INSULTS WANTED
Bryan J. Maloney
Somebody in the D&D ghetto is asking for insults for his campaign, I
figured that this group would be perfect for generating some more.
The Alchemist
>
>
>Somebody in the D&D ghetto is asking for insults for his campaign, I
>figured that this group would be perfect for generating some more.
It's D&D. That's about the biggest I can think of.
--
------------------------------- The Alchemist --------------------------------
"If the truth is out there, why shouldn't I be as well?" - Myself
email to: ccas...@cs.uml.edu Home Page: http://www.uml.edu/~ccashman
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Ranta
Your mother was an elf.
(works vs most goblinoids, and the occasional dwarf)
Woodhams
>Somebody in the D&D ghetto is asking for insults for his campaign, I
>figured that this group would be perfect for generating some more.
Your father was Ronald Reagan, and your mother, his horse.
(Substitute appropriate public figure from you campaign, of course.)
I think this work is a bit hard for you. Why don't you retire, get
married, and raise a few mutants?
Hey, there's a job going down at the wharf that you are ideally suited
for. They're looking for ballast.
Jeff Kesselman
The Alchemist <ccas...@cs.uml.edu> wrote:
>In article <3csnpr$b...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu> jac...@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) writes:
>>
>>
>>Somebody in the D&D ghetto is asking for insults for his campaign, I
>>figured that this group would be perfect for generating some more.
>
>It's D&D. That's about the biggest I can think of.
>
How about "You argue like slac...@copuserve.com"....
Sorry, had to get it out of my system.
jk
Frank Pitt
>
>Somebody in the D&D ghetto is asking for insults for his campaign, I
>figured that this group would be perfect for generating some more.
You don't frighten us, English pig-dogs.
Go and boil your bottom, son of a silly person.
I blow my nose on you so-called Arthur King,
you and your silly English k.....niggets
I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty-headed
animal food trough wiper.
I fart in your general direction,
your mother was a hamster and your father
smelled of elderberries
We French persons outwit you a second time,
perfidious English mousedropping hoarders.
How you English say: I one more time mac,
I unclog my nose towards you, sons of a window-dresser
So you think you could out-clever us French fellows with
your silly knees-bent creeping about advancing behaviour
I wave my private parts at your aunties, you brightly-coloured,
mealy-templed, cranberry-smelling, electric donkey-bottom biters
No chance, English bed-wetting types.
We burst our pimples at you, and call your door-opening
request a silly thing, you tiny-brained wipers of
other people's bottoms,
Yes depart a lot at this time, and cut the approaching
any more or we fire arrows into the tops of your heads
and make castanets of your testicles already.
And now remain gone, illegimate-faced bugger-folk !
Anmd if you think you got a nasty time this taunting ,
you ain't heard nothing yet, dappy k....niggets
and A King Esquire
You couldn't catch clap in a brothel silly English K..niggets
(From Monty Python & the Holy Grail, in case you haven't guessed)
There, have fun now.
Frankie
David 'Azure' Leland
: Uh....
: Your mother was an elf.
: (works vs most goblinoids, and the occasional dwarf)
Actually, in OD&D Mystara, if you go by GAZ13 The Shadow Elves,
the former case is--while not likely--possible. *grin*
--Azure
a.k.a. David Leland
v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^
Andrew Breecher
Q: how do you get 16 dwarves into one cart?
A: cut the dwarves into little pieces, eat them, and then *you* get in the
cart.
Q: what do you do with a dwarf wearing a helmet?
A: hit him in the stomach instead.
Puck.
ab0...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
(ham...@roundtable.cif.rochester.edu)
"Either I mistake your shape and making quite, or else you are that shrewd
and knavish sprite called Robin Goodfellow."
Saint Mark
behind an iron grate:
"Your mother was a water wyrm that gave head to ice cubes!"
"I am not a number, I am a free man!"
-Number 6, "The Prisoner"
as...@orion.alaska.edu
> Aaron Ranta (a...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
> : Your mother was an elf.
> : (works vs most goblinoids, and the occasional dwarf)
Heh, how about Net Punk.... hehhehheh....
