Forums » The Parlor Room » Read Thread

Check this out(Spoilers)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A∴A∴

If you have read the Order Of The Midnight Sun by JJ you know about the ranks and so on.But did you know it’s based on a real cult?

They also teach “scientific illuminism” which sounds awfully like the illuminati if you get my drift.

Does anybody have thoughts on this? Does this mean the Banisher is a cult member?

(Hopefully at least 1 Person answers)

 

@Endmaster used to meet with JJJ in secret a lot so I guess he'd be the one to know.

Wipee 1 Person!

I’m not sure if it’s a joke or not, but I should try to follow up on this.Since EndMaster probably gets spammed alot  he probably won’t reply to any questions.

 

If JJJ was in a cult now, it would at least explain where he's been spending all his time.

Holy shit it’s EndMaster replying to my post?

I’m probably gonna go fangirl.

 

 

So did he just research or did he act really weird?

Or could you ask him personally or something?

As far as I know JJJ wrote that in 3 days when he was a teenager so he probably got inspired by illuminati stuff he might have read about.

That makes sense I guess.

Just weird how he could of came across something so secretive like that.

He might know to much

It's almost like he might have had access to Google

He used the dark web.

Or that he used google I guess

Actually come to think of it @BerkaZerka used to hang out with him a lot at some "role-playing" site called, I think, Black Hansa of Bael? JJJ's been around such a long time only the oldest members truly know anything about him, and really given some of the weirdos we've had here I wouldn't rule anything out.

Are you telling me I need to follow up on every single famous member here who probably won’t even talk to a smaller timer or doesn’t have time?

Just to figure out if he is a A:A member?

Darn

Should pm Alexp imho

Long shot but that might work if he comes on again

Oh dear… So... With a few simple clicks on google we find that the order of the midnight sun is based on Thelemae (rather than Satanism).

A few more clicks and we get also get the quote ”Love is the Law, Law under Will”, a version of which appears several times in Triple-Js amazing gamebook.

Also, his gamebook freaking rocks and, if he is somehow a Satanist (for which there is no evidence), then he sucks at it.

Could we please restore this site’s co-highest rated book (and, one of the very few highly-rated games with a positive ethos) to featured status? Perhaps it will encourage Triple-JJJ to play with us again! :-D

Here are the ethical underpinnings of Thelmae:

A. Your Duty to Self: describes the self as the center of the universe, with a call to learn about one's inner nature. Admonishes the reader to develop every faculty in a balanced way, establish one's autonomy, and to devote oneself to the service of one's own True Will.

B. Your Duty to Others: An admonishment to eliminate the illusion of separateness between oneself and all others, to fight when necessary, to avoid interfering with the Wills of others, to enlighten others when needed, and to worship the divine nature of all other beings.

C. Your Duty to Mankind: States that the Law of Thelema should be the sole basis of conduct. That the laws of the land should have the aim of securing the greatest liberty for all individuals. Crime is described as being a violation of one's True Will.

D. Your Duty to All Other Beings and Things: States that the Law of Thelema should be applied to all problems and used to decide every ethical question. It is a violation of the Law of Thelema to use any animal or object for a purpose for which it is unfit, or to ruin things so that they are useless for their purpose. Natural resources can be used by man, but this should not be done wantonly, or the breach of the law will be avenged.

 

@EbonVasilis you're under attack!

Not so. Perhaps @Endmaster would be gracious enough to surrender one of his three featured spots?

Innkeeper would be first to go, if we were going by it. You can make a thread, where people debate and vote for what they think should happen, if you'd like. That might be fun, if only because I think no one but you actually liked Order of the Midnight Sun that much.

Wouldn't matter anyway because Order got taken down by Ebon's story, so its time is already over.

Yeah, but that seems like it'd get into a big old debate, and I'm having a boring day.

Yeah but Eternal and Necromancer vs OotMS? Not seeing much of a debate.

If Innkeeper were taken down temporarily, it should be for some other story that hasn't had almost a decade in the spotlight.

But I wouldn't mind seeing Necromancer swapped out for Death Song, tbf...

Yeah, but I never consider most of my arguments much debates, I still like them.

Anyhow, fuck that, Necromancer's way better than Death Song. It's definitely a way more fun game leading hordes of undead fucks to wipe out life rather than crying and playing the guitar as someone else leads hordes of undead fucks to wipe out life.

Lol.

There's no debate here. Previously featured stories don't get back in the spotlight.

Not to mention stopped listening to the "will of the people" a long time ago when it comes to featuring stories.

Everyone knows that the satanic stuff is pretty much crap. The reasons it was taken down are as follows. 

JJJ doesn’t really like the game and has already stated that he wouldn’t care a lick of it was taken down. Maybe even support featuring something that would take it down. 

My own game was rated above seven at the time of the removal, and his was pretty much only rated so highly because of how ratings were back in the day. Thus, it’s rating was null and voided in light of my successful storygame. 

It is already on the front page. What more could you want? Literally that is the single best advertisement for storygames on this website. Putting it back on fantasy would do nothing but take away from other games that might need more exposure and are deserving of a read trough. 

Also, there is the argument about whether TLR is just simply better overall than OMS, but I won’t get into that right now,

By rating, Innkeeper would be next to go, not Lost Realm. Also, I doubt End would care that much, since he's said Innkeeper's just a placeholder for Rogues.

Ratings on older games don't mean shit anyway.

Yeah, true, if you're going to be boring and logical about it.

