The Horizon I Couldn't Reach: A History of My Political Game Design

緒論 Introduction

我是 2019 年開始在推特 / itch.io 的英語獨立 TRPG 圈子發布自己的作品；2021 年因為寫了一個讓我朋友想自殺的遊戲與圈子隔離，只跟少數人繼續聯絡，最後完全斷絕所有關係。

2019 was when I started publishing my work in the anglophone Twitter / itch.io indie TTRPG scene; because of writing a game that made my friend want to commit suicide, I started isolating myself from the scene in 2021, only continuing to interact with a few people, until eventually cutting off contact from everybody in 2022.

因此，我的政治遊戲設計也反映了這樣的發展。還在圈子裡的時候，我還是很關心如何迎合圈內大部分算是激進自由主義者的人—其實那時候我也算是激進份子。那時候，除了模糊的「左派」，我還是不敢利用其他更詳細的詞來形容自己的政治思想，因為我怕很多東西：怕選錯了主義、怕不懂主義冒充主義者的身分、怕選的主義會造成的分歧。忘了哪時候改變，但我知道到了 2021 年離開圈子之前，我堅定地形容自己是無治主義者；再到了 2023 年底才換到目前的極左派者。我的政治思想變得越明確，遊戲的政治要旨也變得更公然；我變得越孤立，遊戲的設計也越獨斷專行。

Accordingly, my political game design has reflected this development. When I was still in the scene, I was still very concerned with appealing to other insiders who were mostly radlibs—and actually at that time I was a radlib too. Back then, besides the nebulous label of “leftist,” I still didn't dare to use any more descriptive term to describe my political thinking, because I was afraid of many things: afraid of choosing the wrong ideology, afraid of falsely claiming to be the follower of an ideology I didn't understand, afraid of disagreements caused by my chosen ideology. I don't remember when this changed, but I know that by 2021 before leaving the scene, I firmly described myself as an anarchist; it wasn't 'til the end of 2023 that I changed again to the present ultraleftist. As my political thinking became more certain, the political messages of my games became more overt; as I became more isolated, the design of my games became more autocratic.

過去幾年，我學到了很多東西。然而，如果你問今天的我自己的政治遊戲設計綱領是什麼，我並無法回答—而且我也不確定需要回答。拋棄了 TRPG 的共同體之後，我常常覺得寫 TRPG 最後只是自己在跟自己講話。我可以再次創造新的綱領，但是誰能給我綱領效力的肯定？我是唯一能問責自己的人。在這種情況之下，我覺得綱領頂多是個自己拿來鼓勵自己的東西。我沒興趣這樣做。對我有興趣的是搞懂自己到底做過了什麼事，明白哪些門路是死路。迄今為止，這是我最詳盡的努力。

Over the past few years, I've learned a lot of things. Even so, if you asked me today what my program for political game design is, I wouldn't have an answer—and I'm not even sure I'd need an answer. After giving up TRPG communities, I've often felt that writing TRPGs just ends up being an exercise in talking to myself. I can come up with new programs again, but who can affirm their efficacy? I'm the only one who can hold myself accountable. In this kind of circumstance, I feel like a program at most is just something I can use to congratulate myself. I have no interest in doing so. What I am interested in is figuring out exactly what I have done so far, and understanding what doorways lead to dead ends. To date, this is my most comprehensive attempt.

蠢零遊時代 Fool Zero Games Era (2019-2021)

1. System Shatters 《系統破滅》(v1 2020, v2 2021, 翻譯 transl. 2023)
2. Five Blue Dragons 《五龍分魂》(2020, 無翻譯 no transl.)
3. Phantom Island 《幽靈島》(v1 2020, v2 2021, 翻譯 transl. 2022)
4. Smelltracks 《味道》(v1 2021, v2 2021, v3 2022)
5. “The Dragon in the Mirror” 〈映像之龍〉 (2021, 翻譯 transl. 2022)
6. You Provide the Paint for the Picture-Perfect Masterpiece That You Will Paint on the Insides of Your Eyelids 《你提供的油漆是為了要十分完美的傑作被你將畫在自己眼皮裡面》(2021, 翻譯 transl. 2022)
7. 《天丑！》 Fools of Heaven! (2021)
8. Underscore the Crowd / 下划众 / 下標眾 (2021)

《系統破滅》是我最早的無治遊，雖然創的時候沒有故意要做成那樣。第一版本其實叫《System Matters》（中文：系統有關），是在笑話英語獨立 TRPG 圈子話語中常出現的句子。「System matters」這句話的意思就是說：玩家選的遊戲系統會影響遊玩的經驗，因此玩家該選設計最能創造想要的經驗的系統（相反的立場就是系統無關，因為玩家可以隨便選哪些規則要用，也可以創特定規，所以任何系統都能用來創造想要的經驗）。

System Shatters was my earliest anarchist game, even though when I created it I didn't intentionally make it that way. The first version was actually called System Matters, poking fun at a phrase that commonly appeared in discourse within the anglosphere indie TTRPG scene. The phrase “system matters” meant that the system chosen by the players would influence the experience of their game, and so players should choose the system with a design that can best create the experience they desire (the opposing stance was that system didn't matter, because players could freely choose whatever rules they wanted to use, as well as make house rules, so any system could be used to create a desired experience).

我的《系統有關》是個自雜（英文：zine），邀請玩家來利用「唱反系統」的「反規」（英文：antirules）來攻擊存在系統中不利於實現自由的規則；目的是在唱反系統遊玩的過程中把遊戲系統的辜負聯繫到現實系統的辜負，把遊玩中反規追求自由態度帶回日常生活。在第二版，我把遊戲的政治要旨寫得更明確，把「反規」改成「破壞」，把遊戲名稱的圈內笑話擱在一邊，改成現在的《系統破滅》。雖然據我所知這個作品沒有影響任何人的政治思想或日常生活—而且我現在該說，我幾乎所有的作品都是這樣—我在《系統破滅》的發展之中發現了自己寫含政治要旨的作品的時候總是有個要旨肯定會被聽到的態度，無論聽眾或同志到底有沒有出現。溫柔地說，這現象我稱「想像的同寅」（跟班納迪克·安德森想像的共同體概念類似）；狠心地說，這叫魔法思維。

My System Matters was a zine that invited players to use the “antirules” of an “antisystem” to attack rules that failed to facilitate liberation in a system that currently existed; the goal was, through the course of antisystemic play, to connect the failures of the game system to the failures of real systems, to bring the pursuit of freedom against rules from play back to everyday life. In the second version, I made the game's political message more explicit, changing “antirule” to “sabotage,” setting aside the inside joke of the game title to turn it into the System Shatters of today. Even though to my knowledge this work never influenced anybody's political thinking or everyday life—and I should say now that almost all of my works are like this—in my development of System Shatters I discovered that whenever I write things with a political message, I always seem to have the attitude that my message would be heard, regardless of whether or not listeners or comrades would appear. Generously speaking, this phenomenon I call “imagined affinity” (like Benedict Anderson's concept of imagined community); callously speaking, I call it magical thinking.

列表中第二個遊戲，《五龍分魂》，才是我第一次故意試圖設計政治遊戲的努力。我恨這個遊戲恨到死，恨到連放在 itch.io 網頁都沒再放，也從來不想做翻譯。已經過了四年了，但連想到就感到厭惡，甚至連在這個貼文中寫都不想寫。可是我必須要誠實。我容許認可當時的自己有了足夠的自明，在現已刪除的 itch.io 上 po 了一個譴責遊戲的開發日誌；我在這裡複製：

The second game on the list, Five Blue Dragons, was my actual first attempt at intentionally designing a political game. I hate this game to death, to the point where I stopped including it on my itch.io page early on and have never even bothered to translate it. It's been 4 years, but even thinking about the game makes me disgusted, to the point where I didn't even want to include it in this post. But I must be honest. I'm willing to give myself at that time credit for having enough self-awareness to post a devlog on my now-deleted itch.io denouncing the game; I now reproduce it here:

I started feeling uncomfortable about having created this game after I realized that its most vocal lovers were all white.

當我發現這遊戲的熱愛者都是白人，我開始對這遊戲的創造感到不自在。

打斷一下—我想更加說明熱愛的程度。《五龍分魂》是個《Wretched & Alone》（中文：孤單受苦）系統的改版，也是為了《Wretched & Alone》系統的設計師們舉行的遊戲製作營才創了這個遊戲（設計師為了自己新設計的系統舉系統行遊戲製作營是在圈子中很常見的社交宣傳策略；設計師們常利用製作營的平台推銷參加者利用他們系統做的作品，在產生知名度的方面互相支持）。在寫這開發日誌之前，其中一位 W&A 的設計師，Chris Bissette，有在推特上送我私訊問我要不要上他的 podcast 談一談《五龍分魂》的設計。我因為在這開發日誌中描述的原因而拒絕。那次是唯一有人對我的遊戲興趣足夠到想邀請我來做採訪的一次。我認為這也不是偶然，是反映當時圈子的政治觀。

Interrupting for a moment—I want to elaborate on the extent of this vocal love. Five Blue Dragons was a Wretched & Alone hack, and was also made only because of the Wretched & Alone jam hosted by the system's designers (designers hosting game jams for new systems they made was a common social-promotional tactic in the scene; designers often used the jam's platform to promote works that the participants made using their system, creating a mutual reputation boost). Before writing this devlog, one of the W&A designers, Chris Bissette, DM'd me on Twitter to ask if I wanted to go on his podcast to talk about the design of Five Blue Dragons. Because of the reasons illustrated in this devlog, I said no. That was the only time anyone was interested enough in my games to ask me to do an interview. I believe this isn't a coincidence, but a reflection of the scene's politics at the time.

To be clear—I'm not writing this devlog to subtweet white people who have enjoyed Five Blue Dragons. I'm writing this as a self-reflection and self-criticism, especially after a period of intensive political self-education that made me reevaluate the kinds of narratives my game was promoting.

該說清楚—寫這個開發日誌的目的不是為了要不點名推文喜歡《五龍分魂》的白人。寫的目的是為了自我反省和自我批評，特別是因為我經過一段密集的自我教育，讓我重新評估遊戲促進的敘事。

In Five Blue Dragons, you play as a colonizer who goes on a spiritual journey to sever their spiritual attachments to colonialism as a system. The game requires you to respond, using the format of writing down journal entries, to prompts that interrogate you about the “how” and “why” behind your colonialist mentalities and practices. Some of these prompts ask you to imagine scenarios where you confront spiritual representations of people you have been complicit in oppressing, or other colonizers who want to manipulate you into abandoning your renunciation of colonialism. These are prompts that, on the surface level of content, do not grant you a clean and easy break from a position of violent dominance—but I believe that beyond the surface, they actually achieve the opposite.

在《五龍分魂》之中，你扮演的是一個為了要斷自己對殖民系統的執受而開始心靈旅程的殖民者。遊戲規定你必須利用寫日記項目的方式來回答審問你「如何」和「為什麼」有殖民性想法和行為的寫題。有些寫題要你想像心靈代表情形，面對被你串通壓迫的人，或著是其他想操縱你放棄脫離殖民主義的殖民者。在內容的表面上，這些寫題並不讓你從暴力性支配地位得到完全和簡單的絕裂—可是在表面下，我認為其實效果是相反。

Five Blue Dragons is a solo game—which means that it is a game that privileges a solo imaginary. In this case, it is a game that privileges the solo imaginary of the colonizer. It is a game where the colonizer can play at staging confrontations against those they've attempted to colonize, and those who want them to continue colonizing, all in the safety of their own head, progressing at the quiet leisure of their journaling pace, with no one to speak back to them except for the game's text as written. This is a game that allows white people to threaten their own whiteness safely, which is to say that this game is not threatening at all.

《五龍分魂》是個單人遊—也就是個優待單人想像力的遊戲。在這個情況之下，這就是個優待殖民者單人想像力的遊戲。這就是個殖民者能玩玩跟被他試圖作為殖民目標的人，以及希望他繼續進行殖民任務的人，創造對抗場面的遊戲，一切都在自己腦海的安全之中，按照平靜休閒的日記節奏進展，除了遊戲上寫的字沒人能跟他提出反對。這是個能讓白人安全地危害自己白狀的遊戲，也就是說這遊戲一點都不危害。

Why should this game have been more threatening? As I wrote in my Designer Notes, “I created this game to explore the concept of a colonizer abandoning hope for moral redemption in pursuit of moral accountability.” Moral accountability, of course, to those they attempted to colonize. As Paulo Freire writes in Pedagogy of the Oppressed, “To affirm that men and women are persons and as persons should be free, and yet to do nothing tangible to make this affirmation a reality, is a farce” (50). And this game, in focusing entirely on the colonizer's psychological patterns of failure to reach that affirmation, fails to acknowledge, let alone challenge the farce. And so I hesitate, now, to even call this a game about the colonizer's pursuit of moral accountability. I believe this is a game about the colonizer's pursuit of escape from their fear of having to face moral accountability, which is a very different thing.

為什麼這遊戲該更加危害？就跟我在〈設計思想〉中寫說的一樣：「我創造這遊戲是為了要探索殖民者放棄道德上救贖的希望，改追求道德上問責的概念。」當然，道德上的問責是指被他試圖作為殖民目標的人。就跟保羅·弗萊雷在《被壓迫者教育學》中寫說的一樣：「要肯定男人和女人都是人，而作為人就應該是自由的，但卻不做任何實質性的事情來使這一肯定成為現實，這實在是滑稽之舉。」而這個遊戲，因為完全都在關注殖民者失敗得到那肯定的心理模式，連要承認那滑稽之舉都失敗了，更不用說去挑戰的解果。所以現在，我連說這個遊戲在描述殖民者道德上問責的追求都不想說。我認為這是個描述殖民者要逃避面對道德上問責的恐懼的遊戲，是個完全不同的東西。

Given that I consider this game complicit with upholding a political farce that protects the very system of oppression it intends to criticize, I no longer feel comfortable giving or receiving endorsement for this game. I will be demonetizing it immediately after the posting of this devlog, and linking back to this devlog in future instances if people bring this game up in praise again.

鑒於我認為這遊戲串通支持了一個政治滑稽之舉，反而保護了本來要批評的壓迫制度，我不再願意為這個遊戲要求或接受認可。我將會在 po 完這開發日誌後馬上禁止接受此遊戲的付款，而且以後如果再有人稱讚這遊戲的話，我會連回這開發日誌。

這個開發日誌很受歡迎；據我所知 po 了之後也沒有人再提出《五龍分魂》這個遊戲的話了。

This devlog was well received, and to my knowledge, after posting it, no one brought up Five Blue Dragons ever again.

《幽靈島》是我第二有意設計的政治遊。這個遊戲進化了很多次—本來計畫是想做個普世革命的遊戲（真傻），而且是想做個動作遊戲（ㄘㄟˊ），利用地下城的探索來代表政治性鬥爭的感覺。本來是想用別人的系統來做，即 Chris McDowall 的《Into the Odd》（中文：進入異常）和 Ajey Pandey 的《BOLT》（中文：閃電））。不確定是不是因為想支持 Ajey 所以從 ItO 換到《BOLT》，可是我記得不再用《BOLT》的原因是因為 Swordsfall 在推特上說 Ajey 送他的 email 有種族歧視；我在 Discord 發私訊問 Ajey 他要怎麼辦，他說因為怕那時候《BOLT》的 Kickstarter 會少錢，什麼話都不想說，所以我就跟他斷絕。然後因為想不出系統該是什麼，我去參考了一大堆政治媒體（書、文章、TRPG）來幫忙找出答案。在這段研究期之中，我第一次接觸到後來會影響我很大的情境思想。

Phantom Island was my second intentionally political game. This game had many evolutions—originally my plan was to make a game about universal revolution (how ridiculous), and I wanted to make it an action game (of course), using dungeon crawls to represent the feeling of political struggle. Originally I wanted to use other people's systems, namely Chris McDowall's Into the Odd and Ajey Pandey's BOLT. I'm not sure if I switched from ItO to BOLT because I wanted to support Ajey, but I remember the reason I stopped using BOLT was because Swordsfall said on Twitter that Ajey had sent him a racist email; I had PM'd Ajey on Discord asking him what he was going to do, and he said because he was afraid of losing money on the BOLT Kickstarter at the time, he wasn't going to say anything, so I cut contact with him. And then because I couldn't figure out what system to use, I went to consult a bunch of political media (books, articles, tabletop games) to help me find the answer. In this research period I first encountered situationist ideas that would later become a greater influence on me.

我開始把 TRPG 想成創造情境的辦法，雖然回頭看我覺得這樣理解太簡單化（那時候我不知道「情境」其實是個術語，以為意思跟普遍的用處一樣，也還沒讀過范內格姆在《日常生活的革命》之中對扮演角色的批評）。反正我的目標變了—我受到 Alejandro de Acosta 在〈進出情境迷宮〉寫的這幾句話的影響：「要來建造自由，就來建造情境：微界、暫行微社，同時轉化障礙和受阻物。」這就是我理想的遊戲經驗—如果遊戲是障礙而玩家是遊戲的受阻物，那我希望遊玩能同時轉化遊戲和玩家自己。

I started thinking of tabletop games as ways to create situations, although in retrospect I feel this was an oversimplified understanding (at that time I didn't know “situation” referred to a specific term, and thought that it was being used in a general way, and I hadn't read Vaneigem's critique against playing roles in The Revolution of Everyday Life). In any case my goal had changed—I was influenced by what Alejandro de Acosta had written in “Ways In and Ways Out of the Situationist Labyrinth”: “To construct freedom, construct situations: micro-worlds, provisional micro-societies, in which the obstacle and what it blocks are simultaneously transformed.” This was my dream game experience—if the game was an obstacle and the player was what it blocked, then I hoped that play would simultaneously transform the game and its players.

因此，《幽靈島》變成了一個抒情似的遊戲，設計是故意模糊玩家跟玩家角色的界線。玩家扮演的是被國家試圖清除記憶的囚犯，同時也扮演清不掉記憶的「幽影眾」。在遊戲過程中，玩家們會互相分享自己真正體驗過社會安排的無義的記憶，但不能在分享中說出對別人記憶的感想—只能在分享完之後才能說，而且限制只能說一個字。遊戲再規定這些感想必須組成一張單字表；蹊蹺是遊戲也規定必須要隔一段時間才能把感想記錄下來，強迫玩家接受忘記感想的體驗。遊戲的單字表規定必須要記錄每個人的感想字，如果記不得的話必須用遊戲預先設定的單字表來補。

And so, Phantom Island became a lyric-like game, with the design purposely blurring the lines between player and player character. You played as a prisoner whose memories the state attempted to erase, while simultaneously playing “The Phantom Collective” of inerasable memories. During the course of the game, players would go around sharing real memories of experiences injustice due to the world's social organization, though nobody could express reactions while anybody else shared their memories—only after all memories were shared, and only restricted to one word of reaction. The game then required that these reactions must be compiled into a table of words, the catch was that the game also required that the players must wait a period of time before recording their reactions, forcing them to accept the experience of forgetting. The game's table required that everyone's reaction word must be recorded, and if you couldn't remember the word, you had to use the game's predefined table of words to fill in the blank.

在《幽靈島》的第一版本，遊戲的預先設定的單字表是從我另一個遊戲《死貓兒頭》來的。《死貓兒頭》是個佛教遊（我信佛，但是信得很荒誕），遊戲利用冒險家不知道為什麼被怪物殺死的情形來要求玩家想像如何脫離導致這解果的遊戲系統。在第二版本，單字表是個人性，是從我在遊戲中新加的詩來的，玩家會在這時刻集體地朗讀。這首詩其實是為了一位獨立 TRPG 設計師同事寫的—我不想說出這個人的名字，因為接下來的故事被傳出去之後我知道只會被用來傷害他的聲明，不會有問責；關於我在這故事中犯的錯，我當時有試圖問這設計師問責是什麼，可是他不想回答。另外一方面是，這是好幾年發生過的故事，先後順序肯定有參差不齊—但是我盡力說出真實。

In the first version of Phantom Island, the predefined table came from another one of games, Head of a Dead Cat. Head of a Dead Cat was a Buddhist game (I am Buddhist, but in an absurd way) that used a monster's senseless murder of an adventurer to ask the player how to escape the game system that produced this result. In the second version, the table was personal, derived from a new poem I added for players to read aloud at this point in the game. This poem was actually written for a fellow indie TTRPG designer—I don't want to say this person's name, because I know the following story, if circulated, will only be used to damage their reputation, and not create accountability; as for the wrongs I've done in this story, I asked the designer at the time what accountability would look like, but they refused to give me an answer. The other side is, this is a story that happened several years ago, and there are definitely discrepancies in the timeline—but I've striven to express the truth.

故事是這樣：我在推特上看到這設計師在批評圈子的殖民主義時候，認為他批評中有說了一些種組歧視的意見。我很不該的在私訊臭罵他如果要為了得到一種正義而支持另外一種壓迫，那他就沒資格談正義—說完後我就封鎖了他的帳戶。我那時候很蠢地認為這樣為了指出不公正提嗓罵人是該做的事；我現在知道不對，而且不注意的話還有可能越過界線變成言語虐待。

The story went something like this: I saw this designer say something I believed was racist in a criticism against colonialism in the scene on Twitter. I shouldn't but did send them a private message fiercely yelling at them, saying that if they sought one kind of justice at the expense of upholding another kind of oppression, then they had no right to speak of justice—and then I blocked their account. At the time I foolishly believed that raising your voice like this to yell at someone for the sake of pointing out injustice was something you ought to do; now I know that's not right, and also if you're not careful it's possible to cross the line and end up causing verbal abuse.

後來我看到了互相跟髓者明顯在不點名推文批評我對那設計師私下說的話，批評我這樣在這殖民主義的批評之中亂罵人家種組歧視才是在支持壓迫，而且如果我相信那殖民主義的批評之中真的有種組歧視的話，請不要在跟他們圈子那部分的人交往。同時，我也發現我在推特的跟隨者突然失去了很多。有這麼生氣的反應，因為我認為真實的程度與說話者的憤怒程度是正比（這也不對），那時候的我馬上認為自己才是錯的，開始做更多政治研究去改善我的想法。研究完之後，我解除那設計師的封鎖，試圖在私訊中道歉，說我原本的種組歧視的批評不太對。他完全不回，反而在不點名推文中罵我說我的行為像施虐者一樣，說我這樣不算是真正的道歉。所以我再次送個私訊問他說真正的道歉倒底是什麼，他也不回。我是在這沒救的時刻寫了那首詩，放在我推特封面圖上，希望這樣能重新開始對話：

Later I saw a mutual in an obvious subtweet criticizing what I had said to that designer in private, criticizing that me falsely accusing people of racism in this context of criticizing colonialism was the real upholding of oppression, and that if I believed that their criticism of colonialism had racist opinions in it, to please stop associating with their part of the scene. At the same time, I also noticed I had suddenly lost a lot of followers. With such an angry response, because I was convinced that the degree of truth is proportional to the anger with which it is spoken (this was also incorrect), the me at the time immediately became convinced I was in the wrong, and started to do more political research to reform my mind. After the research, I unblocked that designer and attempted to apologize in PMs, saying that my initial criticism of racism was not entirely correct. They refused to respond, and instead subtweeted me for acting like an abuser, saying that this was not a real apology. So I sent them another PM asking them what a proper apology would be, to which they also didn't respond. It was in this moment of hopelessness that I wrote the poem, putting it in my Twitter header, hoping this would reopen conversation:

and I am interested in cruelty / but probably not / in the way that you're thinking of. / I'm interested in what we do / under the shadows of the lines we draw / called necessity, those shadows / under which choice goes to die / and there are some of us / who can draw their lines without shadows / who can kill choice in broad daylight / and I am not one of them / not because I am afraid of the killing / but because I am ashamed / there are so many of us / who draw no lines / who still cross our lines / and call that keeping choice alive

而我的興趣是殘忍 / 但因該不是 / 跟你想像中㇐樣。 / 我的興趣是我們 / 在畫分線之下的陰影 / 當作是必要的事，那些陰影 / 之下是選擇去死 / 而我們之間某些人 / 能畫出無影的分線 / 能在大白天之下把選擇殺死 / 而我屬不虞他們 / 不是因為我怕殺 / 是因為我感到慚愧 / 我們有那麼多人 / 連線都不畫 / 連分都還過 / 還當作是選擇在求生

沒用。我最後只能遵守那互相跟髓者的命令，禁止自己跟那圈子的部分交往（除了一個知道這件是跟我說可以繼續交往的人）。你問現在的我對這件事的評估怎樣，我會說我有可能真的有言語虐待這個設計師—我沒有私訊所以不能核實。無論如何，為了這個原因那設計師跟他圈子的部分完全有理對我有這樣的反應。可是在政治方面，現在的我認為那設計師的反殖民主義批評是陣營主義性的，我不同意。可是不管那設計師、那圈子部份的人和圈子全體對我的負面看法，自己因為虐待有 PTSD 的我認為我的行為觸發了那設計師，他這樣為了一個私訊召集了一大堆人反對我以及一直用不點名推文來跟我溝通都是受過精神創傷的行為，該慈悲地對待。________，如果你正在讀這些話，對不起，我不該那樣罵你，而且一開始就是該道這個歉—但是我也該誠實地說我不能為自己有你反對的政治意見而道歉。

It didn't. In the end I could only obey that mutual's command, banning myself from further interactions with that part of the scene (with the exception of one person who knew what happened and let me continue relations). If you asked me what I think about the incident today, I would say that there was a possibility I actually was verbally abusive towards that designer—I don't have the PMs anymore so I can't check. Regardless, I believe that designer and their part of the scene had perfect sense in reacting to me like this for that reason. But on a political level, the present me believes that that designer's anticolonial criticism was campist, and I don't agree. But regardless of how that designer, that part of the scene, or the scene in general views me negatively, as someone who has PTSD due to abuse, I believe that my behaviors triggered that designer, and that them rallying so many people to act against me in response to one private message and them refusing to communicate with anything but subtweets was all traumatized behavior, and should be treated with compassion. ________, if you're reading this, I'm sorry, I shouldn't have yelled at you like that, and that's what I should have apologized for at the start—however I must also say with honesty that I cannot apologize for having political opinions that you oppose.