;)
----- Scott
----- Net Punk
James Wallis
>"In traditional roleplaying, your character gets better with a sword
>or gun, but doesn't grow as an individual." -- WW '94-95 catalog
>Say, is WW as out of touch as Bill Clinton and Sarah Brady? :-)
I don't think so. If you can name one commercial RPG other than
AMBER in which the actual game mechanics encourage the player
to develop their characters' personality along with their
abilities, I'll be impressed. I can't think of any others.
Admittedly life is too short to read every RPG out there,
especially when you're trying to publish some of your own, but ...
well, okay, I'm jumping the question. What's your personal
definition of "growing as an individual"?
--
James Wallis
Director of Hogshead Publishing <> Any statements and sentiments in
(ja...@hogshead.demon.co.uk) <> <> this post should not be taken as
Writing in a personal capacity <> opinions of Hogshead Publishing.
Bryan J. Maloney
>I don't think so. If you can name one commercial RPG other than
>AMBER in which the actual game mechanics encourage the player
>to develop their characters' personality along with their
Hmm...
You know, I'm beginning to think that a lot of this question revolves around
a point that I have come across many times in the sciences and through my
vicarious experience with the art world through my wife:
The "great ones" aren't the people who use the rules to become great.
The "great ones" are the ones who go beyond the rules and thus become great.
George Brown
called elves "Knife-ears",umans "long-shanks", and halflings "mudwaders"
You can also make up jokes about a race by just replaceing the
racial names.
as you may have gussed my dwarf was a raceist. Untill that
damned Priest of Arravon Ellasier chanced my mind. <He used a stick>
James Wallis
Exactly. For years players have been going beyond what's actually
in the rulebook to create role-playing characters that live and
breathe and learn and grow as individuals, rather than sit on the
sheet as a collection of numbers and game-terms. But in most cases
they've had to either ignore or actively fight the rules of the
game they're playing in order to do it.
Most RPGs are concerned with short-term catharsis: immediate
resolution, immediate action. A few ask some interesting questions
about who the character was before they started adventuring (for
want of a better term). As I said, only AMBER shows any real
codified concern for the long-term development of characters'
personalities and interactions.
So an open question: if the hobby's been doing this sort of stuff
for twenty years or so, why isn't the industry building it into
rules systems?
Chris Basken
> Most RPGs are concerned with short-term catharsis: immediate
> resolution, immediate action. A few ask some interesting questions
> about who the character was before they started adventuring (for
> want of a better term). As I said, only AMBER shows any real
> codified concern for the long-term development of characters'
> personalities and interactions.
>
> So an open question: if the hobby's been doing this sort of stuff
> for twenty years or so, why isn't the industry building it into
> rules systems?
>
Some games do. DC Heroes (something of a kid's game, I admit) actually
gives you experience for coming up with a background and for maintaining
running "subplots." I (and my friends) brought this concept over when we
started playing Call of Cthulhu, where players get "luck points" for
coming up with background material. Between adventures, I submit my
character's current status to the GM, along with any interests he may have
developed along the way (he wants to learn how to fly a plane, for
example). This is a perfect opportunity for character expansion and
development. Of course, it's up to the GM to decide how likely I would
find a pilot teacher in 1926, and how much time and money it would take to
learn.
Chris
--
"There's something out there!"
"We're in space, Afterimage. 'Out there' covers an awful lot of territory." -- Catseye
---------------------------------
If two wrongs don't make a right, then how come three rights make a left?
Philip Masters
ja...@hogshead.demon.co.uk "James Wallis" writes:
> Exactly. For years players have been going beyond what's actually
> in the rulebook to create role-playing characters that live and
> breathe and learn and grow as individuals, rather than sit on the
> sheet as a collection of numbers and game-terms ...
> ... If the hobby's been doing this sort of stuff
> for twenty years or so, why isn't the industry building it into
> rules systems?
Lots of reasons, some of them (naturally) as "bad" as you probably think.
But there's also some good and practical ones. The fact is, *pace* your
employee, that it's actually *possible* to quantify practical, functional
aspects of a character fairly convincingly. Heck, I have a character
sheet for the real-world me right here on my computer, and it's covered in
numbers - exam grades, years in specific employment, birth dates, stuff
like that. Half an hour in a medical facility would enable me to add
figures for lifting capacity, cardio-vascular performance, and suchlike -
but my line of work doesn't need them.
