Then there's the people who say it doesn't stop crime. True. There will always be people who don't think they will be caught, and thus don't care about the punishment. Or people who think death is okay, as long as they can [insert shocking capital crime here], as dictated by their religion/need for vengance/voices in their heads/etc. But it's not like putting people in jail for life will stop crimes either.

My only problem is that the people who are for it don't seem to have very compelling arguements either. "People who [insert shocking crime here] deserve death, at least, and by horrible torture if possible! Yay Vengance!" Well, perhaps not with those exact words, but it's a sentiment I've seen expressed. And it's not really convincing. Revenge won't undo the crime.

But again to the arguements against it. "Human life is sacred! You can't kill without blackening your soul as well!" Oy. As an occasional athiest [mostly, I just don't think about the matter. It's not like it really affects my life in any pressing manner. More on that later, perhaps.] I'm not exactly swayed by religious arguements in either manner. So "eye for an eye" doesn't exactly work either.

In the end, I'm currently for it, all things considered. There are going to be people you can't redeem, and keeping them alive but secluded from all other human contact seems to be rather pointless. You've effectively said they will have no more life, so why skirt the issue? Eh. I don't feel that strongly about the issue, though. Feel free to send me your arguements and thoughts on the matter. The email is on the main page, much to the delight of various spambots everywhere.

The first problem with most people trying to be such is they think betrayal is the name of the game. No. That is foolish. When you betray someone, they no longer trust you. And other people no longer trust you. And it's easier to manipulate people who trust you.

In my experience, one of the most evil things you can do is give people advice. Lots of good advice. On ways they can complete their goals. The key is, you find some way for them to complete their goals, without interfering with yours. Or, interfering with your goals less than they would left to their own devices. Remember, it should be good advice. That way, they are more likely to act on it, and they trust you more.

Don't let people fuck you over. Dr. Smith was a wimp. Most villains are spineless wusses who think they need to put up with anything and everything to gain people's trust. Bah. If someone shoves, shove back. Hard. But make it clear to everyone else it was just business. They'll understand. And they'll be hesitant to try to mess up you. Just make sure it's all straight forward.

But don't initiate any attacks. The best thing for you is for all your enemies to fight each other, and you to clean up after them. The less noticed you are, the better. Just that nice guy in the corner who gives people pretty good advice. And when they least expect it... don't do anything. Because there will always be someone else. You're an evil manipulative bastard, not some gangster boss or something.

Have good goals. Money isn't a good goal. Power isn't a good goal. They're both means to an end. Destroying your enemies is a good goal. A little survival never hurt anyone. Comfort is a good goal. Just don't let down your guard. If you are using these tips for writing some fanfiction, immortality or some longlost artifact of vast power is a good goal. Everyone likes toys. If you are applying this to playing some game, well, it should have goals written into the rules. A good portion of these tips were written with Illuminati (a delightful card game by Steve Jackson) in mind. If you want to apply them to real life... erm... well... changing the subject.

Now, money and power aren't good goals in and of themselves, but they can still help complete your goals, so you can go for them. But if you have too much, that makes you a target. So just get what you need, and perhaps a bit extra to be safe, or to loan to your friends/pawns.

Ah, the loan. When you are ahead, it's like an investment. "Sure, I'll help you out now, just as long as you help me out later." As long as you don't go around betraying people like some idiot, people will generally pay back, often when you need it. And if they don't, you can make it well known that they welch on their deals. And then, when nobody is willing to help them because they probably won't return the favor, you can destroy them. Nothing personal, just business. Setting an example, and all. See earlier tip.

Unspecified favors are okay to bargain with, but it's easier to back out of them gracefully. "What? That's not worth what I did for you, it is." And people might agree with them, so the above tactics on dealing with welshers wouldn't work, so it's easier to make it clear what you want in return. Cash probably wouldn't hurt. Or specific aid in some endeavor you are undertaking, or will in the future.

So what if people find you out? They notice that you are, well, an evil manipulative bastard. They start to lose trust in you, simply because you tend to get what you want with ruthless efficiency. It scares some people, for some reason. All my good friends are rather scared whenever we play Illuminati. But that's when the beauty of the plan kicks in...

Your good advice is still good advice. Being slightly scary, but not actively going against anyone, makes you even less likely to be attacked. "Nicer to go against the person trying to kill you then that worrisome lad over there muttering in the corner who has that nasty habit of destroying his enemies. Besides, he tends to help people out when they are down, for reasonable returns." And when you are feared, you get to threaten people, which can get you delightful returns for no real effort. Well, you need to promise not to do whatever you are threatening to do That's a reason why being rather vague helps when threatening. "Are you sure you want to do that?" asked with a malicious smile can get more done than a gun pointed in someone's face. Erm. Well, maybe not more than that. But that's rather blatant, and we are trying to avoid that.

Hoom. What else. Read the evil overlord list. Sadly, the original seems to be down at the moment, but that's a perfectly fine copy detailing the failings of villains everywhere.

In closing, remember: it's better to have allies than enemies. It's better to be feared than liked, but better to be liked than disliked. The ends justify the means. Just make sure your means won't screw you over. The enemy of your enemy can be your special friend. And if you have two enemies who both dislike eachother, capitalize on the situation. Make the other enemy a more pressing threat than you are, but don't make yourself seem like an easy target. Use common sense. Be intelligent. Let me repeat that. Be intelligent. Everything else just follows from that.