我花那麼多時間談《幽靈島》中的詩的故事背景是因為跟從詩組成的單字表設計功能有關。功能是阻止玩家的表達。填完單字表之後，玩家們會再次分享之前的記憶，但這次只能用單字表的字來說話；這次大家能隨意說出感想，但分享記憶的人還是只能用單字表回答。分享完後，隔一段規定的時間，單字表再重組—但是這次忘記的單字留個空行。然後，玩家們又再次朗讀那首詩，但這次詩的結尾有改變：

My reason for spending so much time to talk about the backstory behind the poem in Phantom Island is because it's related to the function of the table of words derived from it. That function is to block players from expressing themselves. After completing the table of words, players would again share the same memories from before, but this time only using words from the table to speak; this time everyone could freely express reactions, but the person sharing the memory still could only use words from the table to respond. After sharing and waiting for a mandated period of time, players would compose the table again—but this time forgotten words would be left as blank lines. And then, the players would collectively read aloud that poem again, but with a changed ending:

and there are some of us / who can draw their lines without shadows / who can kill choice in broad daylight / and I am not one of them / not because I am afraid of our silences / but because I wonder / why so many of us / are afraid of what happens / when we speak, and find our choices / still, and painfully / alive

而我們之間某些人 / 能畫出無影的分線 / 能在大白天之下把選擇殺死 / 而我屬不虞他們 / 不是因為怕我們之間的安靜 / 是因為我覺得奇怪 / 為什麼有那麼多人 / 害怕在話之中 / 發現我們的選擇 / 痛苦地還是 / 在求生

大家再最後一次分享同樣的記憶，這次暢所欲言地說出自己的故事和感想。分享完後，大家再最後一次說出一個感想字，這次不放回單字表，反而一起呼應彼此的字，再集體決定如何處理創造的回聲。

Finally everyone would share the same memories one last time, speaking freely in both storytelling and reactions. After sharing, everyone would say a reaction word one last time, but this time instead of putting it back into a table, they would echo each other's words, then collectively decide what to do with their echoes.

如果我能利用一個感想字來形容《幽靈島》，那就是「收回」。這是個關於收回自己的記憶、自己的話、自己跟別人的關係、自己跟世界的關係的遊戲。是個關於克服系統性異化的遊戲，但克服的方法不是靠冷酷的理論，而是分享被壓抑的感情—有令人不快地人道和自由主義—也不是在說冷酷理論是革命性政治的標記。反正我不再為這個遊戲設定革命性政治的目標，但最後的政治目標也沒想得很清楚—可是這思想模糊的狀況反映了我當時個人的糊塗，尤其是我跟圈子中其他設計師政治性衝突造成的糊塗。我想找出擺脫糊塗的逃路。呼應 Wendy Trevino 的話，這遊戲是來處理我自己的問題，但我也知道問題不能完全被遊戲處理。

If I could use one reaction word to describe Phantom Island, it would be “reclaim.” This is a game about reclaiming your memories, your words, your connections to other people, and your connection to the world. It's a game about overcoming systematic alienation, not through cold hard theory, but sharing repressed emotions—which makes it painfully humanitarian and liberal—not that cold hard theory is the mark of revolutionary politics either. In any case, I had given up on the original goal of making the game about revolutionary politics, but I didn't think through the final political goal of the game very well either—but this condition of muddled thinking reflected my own confusion at the time, especially the confusion caused by my political conflicts with other designers in the scene. I wanted a way out of the confusion. To echo Wendy Trevino, this game was to sort out my own issues, but I knew that the issues couldn't be completely sorted out by the game.

列表第四個遊戲，《味道》，我本來不確定該不該列入，因為回頭看它的政治目標很低。《味道》原本是為了亞裔創作者的電馭叛客製作營寫的—因此，我開頭的設計目標不是要反映某種政治思想，而是要雙面反映賽博龐克類型跟亞裔身分。寫完這句話，發覺現在的自己好像是把太接近自由主義的思想歸於「不算是政治思想」的類別，因為我把革命性思想作為「真正的政治思想」的標準（這樣有點精英）。革命價值放在一邊，《味道》還是個政治遊戲，只是現在的我看不起。

The fourth game on the list, Smelltracks, I initially wasn't sure whether to include, because in retrospect its political goals were very low. Smelltracks was originally written for the Cyberpunk by Asian Creators Game Jam—accordingly, my starting design goal for it wasn't to reflect some type of political thinking, but to reflect both sides of the cyberpunk genre and Asian identity. After writing this sentence, I realize that the present me seems to think that any thinking that's too close to liberalism should be put into the “doesn't count as political thinking” category, because I've set revolutionary thinking as the standard for “real political thinking” (which is kind of elitist). Setting revolutionary merits aside, Smelltracks was still a political game, albeit one that the present me looks down upon.

不管版本，《味道》的基本前提是把遊戲作為散發宣言的媒介。所謂的宣言是描述身為台美人的我當「種族賽博格」有個「隱喻的私生子」的感覺，認為關注的不該是了解種族身份，而是了解做種族分配的壓迫性起源。這宣言非常被 Wendy Trevino 的《Cruel Fiction》（中文：殘忍的幻想）影響，特別是〈Brazilian Is Not a Race〉（中文：巴西人不是人種）的部分。廣廣來說，Trevino 的詩和推文（沒錯，我說推文）大量影響了我 2020 到 2021 年的政治思想發展；我也覺得很榮幸在刪除推特帳號之前能跟她是互相跟隨者。她從來沒理過我關於遊戲在 po 的事，可是這我不計較。

Regardless of version, the basic premise of Smelltracks was to make the game into a vehicle for spreading a manifesto. The manifesto in question described how, as a Taiwanese American “ethnic cyborg,” I felt like a “metaphorical bastard” who was convinced that the focus shouldn't be on understanding ethnic identity, but on understanding the oppressive origins of ethnic divisions. This manifesto was heavily influenced by Wendy Trevino's Cruel Fiction, especially the section of “Brazilian Is Not A Race.” Broadly speaking, Trevino's poems and tweets (yes, I said tweets) were huge influences on the development of my political thinking from 2020 to 2021; I also felt very honored that before deleting my Twitter account we had been mutuals. She never bothered to interact with anything I posted on games, but that I'm not bothered with.

《味道》的故事內容在不同版本之間也沒有太多變化。玩家扮演的是 24 小時全年無休電話服務中心的服務人員，為了準時睡覺和上班被公司規定要吃特別的安眠藥，吃了會體驗公司設計的夢。大逆轉是一個華裔賽博格龐克侵入公司的夢，利用夢的空間來散發宣言，就跟我利用遊戲做一樣。後來的變體目標也就是想出如何增強宣言的散發。最有創意的是第二版的《#SMELLTRACKS》：遊戲的結局邀請玩家到我改成部分機器人的推特帳號，把每幾小時自動 po 出 280 字長度的隨機宣言段按照順序排好。很多人對這些宣言段推文很有興趣，可是興趣的不是宣言段的政治要旨，而是宣言段描述的私人心情，像我跟我父親的關係的內容。這失敗的經驗使我放棄第二版的推特模式，在第三版本的設計者評論之中我冒著犬儒態度地說自己只是在「鑽景觀制度的空子」。

The story of Smelltracks also didn't really change much between versions. You played as a customer service agent at a 24/7 call enter, required by your company to take sleeping pills for the sake of making sure you sleep and clock in on time; these sleeping pills would also make you experience company-programmed dreams. The plot twist was that a Sino cyborg punk would hack into the company dream, using the space of the dream to distribute the manifesto, like me using the game to do the same. Later versions of Smelltracks aimed to figure out how to enhance this distribution. The most creative version was the second version #SMELLTRACKS: the end of the game invited players to visit my partially-converted-to-bot twitter account and put the random 280-character-long manifesto fragments posted every couple hours in order. Many people were interested in these manifesto fragment tweets, but instead of being interested in the political message of the fragments, they were more interested in the personal feelings, like content about the relationship between me and my father. The experience of this failure led me to abandon the Twitter format of v2, which I cynically described in the designer commentary of v3 as nothing but “gaming the spectacle.”

那第三版又有什麼問題？在第三版，我第一次試圖合併亞裔音樂家的配音和遊戲的文字；這配音我在第一版時候就編輯好了，只是到第三版為止都只放在一邊當外加內容。配音中精選的歌詞的確是增強了宣言和遊戲故事的要旨，可是這不是我唯一的改變。在視覺方面，我還有利用文字對齊方式來代表故事中的情緒發展。我對這些改變的批評就是：為了要增強要旨的效果，我同時增強了玩家的被動觀眾角色。這批評其實可以廣廣說《味道》這整個遊戲的發展，也就是為什麼我在政治方面上很討厭這個遊戲。遊戲的設計該在遊戲中讓玩家呈現更主動的角色，不是要玩家乖乖當宣傳鼓動的接受者。

And what were the problems with the third version? In the third version, I attempted for the first time to integrate a soundtrack of Asian musicians with the text of the game; this soundtrack I had already finished compiling in v1, but up until v3 it had just been sitting to the side as extra content. The featured soundtrack lyrics absolutely enhanced the messages of the manifesto and the story of the game, but this wasn't the only change I made. On a visual level, I also used text alignment to represent emotional developments in the story. My criticism of all these changes is: for the sake of enhancing the effect of my messages, I simultaneously enhanced the role of the player as a passive spectator. This criticism actually extends to the entire development of Smelltracks as a game, which is why I really hate it on a political level. The design of a game should let the player take on a more active role during the game, not demand that the player obediently serve as an agitprop receiver.

第五項目，〈映像之龍〉，不是遊戲而是關於我帶團經驗失敗的文章。在這個文章之中，我重新評估了《五龍分魂》開發日誌的結論，意識到多人遊玩的模式不會改掉單人遊的問題，反而會相乘—玩家會互相要求保護彼此的政治滑稽之舉。我又回到《系統破滅》把遊玩中追求的自由帶回日常生活的夢想，更堅定地確認遊戲不能類比真正的解放，只能類比在現實中解放的限制。這新的結論後來變解性遊的核心，從接下來的最後兩個遊戲開始：《你提供的油漆》和《天丑！》。

The fifth item, “The Dragon in the Mirror,” was not a game but an essay about my failure to GM a game. In this essay, I reevaluated the conclusion of Five Blue Dragons' devlog, realizing that a multiplayer format wouldn't solve the problems of solo play, but instead multiply them—players would mutually ask each other to protect their own political farces. I returned once again to System Shatters' dream of bringing the pursuit of freedom from play back to everyday life, more staunchly affirming that games could not simulate real liberation, only simulate the limits of liberation in reality. This new conclusion eventually became the core of agonist play, starting with the last two subsequent games: You Provide the Paint and Fools of Heaven!.

什麼是解性遊？我直到開始與圈子隔離之後才寫了一個文章開始回答這個問題。在文章的開始，我把解性遊定義為「要結束英雄的遊玩」—但到了文章的結尾，我加上了新的「更挑釁的定義」：是「想徹底革命的遊玩」。要了解我是怎麼跳到這種結論，必須在我的政治遊發展歷史背景之下理解解性遊的發展。最明顯的是《幽靈島》，但《#SMELLTRACKS》跟〈映像之龍〉的發展之中也可以看得出來我跟英語獨立 TRPG 圈子的關係開始變得越來越有對抗性。我開始認為在遊戲的背景之中，自己的政治思想佔的是被敵視的位置，因此作為遊戲設計師的我開始扮演被敵視的角色。

What is agonist play? This is question I didn't start to answer in formal writing until after I started distancing myself from the scene. In the start of the essay, I defined agonist play as “play that seeks to end Heroes”—but by the end of the essay, I had added a new “more provocative definition” of “play that seeks total revolution.” To understand how I made this logical leap, you have to understand the development of agonist play in the context of my history of political game development. It's most obvious in Phantom Island, but in #SMELLTRACKS and “The Dragon in the Mirror's” developments too you can see how my relationship with the anglosphere indie TTRPG scene was starting to become more and more antagonistic. I started to believe that in the context of games, my own political views occupied a position of being viewed as the enemy, and so as a game designer I started playing the role of being villainously seen.

《你提供的油漆》是個「對抗性的世界建構遊戲」，說自己的設計目標是「反映玩家面在對彼此之中的遊戲行為顯示他們遊戲之外現實道致壓迫性等級制度的經驗」（也就是我在〈映像之龍〉中描述的問題）。玩家扮演的是不同虛構政治派的部隊，在遊戲強迫它們彼此殘殺的系統之中互相鬥爭，最侯要結束遊戲的話只有三個選擇：解罪（大家集體自殺）、革命（大家集體拒絕殘殺，瞬間創造系統規則失敗處理的新狀態）、競爭（大家拒絕組織，維持現狀）。有人看完這遊戲之後在 itch.io 上問我能不能把解罪的結局改得宣洩一點。這種屁話就是我必須在圈子之中忍受的事。我清清楚楚地說我的設計關注的是政治系統，為什麼你就是要我管你的個人情緒？簡直就是在重複《#SMELLTRACKS》的情形。

You Provide the Paint was an “adversarial worldbuilding game” that said its design goal was to “mirror the experience of players confronting each other about how their fictional conduct is reflecting their real complicities in upholding oppressive hierarchies outside the fiction” (just as I described in “The Dragon in the Mirror”). You played as forces of different fictional political factions, struggling against each other in the system of a game that forced you to mutually kill each other, having only 3 options to end the game: absolution (everyone collectively kills themselves), revolution (everyone collectively refuses to kill, instantly creating a new condition that the rules of the system have failed to cover), or competition (everyone refuses to organize, maintaining the status quo). After seeing this game someone on itch.io asked me if I couldn't make the ending for absolution more cathartic. This kind of bullshit was what I had to put up with in the scene. I clearly said that my design was focused on political systems, why must you insist that I care about your personal feelings? It was like what happened with #SMELLTRACKS all over again.

《天丑！》的設計風格跟《你提供的油漆》很像，又冒著對抗性的作者語氣和基於理論分析虛構政治情況的玩法。不同的是《天丑！》試圖合併我的政治信仰跟華裔文化中「俠」的概念。靈感來源於 J.Y. 的《天下江湖》為「俠」做的無治主義定義：

The design style for Fools of Heaven! was very similar to that of You Provide the Paint, once again featuring an adversarial authorial tone and gameplay based in theoretical analysis of fictional political conditions. The difference was that Fools of Heaven! attempted to integrate my political beliefs and Sino culture's concept of “俠 xia” (sometimes translated as “heroes,” but my preferred rendering is “justice.”). The inspiration came from the anarchist definition of 俠 in J.Y.'s Under Heaven, Underworld:

All heroes are criminals. To put it as delicately as possible, the function of a society is to protect and provide [for] a certain class of people. In the present day, oftimes members of this group is a particular combination of ethnicity, sexuality, ideology, and social standing. But at the same, certain outliers and nonconformists are tolerated and allowed provisional status within the group for as long as they are valued. As such, no one is safe. Anyone can find their fortunes reversed, cast from polite society for something done out of recklessness, desperation, or fear. An underworlder knows this, for they have always been outcasts. The poor, adherents of non-state-sanctioned faiths, outlaws, those of non-conforming sexualities, political dissidents; they are not wanted by any save themselves. They must protect and provide for themselves, and society often punishes them for doing so.

所有的俠都是罪犯。盡量謹慎地說，社會的作用就是為了要保護和養活某個階級的人。當今，這群人常常有特別種族、性傾向、主義和社會地位的組合。同時，某些異常者和不落俗套者只要繼續有用就會被容忍和允許佔群中的臨時地位。因為如此，沒人安全。任何人都有可能發現自己運氣倒轉，為了在魯莽、情急或害怕之下做的事而被禮貌社會驅逐。江湖人知道這件事，因為他們歷來都是棄兒。窮人、非國家認可宗教的信徒、不法者、有不落俗套性傾向的人、持不同政見者；這些人除了自己之外都沒人要。他們必須保護和養活自己，社會也常因為這樣要他們被處罰。

Heroes understand, in their bones, that the calling of morality is higher than the word of legality. The law – as an instrument of the state – only has moral content coincidental to its creation. Not merely how a law is written, but how it is interpreted, tolerated, and enforced. Some laws are known to be immoral, but kept to punish those who cannot be punished by other means, amidst false promises to not do so. Other laws are enforced brutally for one group and not at all for another. This happens in both our own world and the world of Under Heaven, Underworld, every day.

俠知道，直覺知道，道德的責任比法律的命令還高。法律 – 作為國家的手段 – 的道德內容只有跟它的創造有碰巧。不只是法規的寫法，也包括理解、允許、實行。有些法規被認為是沒有道德，但被留著來處罰無法利用別的方式處罰的人，在答應不會的虛偽之下。其他的法規會針對一群人殘酷地實行，完全不管另一群人。這些事在我們跟《天下江湖》的世界中，天天都在發生。

雖然這個定義當時讓我感到同志情誼，現在的我對混合政治跟道德與正義（我為「俠」最常利用的英文譯）的唯心主義有了犬儒的態度。我現在認為道德跟正義這兩個概念頂多是用來規訓別人的工具，不該是追求解放的核心。可是這種想法我過很久才會找到。你將會觀賞到唯心主義的陷阱如何導致解性遊的壯觀失敗。

Even though this definition at the time evoked feelings of camaraderie, the present me now has a cynical attitude towards mixing politics with morality and justice (my chosen English term for translating 俠). Now I believe that the two concepts of morality and justice tools used at most for disciplining others, and that they shouldn't be at the core of pursuing liberation. But arriving at this view would take me a long time. You will soon see how the trap of idealism led to the spectacular failure of agonist play.

在《天丑！》之中，我再次回到龐克的類型，自己創了「俠 punk」的新詞：

俠 PUNK?!

就是指: 反抗自高自大的人所給我們造出的面子。反抗到極端: 拒絕面子的正當性，因為它和所有社會規範都一樣，只是等級制度的面具。拆穿所有代表等級的面具。為了拆穿你，我們便拆穿自己。

Means: A revolt against shame cast by those seeking to hold themselves above all others. Pushing our revolt to the limit: rejecting the legitimacy of shame because it is a mask of hierarchy, like all so-called norms. Unmasking all expressions of hierarchy. Unmasking ourselves to unmask you.

回頭看，俠 punk 的定義也跟犬儒看法有雷同，雖然寫的時候我的政治思想還沒被犬儒影響。俠 punk 反面子的正當性、為了要暴露代表等級制度再反所有社會規範、引誘大家互相暴露的希望—這都是在尋找煙霧（羅馬化希臘語：typhos）的擺脫，是在呼籲大家來過犬生（羅馬化希臘語：kynizein）。犬儒開始影響我政治思想是因為另一個影響我很大的作者，在《幽影島》發展中找到的 Alejandro de Acosta，在一篇文章中做了犬儒跟無治主義的聯繫； de Acosta 論證犬儒把個人生活作為優異的標準的態度能幫助對政治有類似看法的無治者。然而，我背離 de Acosta 之後參考利己主義的結論。如果你問當時的我如何合併犬儒和我的無治思想，我會說，如果個人生活必須是標準，那每個人的個人生活必須忠誠地代表事業—而代表事業就是我唯一存在的目的。借用後來在《血光俠》同人小說中寫的話，我把自己想像為「有用的屍體」（跟有用的白痴一樣），一生只能被事業領導。我也希望我的同志們都是這樣，一起過著屍生。

In retrospect, the definition of 俠 punk had a lot in common with cynic ideas, although at the time of writing my political thinking had not yet been influenced by the Cynics. 俠 punk's revolt against the legitimacy of shame, and subsequent revolt against all social norms for the sake of exposing hierarchy, and desire to lure everyone into mutually exposing each other—all this was in search of freedom from typhos, a call for everyone to turn dog (Romanized Greek: kynizein). The reason the Cynics started to influence my political thinking was because another writer who greatly influenced me, Alejandro de Acosta, whom I found during the development of Phantom Island, wrote an essay connecting the Cynics to anarchism; de Acosta argued that the Cynics' attitude of making personal life their criterion for excellence could help anarchists who looked at politics in a similar way. However, I depart from de Acosta's later conclusion to consult egoism. If you had asked the past me how to integrate the Cynics and my anarchist thinking, I would have said, if personal life must be the criterion, then everyone's personal life must faithfully represent the cause—and representing the cause would be the only cause for my existence. To borrow from what I later said in the fanfiction Blood Lanterns, I thought of myself as a “useful corpse” (like a useful idiot), with my whole life being entirely led by the cause. I had also hoped that my comrades would also be like this, like turned corpses.

因此不死的主題在《天丑！》跟後來的解性遊之中一直重複出現。在此文章一開始形容《天丑！》的設計之中，你可能注意到我第一次無意似的說出「政治信仰」這句話，與之前的「政治思想」相反。這不是意外。之前我也說過我信佛；向我介紹俠義的 J.Y. 也信佛—而在《天丑！》的發展之中我也合併了宗教上虔誠的態度。《天丑！》的季節因依法謀殺的其中一個烈士而得名，但烈士是因中國神話中的四象得名。利用擲骰參考節氣神諭的玩法也有靈性感。在這史詩性的背景之中，玩家扮演的「可能在戰爭中失去的人」也就是可能因為死亡被傳奇化的人。此外，描述角色的唯一能力值是暴力等級—也就是說能體驗到傳奇化死亡的等級。等級中文名稱的「無明」和「越戒」也是從佛教來的（雖然第一等及的「進學」比較中性，全體分析有修行的內涵）。雖然在表面上名稱在利用佛教在傳統上視為有害的東西，在我個人瘋狗性的佛教思想之中，這是革命性的方便，是在利用一切必要的手段追求政治正覺。

And thus undeath became a recurring motif in Fools of Heaven! and the agonist games that followed. At the start of describing the design of Fools of Heaven! in this essay, you may have noticed that I first slipped into saying “political beliefs” as opposed to “political thinking.” This was not an accident. Earlier I mentioned that I was Buddhist; J.Y. who introduced me to 俠 righteousness was also Buddhist—and in development I also integrated religiousness into Fools of Heaven!. The seasons in Fools of Heaven! were named after martyrs murdered by the law, but the martyrs were named after the Four Symbols in Chinese mythology. The gameplay of rolling dice and consulting an oracle of seasonal terms also carried spiritual meaning. In this epic context, the “someone with the potential to become lost in conflict” you played as was also someone who could be become legendary through death. Furthermore, the only stats defining the player character was levels of violence—in other words levels of experiencing legendary death. The Mandarin names for the levels of “lightless” (無明, avidya) and “limits” (越戒, violating precepts) also came from Buddhism (even though the first level's “learning” (進學) is more neutral, analyzed collectively it has the connotation of undergoing spiritual refinement). Even though on the surface these names used concepts that Buddhism traditionally views as harmful, in my own mad dog Buddhism, this is revolutionary upaya, the pursuit of political enlightenment by any means necessary.