But my CV says very little about me as a person. Of course, my personality
may be just as important in relation to my suitability for a job as my
years of Paradox programming experience - but it's a lot harder to
quantify. Which is one reason why employers run job interviews as well as
reading CVs. A real picture of Phil Masters, the human being, would demand
a talented and perceptive writer, weeks of research, and pages of text.
(Hell, it'd demand the combined talents of Geoffrey Chaucer, William
Shakespeare, Jane Austen, and Dorothy Parker. But enough modesty.) And
even then, my friends and family would probably argue with it.
Personally, I think that the contention, "RPGs should consider character
personality more, and character ability less; *therefore*, RPG rules should
pay less attention to abilities, and more to personality" embodies a massive
non sequitur. Let the rules deal with the stuff that they *can* handle -
the practical matters - and leave character development to the people who
are best placed to handle it - the players and GM.
--
Phil Masters
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Skool according to headmaster's pi-jaw is like LIFE chiz if that is the
case wot is the use of going on? There must be give and take, fair weather
and foul, triumph and disaster but he do not give the exact proportions."
Geoffrey Willans, "How to be Topp".
Frank Pitt
>>Say, is WW as out of touch as Bill Clinton and Sarah Brady? :-)
>I don't think so. If you can name one commercial RPG other than
>AMBER in which the actual game mechanics encourage the player
>to develop their characters' personality along with their
>abilities, I'll be impressed.
I can think of several off the top of my head,
Pendragon, Bushido, Space Opera, Call of Cthulu (rudimentary),
Chivalry & Sorcery,even Traveller has social status and
education,
Anyway (IMO) the mechanics are there to model the world not the character,
it's the players who model the character and it's growth,
any "rules" in that regard can only be restrictions and nuisances
to good players, and will give completely wrong idea to bad players
Of course they're great for the guidance and training of mediocre players
Frankie
Frank G. Pitt | Motif/Solaris/C++ | <fra...@mundens.equinox.gen.nz>
Christchurch | Trunked Networks | 3:770/140.0
New Zealand | Tait Electronics | (064)(03)358-0146 (Munden's Bar)
Mary K. Kuhner
[codifying character development]
>So an open question: if the hobby's been doing this sort of stuff
>for twenty years or so, why isn't the industry building it into
>rules systems?
>James Wallis
Perhaps it doesn't lend itself gracefully to rules systems? Personally,
I am happiest if the rules just let characterization alone, though I
have also had good games with more interventionist rules.
I haven't yet found a set of rules on this topic which are really
helpful to me. Amber RPG's questionnaire was interesting, but a lot of
the questions didn't click for me, and if the GM demanded that I
actually answer them all I suspect the character would never get off the
ground. (Tried it once, for a PBeM, but the campaign crashed before it
got to that point.)
I find that what I need to know about a character varies greatly from
one character to another. For my Shadowrun Rat Shaman body language and
movement were really important--I knew that character when I could more
or less impersonate him, speak in his voice and move the way he did.
The decker from the same party, however, could have looked and moved any
old way--it was her style of action that mattered. Also, I found
I needed to know about her parents to understand her, whereas several of
the other characters had little need for developed family backgrounds
(and the Rat had none at all).
I suspect a formal characterization system is going to end up telling me
more than I want to know, and/or the wrong kind of information, about
certain characters; and will inevitably miss out on some information I
do need. I'd rather just trust to intuition. I get lost rather easily
in masses of detail.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Thomas Michael Cantine
In a Runequest campaign, I once had a Troll character who quit an
adventuring party in disgust, saying "There's a death penalty for
stupidity, and I ain't going to be guilty by association!"
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas M. Cantine "My theory, which is mine, is mine.
g932...@mcmaster.ca And I own it, too."
==============================================================================
Dave Sherohman
>AMBER in which the actual game mechanics encourage the player
>to develop their characters' personality along with their
>abilities, I'll be impressed. I can't think of any others.
First off, just about every 'modern' RPG has a section in the rulebook
extolling the virtues of informal character devlopment. While you
specifically asked for game-mechanical 'encouragement' (presumably
beyond experience/karma/luck bonuses for good roleplaying, which are
also pretty standard), it bears mentioning that this is _not_ an area
which game mechanics can easily or accurately handle - genuine human
personalities are far too complex. Carried to the extreme, game
mechanics covering character personalities would become a Bad Thing,
as the players would no longer be necessary.
