like us). That's the case of werewolf tribes or Fading Suns noble houses.
In other cases, it's because they're chosen by a particular group, such as Vampire clans.
The point is, there's an easy, real-world related explanation for those traits.

In the D&D versions I played, classes defined not only what were the "right" skills of other people of your class (read, class-skills) but how many points you had, so rogue and bard classes had the more general life experience of all, while fighters were usually semi-ignorant, socially challenged brutes because they hadn't the points not to be.
In 13th Age all classes have the same points because thy're not skill points but background points. You have not Perception +3, but you spent half your life as explorer in the Imperial army, so you have a Explorer in the Imperial Army +4 background.
The point idea to backgrounds may even give meaning to what have you done with your life most of the time, and solves a couple problems: one, everybody have a past, being a soldier gives you a different experience than being a rock star, but not less, only different experiences. The second problem is the typical skills importance in RPGs. Some RPGs have so many combat/survival oriented traits that you need a lot of points to be somewhat good at them, while it's easier having a social/intellectual character. Usually that's no problem because most players (as far as I've met) are not the Geyperman type, but I remember that a friend, using the skill descriptions on World of Darkness books, had not enough points to describe what he could do - being a member of army's special forces.

Anyway, on with 13th Age's backgrounds. The point I want to make is that everybody have different experiences based on their past and profession, not that much or little. I know, in real life people do have different experience levels because some people learn faster than other, but I'm not saying that 13th Age's more realistic, but that is more flexible, character centered, than other systems.

Setting backgrounds aside, let's talk about the unique thing. Every player character must have something that sets them aside from the rest of the members of the same class and race. It can be something simple but when I've played, most players have more complicated ideas that are somewhat difficult to imagine in other systems, such as being a dragon trapped in human form or the only survivor of an old battle.

Finally, there's the icon relationships. They provide a connection with the great schemers in the world (or at least the setting) This is a bit more at fault, because not all the character types are going to be related to organizations. As for a system thing, it helps relate what motivates the characters with what happens in the adventures and with the world at large.

The great thing of those three traits is that they have nothing to do with your character's class. I wanted to use a couple examples to illustrate, so let's start with The Mountain's son. That character is a dwarf because it's in its story, as for the backgrounds, I'd say at least 4 points are in something like Dwarf Miner in the North Mountain Range and there's probably some in Dwarf Rock legends because he wants to know what means its unique. Of course, that is being born of a geode. What class is he? He could easily be a barbarian or a fighter as a lot of dwarves used to pickaxes, or a druid (possibly with terrain caster) to relate with the powers of the earth. He could even be a bard if he had time to travel enough, learning legends and stories.
A second example is the Crusader's Foundling. The kid that killed his demon-cultist family have that as unique, but what class is he? Paladin, fighter and barbarian all mix well with the violent twist, but he could also be a cleric (of the dark gods of punishment and revenge, of course, Inquisitor comes to mind) Changing the hammer detail, he could be a sorcerer related with the Great Gold Wyrm's power or a monk of the Crusader's Fist's Order, an order of warriors who only have in common the hate against demons, the will to use violence against them despite the odds, and a past without weapon or armor training. Also, making it a kitchen knife or even a sacrificial dagger, he could had develop his talents into being a rogue to infiltrate other cults or stealth missions to assassinate cult leaders while the main forces attack the cult's base. Or he could be a demon hunter, a ranger. In every case he knows about demons and cults and most probably have some skill at stealth (he freed the other children without the need to kill every cultist, after all)

Both characters' stories relate to what they know, what they do and what their allies are, but not to what class they are. I know, you can use the unique and the relationships in other games, but in 13th Age you have to, and that forces you to think about who your character is, how the world is and how they relate to each other, setting you in the mood.