最重要的是，《天丑！》沒分玩家和非玩家角色—所有的角色都能作為瘋狗神風的革命家。《天丑！》的「天」是指天命；遊戲之中的角色是在反上天與帝王設計的世界—我是在描寫全球對宇宙起源發動的戰爭，在實現當時《幽靈島》寫不出來的普世革命夢想。

Most importantly, Fools of Heaven! does not make a divide between player and non-player characters—all characters can be kamikaze mad dog revolutionaries. The “Heaven” in Fools of Heaven! referred to divine fate itself; the game's characters were opposing a world designed by God and emperors—I was describing a war waged by all the world's people against cosmology, realizing the dream of universal revolution that I couldn't create in Phantom Island.

那時候，我覺得自己好像是在創造力的巔峰。就是在這個時期之中，我開始我跟 Nimona 註定毀滅的友誼。 Nimona 就是因為我的遊戲想自殺那個朋友的名字。她跟我一樣是台灣人，可是是在台灣長大居住的台灣人。除了我跟沒特別有交往的 Sen H.H.S.，我在英語獨立 TRPG 設計圈子中從來沒見過其他的台灣人設計師，所以我很興奮地想結識她。回頭看，當初未診斷待分類人格障礙的我和有診斷邊緣人格的她之間的互動就是不正常；我認為她是從最喜歡的人的角度來看我，也認為我有自戀似地鼓勵這種看法。

At that time, I felt like I was at the height of my creative power. It was during this time I began my doomed friendship with Nimona. Nimona was the name of the friend who wanted to kill themselves because of my game. Like me xe was Taiwanese, but one who had grown up and lived in Taiwan. Besides me and Sen H.H.S., whom I never interacted much with, I had never met any other Taiwanese designers in the anglosphere indie TTRPG scene, so I was very eager to make xer acquaintance. In retrospect, the yet to be diagnosed with Unspecified Personality Disorder past me and the already diagnosed with Borderline xem had a dysfunctional dynamic right from the start; I believe xe viewed me as a favorite person, and that I narcissistically encouraged this view.

Nimona 當時在自己現已刪除的 itch.io 網頁上說自己是個機會均等的冒犯者。她說她不知道正義是什麼，但她支持報仇的實踐，認為是在「balancing the scales」（讓天平變平衡）。我常常在推特上看她臭罵別的她認為有做錯事的人，罵得兇到有時讓我覺得很害怕。但為了要保持關係，我一直告訴自己這是她為了政治正覺的的佛教似方便，是所謂「利用一切必要的手段」的表明。在政治主義上，我不記得她有沒有直接說過自己是無治主義者，可是我記得她有說在無治思想的方面上，她比較偏利己主義—現在的我因為跟她的聯繫對利己主義有反感。

At the time, Nimona described xerself on xer now-deleted itch.io page as someone who was an equal opportunity offender. Xe said xe didn't know what justice was, but that xe supported a praxis of revenge, believing that it was “balancing the scales.” On Twitter I often saw xem verbally lashing out against those whom xe believed had done wrong, to extents that sometimes made me disturbed. But because I wanted to maintain our relationship, I kept telling myself that this was xer Buddhist-like upaya for the sake of political enlightment, a manifestation of “by any means necessary.” On a level of political ideology, I don't remember if xe had ever directly said that xe was an anarchist, but I remember xe had said that with respect to anarchist thinking, xe was more on the egoist side—and now because of this association with xer egoism turns me off.

雖然有這麼多的危險信號，我那時候堅持要把 Nimona 視為同志。我邀請了她跟 J.Y. 跟我一起組成一個同寅似組織叫下划众 / 下標眾，目的是要批評英語獨立 TRPG 圈子中的反激進主義和給其他跟我們一樣沒有名的創作者一個自己的平台，尤其是有色人，因為圈子中最受歡迎的大多都是白人。事實上，大部份是因為幾個禮拜之後我跟 Nimona 的關係就垮了，下划众 / 下標眾沒有做出什麼事—頂多在推特上 po 了一些幾乎都沒有人理的東西（而且有理的人是白人盟友）。

Even though there were so many red flags, at that time I insisted on viewing Nimona as a comrade. I invited xem and J.Y. to form an affinity-like group called Underscore the Crowd, with the goal of criticizing the anglosphere indie TTRPG scene's antiradicalism and platforming other creators like us who were not renowned, especially people of color, because the most popular people in the scene were mostly all white. In reality, mostly because me and Nimona's relationship collapsed a couple weeks later, Underscore the Crowd never really did anything—at most we posted a couple things on Twitter that people ignored (and the people who didn't ignore it were white allies).

不過，在我們做的小事之中，把我對 Nimona 的個人行為和政治思想的問題擱在一邊，我還是很喜歡她為了我們寫的〈 FUCK YOU 〉反調。這反調正確地批評了圈子中大部分只希望在 TRPG 行業或業餘中作為多元的代表人，不是希望推翻造成他們邊緣化的系統，而是希望跟系統融合。在這些年來我就是在跟這種政治狀態爭鬥，終於能聽到別人的同意讓我覺得圈子的未來有了改變的潛力。

Nevertheless, among these little things we did, setting my problems with Nimona's personal conduct and political thinking aside, I still really like the “FUCK YOU” polemic xe wrote for us. This polemic correctly criticized the majority of people in the scene who just wanted to serve as representatives of diversity in the industry or hobby, who didn't want to overthrow the systems that created their marginalization, but to be included within those systems. In these past few years this was the political condition I had been fighting against, and to finally hear someone else agree with the fight made me feel that the future of the scene had the potential to change.

當然，事情不是那樣的發生。我在這文章的開始已經有連到別的說過我跟 Nimona 之間最後發生的事的文章；這些細節我不會再重複說。要加的是一點背景—如果你當時在推特跟隨我的話，接下來的事是舊新聞，因為我有利用私訊截圖公開分享這些事。 Nimona 跟我斷絕的原因是因為我跟她說我認為她的政治思想有些是反動性，而且不以真實的組織經驗為基礎。她罵我說台灣跟美國不一樣沒有所謂真正的政治反抗，愛管什麼是真實的基礎就回去秘密握手的小社團繼續過分自省。

Of course, things did not happen that way. At the start of this essay I already linked to another essay that described what ultimately happened between me and Nimona; these details I won't repeat again. What I will add is some more context—if you followed me on Twitter at the time, the following is old news, because I had shared this publicly with screenshots of DMs. The reason Nimona cut off contact with me was because I told xem that I believed some of xer political thinking was reactionary, and that it wasn't grounded in any real organizing experience. Xe yelled at me saying that unlike the U.S. Taiwan had no real political resistance, and that if I wanted to be obsessed with so-called real grounding I should go back to navel-gazing in my little secret handshake clubs.

回頭看，她跟我的斷絕和我跟 ______ 的斷絕有相似之處；跟對 _____ 一樣，我也是為被我傷害的 Nimona 寫了跟詩一樣的東西，雖然這次沒有要重新開始對話的意圖（然而還是被視為規避封鎖）。 Nimona 能從我寫的字得到我要她自殺的恐怖結論完全破壞了我對自己創作力的信心。她的自殺企圖那時候不知道為什麼有觸發我的 PTSD，後來回去看心理醫生才知道是因為小時候我虐待兒童的母親常在我不乖的時候在我面前試圖自殺。

In retrospect, Nimona cutting off contact with me had parallels with me cutting off contact with ______; just as with ______, I had written something like a poem for Nimona who I harmed, even though this time there was no intention to reopen conversation (nevertheless it was still perceived as block evading). That Nimona could draw the horrific conclusion of me wanting xer to go kill xemself from my words completely shattered my faith in my own creative power. At the time I didn't know why xer suicide attempted triggered my PTSD, only finding out later in therapy that it was because my abusive mother often tried to kill herself in front of me whenever I misbehaved.

我跟 Nimona 之間的衝突不是個黑白事件，但是我知道 Nimona 就是把我分裂成黑，感受就是覺得自己是個不乖到害母親想自殺的不孝孩子—也知道圈子對待人被傷害的情況習慣就是要有人當好人，有人當壞人。我說這些話的目的不是要為了洗脫罪名，而是要用這件事的結果做出政治方面的自我批評。解性遊的敵人立場和對死亡的頌揚就是我自己對極端黑白思想的吸引而產生出來的。對的人該活，錯的人該死—這是法西斯主義的想法，不管你多麼想浪漫化為了要解構對和錯而接受自殺命令的人。可是當時這不是我的結論。不，我的結論是如果必須有壞人該死，那就讓我當那個壞人，讓我當普世的替罪羊。我就是按照這樣的態度把自己從圈子中趕出去。

The conflict between me and Nimona was not a black-and-white incident, but I know Nimona split black on me, and I felt like an unfilial child whose misbehavior had caused my mother to want to kill herself—and I also knew that the scene's habit in addressing cases of people being harmed was to have someone be the good guy and someone be the bad guy. The goal of me saying all this isn't to clear my name, but to use the results of this incident to do some political self-crit. The antagonistic standpoint of agonist play and its glorification of death was produced by my own attraction to extreme black-and-white thinking. Right people should live, wrong people should die—this is fascist thought, no matter how much you want to romanticize those who accept the imperative to kill themselves for the sake of deconstructing right and wrong. But at that time that wasn't my conclusion. No, my conclusion was that if there must be a bad guy who dies, let me be the bad guy, let me be the universal scapegoat. And thus with this attitude I kicked myself out of the scene.

解性遊時代 Agonist Play Era (2021-2022)

1. 〈什麼是破壞遊？〉 “What Is a Sabotour?” (2021)
2. 〈什麼是解性遊？〉 “What Is Agonist Play?” (2022)
3. 《降天下世》 Felling Heaven, Felling World (2022)
4. 《下世萬敵》 Future Only Enemies (2022)

看看這些死項目名。我就告訴你會有壯觀的失敗。

Look at these fucking titles. I told you there would be spectacular failure.

Nimona 自殺企圖之後我不再利用 itch.io 的平台發布遊戲了。雖然 itch.io 本來就是有很多不同的社群用，我還是認為 itch.io 屬於獨立 TRPG 圈子的平台。身為被視為完全是錯的傷害者的人就不該污染那空間，不管這樣多麼簡化。話說清楚一點：我承認我有傷害人—別人說我有傷害就表示我有傷害，就是這樣—可是我不認為完全是我在錯。如果你認為害 = 錯 = 罪，認為傷害者不願意當罪人就表示傷害者不承認自己有造害，抱歉，我無話可說。我無法在你的問責系統之中負責。請隨心隨意地處理我。

After Nimona's suicide attempt I stopped using itch.io as a platform to release my games. Even though itch.io has always been used by many different groups, I still believe that itch.io is a platform that belongs to the indie TTRPG scene. As someone who's regarded as a harmdoer completely in the wrong, I shouldn't pollute that space, no matter how reductive that is. Allow me to be clear—I admit that I caused harm—if someone else says I caused harm that means I caused harm, period—but I am not convinced that I was completely in the wrong. If you believe that harm = wrong = crime or sin, that if a harmdoer is unwilling to act like they've sinned then it means they're unwilling to admit the harm they caused, then sorry, I have nothing else to say. I cannot be accountable in your system for accountability. Please dispose of me as you wish.

但是你必須知道我是直到現在很堅持地拒絕做出這種結論。Nimona 自殺企圖之後我有一段很長的時間認為自己永遠不能再寫新的 TRPG。每次想到設計時，我就只能想到自己的謀殺力量。我對自己有偏執，覺得每個寫下的字都有可能背叛我—但也覺得在某些情況之下，我就是該被背叛。因此我接下來的遊戲內容被這種感覺冤纏。

But you must know that up until now I have insisted on refusing to have this conclusion. After Nimona's suicide attempt there was a long period of time where I was convinced that I would never write another TTRPG again. Every time I thought about design, I could only think of my own murderous power. I started becoming paranoid towards myself, feeling that every word I wrote could betray me—while also feeling that in some cases, I deserved to be betrayed. And so my following game content was haunted by this feeling.

過了一段時間，「我製造遊戲就是在殺人」的想法漸漸離開。我願意把遊戲移到新的部落格，重新開始。那部落格的名稱就是可惡的「解性遊」。之前我說過解性遊有一種浪漫化為了明白對和錯而自殺的實踐；為了 Nimona 對自己進行報仇便社交自殺，也之前為了 _____ 做出同樣的事的我，希望在解性遊中尋找慰藉並不奇怪。

After a period of time, the thought of “me making games is murder” gradually subsided. I was willing to start again, by moving my games to a new blog. That blog's name was the vile Agonist Play. Earlier I had said that agonist play had a praxis of romanticizing suicide for the sake of understanding right and wrong; having carried out revenge against myself with social suicide for Nimona, and having done the same for _____ in the past, it was no wonder that I had wanted to find comfort in agonist play.

第一個任務就是要讓剩下願意跟我互動的人知道我是多麼有問題的遊戲設計師。〈什麼是破壞遊？〉就是這樣的努力。雖然破壞遊不是純粹的政治遊戲設計技術，因為它有情境者思想異軌技術的由來，也因為我不當地利用了它來造成我前同志想自殺的企圖，我把它的定義文章列入項目。很短，所以我在這裡重貼：

My first task was to let the remaining people who were willing to interact with me know how problematic of a game designer I was. “What Is a Sabotour?” was one of these attempts. Even though sabotourism was not a purely political game design technique, because it had origins in the situationist technique of détournement, and because I improperly used it to cause my former comrade to want to kill xemself, I've included its definitional essay in my list of items. It's short, so I'll repost it here:

A sabotour is an act of disrespect. 破壞遊是種無禮的行為。

It is to rip apart someone else's creation, and rearrange the pieces according to your own designs. 是把別人的作品毀裂，把碎片重新按照自己的意圖來排列。

It is to spit on someone else's designs and say, “I can do better than you.” 是唾棄別人的意圖，並且說: 「我能比你做得更好。」

Sabotourism is not an ideology, but a method for attacking other people's designs with creative violence. 破壞旅遊不是主義，而是利用創造性的暴力來攻擊別人意圖的做法。

Not all designs should be yours for sabotouring. 並不是所有的意圖都該給你拿去玩破壞。

And no matter what, a sabotourist must be responsible for where their sabotours ultimately take them. 而且無論如何的是，一個破壞遊客必須負擔他跟破懷遊玩到的最終地點。

可以看出來破壞遊首先是個藝術技巧。因此在〈什麼是破壞遊？〉之中我隱藏了它被情境者們的影響，他們的名字連提都沒提。當時的我直覺地覺得我好像把濫用了他們的異軌概念，有希望疏遠聯繫。跟對待獨立 TRPG 一樣，我又是不希望自己的錯誤污染他們的思想空間。

You can tell that sabotourism first and foremost was an art technique. That's why in “What Is a Sabotour?” I hid the fact that it was influenced by the Situationists, not even mentioning their name. At the time I intuitively felt that I had misappropriated their concept of détournement, and had the wish to distance myself from the connection. Like with indie TTRPG, I was trying to avoid polluting their space.

當然我對破壞遊有更多想說批評，但我要之後再處理。目前我想限制討論這概念如何反映我當時的政治遊戲設計思想。首先，我相指出這定義中跟解性遊設計同樣的對抗性作者態度。跟《系統破滅》、《你提供的油漆》和《天丑！》一樣，它認為接受開始的對抗是為了更高的事業，為了在互相鬥爭之中得到政治正覺。然而，在結尾中你可以意識到我對這態度的自我懷疑。我最有政治性的有意破壞遊造成極端無明的結果。我必須承認自己當過政治騙子，承認破懷遊的技巧可能最後只是能用來執行對人民的背叛。

Of course I have more criticisms to say about sabotourism, but I want to save that for later. Right now I want to restrict myself to discussing how this concept reflected my understanding of political game design at the time. First of all, I want to point out how this definitional essay and agonist game design share the same kind of antagonistic authorial attitude. Like System Shatters, You Provide the Paint, and Fools of Heaven!, it believes that accepting initial antagonism is for the sake of a higher cause, for the sake of achieving political enlightenment through mutual struggle. However, you can see my self-doubt towards this attitude in the ending. My most political intentional sabotour created such an extremely unenlightened result. I had to admit that I had been a political fraud, admit that the technique of sabotourism might ultimately only be used to betray the people.

追溯性地說，我有舊的遊戲能歸於破壞遊的種類。可以說《系統破滅》是個 DIY 破壞遊的自雜，也可以說《幽靈島》是個破壞自己的破壞遊。這新的體系能創造什麼新的意義？對於《系統破滅》，我認為加了一種免責聲明，一種警告—小心是哪些創作者被你敵視作為設計攻擊的目標，小心你在現實認為是在「限制自由」的任何東西都有可能是別人有理的對抗。但是要重新分析《幽靈島》，恐怕不是那麼的簡單。

Retroactively speaking, I had old games that I could place into the category of sabotour. You could say that System Shatters was a DIY sabotour zine, and you could also say the Phantom Island was a sabotour of itself. What new meaning does this new framework create? With regards to System Shatters, I think it adds a kind of disclaimer, a kind of warning—be careful what creators you view as enemies to target for attacking design, be careful that anything you think of as “restricting your freedom” in reality could be legitimate resistance from other people. But to reanalyze Phantom Island, unfortunately, is not as simple and easy.

《幽靈島》所謂算是「自己」的破壞目標其實有包刮兩方：我加上玩家。一方面，遊戲破壞的是在第一版的《死貓兒頭》或在第二版的詩，因為我把這些東西給玩家毀裂成單字表用來遊玩。另一方面，遊戲破壞的是玩家的記憶敘述，因為它規定玩家必續利用我的單字表來毀裂自己想說的話。也需要考慮單字表在第一版有佛教和西方奇幻的內容，在第二版有我跟 ______ 在 TRPG 圈子中互相政治對抗的內容。全體分析，我覺得《幽靈島》是在利用破懷遊的方式來探索各種不一致的敵視角度問題，在表現敵視跟社會控制的作用如何有相似之處。目標是輪迴似痛苦循環的解脫、拘押中心監牢似遊戲（或許也包刮遊戲圈子）的解脫、世界現狀的解脫—這最後一項目標不就是跟解性遊徹底革命遊玩的目標一樣嗎？在〈什麼是解性遊？〉之中，我說：

The “self” targeted for sabotour in Phantom Island actually includes two parties: me in addition to the players. On one hand, the game sabotours Head of a Dead Cat in the first version or my poem in the second, because I give these things to the players to rip apart into a table of words to play with. On the other hand, the game sabotours the players' narratives of memory, because it makes players use my table of words to rip apart what they wish to say. We also have to consider that in the first version the table of words contained content about Buddhism and Western fantasy, while in the second version the content was about me and _____'s mutual political struggle against each other in the TTRPG scene. Taken altogether, I think that Phantom Island used the method of the sabotour to explore the problematics of different angles of villainization in contradiction, expressing how villainization shared parallels in function with social control. The goal was to escape samsara-like cycles of suffering, escape the detention-center-prison-like game (and perhaps also the game scene), escape the current state of the world—and wasn't this last goal the same as the goal of agonist play's play to seek total revolution? In “What is Agonist Play?,” I had said:

The ultimate stage of agonist play is quitting the game to realize that play's completion. The fictional world is but a playground where we can imagine total control over our own realities. The horizon of the real world is actually the truest baseline where the uprooting of hierarchies for total revolution must begin.

解性遊的最終階段就是退出遊戲來實現玩到底的結果。虛構世界只不過是想像能完全控制我們現實的遊樂園。現實世界的天際才是徹底革命根除等級制度的最真底線。

這是情境者邏輯的稀奇顛倒—我是想利用遊戲創造自我批評再自我毀滅的玩家微界和微社，因為遊戲永遠實現不了革命。玩家必須退出玩家的角色，回到真正的政治世界去。如果這是在諷刺左派自我吞食的話，那還可以說是好笑。可是我是在認真的。我也沒意識到這顛倒邏輯的憂慮是關於認為自己的革命家或革命家似的問題，與革命的問題相反。我之後會再來談。

This was a curious inversion of situationist logic—I wanted to use games to create self-criticizing and then self-destructing micro-worlds and micro-societies of players, because the game would always fail to realize revolution. The players had to quit their role as players, and return to the real political world. This would have been funnier as satire about how the left eats itself. But I was being serious. I also was not aware that the concerns behind this inverted logic were about problems of people who thought of themselves as revolutionaries or revolutionary-like, as opposed to problems of revolution. I will discuss this later.

我們來回去討論〈什麼是解性遊？〉。這個定義文章我已經講了蠻多；講過的東西不會再提。我該說的是，寫這個定義文章之前，我還沒開始把自己的遊戲想說是解性遊—對，連建立概念的《你提供的油漆》和《天丑！》也沒。因為是這樣，或許可能該對自己的政治遊戲設計寬容一點—我是在一邊做一邊想辦法的。但你知道我很喜歡跟自己有仇，很喜歡浪漫化自己的冤纏。

Let's return to discussing “What Is Agonist Play?” This definitional essay I've already said a lot about; the things I've already said I won't repeat. What I should say is that prior to writing this definitional essay, I still hadn't started thinking about my games as agonist games—yes, not even the concept-establishing games of You Provide the Paint and Fools of Heaven! Because of this, perhaps I should be more forgiving towards my own political game design—I was figuring things out as I went along. But you know how I love to hold grudges against myself, how I love to romanticize my own haunting.

在〈什麼是解性遊？〉之中，我討論了在《你提供的油漆》和《天丑！》中出現的虛構政治派，明確地說這些虛構的政治派在反映我個人在美國的現實中遇到的政治派：

In “What Is Agonist Play?,” I discussed the fictional political factions that appeared in You Provide the Paint and Fools of Heaven!, explicitly stating that these fictional factions reflected political factions I had encountered in my personal U.S. reality:

• 堅性者 Survivalists: 大部分的人 Most people
• 勇性者 Heroists: 自由主義者 Liberals
• 化性者 Agonists: 同志 Comrades*
• 歉性者 Apologists: 非政治的人 Apolitical people
• 霸性者 Hegemonists: 保守主義者 Conservatives
• 血性者 Sacrifists: 法西斯主義者 Fascists

*People who take risks together to destroy the current social order and create future collective liberation. 一起承擔風險毀滅當前社會秩序和創造未來團體自由的人。

之前，我沒有特別為任何派寫政治遊戲，頂多在某些遊戲（像《幽影島》）前面說一下大該不會喜歡那遊戲的人。可是在開始利用解性遊這概念之後，我改成為理想的同志寫遊戲—而且是第一次有意的包括 TRPG 圈外的同志。

Before, I hadn't particularly written games for any political faction, at most only stating at the start of some games (like Phantom Island) what type of people wouldn't like that game. But after starting to use the concept of agonist play, I switched to writing games for the comrades of my ideals—intentionally including for the first time comrades outside the TTRPG scene.

《降天下世》就是我第一個有意的解性遊。是個異軌《降世神通: 最後的氣宗》系列的遊戲，描寫為了革命被詛咒重複轉生的殭湖革命家。扮演這些革命家的玩家便利用代表政治對抗各種元素的「運素」（意思是移動根源）來互相決鬥，試圖改變彼此之間的現實。遊戲系統是 J.Y.《天下江湖》的改版—我不知道是不是只有我做過那遊戲的改版，可是我知道那時候 J.Y. 看到我的設計很興奮。

Felling Heaven, Felling World was my first intentionally agonist game. It was a game that détourned the Avatar: The Last Airbender series, depicting Jyanghu (a pun on jianghu, the wuxia underworld, and literally translated as “corpse water”) revolutionaries cursed to reincarnate for revolution. As these revolutionaries, players would use “yunsu” (meaning moving roots) that represented different elements of political resistance to decisively struggle against each other, attempting to change each other's realities. The game system was a hack of J.Y.'s Under Heaven, Underworld—I don't know if I was the only one ever make a hack of that game, but I know at the time J.Y. was very excited about my designs.