Anyhow, to answer your question (as I understand it): Ars Magica
(from which the WW WOD rules appear to have descended) rates characters
on personality traits and their strengths and has rules governing the
change of these ratings. Lace & Steel has a similar system which is
based primarily on how much a character likes or dislikes other
characters, but they can also be rated on their feelings for abstract
concepts or groups; rules are also present for forming new Ties and
Antipathies or changing the strength of existing ones. Several systems
(GURPS is the first to come to mind) have rules covering such things
as minor personality traits (Quirks) and more significant tendencies
(mental ads and disads), as well as mechanics to limit the gain or
loss of these tendencies during play. Is this the sort of thing
you're looking for?
--
es...@imafs.ima.umn.edu
James Wallis
> In article <788297...@hogshead.demon.co.uk>
> ja...@hogshead.demon.co.uk "James Wallis" writes:
>
> > in the rulebook to create role-playing characters that live and
> > breathe and learn and grow as individuals, rather than sit on the
> > ... If the hobby's been doing this sort of stuff
> > for twenty years or so, why isn't the industry building it into
> > rules systems?
> Personally, I think that the contention, "RPGs should consider character
> personality more, and character ability less; *therefore*, RPG rules should
> pay less attention to abilities, and more to personality" embodies a massive
> non sequitur.
Non-sequitur yourself. I didn't say that abilities should be de-
emphasised, I just said that some attention should be paid to
character development. Not character establishment, which seems to
be what your post (most of which I deleted; sorry) was talking
about, but encouraging players to see their characters as three-
dimensional people with hopes, dreams, aspirations and goals
beyond surviving this particular adventure/campaign.
> Let the rules deal with the stuff that they *can* handle -
> the practical matters - and leave character development to the people who
> are best placed to handle it - the players and GM.
You're making the common assumption that mechanics and rules are
the same thing. They're not, as you should know from your
dilligent reading of INTER*ACTION #1. Yes, I would not hesitate to
agree that trying to use mechanics to govern a character's
emotional and spiritual development (as opposed to their mental
and physical development) is daft. But adding some guidelines to
a rules system, talking about ways to encourage players to enlarge
their characters and create some kind of life-path, story or
destiny for them ... surely that's (a) possible, and (b) potentially
a good idea?
(ObInJoke: I'm sure this was discussed in Alarums & Excursions back
in Neolithic times, back when the APA was still being
electroslated and dispatched to subscribers by international
glacier. Unfortunately, since its effect on RPG design seems to have
been less than zero, I'm going to insist on talking about it
again.)
James Wallis
> James, my apologies for not responding earlier. Your article did not
> appear at my site until Dec. 25th.
>
> James Wallis (ja...@hogshead.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> : In article <3da0tf$9...@bruce.uncg.edu> bar...@turing.uncg.edu
> : (Steve Barr) writes:
>
> : >"In traditional roleplaying, your character gets better with a sword
> : >or gun, but doesn't grow as an individual." -- WW '94-95 catalog
> : If you can name one commercial RPG other than
> : AMBER in which the actual game mechanics encourage the player
> : to develop their characters' personality along with their
> : abilities, I'll be impressed. I can't think of any others.
>
> buy off old disads with experience, so they qualify, IMO. I've
> also read in some Hero product the suggestion that GMs allow
> characters to change disads from one type to another (The example was
> a DNPC who was killed, causing the disad to become a Psych. Lim.).
I was taking "develop" to mean "increase" rather than "change";
sorry for any confusion that may have caused.
Surely buying off disadvantages will make a character more two-
dimensional rather than less -- they'll lose the quirks, habits
and challenges that gave them something to form a character
around, something internal to struggle against, and they will
turn instead into a more efficient task-completing machine? That's
a "good" thing in conventional RPG rules/mechanics terms, but not
necessarily a good thing for creating and developing interesting
three-dimensional personalities.
> : I'm jumping the question. What's your personal
> : definition of "growing as an individual"?
>
> Change and development, essentially.