What's ironic is that I read Order of the Midnight Sun all the way through because it had such a positive ethos (I personally don't like anti-hero and zombie-dystopian games, and yes I know I am in the minority on that one). Also ironic (sad?) that The Lost Realm (also an amazing, deserving, positive-ethos, classic hero story) had to come in and replace the Order of all games?! The crusade seems to have pointed its sword in an odd direction.

With regards to old ratings being meaningless, is there a way to parse out recent ratings? Personally, JJJ's book holds it's own (in my eyes) in terms of detail, escapism, fullness of the world, and fun. It would at least be a "7" to my eye (and, yes, this is even with the annoyance of the maze).

It's been too many years since I've read Order to say much about how it holds up to the rest now, but it was always going to be the next to go. 3J himself was no longer much of a fan and the ratings are definitely inflated. (Which again, is coming from 3J.)

I'm with you on liking stories with traditional heroes, or at least in having some kind of balance there, but it just happens that the fantasy authors with the most and best story output have a certain style and preference.

I mean we occasionally get people complaining there aren't more LGBT stories that let you pick from 52 genders too, and the answer is the same; people just need to stop being lazy and write what they want to see more of.

And be willing to give feedback on the longer-ish manuscripts that are still in development?

Eh, I'm the opposite way. Personally, I find the traditional hero stories to tend to be bland and forgettable, with the heroes themselves ending up as cookie cutter "Good" guys. The stories don't really do much to push any new ground with morality or to have any new takes on things, and "Be moral" is such a drab, lame message that I don't really want to hear it. I covered that in primary school stories, I don't want it repeated. 

Plus, the whole white v black thing just kind of tends to lead to bland villains as well as protagonists, and pushes childish views of morality above actual, intricate looks at how that kind of thing can work. 

Really, just shit in general, anyhow.

So you'd rather stick to the cookie-cutter 'be evil because evil is cool, just like zombies!!1' instead?

I don't see any reason to oppose the idea of any character just being who they are and what best fits the story. 'Good is boring and lame' is just as kneejerk, reactionary, and most importantly limiting a view as the opposite. Considering the literally infinite combinations and nuance and personality and personal strengths and hangups and background possible in any character...all the stuff that makes them a character in the first place...some drooling declaration of 'good BAD, bad GOOD!' is utterly retarded and childish.

But anyway, you've already stated you're bored and looking for a big fat debate to roll around in the mud over, so I'll be leaving off here and advising everyone else to not oblige you either. Although really I'm not sure who is even dumb enough to need that warning at this point. (And yes I do already realize you'll start by twisting something I said and repeating it back as a straw man. It's almost like your failed knock off brand of chaos is actually extremely predictable?)

Nah, I don't think if you're not going "Good vs Evil, with a good protagonist" you have to go "Evil because evil's cool." I think character's having more complicated morality's just far more interesting. I think grey vs gray is a far more interesting way to take it, because that's the way the real world is. When it's Good vs Evil, there's not really anything interesting being added there. If you have two sides facing off for reasons where either one of them could be the moral choice depending on what your own personal morals are, that seems far more interesting. Plus, we are talking about CYOAs, so choice should be a thing, and a choice between "Good" and "Evil seems far worse than a choice between two sides that both have a fair point. 

I think you're misunderstanding my point, and perhaps I've phrased it badly. I'm not saying "Good is bad, Evil is good". I'm saying "Black and white morality, no matter which side you're on, is bad." "Good" is boring because it makes the entire conflict far more bland, as if one side is good, the other's bad, and you can't really delve into the moralities as a whole, plus, that's just not how the world works. Black and white morality simplifies things to such a great degree that it ruins nuance completely.

Alternatively, I quite like stories where you play as evil, but that's expanded on. Look at Eternal, for instance. You're clearly playing evil, but you get to actually develop that. The Eternal's a cunt, but his desires aren't "I serve evil! Muahaha!", it's "I serve order, even if it's with an iron fist", and "I have to come to terms with the fact I'm not special, don't deserve to be alive, and I want to be something, to be remembered, to be eternal." Those stories tend towards my favorite, when traditionally evil characters are expanded to be much more reasonable from their perspective.

So no, my main point would be that Obviously Evil is a bad thing, whether you're the hero fighting that or the villain fighting for it.

This is a ridiculously over-simplified discussion and you should both be ashamed of yourselves.

However… I like it when the good guy goes through a lot of realistic, difficult shit, and the comes out other side scathed but richer for it.

I especially like tests of character, internal emotional struggles, and complex solutions to the initial challenge. I also like it when the bad guy turns out to be a misguided person (like the rest of us, when we are “bad”). The concept of people being “sick” rather than “evil” is one that informs my outlook on human beings (even the worst of them)...

OK, shoot, what's oversimplified about it?

Nothing. Yours was nice too. :")

I already don't like you.

Wasn't that how we started?

I don't recall. Most non-Steve people tend to blend into one another unless they're interesting enough to be remembered.

Unfortunately, I started out as a Non-Steve. Which means we started out with you not liking me.

I like lots of non-Steve people. You're just not currently one of them.

It makes me sad to hear you say that. I'd feel relieved if you used a more cordial tone when we discuss our ideas.

Cordial would be dishonest, as I am not a cordial person and I don't have cordial feelings towards you.

I can see why being dishonest would make you feel uncomfortable.

For my part, I’d feel relieved if you used a more cordial tone when you address me.

In any case, I hope that we will find a mutually-enjoyable way to exchange ideas in the future, as I’ve found many of yours to be quite interesting and well-stated.

Fuck's sake, you are such a frustratingly reasonable cunt.