《降天下世》跟《天丑！》很像，又是華裔文化、佛教跟無治主義的合併—所以跟《天丑！》的問題也一樣，也又是在鼓勵敵人立場、頌揚死亡和浪漫化不死狀態。它是個深深對革命事業虔誠的遊戲，也是個極端渴望虔誠同志的遊戲，設計充滿了想像的同寅。能作為這些毛病的典型就是殭湖角色創作的機制。所謂的殭湖就是遊戲的虛構世界，創造過程規定一個玩家必須犧牲自己之前已經創造完的玩家角色，接受 GM 的角色，再破壞遊似地毀裂犧牲角色的卡用來新創虛構世界的角色。 GM 的角色就是有用的屍體。關於這遊戲設計實踐，我說：

Felling Heaven, Felling World was very similar to Fools of Heaven!, once again integrating Sino culture, Buddhism, and anarchism—and therefore it and Fools of Heaven! also share the same problems of encouraging antagonist standpoints, glorifying death, and romanticizing being undead. It's a deeply pious game devoted to the cause of revolution, and also a game that yearns for pious comrades to the extreme, designs filled with imagined affinity. What exemplifies all these issues is the mechanics for jyanghu character creation. The jyanghu is the fictional world in the game, with a creation process that requires one player to sacrifice a character they have already created, to accept the role of GM, and then sabotouristically rip apart their sacrificed character's sheet to newly create the character of the world. The GM's character was a useful corpse. Regarding this praxis of game design, I said:

…當我們打倒承載世界的等級制度，我們也會把世界載到制度的遺址。歷史上制度根深柢固損害未來的地景，而我們種植的新根會繼承到制度的髒土。革除天命的問題就是不能逃避我們總會被分解，總會與土合一的塵世宿命。

...when we bring down the hierarchies that hold up the world, we also bring the world down to their ruins. Their historical entrenchment compromises the landscape of the future, and the new roots we plant inherit their soil. The problem of overturning heaven is that we cannot escape our mortal destiny to become decomposed, to become one with the soil.

所以這現世的道理就是解自分的作用。就是解自己是怎樣損害未來的地景、怎樣會留傳髒土、怎樣會被革除。就是解不只是你，而是這世界上每一個人都在這因果循環中，無論他們是解或不解。

And so the principle of this present is to comprehend the purpose of your own destruction. It is to understand how you compromise the landscape of the future, how your soil will get passed down, how you will be overturned. It is to understand that not just you, but every individual on earth is in this cycle of causality, whether they comprehend it or not.

這是在勸大家了解自己的政治果報—寫是因為自己的過去強迫我必須加了解自己的果報。做出「必須通過自殺才能了解自己」的論點其實是在自己說服自己。我是在投射。我理想中的同志不是群眾的同志，而是我神經過敏的同志—我個人的同志。

This was a call for everyone to understand their own political karma—a call I wrote because my past obligated me to better understand my own karma. Saying “we must kill ourselves to understand ourselves” was really me trying to convince myself of my own argument. I was projecting. The comrades of my ideals were not comrades to the masses, but comrades to my neuroses—comrades to me.

接下來的《下世萬敵》把這樣的想法發展到恐怖的極端。《下世萬敵》是《降天下世》的改版，這次異軌的是《龍與地下城》類似的西方奇幻 TRPG。玩家扮演的是因為殖民主義強迫變成似人怪物的萬敵俠（英文譯 agonist，跟解性遊的英文譯一模一樣），利用「陣屬」（陣營 + 屬性）來創造有革命性正義的新世界。《下世萬敵》也把傳統的 RPG 職業換成因萬敵俠烈士而得名的衣缽（有佛教內涵）。這些烈士跟《天丑！》中季節的四象烈士一模一樣。另外，衣缽不只是普通職業的再膚，有必要「繼承」前革命家思想和手段的定義，孝順革命家的暗指。從這裡開始只會變得越來越糟。

The subsequent Future Only Enemies developed this way of thinking to the extreme. FOE was a hack of Felling Heaven, Felling World, this time détourning Western fantasy tabletop games like Dungeons & Dragons. You played as agonists forced to become humanoid monsters due to colonialism, using “aligned attributes” (alignments + attributes) to create a new world of revolutionary justice. FOE also turned conventional RPG classes into mantles (the Mandarin version of the name, 衣缽 , has Buddhist connotations) named after agonist martyrs. These martyrs were the same as the Four Symbols martyrs from Fools of Heaven!. Moreover, mantles weren't just reskins of of normal classes, but were defined by the requirement to “inherit” past revolutionaries' thinking and methods, an implication to have filial piety towards them. And it only gets worse from here.

《下世萬敵》把《降天下世》的決鬥系統作為核心。兩個遊戲都把決鬥定義為「任何無法和解的衝突」，唯一只能利用搏鬥來解決。雖然如此，兩個遊戲處理決鬥結果的方式完全不同。《降天下世》試圖和諧地處理：決鬥結束之後，勝者得利失害、敗者得利得害或失利失害、喪者得害失利—但全都有權力為自己做出利和害的定義。《下世萬敵》是殘忍版：決鬥結束之後，勝者必須決定如何為剩下的人直接造出損害，而剩下的人要反對只能再次開始新的決鬥。為何那麼暴虐地改變？

FOE used the decisive struggle system from Felling Heaven, Felling World as its core. Both games defined decisive struggle as “any conflict with no possible compromise” that could only be resolved with struggle. Even so, the way both games handled the results of decisive struggle were entirely different. Felling Heaven, Felling World tried to resolve things harmoniously: at the end of a decisive struggle, victors attract gain and avoid loss, yielders attract gain with loss or avoid loss without gain, and sufferers attract loss and avoid gain—but all had the power to define gain and loss for themselves. FOE was cruel: the victors must decide how to directly harm everyone else, and everyone else who opposes this can only start a new decisive struggle. Why such a tyrannical change?

我陷入了一種充滿對政敵的無名怨憤和對同志的狂熱崇拜的思想狀態。不只是因為在 TRPG 圈子中發生的事。也是因為當時在我城市中組織的發展。我見識到好戰的必要，在起義之中得到「這就是戰爭」的結論。就是我們同志在跟世界在對抗。就是「我們會保護自己」。就是除了我們自己，沒人要。就是按照這樣的態度，我完成了《下世萬敵》：

I had fallen into a state of thinking that was full of ressentiment towards political enemies and fanatic devotion towards comrades. It wasn't just because of what had happened in the TTRPG scene. It was also because of what was happening with organizing in my city at the time. I had seen the need for militancy, arriving in a conclusion at an insurrection that “this was war.” It was us comrades against the world. It was “we protect us.” It was nobody wanting us save for ourselves. It was with this attitude I ended FOE:

如果你相信有無害勝利的存在，這就不是你的遊戲。如果你因為害怕革命選擇和解，這就不是你的遊戲。如果你聽到無治和共產而想到是混亂和獨裁，這就不是你的遊戲。如果你聽到自由而想到是民主，這就不是你的遊戲。如果警察沒向你開過槍，這就不是你的遊戲。如果你沒見過自殺的同志，這就不是你的遊戲。如果你聽到同志並以為我意思是左派的朋友，這就不是你的遊戲。如果你覺得我是自以為是，這就不是你的遊戲。如果你讀完這些字覺得我是瘋子的話，這就不是你的遊戲。這就不是你的遊戲。這也不是我的遊戲。這是屬於「我們」的遊戲。想比屬於要得更多的「我們」。想被解放的「我們」。看到血不眨眼的「我們」。聽到正常想到暴力的我們。聽到暴力想到這裡和現在的「我們」。將過去、現代、和未來視為相互聯繫一瞬間的「我們」。看到遊戲想到監牢的「我們」。想廢除法律的「我們」。不想廢除「自己」的「我們」。不放棄決鬥的「我們」，下世萬敵。

If you believe in harmless victories, this game is not for you. If you choose compromise because you are afraid of revolution, this game is not for you. If you hear anarchy and communism and think chaos and dictatorship, this game is not for you. If you hear freedom and think democracy, this game is not for you. If you have never been shot at by the police, this game is not for you. If you have never known a comrade who committed suicide, this game is not for you. If you hear comrade and assume I mean leftist friend, this game is not for you. If you think I need to get off my high horse, this game is not for you. If you read this and think I'm insane, this game is not for you. This game is not for you. This game is not for me. This game belongs to “us.” “We” who desire more than inclusion. “We” who desire liberation. “We” who see blood and don't blink. “We” who hear normal and think violence. “We” who hear violence and think here and now. “We” who see past, present, and future as one instant moment of interconnection. “We” who see game and think prison. “We” who wish to abolish law. “We” who do not wish to abolish “us.” “We” who refuse to give up decisive struggle, “our” future only enemies.

革命就是我的涅槃，就是我完美的否定—解放就是敵人的完美否定，同時也是個人在同志團體之中的完美否定。在琴·威爾英文翻譯的《武裝的歡樂》之中，阿爾弗雷多·博納諾寫說：「革命家是虔誠的人。革命不是虔誠的事件。」這我早就知道。這知識應該激起我尋找更接近現實的想法，可是反而引起我更死死地抱住我的信仰。我還只是在開始學會放手。

Revolution was my nirvana, my perfect negation—liberation was the perfect negation of enemies, and also the perfect negation of self in the collective of comrades. In Armed Joy translated by Jean Weir, Alfredo Bonanno writes: “Revolutionaries are pious folk. The revolution is not a pious event.” This I knew a long time ago. This knowledge should have pushed me to search for ways of thinking closer to reality, but instead caused me to cling to my faith with a vice grip. I am only just beginning to let go.

我刪除「解性遊」的部落格原因是因為認為 Blogger 的平台要審查我的內容。當時 Blogger 規定你必須利用 Google 帳號登入，所以我特別為了這個部落格創了新的 Gmail。在部落格存在的短期之中，我一直重複收到這些很奇怪的 Google email：

The reason I deleted the Agonist Play blog was because I suspected its platform, Blogger, wanted to censor my content. At the time Blogger required you to log in with a Google account, so I specifically created a new Gmail for the sake of the blog. During the short lifespan of the blog's existence, I repeatedly received these strange emails from Google:

其中一個 email 的截圖，是我 Google 帳號遭到停用的通知 A screenshot of one of those emails, which is a notification about my Google account being disabled

一開始我想說不理，因為每次點 email 中的連接還原帳戶都沒事。可是收到那麼多次決定還是該離開 Blogger 比較保險。我認為這些帳號停用通知一定是跟我 po 的遊戲內容有關，尤其是我的解性遊。如果你查查看 Google 有可能停用帳號的原因，其中一個原因是跟所謂的「恐怖主義」有關，說不準 po 「煽動暴力的內容」。另外的是違反產品政策；自 2024 年起—不知道當時 2022 年的是不是同一樣—Blogger 的 內容政策在暴力組織與活動的部份說：

At the beginning I wanted to just ignore them, since every time I clicked the link in the email to restore my account, everything was normal. But after getting so many I felt that leaving Blogger was the safer thing to do. I believe that these account disabled notifications had to do with the game content I was posting, especially my agonist games. If you look up Google's reasons for potentially disabling an account, one of those reasons is “terrorism,” with the statement that you're not supposed to post content that will “incite violence.” The other reason is breaking product policies; as of 2024—not sure if it was different in 2022—Blogger's Content Policy says in its section on Violent Organizations and Movements:

Known violent non-state organizations and movements are not permitted to use this product for any purpose. Do not distribute content that facilitates or promotes the activities of these groups, such as recruiting, coordinating online or offline activities, sharing manuals or other materials that could facilitate harm, promoting ideologies of violent non-state organizations, promoting terrorist acts, inciting violence, or celebrating attacks by violent non-state organizations. Depending upon the content, we may also take action against the user. Content related to violent non-state organizations may be allowed in an educational, documentary, scientific, or artistic context, but please be mindful to provide enough information to help people understand the context.

任何已知的非政府暴力組織和活動不得基於任何目的使用這項產品。請勿散布煽動或鼓吹這類組織活動的內容，例如招募、籌辦線上或線下活動、分享可能助長傷害行為的手冊或其他資料、宣傳非政府暴力組織的意識形態和恐怖行動、引發暴力行為，或是讚揚非政府暴力組織的攻擊事件。視內容性質而定，我們也可能對使用者採取行動。我們允許具有教育、紀實、科學或藝術性質的非政府暴力組織相關內容，但前提是必須提供充分資訊，協助使用者瞭解內容背景。

哇。那好吧，再見！

Oops. Oh well, goodbye!

生死一流時代 3416 Era (2022-2023)

1. NS 3416 (v0 2022, v1 2023, v2 2023, v3 2023)
2. “Revisiting The Sabotour” 〈回顧破壞遊〉 (2022)
3. Chipped Paint 《落漆》 (2022)
4. 《受死令》 Soulslinger (v1 2021, v2 2023) 〈死令系統 SRD〉 “Death Mark SRD” (2023)
5. 〈下世輪〉 “The Wheel of Felling” (2023)
6. 《冥咒島》 The Hellsealed Isles (2023)
7. 《血光俠：先鋒主義者的幻想》 Blood Lanterns: A Vanguardist's Fantasy (2022, 2023)

Blogger 跟 Google 政治審查之後，我再次需要考慮該把遊戲搬到哪裡。就在那時，我靈機一動—為何不把自己的遊戲作為遊戲的平台？我決定要創個 Twine 的遊戲來提供我 TRPG 的支援，再把那 Twine 的遊戲上傳到 Neocities。選 Neocities 的原因跟原本選 Blogger 的原因一模一樣—因為在圈子中有同事用過，有熟。

After Blogger and Google's political censorship, I once again had to consider where to move my games. That's when I thought—why not make my own games a platform for themselves? I decided to make a Twine game to host all my TTRPGs, and then upload my Twine game to Neocities. The reason I chose Neocities was the same reason I initially chose Blogger—because colleagues in the scene had used it before, and it was familiar.

在這 Twine 的遊戲的發展之中，我也又再次需要考慮如何為自己和自己的遊戲做出正當的介紹。因為 Neocities 又離獨立 TRPG 圈子的關係更遠，我對逃避問責的指控有偏執。為了彌補自己在隱藏自己的污染的感覺，我開始在社交網站上封鎖全部見到 TRPG 帳戶，完全禁止自己跟任何 TRPG 社群接觸。我需要保護別人免受我通過關係的污染。再說清楚，沒有人讓我覺得必須這樣做—這是我完全在自主。

In the process of developing this Twine game, I also once again had to consider how to properly introduce myself and my games. Because Neocities was even more distanced in relation to the indie TTRPG scene, I started feeling paranoid about accusations of dodging accountability. To compensate the feeling that I was hiding my own pollution, I started blocking every TTRPG account I saw on social media, completely banning myself from any contact with other TTRPG communities. I had to protect other people from being polluted through their connection to me. Again, nobody made me feel like I had to do this—I did this entirely on my own.

「解決了」這個問題之後，我把注意力轉移設計 Twine 遊戲的內容。我想在虛構上聯繫迄今為止所有自己覺得是最重要的遊戲，創個敘述擬真守則。當然，那時我還是覺得自己最重要的遊戲還就是解性遊，因此選擇利用了《天丑！》跟《下世萬敵》之中的四象烈士萬敵俠來作為我遊戲設計的代表。

Having “solved” the problem, I turned my attention to designing the content of the Twine game. I wanted to fictionally connect what I felt were all my most important games up until now, make a narrative kayfabe. Of course, at the time I still thought my most important games were agonist games, so I chose to use the Four Symbols agonist martyrs from Fools of Heaven! and FOE as the representatives for my game design.

分享一個新的沒公開說過的趣聞—除了青魔的金針刺之外，所有的四象烈士都是從我在〈映像之龍〉帶的團中非玩家角色而來的。 Twine 遊戲《NS 3416》這個名字也是從我帶那團的歷史而來的。 NS 是英文「nullspace」（中文譯：零空）的縮寫，這概念是在跑團中創造出來的。 3416 的數字是在指團中虛構世界的一種關於自我自我概念的宇宙天規，規名叫「生死一流」：規定每個角色必須要有其中三個體形、有其中四個流利、被一個天柱支撐、在其中六個平界出生。我把烈士們演變成似玩家冒險團的幽影眾—就跟《幽靈島》的幽靈眾一樣—祂們是穿越時空的鬼時空游擊者，「堅持要冤纏每一時空，直到每一法西斯現實的倒敗。」祂們的幽影眾就叫做「死象」（英文名 The Four Deaths 有天啟四騎士的內涵）。

I'll share a fun fact I've never mentioned publicly before—except for the Azure Witch Jin Jentzyh, all the Four Symbols martyrs came from the game I GM'd in “The Dragon in the Mirror.” The Twine game's name of NS 3416 also came from that history. The numbers 3416 refer to a cosmological law in the playgroup's fictional universe called 生死一流 (literally translated as Life Death One Flow, with the sound of the words in Mandarin sounding similar to the numbers 3416): the law required each character to have one of 3 forms, one of 4 fluencies, be supported by 1 Pillar, and be born on one of 6 Planes. I transformed the martyrs into a player-like adventure party called a phantom collective—just like the Phantom Collective from Phantom Island—they were ghost chronoguerrillas crossing through spacetime, “insist[ing] on haunting every time and space until the collapse of every fascist reality.” Their phantom collective's name was The Four Deaths (reminiscent of The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse).

跟這崇高事業的故事背景相比的就是我自己個人的故事背景。在《NS 3416》之中，我要把崇高事業的故事做成囚禁自己的陷阱。遊戲將會成為我的滌罪所，玩家扮演的就是舊身份的我，蠢謳迷，被自己的作品、角色和政治主義冤纏。遊戲會有四個結局，四個關於我自己的結論：

In tension with this backstory of lofty causes was my own backstory as an individual. In NS 3416, I wanted to use this story of a lofty cause as a trap to imprison myself. The game would become my purgatory, with you playing as the old version of me, omi the fool, haunted by your own work, characters, and political ideologies. The game would have four endings, four conclusions about myself:

1. 因為只有你想像的人才會歡迎你 BECAUSE ONLY THOSE IMAGINED BY YOU WOULD WELCOME YOU: 你跟我的虛構角色交朋友，快樂地逃避現實。 You befriend my fictional character, happily pursuing escapism.
2. 假想緣 IMAGINED DESTINY: 我認為創作跟生活一樣不需要有原因，因為兩個都是力量。雖然我利用力量傷害過人，故事結局不需要我自殺。我們可以一起利用創造力活下去。 I believe that creating, like living, doesn't need a reason, because both are forms of power. Even though I have used my power to harm people, the story doesn't have to end with me killing myself. Instead we can both use creativity to stay alive together.
3. 因為在這裡你能想像出自己的出口 BECAUSE HERE YOU CAN IMAGINE YOUR OWN WAY OUT: 你孤單地做在《味道》的捷運車廂裡面，怨恨自己最後只能在逃避現實。 You sit alone in the subway car from Smelltracks, resenting yourself for pursuing escapism.
4. 真相結局 TRUE END: 我奪走虛構世界的角色，強迫你回去面對現實。 I take the fictional characters away from you, forcing you to go back and face reality.

除了真相結局之外，剩下的結局都是在連接到我 TRPG 的雲端硬碟之後的正接著的 Twine 段之中。我是故意讓玩家需要花力氣找出我的 TRPG，因為當時認為自己的作品失去可見的資格。

Except for the true end, the rest of the endings are in the Twine passages immediately following the link to the cloud drive with my TTRPGs. I purposely made the player have to make effort to find my TTRPGs, because I felt at the time that my works had lost the right to being visibly seen.

《NS 3416》的結構直到目前第三版改變自己是罪人的想法之後才變。我毀裂及毀滅舊的虛構世界，除掉死象，自己做自己的代表，讓你扮演你。我的 TRPG 一進去就能看到；要找到我也並不困難。另外，現在有了新的「異軌與地下城」部落格，《NS 3416》變成了舊的遊戲的檔案館。我希望以後不會再需要大度的改變。

The structure of NS 3416 remained the same until the third version when I stopped seeing myself as a sinful person. I ripped apart and destroyed the old fictional world, getting rid of The Four Deaths, making myself serve as my own representative, and letting you be you. You can see my tabletop games as soon as you enter; finding me is not difficult either. Moreover, now that I have the new blog of Dungeons & Détournement, NS 3416 has become an archive for my old games. I hope that in the future I won't have to make any more drastic changes.

寫〈回顧破壞遊〉大部分是為了要針對自己跟 Nimona 的事為破壞遊做個正式評論。一如所料，當時的我又再浪漫化比喻性的自殺，說所有的玩家就是應該跟 Nimona 一樣隨心隨意地毀裂我字中的意義，因為我要作為利於他們自由有用的屍體。這也不是破壞遊另外一個政治根源，Marie Isidine 的創造性的暴力，的意思。這樣只是在對自己有創造性的暴力。這就是我之前想對破壞遊說出來的批評—我想指出它是種被扭曲的互助論和利用一切必要的手段邏輯，是跟解性遊有相似之處。解性遊要大家利用互相鬥爭來找出政治正覺；破壞遊要大家利用互相失敗來開始新的鬥爭。鬥爭、鬥爭、鬥爭。鬥爭到死。那就是我唯一會做的事。

The reason for writing “Revisiting The Sabotour” was mostly because I wanted to address what happened between me and Nimona formally in a critique of the sabotour. As expected, past me romanticized metaphorical suicide again, saying that all players should be like Nimona ripping apart the meanings in my words to their heart's content, because I wanted to be a useful corpse for their freedom. This was also not the meaning of sabotourism's other political root, Marie Isidine's idea of creative violence. This was just doing creative violence to yourself. This is the critique that I wanted to say earlier about sabotourism—I wanted to point out that it was a twisted idea of mutual aid and by any means necessary, a parallel to agonist play. Agonist play wanted everyone to use mutual struggle to find political enlightenment; sabotourism wanted everyone to use mutual failure to start new struggles. Struggle, struggle, struggle. Struggle to death. That was the only thing I knew how to do.

《落漆》本來不是個遊戲，是在 MSPFA （MSPA 的粉絲）網站上 2022 Flipjam （中文譯：翻滾製作營）寫的粉絲冒險故事（英文：fanventure），後來才重歸於抒情遊。《落漆》是個虛構化自傳宣傳鼓動遊戲，利用在大白天補畫塗鴉的事件來比喻攫回國家法規強迫我們放棄的日常生活自主。寫的時候我是希望利用製作營的平台來散播無治思想，以及利用製作營的機會來找出同志。沒用。說實在我對它的評論跟《味道》一樣—我又只是在鑽景觀制度的空子。

Chipped Paint was originally not a game, but a fanventure written for MSPFA (the MSPA fan) site's 2022 Flipjam that I later recategorized as a lyric game. Chipped Paint was a fictionalized autobiographical agitprop game, using the act of revitalizing graffiti in broad daylight as a metaphor for seizing back the autonomy in everyday life that laws of the state have forced us to surrender. At the time of writing I had hoped to use the jam's platform to spread anarchist ideas, as well as use the jam's opportunity to find comrades. No use. Honestly my evaluation of it is the same as for Smelltracks—I was just gaming the spectacle again.

《受死令》回到我的創作根源，是蠢零遊時代後期寫的破壞遊的演變。之前說過破壞遊首先是個跟它的政治根源有隔離的藝術技巧；怪不得第一版的《Fool's Charge》（中文譯：蠢衝） 利用 René-Pier Deshaies 「free, open, and generic」（中文譯：免費（有自由的內涵）、開放、泛用）的《Charge》系統來寫反資本主義鬥爭沒被 R.P. 視為破壞，反而只視為有普通創意的改版而已—R.P. 那時還因為看到這個改版請我來為《Charge》寫官方的額外機制（英文：Extra）。破壞遊沒引誘目標來跟我對抗鬥爭，甚至還引起目標要我跟他們的系統融合，那就是在政治方面大大的失敗—是在把破壞遊政治毛病擱在一邊地說。

Soulslinger returned to my creative roots, being an evolution of a sabotour written in the late period of Fool Zero Games. Earlier I had said that sabotourism first and foremost is an art technique distanced from its political roots; it was no wonder that when the first edition's Fool's Charge used René-Pier Deshaies “free, open, and generic” Charge system to write about anticapitalist struggle, it wasn't seen as sabotage, merely another creative hack—at the time, because of seeing this game, R.P. even invited me to write an official Charge Extra. A sabotour that failed to goad the target into struggling against me, that even led to the target wanting to integrate me into their system, was a complete and utter failure on a political level—setting the problematics of sabotourism's politics aside.