Do you restrict that to physical and mental change and
development? That's not meant to sound facetious; but it's the
sort of change and development that almost all RPGs seem to deal
with exclusively.
> What is your definition?
A continual process of self-discovery and reinvention; and I don't
mean that in any kind of wishy-washy New Age (or Old Age for that
matter) way. Life is about coming to terms with life -- it's also
about coming to terms with death, but WW seem to have got that base
adequately covered, so we'll pass over it. Existence is a process
of working out who we are, why we're here, what our purpose in
life is, and then attempting to fulfil that purpose. Along the way,
we'll probably find that the goalposts have moved, so we pause,
reappraise ourselves and our goals, and set off again.
I see that happen in life, and I see it happen in good books, TV
series, films and comics. It doesn't happen so much in mediums
with a short duration, because it's a long-term process, with
long-term effects: you can't build it up in ninety minutes,
thirty-two pages of comics or two hundred pages of text, but
you can do it in six hours (Lawrence of Arabia), several thousand
pages of comics (Cerebus) or six hundred pages of text (too many
to name). That makes a RPG campaign the perfect arena for that
sort of character growth, and I'm quite sure that there are
long-running campaigns in which characters with that sort of
depth exist, and have existed for many years, and will continue to
do so. But I don't see the RPGs rules themselves becoming aware of
this part of their potential.
I was talking to one of my designers in Japan the other day on
just this subject. His focus on it is that in the late 70s and
early 80s, before game mechanics had developed much subtlety, all
RPGs were designed for long-term campaign play. Then, around 1984,
the focus began to shift: the major players in the RPG market began
to emphasize what my friend describes as "gimmick" games, designed
more for occasional or one-off play. Sure, you could play a campaign
with them, but with the flood of systems on the market, the focus
moved towards games which you could play for an evening, or for a
while, but which it would be difficult to build a long-running
campaign with.
It's only a trend, of course: there are several exceptions to it.
But if you're designing a game which is supposed to hook people
with a "gimmick" (not a word I use in any derogatory sense) milk
that gimmick for all it's worth, and then sell them another
linked system or a second edition a couple of years later, long-
term character development is not going to be top of your list of
priorities to be built into the rules.
David P. Summers
James Wallis (ja...@hogshead.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>If you can name one commercial RPG other than
>AMBER in which the actual game mechanics encourage the player
>to develop their characters' personality along with their
>abilities, I'll be impressed. I can't think of any others.
I've been more than a little skeptical of this claim. But since I've
not played Amber, let me ask... Exactly what does it have that makes
you feel it is so unique in encouraging character development of
PC's personalities?
________________________
(Disclaimer: If NASA had any position on any of this do you
think they would have ME give it?)
David Summers - Sum...@Ethyl-the-Frog.ARC.NASA.Gov
James Wallis
> Regarding...
> James Wallis (ja...@hogshead.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> >AMBER in which the actual game mechanics encourage the player
> >to develop their characters' personality along with their
> >abilities, I'll be impressed. I can't think of any others.
>
> not played Amber, let me ask... Exactly what does it have that makes
> you feel it is so unique in encouraging character development of
> PC's personalities?
Two things. Firstly, it has a character generation system -- the
attribute auction -- which works to develop inter-character
rivalries, attitudes and goals before character generation is even
half-way through. Personality development is only implicit within
the auction system, but such development is definitely encouraged
by the way it works.
Secondly, character diaries, stories and poetry. Specifically,
players can earn in-game rewards for their characters if they
perform certain tasks such as writing up game logs, drawing
character portraits, or fictionalizing their character's exploits,
usually from a first-person perspective. Yes, bad RPG fiction is
actually built into the game rules. And by encouraging players
to think about their characters in this kind of way, they become
more rounded, more fleshed out. The player can develop short-
term goals into long-term aspirations, and work on character
history, personality and attitude at their leisure -- because
they're not playing the character in a normal game situation;
they're authoring their story instead. It makes a considerable
difference.
Amber does do other things to encourage the development of
personality -- character questionnaires; sessions of one-to-one
role-play to establish character background and attitudes; and so
on -- but none of those are unique to it. It also has some of the
finest advice to GMs and players I've ever read. And it's the way
that all of these facets work together that makes its system of
personality development work so well.