Anyway, for those of you who don't know, Pascal's wager is pretty much explained thusly: It's better to believe in god than it is to not, because if you do beleive in him and you are right, you go to heaven, while if you don't belive in him and he does exist, you go to hell. If he doesn't exist, it doesn't matter whether you believe in him or not. So why not believe?

Alright, my first problem with it: if I were God, and people only beleived in me just to get into heaven on the off chance of existence, that wouldn't be enough cause for me. It should be heart and soul. Of course, I'm not God. Maybe he enjoys people just spout off a few names. But then, I'd let anyone who does basically good deeds get into heaven. Well, to be more precise, I'd follow my own little view of what the afterlife, which is that everyone should spend eternity with people most like themselves. But I digress.

Also, it's a false dilemma. There are more options than just "god exists" or "There is no god." I bet Hades or Anubis wouldn't be amused at all by Pascal's Wagerers. To say nothing of obscure blood-thirsty Aztec death-gods. Should one worship all of those, just in case they are right as well? And what, pray tell, about all the possible gods that have never been worshipped? The earth was round long before people began to speculate about it's flatness.

Lastly, Pascal makes it out like you have nothing to lose by believing in god, and everything to gain. Perhaps it depends on the specific denomination of god- er, the church you follow, but most people would lose out on the chance to do a few things their religions dictate. I'm not saying that the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" is restricting my personal freedoms [well, in the most technical sense, it is, but that's really okay by me, because it's not something I routinely want to do], but most religions have restrictions on quite a few things that people would otherwise do and enjoy, possibly without even hurting anyone else. Why should they do so just because of the off chance someone still happens to be watching them?

Now, I'm not necessarily saying that you shouldn't worship god. I mean, there are plenty of good reasons to believe in god. Personal conviction, upbringing [if being true to your heritage is important to you. Isn't that written in the bible somewhere? Hmmmm], agreeing with the moral philosophy of the religion in question, a way to pick up chicks on sundays [Sorry, Moby reference. NM], whatever. It's just that Pascal's wager, especially by itself, isn't one of them.

Of course, it works beyond movies. For example, my old english teacher had a relative who had a friend who worked in a movie with Harrison Ford. Not only am I four degrees away from Harrison Ford, everyone who I am connected to is five degrees away from him. And vice versa, technically. And you get the idea from there. Another amusing one is my Dad's friend used to have a friend who lived on the same street as the person who played the wicked witch of the west in the original "Wizard of Oz" movie. Small world.

I wonder if it works for websites. Assuming reciprocal links counts as a connection... I'm pretty sure the only pages I'm connected to are Norcumi's Library and As Above, both on the links page. Norcumi's Library is connected to Magespace, a rather popular Shadowrun fiction site. At least, I find it rather popular. Anyway, it has links to scads of other sites, and presumably some of them link back. Same situation with As Above, although that no doubt links to an entirely different theme of sites. Be interesting to see exactly how many sites are within six degrees of mine... worthy of some boring weekend, for sure.

It also reminds me of that bit in Stranger in the Strange Land, concerning flappers, and using conncections to get in touch with people. In brief, a guy got in touch with the president because the first lady's astrologer owed him a favor.

Also all those "friend of a friend" urban legends. People tell you to discount them as nothing more than myth or rumour, but when you consider just how many people fall under the category of "friend of a friend" or perhaps a few more additions of friendship links, there might be something more to it.

Neil Gaiman sorta did some like that in Sandman. Most of the main characters either knew eachother, or knew people who knew eachother. Judy, who was killed in the first storyline, was the lover of Donna, who was friends/neighbors with Rose, who was Desire's granddaughter, who was Dream's Brother. Er. Sibling.

The website chain does seem interesting enough idea to pursue, however. I'll have to do it, and record the results on another subpage. Perhaps some mock awards or something. Of course, if the awards created more reciprocal links, then the entire chain would collapse into itself, and the vastness would grow even further. Such is the nature of the internet. And life in general.

Tell a friend of a friend of a friend of a friend of a friend of yours I said hi, would you? Thanks.

Why? Well, for one, it's a pretty lousy way to tell a story. Lots of different characters jostling with their own goals, if they are developed enough to have them, and the GM basically out to see that their own plot isn't destroyed outright. Your average Shadowrun story is nothing like your average Shadowrun gaming session.

Why are they usually different? Well, it's hard to structure the classic elements of a story effectively when the characters have free will apart from the author. Too many authors, and too many random and unrelated elements [like most character histories, which have next to nothing in common except for "we work together now"], and all the elements tend to blur together, and become meaningless. Now, I have no doubt that there are one or two groups out there that do the "communal storytelling" deal passably, if not well, but as I said, it's not what I look for in a role-playing game.

What do I look for? Quite simply, a role-playing game. By role-playing, I get to wear a mask. Assume a shape other than the one I use in my day to day life. I get to make believe in a world unlike our own day to day reality. And by game, I mean a game. Pitting my wits against the challenges the GM/ST/Fnord/DM sets up. If you win, your character can grow, and deal with larger and vaster challenges. And, like almost all games, it's fun. A great way to pass the weekend with your friends. More social than, say, sitting around at the PS2 playing "Torg Dream Fighters" or whatever. ;)

Anyway, if you want to write a story, even a communal one, role-playing games aren't quite the way to do it. The rules will no doubt get in the way of the storyline, and unless you have a bunch of very mature players, most of the characters will be engaged in a perptual duel, with the Spotlight and title "Main Character" as their reward. Which sounds like a fun game in and of itself, but will lead to a rather fractured storyline. Stories and games each follow their own logic and metarules. Trying to use one to accomplish the other will yield mixed results at best.