除了 R.P. 之外，我記得當時也有不少人對《蠢衝》有興趣，可是跟《味道》一樣，興趣是在藝術方面；令我沮喪的是，這藝術方面的興趣沒有轉化成政治內容的興趣。我不知道為什麼老是以為大家都跟我一樣愛把藝術興趣轉化成政治興趣。又是想像的同寅，又是在想說如果我只要有足夠的希望，我們就能互相一起在政治的方面學習。

Besides R.P., I also remember a couple others being interested in Fool's Charge, but like with Smelltracks, the interest was on an artistic level; what dismayed me was that this interest on the artistic level didn't translate into interest in the political content. I don't know why I've always assume everyone else translates artistic interest into political interest like me. It was another case of imagined affinity, of thinking that as long as I had enough desire, we could mutually learn from each other on a political level.

總之，這些情況，加上自我強制自己跟 TRPG 社群接觸的禁止，導致我放棄了《蠢衝》的發展—雖然回頭看，我無意地把衝量軌道（英文：momentum track）的機制演變成《降天下世》跟《下世萬敵》解性遊的決鬥機制。覺得可惜的是放棄我為了《蠢衝》創造的虛構世界和混合英語、國語、台語、海陸腔客家話的人造語，迎吞。通常我利用「中文」（中國質跟白人質一樣，都是構建）寫 TRPG 的時候，別的華人沒有特別的反應，頂多跟 Samuel Clarice Mui 一樣跟我說「喔，對嗎，你就是用中文寫作的那個人」。我利用中文寫作的原因跟利用 TRPG 寫政治論一樣—都是為了借用媒介尋找同樣的人。《蠢衝》的迎吞第一次在純粹語言方面成功達到這個目標，讓我認識到一位香港人。雖然我們聯絡很少，少到連名字現在都不確定記不記得對（好像在 Discord 叫 beeptest？他沒有推特，在 itch.io 上也只有社群非創作者的個人檔案，可是現在查這個名字沒有），我們除了遊戲是有談到政治，甚至還自在地聯絡他幫忙找突然失蹤可能要自殺的香港獨立運動家。

In any case, these circumstances, on top of my self-enforced ban from all contact with TTRPG communities, led to me to give up on the development of Fool's Charge—although in retrospect, I unintentionally transformed the momentum track mechanic into the decisive struggle mechanic for the agonist games Felling Heaven, Felling World and Future Only Enemies. What I felt was a pity to let go was the fictional world I had created for Fool's Charge, along with the conlang of Common Twun, which was a mix of English, Mandarin, Taiwanese, and Hailu Hakka. Usually when I used “Chinese” (Chineseness, like whiteness, is a construct) to write TTRPGs, other Sino people didn't really have a reaction, at most telling me “Oh yeah, you're the one who writes in Chinese” like Samuel Clarice Mui did. The reason I used Chinese to write was the same reason I used TTRPGs to write political theory—to use the medium to find others like me. The Common Twun of Fool's Charge was the first time I succeeded at the level of pure language, getting the attention of a Hong Konger. Even though we interacted very little—little to the point that I'm not sure if I've correctly remembered his name (I think on Discord it was beeptest? He wasn't on Twitter, and only had a community, not creator profile on itch.io), besides games we did talk about politics, and I even felt comfortable enough to contact him to help find a Hong Kong independence activist who had suddenly gone missing with the possible intent of suicide.

《受死令》跟《幽靈島》一樣，一開始的設計計畫是動作遊戲，依《蠢衝》描述邪教犧牲儀式的倖存俠。另外的是，因為原本的遊戲類型是科幻和詭野西部，我希望利用新的系統來針對這些類型來設計。可是我發覺回答模仿類型的問題比回答遊戲內容的問題更不重要。《受死令》的俠到底該有什麼我還沒寫過的作用？迄今為止關於俠的遊戲—《天丑！》、《降天下世》、《下世萬敵》—都把俠置於集體的背景之中。《天丑！》的俠一直在找出死路跟門路之間的非阻擋性同志、《降天下世》的俠有自己的殭湖、《下世萬敵》的俠把自己視為萬敵運動之中的份子。可是在《蠢衝》之中，俠是回不了自己家跟共同體的人—俠是背對或被集體拋棄的人物。差異並不奇怪，反而是預言—那是我快要離開 TRPG 圈子的時候寫的遊戲。

Soulslinger started out like Phantom Island, with the plan to design an action game, continuing from Fool's Charge the depiction of justices who survived a cult sacrifice ritual. Because the original game genre was sci-fi and Weird West, I wanted to design a new system specifically meant for use with these genres. But I discovered that answering the question of emulating genre was far less important than answering the question of what content to put in the game. What function should the justices of Soulslinger have that I hadn't already written about? Up until now, the games about justices—Fools of Heaven!, Felling Heaven, Felling World, and FOE—have all placed 俠 into the context of the collective. The 俠 of Fools of Heaven! are constantly searching for nonobstructive comrades in between doorways and dead ends, the 俠 of Felling Heaven, Felling World have their own jyanghu, the 俠 of FOE think of themselves as members of an agonist movement. But in Fool's Charge, 俠 are people who can't return to their home and community—俠 are people who have turned their backs on or been abandoned by the collective. The discrepancy is not surprising, but prophetic—I had written that game right before I was going to leave the TTRPG scene.

因此，我把探索這樣的隔離作為目標。同時，跟政治思想無關，我那時候有個想創造自我遊玩系統的遊戲。一部分是關於自己身心障礙有關—常想玩 TPRG 的時候沒力氣臨時創造新點子。另一部分是因為規定自己不能跟任何 TRPG 社群接觸之後，就只能跟自己玩 TRPG；遊玩方式只能聽自己的想法來辦很無聊，希望能有似別人的東西跟我對話。

Thus, I made exploring this kind of isolation my goal. At the same time, unrelated to political thinking, at the time I also wanted to create a system for a game that could play itself. Part of it was due to my own disability—often when I wanted to play TTRPGs I didn't have the energy to improvise new ideas. The other part was because after requiring myself to stop all contact with TTRPG communities, I could only play TTRPGs with myself; only being able to listen to my own ideas for play was boring, and I wished for something like another person to be able to talk to me.

那就是為什麼《受死令》是個賽博格似的超桌角色扮演遊戲（HTRPG）。在驗屍，我把 HTRPG 定義為「機制修改成完全利用數位遊玩的 TRPG，也同時是機制能被修改成完全利用類比遊玩的互動式小說」。《受死令》的死令系統是單人神諭日記的格式，利用實體或電腦隨機的撲克牌卡來產生寫作題目。在《受死令》之中，玩家沒有必要在每個題目的框格中填字；然而，依我對自己身心障礙的看法跟過去的宣傳鼓動遊戲發展經驗為主，我也不讓玩家輕輕鬆鬆地被動體驗故事。相反，《受死令》會把空白存在筆記中，沒寫出自己回答的題目只有個撲克牌花色和數字，目的是要強調玩家被系統規定要多產的異化。

That is why Soulslinger is a cyborg-like hypertext tabletop roleplaying game (HTRPG). In its post-mortem, I defined the HTRPG as “a TTRPG mechanically adapted for pure digital play, and a piece of interactive fiction mechanically adaptable for pure analog play.” The Death Mark system of Soulslinger had a solo oracular journaling form, using physical or computer-randomized poker cards to generate writing prompts. In Soulslinger, players are not required to fill in the blank space at the end of every prompt; however, based on my views towards my own disability and past experience developing agitprop games, I don't let the player just passively experience the story. In contrast, Soulslinger saves the blank spaces, and if you don't write anything it just records the suit and number of the poker card, with the goal of highlighting how the system alienates the player by requiring the player to be productive.

ㄟˊ，可是《天丑！》也是在用神諭啊，為什麼當時沒有變成《天丑！》的改版？我在《受死令》的驗屍中有暗示，是因為《受死令》不是純粹的解性遊。它關注的不是鬥爭能改變的未來，而是過去改不了的冤纏。雖然你的玩家角色能利用自己痛苦而來的力量來「拒絕」記憶，所謂的拒絕本質不明確—你是在壓制自己的負面記憶還是在真的在把歷史改變？改變的是原來的歷史還是只是在創造架空時間線？該如何解釋在多次遊玩之中重複碰到之前已經順利除掉的記憶？在這樣穿越的過程之中有很多的認知失調。有點是《NS 3416》之中幽影故事的反敘述，解構時空游擊戰的虛構實踐。

Wait, but Fools of Heaven! also uses an oracle, why didn't I just make a hack of it instead? The post-mortem for Soulslinger already implied this, but it was because Soulslinger was not a purely agonist game. What it was focused on wasn't struggle to change the future, but being haunted by the unchangeable past. Even though your character can use the power of their own suffering to “reject” memories, the nature of this rejection is unclear—are you repressing your own negative memories or really changing history? Are you changing the original history or just creating an alternate timeline? How do you explain repeatedly encountering memories in multiple playthroughs that you had previously and successfully gotten rid of? In this process of crossing through spacetime, there's a lot of cognitive dissonance. In a way, it's like a counternarrative to the phantom shades of NS 3416, deconstructing the fictional praxis of chronoguerilla warfare.

如果《幽靈島》是我在生死一流時代寫的遊戲，我想它的格式應該就是會跟《受死令》很象。雖然如此，兩個遊戲其實在政治尋問上有很大的差異。再說一次，《幽靈島》是個關於團結的遊戲，目標是克服系統跟心理上異化導致的隔離。《受死令》是個很虛無的遊戲，結論是有可能最後就只有異化跟隔離，只有團結的假像，就在你自己創造的虛構之中。

If I had written Phantom Island during my 3416 era, I think that it would've looked a lot like Soulslinger in form. Even so, the two games have really huge discrepancies in terms of political inquiry. Again, Phantom Island is a game about coming together, with the goal of overcoming the isolation caused by systematic and psychological alienation. Soulslinger is a very nihilistic game, with the conclusion that perhaps in the end there is only alienation and isolation, only the illusion of coming together, created by your own fiction.

在驗屍的結尾，我也對俠義的概念開始展現虛無的態度：

At the end of the post-mortem, you can also see me starting to reveal a nihilistic attitude towards the justice of 俠:

我只確定自己辜負了很多人。我辜負了所有希望正義就是逞英雄的人。我辜負了所有希望正義就是狠狠報仇的人。我辜負了所有希望正義就是完全和平的人。我辜負了所有希望正義就是完全作戰的人。我辜負了所有認為正義根本就不存在，根本就得不到的人。我辜負了所有希望我告訴他們正義是什麼和描寫如何能得到的人。當然，我也辜負了所有認為我連正義都沒資格談的人。

And all I am sure of is that I have failed some people. I have failed everyone who hopes for a justice that means flaunting heroics. I have failed everyone who hopes for a justice that means ruthless revenge. I have failed everyone who hopes for a justice that means total peace. I have failed everyone who hopes for a justice that means total conflict. I have failed everyone who thinks that justice simply does not exist, that it simply cannot be achieved. I have failed everyone who hoped that I'd give them an answer on what justice is and how to achieve it. And of course, I have failed everyone who thinks I have no right to speak on justice at all.

這還是〈回顧破懷遊〉「請過來殺我」的語氣，還沒完全推翻視角。一如所料，驗屍最後幾句話就是：「作者是個體驗過必須決定自己的敘述該怎麼辦的人。我只不過是被他冤纏的寄託者。」我還是在當有用的屍體，雖然是在對自己有用。

This is still the “please come and kill me” manner of speaking from “Revisiting The Sabotour,” still not a total reversal of perspective. As expected, the closing lines of the post-mortem say this game “was written by someone who had to figure out what to do with their own narrative. I am but their vessel, haunted.” I was still being a useful corpse, albeit to myself.

〈下世輪〉的世界架空工具是從我自己解性遊的經驗創造出來的。最早的版本是從《天丑！》來的：在其中一場遊戲之中我利用它的四季六節來做出列表，按照 24 種不同組合的涵義創造虛構組織把列表布滿。後來這演變成《降天下世》的殭湖角色卡，改變的是列出來的人物和組織數有按照玩家數的限制—而且限制規定必須要消滅在存的人物或組織才能創新的。〈下世輪〉又是殭湖角色卡的演變，這次跟《下世萬敵》做個合併，把從《降世神通》異軌的元素換成自己原創的陣因（避開版權訴訟萬歲！）（雖然陣因也是《龍與地下城》的陣營異軌出來的，在對付法律問題上改變得比較足夠）。〈下世輪〉同樣有必須消滅存在人物或組織的限制，雖然這次給了一些迴旋餘地，可以跟別的人物或組織調換位置。

“The Wheel of Felling” was a worldbuilding tool that I created through my own experiences of agonist play. The earliest version came from Fools of Heaven!: in one game I had used its 4 seasons and 6 terms to make a list, populating it with fictional organizations created according to the connotative meanings of the 24 different combinations. This evolved into the jyanghu character sheet of Felling Heaven, Felling World, with the difference of having a limit on how many characters and organizations could be on the list, based on player number—and this limit was enforced by requiring you to eliminate an existing character or organization to make new ones. Then “The Wheel of Felling” evolved the jyanghu character sheet, integrating it with FOE, swapping out the elements détourned from Avatar with my own original alignment origins (hooray, avoiding copyright lawsuits!) (even though alignment origins were also détourned from Dungeons & Dragons alignments, with regards to dealing with legal issues the changes were more complete). “The Wheel of Felling” also had a limit that required you to eliminate existing characters or organizations, although this time it gave you some wiggle room by letting you swap the positions of existing people or organizations.

比較大的改變是在列表之中，每個人物或組織都有關於陣因循環的傾向：順向（避前尋後）或逆向（避後尋前）。雖然是佛教輪迴似的循環，這些傾向沒分黑白的好壞—最支持解放的傾向有時是順，有時是逆—而且陣因只是預設的循環部分。工具是鼓勵玩家創造自己的循環，自己的傾向背景。這是個希望人家能按照分析的態度來創造人物和組織的工具，不是依賴決定論。以那目標來說，〈下世輪〉跟《天丑！》的分析性戰爭機制有雷同；該機制要玩家利用別人的媒介來三角測量自己跟世界的關係。

The larger change was that in the list, every character or organization had an orientation with regard to the cycle of alignment origins: with flow (avoiding what came before and seeking what comes after) or against flow (avoiding what comes after and seeking what came before). Even though the cycle is samsara-like, these orientations are not divided into black-and-white good and evil—the orientations that most support liberation are sometimes with flow, and other times against flow—and the alignment origins are just the default cycle parts. The tool encourages players to create their own cycles, their own context for orientation. This is a tool that wants people to adopt an analytical approach to creating characters and organizations, not rely on determinism. In that manner, “The Wheel of Felling” is similar to the analytical conflict mechanics in Fools of Heaven!, which ask players to use others as an intermediary to triangulate their relationship with the world.

《冥咒島》也是解性遊創造出來的作品，由來是《鹽沼幽魂》（英文：Ghosts of Saltmarsh）的異軌。我有考慮世界設定的故事背景該寫多少，可是我很早就對故事背景有犬儒的態度—在《降天下世》中我寫說：

The Hellsealed Isles was another work created from agonist play, originating of a détournement of Ghosts of Saltmarsh. I had debated how much lore to write for the setting, but I already had a cynical attitude towards lore from early on—in Felling Heaven, Felling World, I had written:

跑團的道理就是把非自創的名字完全當耳邊風，即使是自創有時也認不了。[GM]，知這：你的玩家永遠不會感覺到歷史的沉重，除非是自己經驗的歷史。在那歷史當中，他們會為了現在方便能忘就忘，為了現在方便能記就記。你也會。你也會。

The principle of playgroups is to completely ignore all names they did not create, if they even recognize the names that they do. [GM], know this—your players will never feel the weight of any history except the history they have personally experienced. Of that history, they will forget what is presently convenient for them to forget, and remember what is presently convenient for them to remember. You too. You too.

因此，我雄心地試圖創造完全沒有故事背景的世界設定入門書。我不要跟我熱愛的《Electric Bastionland》（中文譯：電動堡壘地）或《UVG》一樣有百頁多到頭痛的隨機表—我要用自己的方法來做，按照自己的極簡似詩風格。

And so, I ambitiously set out to create a setting primer with absolutely no lore. I didn't want to have hundreds of pages of tables like my beloved Electric Bastionland and UVG—I wanted to do it my way, according to my own minimalistic poetic style.

問題是，迄今為止所有的解性遊世界設定都是很重重依賴故事背景運作。在完全不利用故事背景的設計限制之下，解性遊的技巧突然變得完全沒用。所以我求助於非靠故事遊玩的 OSR。我發覺 OSR 的玩法跟馬克思主義一樣很在意唯物主義，要玩家分析角色面前的物質世界，便利用物質的手段來解決問題。因此我決定利用世界設定的物質狀態來發展政治狀態。寫完之後，我開玩笑地宣布寫出來的是反殖民主義的 Minecraft。

The problem was, up until now all the settings in agonist games and play all heavily relied on lore to function. Under the restriction of having no lore at all, agonist play suddenly became a useless technique. So I turned to the non-story-dependent play of OSR . I realized that OSR play, like Marxism, was very concerned about materialism, asking players to analyze the material world before their characters and use material methods to solve their problems. And so I decided to use the setting's material conditions to develop its political conditions. After finishing, I jokingly announced that what I had written was anticolonial Minecraft.

《冥咒島》開頭就有暗示這馬克思主義的影響，說明玩家扮演的是「冥咒島事實的創造者；島嶼及島嶼上的人民只是反映你的現實的工具」（雖然按照個人圈子經驗，大部分的人看到這句話會開始想如何反映自己在情緒上的現實，不是去想政治）。接下來入門書介紹的就是冥咒島的生態狀態—最特別的是生態域列表第八項目的墓城。

The Hellsealed Isles hints at this Marxist influence in the beginning, explaining that you “play as the creator of truth in The Hellsealed Isles; the isles and their people are merely tools that you use to reflect your own reality” (even though according to my experience in the scene, most people would see this and start thinking about how to reflect their own emotional reality, and not thinking about politics). Next the primer introduces the ecological conditions of The Hellsealed Isles—the most unique of which is the eighth listed biome of the necropolis.

到了這段落，玩家有下列的選擇：一，跳到墓城那段搶先看，或二，繼續按照順序讀（還有三，把檔案關掉）。如果選一的話，《冥咒島》的政治目標馬上變得很清楚；如果選二的話，政治目標會像在跟大逆轉一樣碰到。我認為因為墓城的新奇，大部分的人會選一—可是入門書的結構是針對選二的人設計，因為對我來說大逆轉比較好玩。

At this point, the player has the following choices: one, jump ahead to the section on necropolis, or two, keep reading things in order (and three, close the document). If they choose one, then the political goal of The Hellsealed Isles becomes immediately obvious; if they choose two, the political goal will hit them like a plot twist. Because of the necropolis' novelty, I believe that most people will pick one—but the primer's structure is designed for people who choose two, because I think plot twists are more fun.

所以這新奇的墓城到底是什麼？「墓城是堆在破壞生態域上的城市；因為自己沒有資源，所以從別的生態域榨取。」決定完墓城的大小之後，入門書再規定你從在存的生態域中按照墓城的大小來選比例被剝削的生態域目標；不夠的話，必需創新的。開始有解性遊風格的話就從這裡開始：

So what's this new and exciting necropolis all about? “A necropolis is city built on top of a ruined biome; because it lacks resources of its own, it exploits other biomes to acquire them.” After determining the size of the necropolis, the primer then requires you to choose in proportion to the necropolis' size a number of biomes to be targeted for exploitation from among those that already exist; if there aren't enough, you must create more. This is where it starts to get agonist in style:

當某個生態域被作為墓城的剝削目標，那生態域之中全部的資源都可被榨取。因此，當地依賴那些資源生活的人民會有動機反抗墓城人民試圖進行的剝削。

When a biome is targeted for exploitation by the necropolis, all resources in that biome also become fair game for exploitation. Thus, the people in that biome who rely on the resources will be motivated to resist the exploitation that the people from the necropolis attempt to carry out.

反這種殖民主義性的剝削就是冥咒島的主要衝突，遊戲故事的起因事件。

Opposing this kind of colonial exploitation is the central conflict of The Hellsealed Isles, the inciting incident of stories in the game.

的確，在開頭我說你是冥咒島事實的創造者—所以我為你寫下這種命令很奇怪。

It's true, at the start I said that you were the creator of truth in The Hellsealed Isles—and so it's strange that I would write you such an imperative.

但我也是事實的創造者之一。

But I too am a creator of truth.

要覆蓋我的現實，知道是你的選擇和你的負擔。

If you wish to overwrite my reality, know that it is your choice and your responsibility.

剩下的生態域的創造在政治方面沒什麼特別—甚至還能說根本跟政治無關。它們的政治性本質是完全從墓城的關係而來—就像是沒有資本主義的話，無產者就只會是人。這不是我第一次在虛構利用死亡來寫政治論，可是這次是我第一次認真地在政治方面把死亡問題化，與為革命的頌揚跟浪漫化相反。入門書的最後幾句，對抗讀者要像破壞遊似地為了反共產或非政治毀裂《冥咒島》來去玩資產階級主觀主義的遊戲，也是新的自我保護性的反破壞遊論。第一次，我開始有要活的實踐。

There is nothing notable about the rest of the biomes on a political level—you can even say that they have nothing to do with politics at all. Their political nature entirely comes from their relationship with the necropolis—just as how if there were no capitalism, proletarians would just be people. This isn't the first time I've used death in fiction to write about politics, but this is the first time I've seriously problematized death on a political level, as opposed to glorifying and romanticizing it for the revolution. The last few sentences of the primer, opposing the anticommunist or apolitical reader sabotouristically ripping apart The Hellsealed Isles to go play bourgeois subjectivist games, is also a new self-protective anti-sabotourism line of thinking. For the first time, I started having a praxis to live.

最後一個項目，很久之前提過的《血光俠》，是個同人小說，但是我一直都是把它視為解性遊的故事。《血光俠》是描述非玩家角色在反玩家革命的後革命時期跟彼此之間遇到的衝突。故事大部分都是臨時創出來的，所以內容跟 TRPG 之中常有的遊玩範例很像，假如那些 TRPG 是解性來說。另外，《血光俠》也不跟普通的同人小說一樣，是利用異軌的態度來對待跨界原作《Homestuck》跟《紅燈俠》的正典。

The last item, the Blood Lanterns I brought up very long ago, was a piece of fanfiction, but I had always thought of it as an agonist game story. Blood Lanterns was about non-player characters having conflicts with each other in the post-revolution period after an anti-player revolt. Most of the story was improvised, and its content reads like common examples of play in TRPGs, if those TRPGs had been agonist. Moreover, Blood Lanterns was different from usual fanfiction in that it used an approach of détournement towards the canon of original works used in the crossover, Homestuck and Red Lanterns.