Tygger
: But adding some guidelines to a rules system, talking about ways to
: life-path, story or destiny for them ... surely that's (a) possible, and
: (b) potentially : a good idea?
Interstingly, one of the reasons I am such a fan of most of R. Talsorian's
games is that they include sections and (in CyberPunk) tables for
figuring out a character's past and present subplots. Also noteworthy
for this are the "Central Casting" series of books from Task Force Games
(despite the fundamentalist attitude taken in the third book, "Heroes Now!").
D.A. Graf
(that's not my sig)
--
******************************************************************************
Artist/Writer/Furrys/Non Furrys/Non Erotica/Implied Erotica/Soft Erotica
Sells Prints (email for a listing!)/Shows Illos At Cons (shameless plug!)
I should know better than to get involved in tinyplots but...
I JUST CAN'T **HELP** MYSELF!!
"And I ain't in it for the power
And I ain't in it for my health
I ain't in it for the glory of anything at all
And I sure ain't in it for the wealth
But I'm in it till it's over and I just can't stop
If you wanna get it done, you got to do it yourself"
Exerpt From "Everything Louder Than Everything Else"
Meat Loaf, Bat Out Of Hell:Back Into Hell
Phil Masters
> Non-sequitur yourself. I didn't say that abilities should be de-
> emphasised, I just said that some attention should be paid to
> > Let the rules deal with the stuff that they *can* handle -
> > the practical matters - and leave character development to the people
> > who are best placed to handle it - the players and GM.
>
> You're making the common assumption that mechanics and rules are
> the same thing. They're not, as you should know from your
> dilligent reading of INTER*ACTION #1.
Sorry, that was a long time ago. (Pause to haul out the issue, make
wild and irrational assumption that James is talking about the article
starting on page 66, re-skim same.) And the aforesaid article - said a
lot of things. Including this. Okay, I see where you're coming from now,
although I'd suggest that the equation of "rules" to "mechanics" is
something that a lot of people do. You aren't merely arguing by
redefining terms, but you are perhaps sailing close to the wind.
> ... Yes, I would not hesitate to
> agree that trying to use mechanics to govern a character's
> emotional and spiritual development (as opposed to their mental
> and physical development) is daft. But adding some guidelines to
> a rules system, talking about ways to encourage players to enlarge
> their characters and create some kind of life-path, story or
> destiny for them ... surely that's (a) possible, and (b) potentially
> a good idea?
Possible, evidently. Possibly a good idea. But tricky. Put it this way;
RPGs are played by a fair variety of people, with a fair variety of
interests, and in my experience, most games groups have to develop a
compromise approach based on the concerns of their various members. Now, in
the area of what you'd call mechanics, that's relatively easy; either
the members of the group can work with a given mechanic, or they can't.
And those that can't, can walk.
However, once you start imposing rules (using the term in your, broader,
sense) on things like character devlopment - which, all else aside,
some players just aren't interested in - then the process of implicit
negotiation and compromise gets a lot more complicated. In fact, given the
choice between using these rules and keeping the group together, a lot
of people are going to dump the rules. For example, V:tM has what I
assume you'd regard as a basic step in the right direction on this sort
of thing; the GM is supposed to ask the players what their characters
have learnt from the scenario before dishing out experience points.
Quote from one GM on this; "I just can't be bothered". Cue shrugs and
mild sneers from players. Similarly, while Castle Falkenstein
"requires" players to keep journals for their characters - and to
present the whole thing in a very literary, "character oriented" way - I
really can't face imposing this in the little bit of Falkenstein that
I'm currently running. GM'ing is hard enough work as is, without having
to mark exercises in bad fan fiction from people with whom I'd really
rather be socialising or playing games.
> (ObInJoke: I'm sure this was discussed in Alarums & Excursions back
> in Neolithic times, back when the APA was still being
> electroslated and dispatched to subscribers by international
> glacier. Unfortunately, since its effect on RPG design seems to have
> been less than zero, I'm going to insist on talking about it
> again.)
Which joke I now get, having spent the weekend with a couple of A&Eers
and (briefly) their copy of no.233. However, I wouldn't normally get
this very well, because I don't normally read the 'zine much these days. I
lost touch with it a couple of years ago. Part of my own process of personal
character development.