我是因為想更加了解 Nimona 的原因開始讀紅燈軍團的漫畫。紅燈軍團的中心思想跟她一樣—就是報仇。我希望在寫《血光俠》的過程之中為報仇作為實踐的問題開始做個處理。故事中可以看出來我跟 TRPG 圈子歷史的反映，尤其是同類相食村子中大眾跟血光俠公社的對比。在語言方面，利用中文我分清了大眾跟無治跟共產常提到的群眾：在政治方面，大眾是圈內人，不是真正的群眾—頂多是先鋒主義似地冒充是群眾的代表。雖然如此，血光俠也不是什麼完美的組織—他們跟我一樣愛扭曲利用一切必要的手段邏輯，故意互相傷害，認為不願意為了保護革命狀態接受這種傷害就不算俠。故事在一個角色罵血光俠是不為人知的法西斯主義者之後間斷，斷了一年—因為我想不出來故事接下來該往哪裡發展。

I started reading the Red Lantern Corps comics because I wanted to better understand Nimona. The core principle of the Red Lantern Corps was the same as xers—revenge. I had hoped in the process of writing Blood Lanterns to start sorting out the issues of revenge as praxis. The story clearly reflects my history in the TTRPG scene, especially the contrast between the cannibalistic village's Community and the Blood Lanterns' commune. At the level of language, using Mandarin I distinguished between The Community (大眾) and the masses (群眾) often referred to in anarchy and communism: The Community is made up of insiders to a scene, not the true masses—at most they are those who pretend to be representatives of the masses like vanguards. At the same time, it wasn't like the Blood Lanterns were a perfect organization either—like me they loved to use a twisted logic of by any means necessary, purposely hurting each other, believing that those who refused to accept this harm for the sake of protecting revolutionary conditions were not justices at all. After a character accused a Blood Lantern of being a closet fascist, the story went on a hiatus that lasted a whole year—because I couldn't figure out where to take the story next.

作者註跟結局的第一幕已經為了《血光俠》跟解性遊做了很充分的自我批評，所以我不會在這裡重複。想指出來的是政治思想的新發展：我開始把我的政治思想跟道德的關係隔離，道德利用虛無的態度來對待。我也照樣利用虛無的態度來對待同志跟解放的概念。然後我第一次問題化作者在政治方面的角色：

The author notes and concluding Act 1 already do a very thorough self-crit of Blood Lanterns and agonist play, so I will not repeat that here. What I want to point out were new developments in my political thinking: I started distancing my political thought from morality, treating morality with a nihilistic approach. I also took a nihilistic approach towards comrades and liberation. And then for the first time I problematized the role of the author on a political level:

但創造虛構世界的任何作者永遠無法擺脫的缺點就是：作者就是虛構世界的現實。

But the flaw that any author creating a fictional world will never be free from is this: the author is the reality of the fictional world.

在個虛構世界之中，個人和群眾永遠不可能有自治，因為他們永遠無法擺脫作者的控制。

In a fictional world, individuals and the masses will never have autonomy, because they will never be free from the author's control.

共同撰寫也不會解決這個問題，只是會在虛構世界中加上更多的控制者。

Co-authoring will not solve this problem, only add more controllers to the fictional world.

這對遊戲設計跟遊玩有重大的影響。情況比《五龍分魂》的開發日誌和〈映像之龍〉想得更糟。沒有自由，只有自立！

This has major implications for game design and play. The scenario was worse than what the Five Blue Dragons devlog and “The Dragon in the Mirror” had thought. No autonomy, only autarchy!

但「推翻視角就是不再利用共同體、思想主義、家庭、別人的眼光來看。就是堅決地掌握自己，把自己作為起點和中心。」這是拉烏爾．范內格姆在《日常生活的革命》之中通過唐納．尼克遜-史密斯翻譯寫的話。因此我在《血光俠》的結局說：「我們來拒絕聲稱自己的作品能有能力革除自己之外的天命。如果我們自己的迴圈運動能相遇到彼此的軌道，那就好。」這跟原來要實現崇高事業的夢想完全不同。這是在接受的自己有限，發展當時在解性遊時代沒發展的更接近現實想法。

But “[t]o reverse perspective is to stop seeing things through the eyes of the community, of ideology, of the family, of other people. To grasp hold of oneself as something solid, to take oneself as starting-point and centre.” This is what Raoul Vaneigem, through translation by Donald Nicholson-Smith, says in The Revolution of Everyday Life. Thus in the end of Blood Lanterns I wrote: “Let us refuse to claim that our work will have the power to revolutionize any life besides our own. If our own revolutions will be able to cross the paths of each other's orbits, that will be good.” This was so different from the original dream to realize the great cause. This was accepting my own limits, developing the ways of thinking closer to reality that I had failed to develop during the Agonist Play era.

結論 Conclusion

我沒興趣把解性遊跟破壞遊作為有用的屍體。我也沒興趣創造另外大統一的更有解放性遊戲設計理論。為何？遊戲是遊戲，不是革命的表演。那是我過去試圖做的事。也沒有必要繼續鑽自己的空子。

I have no interested in turning agonist play and sabotourism into useful corpses. I also have no interested in creating another grand unifying theory of more liberatory game design. What for? Games are games, not the spectacular representation of revolution. That's what I tried to do in the past. And there is no need to keep gaming myself.

做完了最後這四年的評論之後，我覺得更了解自己遊戲設計和政治思想的軌道，認為花費了那麼多力氣寫那麼長的文章有值得的結果。本來沒有故意要談到獨立圈子中那麼多的個人衝突故事，可是發覺那些事深深影響了遊戲和政治的發展。我永遠不會忘記圈子的教訓，希望從來不會再陷入同樣的陷阱。

After finishing this critical review of the last four years, I feel like I better understand my own trajectory of game design and political thinking, feeling like spending so much energy to write such a long essay had worthwhile results. Originally I didn't intend to get into so much detail about my personal conflicts in the indie scene, but I realized that those things deeply influenced the development of my games and politics. I will never forget the lessons I learned from the scene, and hope to never again fall into similar traps.

我會分享一篇磨利了我的文章來結束。這個文章就是 ziq 的〈鬥爭的無用〉，是我讀的第一個針對鬥爭的批評。在文章之中，ziq 說自己唯一能確定的就是自己面前能控制的事。對於遊戲設計的政治效果，我也是有同樣的態度。我們不須要追求遊戲實現某種崇高事業，不需要強迫自己當事業的烈士救星—需要的是誠實地面對自己的自己手段的限度，搞懂在限度中擁有的發展前途，帶著遊玩的臨時創造態度繼續走下去。

I want to end by sharing an essay that sharpened me. This essay is ziq's “The Futility of Struggle,” and it's the first critique about struggle that I ever read. In the essay, ziq says that the only thing they're sure of is what they can control in front of themself. With regards to the political effects of game design, I have the same attitude. We don't need our games to pursue the realization of some great cause, we don't need to make ourselves be the cause's martyring messiahs—what we need is to honestly face the limits of ourselves and our own methods, understand what paths for development are within our limits, and bring the improvisation of play with us as we keep moving down those paths.

(這裡免費遊玩 play for free here)

這遊戲的靈感來源是我在象站上看到的 Dungeons 機器人帳號，它利用投票的方式來進行隨機創造的冒險。我看到其中一個在冒險開始的投票可以投「退休」，覺得如果大家一起在每個冒險開始的時候都投「退休」會很好笑，而且因為阻止了冒險同時也能讓每個冒險家完全避免死亡。因此我被《躺平與地下城》這點子引誘，雖然那不是我想為遊戲取的名字。

The inspiration for this game came from a bot account I saw on Mastodon called Dungeons, which used polls to advance randomly generated adventures. When I saw that you could vote to “retire” at the start of an adventure, I thought that it would be funny if everyone banded together to vote “retire” at the start of every adventure, and also let every adventurer completely avoid death by preventing adventure in the first place. So I was hooked by the idea of doing a game of Dungeons & Dropouts, although that wasn't what I wanted to name the game.

《歸真之旅》這遊戲名是《歸家之旅》的異軌，該烏托邦似的遊戲描述在擺脫暴力的戰後世界中的共同旅行。相反，《歸真之旅》是個反烏托邦似的遊戲，描述在資本主義和殖民主義製造的世界之中無法逃離的暴力和異化。《歸家之旅》是創造共同體的遊戲。《歸真之旅》是創造階級意識的遊戲。共產，依 prole.info 的辯論，其實需要克服共同體的鬥爭—需要克服分開或否認無產階級的資產階級共同體。《歸真之旅》是個除了在廢除被剝奪財產階級之中創造的共同體之外，什麼共同體都不承認的遊戲。此外，《歸真之旅》疑問在時空被工作和國界殖民化的世界裡為什麼要把共同旅行作為烏托邦。在遷移本質上就是被殖民力生產的情況之下，為何把暴力的擺脫處於移動的自由？

The title of Wanderhell is a détournement of Wanderhome, which is a utopian game about communal journeys in a post-war world free from violence. In contrast, Wanderhell is a dystopian game about the inescapability from violence and alienation in a world created by capitalism and colonialism. Wanderhome is a game of creating community. Wanderhell is a game of creating class consciousness. Communism, prole.info argues, actually requires a struggle of overcoming community—the bourgeois community that divides or denies the proletarian class. Wanderhell is a game that refuses to recognize any community except the community created by abolishing the dispossessed class. In addition, Wanderhell questions the utopianism of communal journeys in a world of time and space colonized by work and borders. When migration is inherently produced by colonial forces, why locate freedom from violence in freedom of mobility?

因此，移動的自由在《歸真之旅》之中具有暴力的功能。你扮演的是聲名狼藉的遊盪怪獸，就是在傳統 TRPG 中冒險家隨機能碰到的怪獸。在遊戲設計方面，遊蕩怪獸的目的通常就是要讓玩家感覺到冒險自然的危險，或是讓隨機的骰數創造新奇的遊戲狀況。總之，怪獸遊蕩的原因就是為了遊戲團扮演的冒險家的獨佔利益。

Hence, freedom of mobility in Wanderhell serves a violent function. You play as an infamous wandering monster, a monster that adventurers randomly encounter in traditional TRPGs. In terms of game design, the purpose of wandering monsters is often to let players feel the danger of adventuring in a natural way, or to let the randomness of dice create new and interesting game conditions. In short, the monster only wanders for the exclusive benefit of the adventurers played by the group.

這獨佔利益體現於《歸真之旅》地下城的經濟功能。你扮演的遊盪怪獸是黑耀公司的僱工；黑耀是我在《下世萬敵》之中創造的人類殖民地開拓者的重生點。黑耀公司創造的地下城不只是你的工作地，也是人類的殖民地—而且這次被殖民的不一定是非人的怪獸，可能是通過非人化被視為是怪獸的人。地下城是某個被指定剝削的地區—地下城化也就是與工業化和無產階級化相似。在地下城的怪獸就是為了玩家、冒險家、至上主義種族及帝國的獨佔利益而多層被剝奪財產的人。

This exclusive benefit is embodied in the economic function of dungeons in Wanderhell. You play as a wandering monster who is the employee of the Blackbright Company; Blackbright is the spawn point for human colonizers I created in Future Only Enemies. The dungeon created by Blackbright Company is not only your worksite, but a site of human colonization—and this time the colonized may not necessarily be nonhuman monsters, but humans regarded as monsters through dehumanization. A dungeon is an area designated for exploitation—dungeonization is meant to parallel industrialization and proletarianization. A monster in a dungeon is one who is multiply dispossessed for the exclusive benefit of players, adventurers, supremacist races, and empire.

《歸真之旅》之中的遊蕩不是在體現移動的自由，而是在體現這些宰制與剝削造成的移動強迫。遊蕩這行業處於的零工經濟以自由移動的幻想為前提。就跟 Uber 一樣，黑耀吹捧控制自己為工作在時空移動的自由，把自由定義為自我管理的殖民化。在你遊蕩的每一階段，你意識到這宣傳的真面目、意識到靠工作生存的意義—就是必須再生產殖民化才能繼續活下去。在這個系統當中，任何關於工作自由的選擇—無論是工作時間、地點或職業—都只是剝削方式的選擇，都是暴力的自由。

Wandering in Wanderhell does not embody freedom of mobility, but the mobility forced by these dominations and exploitations. The industry of wandering is situated in a gig economy premised on the illusion of free mobility. Just like Uber, Blackbright touts your freedom to control your movement through time and space for work, defining freedom as self-managed colonization. At every stage of wandering, you realize the true nature of this propaganda, realize the meaning of relying on work to survive—it is being required to reproduce colonization in order to continue to survive. In this system, any choice regarding the freedom of work—whether it's in time, place, or profession—is only a choice in method of exploitation, is only a violent freedom.

《歸真之旅》的目的不是要單獨挑出《歸家之旅》來做批評，反而是要批評《歸家之旅》體現的一種逃避現實的烏托邦主義。我知道《歸家之旅》的設計家不是什麼沒體驗過資本主義壓迫的人，知道那設計家其實有當過無房可歸的人、知道設計家是有受到順性別加異性戀主義以及能者宰制壓迫的酷兒殘疾人。我也知道很多跟那設計家一樣被剝削的人是真的能在現實中的逃避找到痛苦解脫的感覺。但我就是不能。對我來說，唯一的解脫就是破壞和重新創造社會。對我來說，《歸家之旅》對社會的破壞實在是不夠。它本來就不是要這麼做。但《歸真之旅》就是。我也是。

The purpose of Wanderhell isn't to single out Wanderhome for criticism, but to criticize a certain type of utopianism embodied by Wanderhome. I know the designer of Wanderhome isn't somebody who has never experienced the oppression of capitalism, know that that designer has been unhoused, know that that designer is a queer disabled person who has been oppressed by cisheterosexism and ableism. I also know that many others exploited like that designer truly do find a sense of relief from suffering through escape from reality. But I can't. To me, the only relief comes from destroying and making society anew. Wanderhome does not destroy enough of society for me. It wasn't meant to. But Wanderhell was. And I am.

延伸閱讀 Further Reading

• 〈躺平主义者宣言〉“The Tangpingist Manifesto”
• 〈解放人民，而不是領土：採訪烏克蘭流亡者〉 “Liberating people, not territories: Interview with a Ukrainian exile
• 〈這位特立獨行的送貨員希望您擺脫這些應用程式〉 “This Maverick Delivery Person Wants You to Break Free of the Apps”
• 〈女人為了逃避付出雙倍的代價〉“When someone can no longer go forward, you carry them.” (Original title: “Women pay double for fleeing”)

Nobody's Place or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Grok Equipment Lists and Setting Lore in TRPGs

最近我讀了 Phil A. Neel 跟 Nick Chavez 寫的〈森林和工廠：共產的科學與幻想〉；此中他們批評一種對想像未來烏托邦似的傾向。因為它拒絕考慮現存的物質限制，這烏托邦似的傾向不只失敗脫離資本主義的現狀，反而導致了現狀的接受和延續。在剩下的文章之間，他們試圖認真考慮那些物質限制，包括基本生活需要的工業基礎建設以及維修那基礎建設的需要，探索共產的世界到底需要什麼樣的生產系統改變。他們的評論完全轉換了我對 TRPG 設計的處理方式，尤其是關於裝備單跟世界設定背景的用處。

Recently I finished reading “Forest and Factory: The Science and the Fiction of Communism” by Phil A. Neel and Nick Chavez, in which they criticize a utopian tendency towards imagining the future. Because it refuses to consider existent material limits, this utopian tendency not only fails to break away from the capitalist status quo, but leads to the status quo's acceptance and continuation. In the rest of the essay, they attempt to seriously consider those material limits, including the industrial infrastructure needed for basic life needs and the needs to maintain that infrastructure, exploring how systems of production need to change in a communist world. Their observations completely transformed my approach towards TRPG design, particularly with regards to the usefulness of equipment lists and setting lore.

至今，我是完全拒絕在自己設計中利用裝備單或超越最低限度的世界設定背景，因為我在自己的跑團經驗中學到玩家就是不想管那些事。玩家寧願臨時想要有什麼就擲個骰子或花個點數去取，寧願完全按照自己的希望臆造世界。除了自己想像力的限制，玩家什麼限制都不想有—不想有物質限制、不想有歷史限制、不想有社會限制、什麼都不想有。換言之，玩家就是烏托邦似的—我也是。因為遊戲世界中的現實就是我們完全能控制的領域。在遊戲的現實之中，我們就是完全不必需要管真正世界會需要我們管的限制，因為我們可以直接用想像力廢除那些限制。在遊戲的現實之中，什麼願望決都能實現。烏托邦不是「沒有的地方」，而是「除了我們沒有任何人控制的地方」。

Until today, I was completely against using equipment lists or setting lore beyond the minimum amount, because my experience in running games taught me that players just don't want to care about those things. Players wanted to just roll some dice or spend some points to get something whenever they needed it in the moment, to construct the world completely according to their own wishes. Besides the limits of their own imaginations, players wanted to have no limits at all—no material limits, no historical limits, no social limits, nothing. In other words, players were utopian—and I was too. Because the reality of the game world was completely under our control. In the reality of a game, we didn't need to consider any limits we'd have to consider in the real world, because we could just immediately abolish those limits with our imagination. In the reality of a game, all wishes could come true. Utopia wasn't “no place,” but “nobody's place but ours.”

正如我在〈映像之龍〉中做的評論，這種烏托邦的存在需要遊戲團在政治方面的同質。這是個保守的同質，為了保存團內人的政治理解問題化任何對那些想法的激進或革命性挑戰。沒錯，什麼願望決都能實現，只要是剩下團內的人能接受你的願望。沒錯，什麼限制都能廢除，只要是你認為該廢除或不廢除的東西跟其他人一模一樣。

As I observed in “The Dragon in the Mirror,” this kind of utopia required the political homogeneity of the playgroup in order to exist. This is a conservative homogeneity that, for the sake of conserving the political understanding of people within the group, problematizes any radical or revolutionary challenges to those ways of thought. That's right, all wishes could come true, as long as your wish was accepted by the rest of the group. That's right, all limits could be abolished, as long as the things you wanted or didn't want to be abolished were the same as that of everyone else.

對烏托邦似的玩家來說，一切妨礙自我表現，從個人情緒到政治看法，都是該廢除的限制。遊戲的正文是個限制。GM 是個限制。其他的玩家也是限制。或許烏托邦似的遊戲設計師就是試圖為了一切的廢除鋪平場地的人，包括自己的廢除。可是這種一切的廢除不是共產對現存狀況的廢除，因為它跟為了結束資本主義異化的現實共產運動並沒有關係。相反，這只是個人或少數人為了自己娛樂的主觀主義行動。它和資本系統的無干涉主義更有雷同。

To the utopian player, all that stands in the way of self-expression, from personal feelings to political views, are limits that should be abolished. The game's text is a limit. The GM is a limit. Other players are also limits. Perhaps a utopian game designer is one who sets the stage for the abolition of everything, including the abolition of themselves. But this abolition is not communism's abolition of the current state of things, because it has nothing to do with a real communist movement to end capitalist alienation. On the contrary, it's the subjectivist endeavor of one person or a few for personal entertainment. It has more affinity with capitalist laissez-faireism.

那麼，把烏托邦派在遊戲中對現實的廢除改變成共產現實運動對現存狀況的廢除倒底需要什麼？我們必須重新評估彼此廢除限制的目的，按照更嚴謹的政治標準來做出決定。直接想像出反資本主義的世界是不夠的事。我們必須在遊戲的細節之中搞清楚虛構跟現實世界的物質生產差別如何能導致我們想像出來的反資本主義社會。我們必須把這些差別的設計視為攻擊現存狀況的機會，暴露實現共產的可能性的機會。

So what would it take to transform the utopians' abolition of reality in games to the communist real movement's abolition of the current state of things? We must reevaluate the purpose behind each other's abolition of limits, and make decisions according to more rigorous political standards. It is not enough to simply imagine anticapitalist worlds. We must make it clear in the details of the game how differences between material production in the fictional versus real world can lead to the anticapitalist societies we've imagined. We must see the design of these differences as an opportunity to attack the current state of things, an opportunity to expose the possibility of communism being realized.

從這個角度來看，裝備單跟世界設定背景變成革命性的武器。他們不再是純粹妨礙反抗現狀的限制，而是透過玩家角色的工具跟虛構的歷史了解一個遊戲世界中物質跟社會再生產的圖例。正如 Iggy 所寫的話：「所有的工具在生產的起點都有預期的用途。所有的工具被用在世界之中的時候都有被實現的用途。所有的工具都會影響我們如何跟世界建立關係，就算是效果不大。無法把一個工具跟它產生的關係分開，也沒有『中立』的關係這回事。」在裝備單上的每一個物品不只代表遊戲角色跟遊戲世界的一種關係，也同時代表遊戲設計師希望產生的玩家跟遊戲關係。世界設定背景通常會更詳細地解釋這些關係的特性和發展，提供豐富的異軌資料。

From this angle, equipment lists and setting lore become revolutionary weapons. They are no longer purely limits that obstruct rebellion against reality, but keys to understanding a game world's material and social reproductions through the player characters' tools and fictional history. As Iggy writes: “All tools have some intended use at the point of their production. All tools have realized uses once they are employed in the world. All tools affect the ways we relate to the world around us, even if their effects are small. There is no separating a tool from the relations it engenders, and there is no such thing as a 'neutral' relation.” Every item on an equipment list not only represents a relation between an in-game character and the in-game world, but also the relation that the game designer hopes to engender between the player and the game. Setting lore often elaborates on the nature and development of these relations in greater detail, providing rich material for détournement.

最後，我想提出一些協助為了廢除現存狀況的遊戲分析、遊玩與設計的問題。這些問題的目的是闡釋遊戲的「基礎」（設計、虛構世界的物質生產系統）如何影響「上層建築」（遊玩風格、虛構角色的社會關係）。

In closing, I'd like to suggest a couple questions to aid in the analysis, playing, and design of games for the purpose of abolishing the current state of things. The purpose of these questions to clarify how the game's “base” (design, systems of material production in the fictional world) impacts the “superstructure” (playing style, social relations among fictional characters).

• 哪些資源最重要（描述更多、種類更多、在背景或機構中有特別的角色）？哪些最不重要？這對玩家角色跟遊戲世界的關係有什麼樣的意味？那種關係又對遊戲世界在社會和經濟方面的組織方式有什麼樣的意味？對玩家該如何使用遊戲的意味？玩這個遊戲時會在現實中再生產什麼樣的社會關係？

• What resources are most important in the game (more description, more varieties, special roles in lore or mechanics)? The least important? What does this imply about the relationship between the player character and the game's world? What does that relationship imply about how the game's world is socially and economically organized? About how the player should be using the game? What social relations are reproduced when the game is played?

• 玩家角色如何獲取生存需要的資源？那些資源跟獲取方式跟非玩家角色的差別多大？有某些非玩家角色的情況比其他人的更好嗎？為什麼？這對遊戲世界在社會和經濟方面的組織方式有什麼樣的意味？玩這個遊戲時會在現實中再生產什麼樣的社會關係？

• How are resources the player character needs for survival sourced in the game? How different are those resources and the sourcing process from that of non-player characters? Do some non-player characters have it easier than others? Why? What does that imply about how the game's world is socially and economically organized? What social relations are reproduced when the game is played?

• 角色在遊戲中能使用的物品是如何被生產的？那生產系統是如何地被維修或持續？玩家角色跟那生產系統有什麼樣的關係？非玩家角色呢？有沒有誰剝削或是被剝削？這對遊戲世界在社會和經濟方面的組織方式有什麼樣的意味？玩這個遊戲時會在現實中再生產什麼樣的社會關係？

• How are items usable by characters in the game produced? How is that system of production maintained or perpetuated? What is the relationship of player characters to that system of production? Of non-player characters? Is there anyone who expropriates or is expropriated? What does that imply about how the game's world is socially and economically organized? What social relations are reproduced when the game is played?

• 遊戲中有錢這回事嗎？有的話，你會如何廢除（在虛構世界中有什麼物質和社會關係需要改變，而且你會如何想像這些改變的發展）？

• Does money exist in the game? If it does, how would you abolish it (what material and social relations in the fictional world would need to change, and how would you imagine those changes developing)?

“I Now Cast My Judgment:” Analyzing The Four Agonist Archetypes

「我已逐漸看清迄今為止的每一種偉大哲學是由什麼構成的—即看到了其創立者的自白書，一種不自覺的、無意識的自傳；並認識到每種哲學中的道德（或非道德）目的，是長成整個植物的真正活胚芽。」

—弗里德里希·尼采，朱泱 譯，來自《善惡的彼岸》

“I have gradually come to realize what every great philosophy so far has been: a confession of faith on the part of its author, and a type of involuntary and unself-conscious memoir; in short, that the moral (or immoral) intentions in every philosophy constitute the true living seed from which the whole plant has always grown.”

—Friedrich Nietzsche, translated by Judith Norman, in Beyond Good and Evil

首先為《降天下世》發展的概念，四大解性遊原型的聖、丑、賊、惡代表人物在解性敘事中正式扮演的戲劇角色。靈感來源於京劇的生、旦、淨、末、丑五種行當和 El Teatro Campesino 的 actos，四大解性遊原型是我試圖概述在被庸俗化的革命鬥爭敘述之中的定型角色。有完美和無可指責的聖、不切實際和無能的丑、犯法和拒絕反省的賊或是暴虐和自高自大的惡。它們就是在反革命世界之中為革命的鬥爭如何地「淹死你」，強迫你呈現的「屍型」。它們也是我認為自己該為革命處死自己人性的方式。雖然當時我還沒讀過 Sergey Nechayev 的《革命者教義》，四大原型基本上就是我自己對「註定是犧牲」的革命者的想法。

First developed for Felling Heaven, Felling World, the four agonist archetypes of saint, fool, fiend, and scourge represented the formal dramatic roles played by characters in agonist narratives. Inspired by Beijing opera's five roles of 生, 旦, 淨, 末, and 丑, as well as El Teatro Campesino's actos, the four agonist archetypes were my attempt to sketch out stock characters in vulgarized narratives of revolutionary struggle. There were perfect and blameless saints, unrealistic and incompetent fools, criminal and unrepentant fiends, or tyrannical and self-important scourges. They were how the struggle for revolution in a counterrevolutionary world would “drown you,” the “corpse forms” it would force you to take. They were also different ways I felt like I had to kill my own humanity for revolution. Although back then I had yet to read Sergey Nechayev's Revolutionary Catechism, the four archetypes were essentially my take on the revolutionary as a “doomed man.”

可是是誰在註定革命者？ Nechayev 好像有暗示：就是革命者 ta 自己。革命者為革命「應當」有自我否定的態度。這是革命者自己想負的責任，自己要承擔的命。可是沒有以等級制度為基礎的反革命世界，會有這種責任，會有這種命需要存在嗎？是誰在註定革命者—是 ta 還是解放之敵？

But who dooms the revolutionary? Nechayev seems to suggest it's the revolutionary themself. It's among the revolutionary's “duties” to have a self-negating attitude for the sake of revolution. The revolutionary chooses to take up this responsibility, take on this fate. But if it were not for a counterrevolutionary world based on hierarchy, would this responsibility, would this fate, even have to exist in the first place? Who dooms the revolutionary—themself or the enemies of liberation?

缺了一方，另一方無法存在。沒有必要革命的世界，就沒有革命者必要的存在—可是是革命者的存在暴露出世界有革命的需要。因此，解性遊的中心就是探索這個辯證法—更明確地說，是探索世界的社會狀態和革命者的組織狀態的相互作用如何影響革命的發展。

There is no one without the other. Without a world that needs revolution, there is no need for the revolutionary to exist—but it is the existence of revolutionaries that exposes the need for revolution in the world. Hence, the focus of agonist play is to explore this dialectic—more specifically, to explore how the interplay between the world's social conditions and revolutionaries' organizing conditions influences the development of revolution.

然而，在解性遊戲的開發過程之中，這辯證法退化成探索遊戲狀態和玩家個人政治傾向的相互作用如何影響遊戲政治敘述的發展。退化版是原本的景觀。可是或許可以用這個說法形容解性實踐這概念的全體。在一個被中介的世界的中介之中，此內遊戲的設計和虛構世界代表現實、玩家代表革命者亦遊玩代表解放，怎麼可能會有免受景觀化的革命政治？

However, in the process of developing agonist games, this dialectic devolved into exploring how the interplay between game conditions and players' personal political orientations would influence the development of the game's political narrative. The devolved version was a spectacle of the original. But perhaps this could be said of the entirety of agonist praxis as a concept. In a mediation of a mediated world, in which the game's design and fictional world represent reality, the player represents a revolutionary, and play represents liberation, how could you have a politics of revolution free from spectaclization?

四大解性遊原型也就是革命者被景觀化的形象；以它們為特色的文本也就它們在設計中如何被景觀化的紀錄。在這個文章之中，我將會分析到目前為止使用或提到那些原型的文本，為了探索自己對革命者的看法被景觀化的發展。關於每一項文本，我會回答：

The four agonist archetypes were then the spectalized forms of revolutionaries; the texts that featured them were records of how they became spectaclized in design. In this essay, I will analyze the texts up to this point that have used or referenced those archetypes, for the sake of exploring how my own perspective on revolutionaries became spectaclized.

《降天下世》Felling Heaven, Felling World

「跑團的道理就是把非自創的名字完全當耳邊風，即使是自創有時也認不了。湖編，知這：你的玩家永遠不會感覺到歷史的沉重，除非是自己經驗的歷史。在那歷史當中，他們會為了現在方便能忘就忘，為了現在方便能記就記。你也會。你也會。」

“The principle of playgroups is to completely ignore all names they did not create, if they even recognize the names that they do. Peruffian, know this—your players will never feel the weight of any history except the history they have personally experienced. Of that history, they will forget what is presently convenient for them to forget, and remember what is presently convenient for them to remember. You too. You too.“

有了遊戲後段的這自我否定背景的指示，我們來看看《降天下世》一開始的世界背景：

With this self-negating instruction towards lore from the latter part of the game, let's look at Felling Heaven, Felling World's setting lore at game's beginning:

很久以前，冬鎖帝國征服了世界，把全都困在永恆的冰天雪地。但在百年壓迫之際，江屍革命者暴動成功毀滅了帝國的政權。革命的勝利代價就是詛咒，使下世永遠在痛苦輪迴中轉生，在每一轉都逃不過前世的困擾...

Long ago, the Frostlock Empire conquered the world, imprisoning all under eternal ice and snow. But then, on its hundredth year of oppression, the Corpse River revolutionaries rose up and successfully destroyed the Empire's regime. The cost of victory for the revolution was a curse, causing all future generations to eternally reincarnate in cycles of suffering, haunted by their past lives at every turn...

這是我意圖簡單概述所謂的「後殖民」的世界，其實不是真的有擺脫殖民主義，而是被新殖民主義冤纏。雖然正文中沒寫得特別明確，江屍革命者的詛咒來自於他們自己為了打敗冬鎖帝國而忽略的其他壓迫情況，因革命沒有真正地完畢而產生新殖民主義的呈現。就跟玩家們的毛病一樣，這些革命者的問題是馬基雅維利主義。他們並沒有完全重視革命，反而碰到跟自己的利益有衝突的時候會放棄革命選擇自己或自己陣營的人。

This was meant to be my sketch of a so-called “postcolonial” world, which was not really free from colonialism, but haunted by neocolonialism. Although I didn't make it explicit in the text, the Corpse River revolutionaries' curse came from their negligence towards other instances of oppression for the sake of defeating the Frostlock Empire, giving rise to the appearance of neocolonialism in the wake of an incomplete revolution. Like the problem of the players, the problem of these revolutionaries was one of Machiavellianism. Their priority was not entirely revolution; instead, whenever they ran into any conflicts of interest they would abandon revolution and choose themselves or their own camp.

跑團的時候，遊戲團其中屬於第一的目標就是決定什麼遊戲內容不會用，包括《降天下世》建立世界設定的小小一段。根據我自己的經驗，如果他們是決定保留背景基本部分的話，他們會選擇去掉詛咒那一部分，把遊戲破壞成武俠烏托邦模擬遊戲。就跟我上個文章中說的一樣，這些玩家根本不會管你正文的政治；他們只是把你的遊戲當作為他們實現自我表現拆用的有用屍體。

When running a game, one of the first goals of the playgroup is to decide what parts of the game not to use, including this small paragraph establishing the setting in Felling Heaven, Felling World. In my experience, they would choose to remove the part about the curse, sabotaging the game into a wuxia utopia simulator. Like I said in my previous essay, these players didn't care about the politics of your text; they only saw your game as a useful corpse to cannibalize for the purposes of realizing their self-expression.

但以預想為準，《降天下世》的虛構社會也就是按照拆用的機構創造出來的。湖編，也就是遊戲的 GM，會犧牲自己的角色，拆用自己的角色卡來填寫殭湖的角色卡，代表解性（革命者）的江湖世界。我並且在正文中解釋了這樣設計的目的：

But with prefiguration as the rule, Felling Heaven, Felling World's fictional society was also created through the mechanics of cannibalization. The Peruffian, which was the game's GM, would sacrifice their own character, cannibalizing their character sheet to fill out the character sheet of the Jyanghu or Corpse Waters, representing the agonist (revolutionary) underworld. I also explained in the text of the game what the purpose of this kind of design was:

…當我們打倒承載世界的等級制度，我們也會把世界載到制度的遺址。歷史上制度根深柢固損害未來的地景，而我們種植的新根會繼承到制度的髒土。革除天命的問題就是不能逃避我們總會被分解，總會與土合一的塵世宿命。

...when we bring down the hierarchies that hold up the world, we also bring the world down to their ruins. Their historical entrenchment compromises the landscape of the future, and the new roots we plant inherit their soil. The problem of overturning heaven is that we cannot escape our mortal destiny to become decomposed, to become one with the soil.

所以這現世的道理就是解自分的作用。就是解自己是怎樣損害未來的地景、怎樣會留傳髒土、怎樣會被革除。就是解不只是你，而是這世界上每一個人都在這因果循環中，無論他們是解或不解。

And so the principle of this present is to comprehend the purpose of your own destruction. It is to understand how you compromise the landscape of the future, how your soil will get passed down, how you will be overturned. It is to understand that not just you, but every individual on earth is in this cycle of causality, whether they comprehend it or not.

湖編—願如是解你運素俠的分屍對創造這虛構世界有怎樣的作用。

Peruffian—thus may you comprehend how your yunsu xia's decomposition serves a purpose for creating this fictional world.

《降天下世》—也可以延伸到解性實踐—的自我否定中心思想是革命失敗主義。有時候你就是敵人。那麼，如何知道什麼時候才是該死的時刻？讓四大原型上臺，之中每一個都有自己不願意去死或是自己一開始就被處於死亡的問題。這些原型形成陰陽的兩對：完全無法失去社會接受的陰聖和完全無法得到社會接受的陽賊是一對；全知的陰惡和無知的陽丑是另一對。陰方必須保持自己的正確；陽方必須完全失去正確的可能性。

The self-negation of Felling Heaven, Felling World—and by extention that of agonist praxis—was about revolutionary defeatism. Sometimes you were the enemy. So how did you know when it was time for you to die? Enter the four archetypes, each of which either had a problem of being unwilling to die or being condemned to die from the start. These roles formed two yin-yang pairs: The saint, which could never lose the approval of society, was the yin to the yang of the fiend, which could never gain the approval of society; the scourge who knew everything was the yin to the yang of the fool who knew nothing. The yin had to always protect their own correctness; the yang had to completely lose any potential for correctness.

在殭湖之中，這些緊張關係被擴大到革命者形成的組織。聖歸於篤信宗教的派、丑歸於深奧的會、賊歸於規定為非法的幫、惡歸於被制度化的門。隨機產生情節的敘事功能（靈感來源於 Vladimir Propp 分析民間故事形態的敘事功能）並且闡明四個原型和他們組織為了證明另一方是錯誤的鬥爭。陰陽雙方都認為彼此失敗做的事都是因為羞恥：陰方的聖-派-惡-門羞於被別人視為是錯，陽方的丑-會-賊-幫恥於被別人視為是對。遊戲的目標就是質問誰為了開始決鬥對自己羞恥的克服會產生真的最有正義的結果—真的完成革命、真的結束壓迫。

In the Corpse Waters, these tensions were magnified into the associations formed by the revolutionaries. Saints belonged to religious sects, fools to esoteric societies, fiends to criminalized gangs, scourges to institutionalized schools. The narrative functions (inspired by Vladimir Propp's narrative functions for analyzing the morphology of folk tales) for randomly generating plot also illustrated the struggle to prove each other wrong among the four archetypes and their associations. Both sides of yin and yang thought that the other failed to act because of shame: the yin saint-sect-scourge-schools were ashamed to be wrong to other people, while the yang fool-society-fiend-gangs were ashamed to be correct to other people. The point of the game was to interrogate whose overcoming of shame for the sake of initiating decisive struggle would produce the outcome with the truest justice—the true completion of revolution, the true end of oppression.

四大解性遊原型也有相關的運素，也就是元素和心境的合體—是角色移動他們現實的根源。運素總共分三個種類，按照它們的起源：先天就有的天運素、在壓迫之下被精煉出來的精運素、和命名為冬鎖帝國的壓迫者帶來的鎖運素；三種運素的來源是第一個運素，命。在《降天下世》的解性江湖之中，運素在機構方面形成一個主觀主義現實的結構，也就是影響命發展的結構。天運素—也就是所謂自然法的代表—決定什麼行為對（GM 扮演的）社會來說算是「罪」。精運素是創造解放實現的道理的原材料；鎖運素模仿壓迫，對那道理的創造施加限制。

The four agonist archetypes also had associated yunsu, which were combinations of elements and mentalities—the roots from which the characters moved their reality. Yunsu were divided into three types, according to their origins: natural yunsu that inherently existed, refined yunsu that was developed under oppression, and locked yunsu that came from the oppressing Frostlock Empire; all three types of yunsu originated from the first yunsu, fate. In the agonist underworld of Felling Heaven, Felling World, yunsu mechanically formed the structure of a subjectivist reality, the structure of what shaped the course of fate itself. Natural yunsu—a stand-in for so-called natural law—determined what behaviors would be considered by society (played by the GM) as “crimes.” Refined yunsu served as the raw material for creating the principle of realizing liberation; locked yunsu mimicked oppression, imposing limits on the creation of that principle.

四大解性遊原型自然跟反抗鎖運素制度的精運素有關。每一個原型組織都有虛構代表的可否定故事背景，體現在故事中的反鎖運動會看起來像是怎樣：在監牢中學會運血苦逃獄的聖派、用金決發明新逃脫帝國兵的技術的丑會、運電責向污染他們家鄉的公司實現報仇的賊幫、用空消創造自治區的惡門判軍。

Naturally the four agonist archetypes were associated with the refined yunsu that opposed the order of the locked yunsu. Each archetype-association had negatable lore for a fictional representative, embodying what resistance against locked order might look like in the story: the saint-sect that learned to direct blood-pain to break free from prison, the fool-society that used metal-resolve to invent new technology to evade imperial troops, the fiend-gang that directed shock-blame to realize revenge against companies polluting their homes, the scourge-school rebel army that created autonomous zones with void-ending.

具有諷刺意味的是，這些典型組織的實踐完全沒互斥，讓人懷疑原型與他們組織的「決鬥」到底有沒有必要。他們真正是為了解決誰失敗阻止壓迫而爭吵，還是只是在小題大做？他們決鬥到底有沒有跟詛咒的消除有關，還是只是在吵誰最有本事來幹？在尋找革命「最正確」的路線之中，他們是不是又忘了革命，回到了自己的個人問題？四大原型在《降天下世》之內問題化了革命性政治中避免不了的主觀。或許「大革命」只是一場革命者困在成為聖-丑-賊-惡的惡性循環之中的鬧劇—而此循環的解脫並被他們誤會和真心認為是真正的革命。

Ironically, the praxes of these example associations were not mutually exclusive at all, bringing into question whether the “decisive struggles” of the archetypes and their associations were even necessary to begin with. Were they really fighting over who failed to stop oppression, or just making mountains out of molehills? Did their decisive struggles have anything to do with eliminating the curse, or were they just fighting over who had the most potential to do it? In the search for the “most correct” path to revolution, did they forget revolution again, and return to their own personal problems? The four archetypes in Felling Heaven, Felling World were a problematization of unavoidable subjectivity in revolutionary politics. Perhaps “The Revolution” was just a farce about the revolutionary being trapped in a vicious cycle of becoming saint-fool-fiend-scourge—the escape from which they mistook and took seriously for real revolution.

《受死令》Soulslinger

鑑於《降天下世》的世界設定背景把失敗擺脫壓迫的責任放在「被詛咒的」革命者身上，《受死令》完全指責壓迫性的行星系統秩序。江屍詛咒的對應是主宰系統的協吞教的吞光鐵神，超自然地吞食了系統中百分之九十九的人民。

Whereas the setting lore of Felling Heaven, Felling World placed the blame for failing to escape oppression on the “cursed” revolutionaries, Soulslinger squarely placed the blame on the oppressive order of the planetary system. The equivalent to the Corpse River curse is the system-ruling Cult of Twun's Sparkeater god, who supernaturally devoured 99% of the system's population.

死令，也就是歷史大災事件的背景，顯示出更多關於協吞教的附帶提示：在生榮的倖存者有權利不「自願犧牲」，以被非生物化的判教者身份繼續活下去，跟住在其他星球沒有那選擇的人完全不一樣。雖然沒有公佈的事件時間軸，把血星大戰、送息旱災和刮膽牢籠當作是吞光鐵降臨製造的大犧牲之前發生的事比相反的詮釋更加合理。大戰把生榮的聖榮帝國指責於血星的自動殖民地的敵人；在這大戰之中，一種似核武技術製造的落塵導致了第三方送息星球的旱災，而那裡「視死不歸」的人民用超自然的方式把自己變成殭屍。生榮又在牢籠中有當殖民性壓迫者的牽連；刮膽的人民對它的侵占抗議，但被抓捕並強迫變成超自然的獸人，暗示他們的抓捕者會使用超自然的方式處罰對他們殖民秩序的反抗者。再見生榮核冬的背景，看到起因是吞光鐵的落塵，可以有理地斷定聖榮帝國就是協吞教擁有類似核武跟魔法的國家。同時可以斷定反抗的團體也有使用類似核武跟魔法的能力。

Lore behind the Death Marks, historically catastrophic events, reveals more peripheral clues about the Cult: survivors on Vim'run had the right to have “refused The Sacrifice” and live on as abioticized apostates, which makes them exceptionally different from the people on other planets who did not get that choice. Although there's no official timeline of events, it makes more sense to assume that The Great War of Shahsin', The Drought of Ehm'rah, and The Caging of Gwahdyu' happened before The Sacrifice caused by The Sparkeater's descent rather than the other way around. The Great War names The Holy Empire of Vim'run as an enemy of The Machine Colonies of Shahsin'; in this Great War, the fallout from a nuclear-weapons-like technology caused a Drought on the third-party planet of Ehm'rah, whose people “refused to die” by supernaturally becoming reanimated corpses. Vim'run is again implicated as a colonial oppressor in The Caging; the people of Gwahdyu' protested its occupation, but are captured and forcibly transformed into supernatural werebeasts, suggesting that their capturers could use supernatural methods to punish those who rebelled against their colonial order. If you go look at the lore for The Twilight of Vim'run, which was caused by fallout from The Sparkeater, you can reasonably conclude that The Holy Empire of Vim'run was the nation-state of the Cult of Twun, with access to something like to nuclear weapons and magic. You can also reasonably conclude the resistance forces also had access to nuclear-like power and magic.

考慮到這些背景，吞光鐵中的幽靈起義是完全符合虛構現實的規則的事件。大犧牲可以說是跟我們平凡世界中的大屠殺一樣，而鬼用被搶佔的神腹建立的零空實例跟在我們現實中被創造的自治區沒什麼兩樣，只是加上了科幻的背景敘述。

With this background in mind, the ghost insurrection in The Sparkeater was an incident completely in accordance with the rules of fictional reality. The Sacrifice was just like what a genocide would be in our world, and the nullspace established by the ghost's seizure of the god's stomach was just the same as autonomous zones created in our reality, just with a flavor text of science fantasy.

在《受死令》之中，四大原型可以說是成為時空游擊者（穿越時空把解性的衝動附身傳染給凡人的鬼）的症狀。每個受死令在當時空游擊者的原因就是心火，「逃不離的痛苦，強迫［他們］四處冤纏平行時空。」所以受死令反抗的原因是強迫思維；對革命的投入是他們的病態。

In Soulslinger, you could say that the four archetypes were symptoms of becoming a chronoguerilla fighter (a ghost that crosses through spacetime possessing mortals and infecting them with agonist impulses). The reason why every soulslinger was a chronoguerilla fighter was because of their spark, “an inescapable pain that compel[led them] to haunt parallel timespace in all directions.” So the soulslinger revolted out of compulsion; the commitment to revolution was pathological for them.

我必須在這裡暫停一下，回到文章開頭的尼采引文。對大部分的人來說，面對生命威脅的時候想繼續活下去不是什麼心理問題。我是被虐待者養大的。我是被當作是他們追求完美的寄託者，被教導該活得彷彿一切都只會是我的錯。如果有人要威脅我的生命，我無法直接靠「生理需求」或像是「大家都有存在的資格」的老生常談來接受我對生命的權利。我之前說過了—有時候你就是敵人。以前我弟弟常會問我：法西斯主義到底有什麼問題？他對道德的解釋不滿；他要的是實際的回答。如果你認為別人就是低等的，為什麼不能那樣地對待他們？為什們別人認為這樣是在侵犯他們自由的權利？為什麼他們不願意給你壓迫的自由？

Here is where I have to pause and return to the Nietzsche quote at the start of the essay. For most people, it is not a psychological problem if your life is being threatened and you want to live. I was raised by abusers. I was treated as nothing but a vessel for their pursuit of perfection, taught to live as if everything could only ever be my fault. If someone wants to threaten my life, I'm unable to just rely on “biological necessity” or platitudes like “everybody deserves to live” to accept my claim to life. I already said it before—sometimes you are the enemy. My brother used to constantly ask me: what's wrong with fascism? He found moral explanations unsatisfying; he wanted a practical answer. Why shouldn't you treat others as inferior if that's how you thought of them? Why did others say that this was an infringement of their freedom? Why wouldn't they grant you the freedom to oppress?

因為壓迫的自由跟免於壓迫的自由在本質上就是不一樣、因為在按照等級制度組織的社會之中，製造壓迫是在剝奪別人的權力，而反對壓迫是權力被剝奪的人在奪回自己的權力。如果讓壓迫者有自由執行壓迫的話，剩下的人就不會有自由。

Because the freedom to oppress and freedom from oppression were qualitatively different, because in a society organized according to hierarchy, to create oppression was to dispossess power from others, and to oppose oppression was the dispossessed seizing it back. If we let oppressors have the freedom to carry out oppression, there would be no freedom left for everybody else.

可是這還是沒回答我秘密法西斯主義者弟弟的問題。為什麼不該剝奪別人的權力？為什們人不會乖乖接受他們的剝奪？（秘密）法西斯主義者（或是虐待者）就是不懂為什麼別人不願愈接受隨選真正或比喻地去死的命令。一個（秘密）法西斯主義者-虐待者不重視生命，就算是自己的生命也是。他們重視的是對生命的控制；一個無法被他們控制的生命就是沒資格存在的生命。

But this still wasn't an answer to my cryptofascist brother's question. Why shouldn't you dispossess power from others? Why couldn't people just accept their own dispossession? A (crypto)fascist (or an abuser) just doesn't understand why people aren't willing to accept the imperative to literally or metaphorically die on demand. A (crypto)fascist-abuser does not value life, not even their own. What they value is power over life; a life uncontrollable by them was a life with no right to exist.

如何證明他們是錯？小的時候，我意識到自己有繼續責怪自己，不把我的經驗問題化成虐待的自由。我不懂為什麼自己一直對這樣的自由有內心一直情感操縱不掉的反對。我的認識力能讓我為虐待者一切對我做的事找出合理的解釋。為什麼我就是不能一直做下去？而且如果做不下去的話，我是不是沒有資格繼續活下去？

How could you prove them wrong? When I was little, I was conscious that I had the freedom to just keep blaming myself and not problematize my experiences as abuse. I didn't understand why I kept having internal resistance against this freedom that couldn't be gaslit out. I had the cognitive ability to rationalize everything my abusers did to me. So why couldn't I just keep doing it? And if I couldn't keep doing it, did that mean I had no right to exist?

某一天，我決定該活。我決定接受當他們敵人的責任。不是因為我找到了為什麼我該活的足夠證據，而是因為我證據找不到。我唯一找到的就是權力。我有權力秘密地存錢、去租房間、收拾行李、上車離開。我有權力跟我的室友跟房東交代不准讓我的虐待者進來。我有權力帶刀去看前門。

At some point, I decided to live. I decided to accept the responsibility of being their enemy. Not because I found sufficient proof that I should live, but because I couldn't find proof at all. The only thing I found was power. I had the power to secretly save up, rent a room, pack my bags, get on a car and leave. I had the power to tell my roommates and landlord not to let my abusers in. I had the power to bring a knife to answer the door.

權力就是自由。但自由不是自治。對我來說，自治—也就是對自己生活有的權力—可不是關於個人的問題。反而它是關於集體的問題。我是把每個人都當作一個現實實例；只要一個人的現實之中有任何再生產壓迫的痕跡，宇宙就是不潔淨的。對我來說，光從物質跟社會狀況除掉壓迫的痕跡是不夠的事。我必須要從大家的內心除掉。對我來說，直到永遠不會有人想利用權力控制或強制別人，解放—也就是不以犧牲別人的自治來維護其他人自治的狀態—並沒有完成實現。我要的是完全能確定壓迫的結束。

Power was freedom. But freedom wasn't autonomy. To me, autonomy—that is, power over your own life—was not an individualist problem. It was instead a collectivist one. I considered each person as an instance of reality; as long as any individual's reality had any traces of reproducing oppression, the universe was unclean. To me, it was not enough to wipe out the traces of oppression from material and social conditions. I had to wipe it out in everyone's souls. To me, until no one would ever have the desire to use power to control or coerce another person, liberation—that is, the state where no one's autonomy came at the expense of another's—would not be completely realized. I wanted the end of oppression to be an absolute certainty.

所以要宣布自己是「革命」者的話，要保證全宇宙的人我就是真的—就是完全能確定—結束壓迫的俠，我得給大家完全兌現。如果按照我的實踐不能完全確定地導致每一個人的解放，不准說我在革命。這就是我對自己的標準—最低限度的標準。

So if I wanted to call myself a “revolutionary,” if I wanted to promise all people in the world that I was a 俠 who would bring a true—an absolutely certain—end to oppression, I had to deliver perfectly. If my praxis was not absolutely certain to lead to liberation for every single person, I could not say I was making revolution. These are the standards I hold myself by—the bare minimum standard.

「每個受死令在當時空游擊者的原因就是心火，『逃不離的痛苦，強迫［他們］四處冤纏平行時空。』」應作：我追求革命的原因就是創傷，強迫我完美主義地要求世界的解放。「你的心火是 ___ 。它迫使你定勢如做最終判斷的惡、反制批評者的賊、沒判斷能力的丑、無法被批評的聖」。應作：我有強迫行為必須去改別人、必須認為大家的意見都是錯的、必須認為自己無法判斷對和錯或必須只能有別人覺得是正確的意見。我知道這是我自己的問題。有時候我不想讓它變成別人的問題，有時候我想管他們去死。

“The reason why every soulslinger was a chronoguerilla fighter was because of their spark, 'an inescapable pain that compel[led them] to haunt parallel timespace in all directions.'” Read: the reason I pursue revolution is because of trauma that compels me to perfectionistically demand the world's liberation. “Your SPARK is ___. It forces you to SCHEME like A SCOURGE who ends judgement, A FIEND who cheats judgment, A FOOL with no judgment, A SAINT beyond judgment.” Read: I feel compelled to correct people all the time, compelled to dismiss everyone else's opinions as wrong, compelled to deny that I have the ability to determine right and wrong, or compelled to only have opinions that are correct to everyone else. I know it's my problem. Sometimes I don't want it to become anyone else's, and other times I do.

在遊戲之中，玩家從一組撲克牌卡抽牌創造冤纏時空的一趟行程。每一張卡都代表一段行憶，重複《降天下世》以運動為主的設計。牌按照花色分成四種跟四個星球有聯繫的行：血星的血、送息的息、刮膽的膽跟生榮的榮。每一個「行色」再被分十三張行憶卡的線性故事組成。不管它的行，每一個花色的故事都有下列的基本結構，在遊戲系統的參考文檔中被詳細描述：

During the game, players draw from a deck of cards to create a journey of haunting spacetime. Every card represented a moving memory, echoing the movement-centered design of Felling Heaven, Felling World. The cards were divided by suit into four hsing: the blood of Shahsin', the breath of Ehm'rah, the guts of Gwahdyu', and the glory of Vim'run. Every “hsing suit” was then composed of a linear story divided into thirteen moving memory cards. Regardless of hsing, each suit's story had the following basic structure, detailed in the game system's SRD:

1. 大起 GREAT START: 代表故事開始 represents a story starting
2. 小合 SMALL STOP: 代表故事結束 represents a story ending
3. 小起 SMALL START: 代表故事開始 represents a story starting
4. 小轉 SMALL TURN: 代表故事改變 represents a plot twist
5. 小承 SMALL TRIAL: 代表故事衝突 represents a problem appearing
6. 中合 CORE STOP: 代表故事結束 represents a story ending
7. 中起 CORE START: 代表故事開始 represents a story starting
8. 中承 CORE TRIAL: 代表故事衝突 represents a problem appearing
9. 中轉 CORE TURN: 代表故事改變 represents a plot twist
10. 死令 DEATH MARK: 代表（行的星球上的）社會崩潰 represents a social breakdown (on the hsing's planet)
11. (騎士 J) 大承 GREAT TRIAL: 代表故事衝突 represents a problem appearing
12. (皇后 Q) 大轉 GREAT TURN: 代表故事改變 represents a plot twist
13. (國王 K) 大合 GREAT STOP: 代表故事結束 represents a story ending

受死令使用四行的「動力」來接受或拒絕行憶，指揮時間軸的發展。遊戲在機構上有限制玩家能改變虛構現實的程度。低的行點阻止角色對行憶的拒絕，而只能抽的牌阻止理想時間軸的簡單創造，強迫你去整理非線性的時間跟未予限制的空間的無秩序。另外，抽到的鬼牌會按照你的原型-定勢或心火懲罰你，破壞一行的動力。在表面上，這些限制強迫玩家接受「實際上的」現實—可是因為這是遊戲，其實沒有實際上的現實—只有被我用人工設計出來的現實。

The soulslinger used the “motive powers” of the four hsing to direct the course of the timeline by accepting or rejecting moving memories. The game mechanically limited how much the player could change the fictional reality. Low hsing points prevented their character's rejection of moving memories, and the cards from the deck that could only be drawn prevented an easy creation of an ideal timeline, forcing you to sort through the disorder of nonlinear time and unconfined space. In addition, drawn ghost cards (jokers) punished you by damaging the motive power of one hsing according to your archetype-scheme or spark. On the surface, these limits forced the player to accept reality “as it was”—but because this was a game, there was no actual reality as it was—only reality as it had been artificially constructed by me.

這也就是《受死令》與我的中心問題：認識論唯我論。我無法完全確定所謂「實際上的現實」的存在；我唯一有的是透過主觀感知的中介創造的實際現實景觀。主觀的存在就是問題。主觀的存在破壞得到完全確定的能力。主觀的存在註定你無法真的是對或真的是錯—你對當革命者或是正義—真的完成的革命和真的結束的壓迫，無法做任何真實的斷言。唯一有的是判斷的權力和無法避免被人家判斷的可能性。

This is also the central problem of Soulslinger and myself: epistemological solipsism. I have no absolute certainty that so-called “reality as it is” exists; I only have the spectacle of “reality as it is” constructed through the mediation of subjective perception. The subjectivity is the problem. Subjectivity destroys the ability to reach absolute certainty. Subjectivity dooms you to never be truly right or wrong—you cannot make any true claims about being a revolutionary, or about justice—the true completion of revolution and true end of oppression. You only have the power to judge and the unavoidable possibility of being judged.

我在〈追不到的天際〉分析《受死令》中也有提到—最後受死令和其他的時空游擊者無法完全確定自己改造的時間軸到底有沒有真的改變現實。「雖然你的玩家角色能利用自己痛苦而來的力量來『拒絕』記憶，所謂的拒絕本質不明確—你是在壓制自己的負面記憶還是在真的在把歷史改變？改變的是原來的歷史還是只是在創造架空時間線？該如何解釋在多次遊玩之中重複碰到之前已經順利除掉的記憶？」你是在革命還是只是在情感操縱自己和別人接受你的「進步」？

I also mentioned this in “The Horizon I Couldn't Reach”—in the end the soulslingers and other chronoguerillas have no absolute certainty on whether the timelines they've transformed also actually transformed reality. “Even though your character can use the power of their own suffering to 'reject' memories, the nature of this rejection is unclear—are you repressing your own negative memories or really changing history? Are you changing the original history or just creating an alternate timeline? How do you explain repeatedly encountering memories in multiple playthroughs that you had previously and successfully gotten rid of?” Are you making revolution or just gaslighting yourself and other people into accepting your “progress?”

《受死令》是種承認—承認我到此為止關於正義寫的內容完全都只是個鬧劇，只是個被創傷產生出來的定勢。四大解性遊原型是我自我意像失調的反映，而且除了完全的瘋狂，什麼事情都無法保證兌現。

Soulslinger was a confession—a confession that everything I had ever written about justice was just a farce, just a traumatized scheme. The four agonist archetypes were a reflection of my dysfunctional self-image, and I could promise to deliver nothing except complete madness.

〈血光俠〉 “Blood Lanterns”

同人小說的〈血光俠〉跟《降天下世》的前提很像，描寫一個假的（沒有真正完成革命的）後革命世界。「先鋒主義者的幻想」這副標題也闡明了另外一個能批評認為有所謂的「正確」革命路線的角度。開頭的筆記（加上我自己的強調）說：

The fanfic of “Blood Lanterns” has a similar premise to Felling Heaven, Felling World, describing a false postrevolutionary world (that never completed revolution). The subtitle of “A Vanguardist's Fantasy” also elucidates another angle of criticism towards the assumption that there is a so-called “correct” path to revolution. The notes at the beginning (emphasis own) say:

問題不只是我把所謂的「順利革命」想像成大量武裝的群眾去跟剝削者打大戰打贏、把所謂「革命之後」的問題歸結為「誰才是真正的同志？」的回答、把「同志」想像為「真正理解因此有專有權守護解放原則的人」。問題也是我把革命想像成一種能完全能被繪製出來的計畫，把革命的失敗原因歸結為個人沒預料到的後果，再想說答案是在同志彼此鬥爭中找出管理基本是不確定性現實的「正確」方法。這種鬥爭不是為了革命的鬥爭，而是為了控制革命的鬥爭，為了創造、擴大和保護自己在革命運動中掌權地位的鬥爭。

The problem is not just that I imagined a so-called “successful revolution” as armed masses in great numbers going to war against their exploiters and winning, that I reduced the problems in the so-called “post-revolution” to the issue of “who's the true comrade?”, that I imagined “comrade” as “some who truly understands and therefore has the exclusive right to defend the principles of liberation.” The problem is also that I imagined revolution as a plan that could be perfectly plotted out, that I reduced the reason for any failed revolution to consequences that individuals failed to predict, and then surmised that the answer was to find the “correct” method for managing a fundamentally uncertain reality by struggling against your own comrades. This kind of struggle is not the struggle for revolution, but the struggle for controlling revolution, for creating, expanding, and protecting your position of power within the revolutionary movement.

在這個故事之中，原本是被困在宰制多重宇宙遊戲的非玩家角色的妖怪起義推翻上帝般的玩家，在先鋒血光俠的領導之下建立了自治的公社。後來的期數顯露其實「不是每個人都跑去當俠」、還有法西斯主義者躲在跟血光俠解除同盟的村子之中、俠有支持過監禁質、俠會故意製造創傷恐嚇未成年的見習生引發覺悟、他們沒有道德，尊敬的只有權力。

In this story, NPC goblins who were originally trapped in a game of multiversal domination rose up and overthrew their player, establishing autonomous communes under the leadership of the vanguard Blood Lanterns. Later issues revealed that actually, “[n]ot everyone wanted to be a Lantern,” there were still fascists hiding out in villages that were defederated from The Blood Lanterns, The Lanterns were carceral, The Lanterns would purposely traumatize minor-aged apprentices to trigger enlightenment, they had no morals and only respected power.

原型並不在故事中有主要的角色；反而他們是出現在期數的標題之中，暗示該如何理解那些期數。期數一，〈聖之論〉，敘述「一位革命家在公開呼籲處死㐌前法西斯主義者哥哥的惡果之下重新審議革命的意識。」所謂的革命者，疤茲英名，就是標題中的聖。㐌故意帶人齡十歲左右的見習生，卡拉，到她的第一個共識會議，也就是該不該處死㐌哥哥的會議，為了強迫她「學會當血光俠是多麼殘忍的任務。」

The archetypes don't play central roles in the story; instead they appear in the titles of issues, indicating how those issues should be interpreted. Issue 1, “The Discourse of the Saint,” narrates the tale of “[a] revolutionary reconsider[ing] what it means to have revolutionary consciousness under the fallout of publicly calling for their ex-fascist brother's execution.” The revolutionary in the description, Bazsim, is the titular Saint of the story. They purposely bring their apprentice Kara, who is roughly 10 in human years, to her first consensus meeting, which is a meeting on whether or not to execute their brother, to force her to “learn how cruel it is to be a Blood Lantern.”

這情節點的靈感來源於《V怪客》；此故事中 V 按照自己被法西斯政府逮捕的經驗設計了一個假的監牢來綁架和拷打艾薇，希望她通過同一樣的經驗再發現監牢是完全被設計出來的之後會明白成功反抗權威的必要和可能性。這種實踐是解性設計的基礎—我在 《NS 3416》的舊版中有說過：「遊戲就像監獄一樣。它試圖通過設計來規訓你。因此遊玩就是遊戲的逃逸線，而玩家是那道的追蹤者。」

This plot point was inspired by V for Vendetta, in which V uses his own experiences of being captured by the fascist government to design a false prison where he kidnaps and tortures Evey, hoping that once she has gone through the same experience and subsequently realized the prison is fake, she will understand both the necessity and possibility of successfully resisting authoritarianism. This kind of praxis was the bedrock of agonist design—in the old version of NS 3416, I had written: “A game is like a prison. It tries to discipline you by design. Thus play is a line of flight from the game, and the player the pursuer of that path.”

V 創造假監牢目的是什麼？是要讓艾薇了解世界一切的壓迫也都是人工設計所創造出來的，而不是必然發生的事態。要讓她了解自由不是什麼當權者給她的權利，而是自己拒絕放棄給當權者的權力。可是要拒絕壓迫的話也需要個譴責跟再生產壓迫有同謀關係的人的實踐。而那就是〈聖之論〉的中心問題。如何完全確定地運用譴責對方是革命的敵人的權力？如何保證革命只有完全是「正確」的敵人？

What was V trying to accomplish by creating the false prison? To get Evey to understand that all the oppression in the world was also created through artificial design, and not inevitability. To get her to understand freedom was not some right some authority gave to her, but the power she refused to give up to authority. But to refuse oppression also requires a praxis of condemning those who are complicit in reproducing it. And that is the central question in “The Discourse of The Saint.” How do you wield your power to condemn others as the enemies of revolution with absolute certainty? How do you ensure that the revolution only has enemies that are absolutely “correct?”

我們來看看故事中的典型敵人是誰。禍義而‧恩爪戈—因為在等級制度的血色譜中是最低該處死的突變顏色，成為惡狠的低血獵人，為血脈至上主義的藍血貴族親手執行大屠殺。禍義而原本沒有「突變」的血色；被 troll 艾特尼亞帝國的征服者用病毒強迫變成 troll 之前，妖怪有不同的血色但並沒有按照血色創造有等級制度的物質跟社會關係。相反，他們建立的是互助的關係。在艾特尼亞帝國把 troll 的血色譜帶過來之前，妖怪社會中沒有「突變血色」的種姓這回事。

Let's take a look at who the example enemy is in the story. Waryor Endrag—someone who, because of being the lowest mutant color condemned to death under the hierarchical hemospectrum, became a vicious lowblood hunter, personally carrying out genocide for the blood supremacist Bluebloods. Waryor didn't originally have a “mutant” blood color; before being forcibly transformed into trolls by a virus inflicted by The Conqueror from the troll Alternian Empire, goblins had different blood colors but didn't form hierarchical material and social relations based on them. Rather, they established a relationship of mutual aid. Prior to the introduction of the troll hemospectrum by the Alternian Empire, goblin society had no such thing as a “mutant blood color” caste.

禍義而被殖民和至上主義的「新血秩序」被確認為「突變顏色」的擁有者；他沒有必要接受這身份，沒有必要為了自己生存而變成屠殺別人的法西斯主義者。他一開始就有拒絕血脈至上主義的預示、他知道有其他生存的方式、積極反血脈至上主義的運動也在—但他仍然選擇認為是自己的血「拒絕換色」、仍然選擇壓迫，直到被血光俠逮捕強迫當他們「有用的屍體」。

Waryor was interpellated by the colonial and supremacist “new blood order” as one with “mutant color;” there was no imperative for him to accept this identity, no imperative for him to become a genocidal fascist for the sake of his own survival. He was prefigured to reject blood supremacy from the start, he knew there were other ways to live, there was an active anti-blood-supremacist movement—and yet he still chose to believe that it was his blood that “refused to change,” still chose to oppress, until he was captured by The Blood Lanterns and forced to serve as their “useful corpse.”

也責，其中一個被他殺死的人的母親，認為俠不該處死禍義而，反而用流放「讓他在無可挽回的情況之下活下去」，為了「以示我們對任何曾經選擇跟帝國站在同一邊的人什麼人情都不用欠。」相反，疤茲英名說：「 我想相信潛力。想相信每個選擇都是一瞬間，不算一條命。就算是那個人有重複選擇做出不可原諒的事。我想相信應該對每個人的改變潛力都欠一份信心。[...] 生命是每人都擁有的資格。我最關心的不是今天的最終判決，而是我們為了得到正義必要做出來的事。現在我做出自己的判斷。我要他去死。」

Ezelb, the mother of someone he killed, believes that The Lanterns shouldn't execute Waryor, but employ exile to “let him live with no redemption,” “[a]s an example that we owe nothing to anyone who ever made the choice to side with empire.” On the contrary, Baszim says: “I want to believe in potential. I want to believe every choice is a moment in life, and not a destiny. Even if the person has repeatedly made inexcusable choices. I want to believe we owe everyone faith in their potential to change. [...] Everyone deserves to live. What I am most concerned with is not today's final verdict, but what we must do for the sake of justice. I now cast my judgment. I want him to die.”

之前，我為正義做的定義是真的完成的革命和真的結束的壓迫。可是如果沒讀這文章的前一部分，只聽到疤茲英名的演講會得到同一樣的結論嗎？這就是疤茲英名給卡拉的方便測驗。可以從殺自己哥哥要導出正義嗎？可以在此中的暴力看到革命的存在嗎？

Previously, I defined justice as the true completion of revolution and true end of oppression. But if you hadn't read everything that came before in this essay, would you have come to the same conclusion from just hearing Bazsim's speech? This is the upayan test that Bazsim gives Kara. Can you derive justice from killing your brother? Can you see the revolution in that violence?

也責譴責疤茲英名的情緒恐怖主義也是一種壓迫，爭論沒有必要因為自己的經驗強迫別人從創傷導出對革命的致力。疤茲英名決定向卡拉道歉。卡拉一開始罵㐌是騙子，指責㐌不真的關心哥哥、不真的相信大家都有改變潛力、沒資格談正義。疤茲英名承認㐌其實是自己在決定什麼時候該放棄等待別人的改變，所以㐌的正義無法完美。雖然無法有完美的答案，也是不能避免決定和後果。只能按照希望來辦。

Ezelb condemns Bazsim's emotional terrorism as oppressive, arguing that there is no need to force others to derive commitment to revolution from trauma just because that's how it happened for them. Bazsim decides to apologize to Kara. Kara initially yells at Bazsim for being a fraud, not truly caring about their brother, not truly believing in everyone's potential to change, unqualified to speak on justice. Bazsim admits that the truth is that they actually decide when it is time to stop waiting for someone to change, and so their justice can't be perfect. But despite the inability to have perfect answers, it's impossible to avoid choice and consequence. You can only hope for the result to look like justice.

因此，《血光俠》的聖也就是願意為完美的追求而犧牲完美的權利革命者。Ta 跟陽邊相對的丑合成一體，融入丑的無知。與其知識，他們有的是信念—相信就算是得不到最真的正義，正義的追求還是有用。

Thus, the saint of Blood Lanterns is the revolutionary who is willing to sacrifice the claim to perfection for the sake of perfection's pursuit. They have become one with their yang counterpart of the fool, integrating the fool's lack of knowledge. Instead of knowledge, what they have is faith—faith in the value of pursuing justice even when the truest justice is impossible to attain.

另外跟原型有關的期數是期數四， 〈惡之論〉。它描寫兩個跟禍義而相遇的兄弟最後發生什麼樣的結局。故事中的惡不是禍義而，而是被禍義而殺死的銹血，也責的兒子，死後成為血光祖燀的人物。他被派去當靠，其中一個兄弟的師父。但討論他們之前，我們必須了解另外一個兄弟，諾，和期數一的聖，疤茲英名之間對暴力在革命中的角色的辯論。他們的辯論闡明惡的原型到底不是什麼。

The other issue connected to the archetypes is Issue 4, “The Discourse of the Scourge.” It's about the ultimate fate of two brothers who cross paths with Waryor. The scourge of the story is not Waryor but the rustblood he murdered, Ezelb's son, who became a Blood Ancestern after death. He is dispatched to mentor Kal, one of the two brothers. But before discussing them, we must understand the discourse on the role of violence in revolution between the other brother, Nok, and the saint from Issue 1, Bazsim. Their discourse illuminates what the archetype of the scourge is not.

禍義而為了報仇殺死靠跟諾的父親。因為他們村子跟禍義而聯盟處死父親，靠跟諾逃出去，但不同意該往哪裡逃。靠決定到卡拉的血光俠公社避難，諾決定自己去流浪。在流浪之中，諾趁機伏擊禍義而，同樣為了報仇把他殺死。殺完後，諾繼續走，因為找不到食物和避難所在地上昏倒，被血光俠弄跟疤茲英名拯救。

Waryor kills Kal and Nok's father for revenge. Because their village allied with Waryor to kill their father, Kal and Nok escape, but disagree on where to go. Kal decides to seek shelter with Kara's Blood Lantern commune, while Nok decides to wander off alone. While wandering, Nok takes an opportunity to ambush Waryor, killing him for revenge as well. Nok continues wandering and eventually collapses after not finding food and shelter, and is rescued by the Blood Lanterns Non and Bazsim.

當諾承認他殺死了疤茲英名的哥哥之後，疤茲英名第一個反應就是道歉，說：「他今天能給你造成問題，有一部分是因為我們把他處理得不好。解除你的痛苦是我們該負的責任。」諾感到極端的困感和訝異—他認為問題只不過是禍義而；殺了禍義而就是「解決了」問題，沒有什麼剩下該負責的事。但疤茲英名強調：「就是因為禍義而一部分的原因，我們才會發現你毫無拯救地在森林中一個人昏倒。推而廣之，也就是因為我們一部分的原因，現在的你才會是個流亡者。在最低限度，我們必須要幫助你得到生存需求需要的東西。」

When Nok confesses to killing Bazsim's brother, Bazsim's first reaction is to apologize, saying: “That he could cause problems for you today, was in part because we failed to properly handle him. Your suffering is something we must hold ourselves accountable for removing.” Nok is surprised and confused—he thinks the problem was just Waryor; just killing him “solved” it, and there was nothing left to be accountable for. But Bazsim emphasizes: “Waryor was part of the reason why we found you collapsed in the forest alone with no signs of rescue. And by extension, we're part of the reason why you're an EXILE now. As the bare minimum, we're obligated to help you get what you need for survival.”

在《降天下世》之中，四大原型是彼此在輪迴中的化身。一個解性者必須有能力扮演全四個角色，了解每四個角色對革命的用處，而不是見木不見林。惡不是認為革命只是除掉所有敵人的人。相反，惡深深理解處理敵人只是革命的一部分。

In Felling Heaven, Felling World, the four archetypes are reincarnations of each other. An agonist must have the ability to play all four roles and understand how each one is useful for revolution, instead of not seeing the forest for the trees. The scourge is not someone who just thinks revolution is killing all your enemies. Rather, the scourge deeply understands that dealing with your enemies is just one part of revolution.

祖燀跟靠的辯論關於敵視的解構。在一開始，祖燀要靠了解敵人權威主義實踐的特性。「要完整控制別人的話，該需要什麼？」靠回答：需要很多的威力。祖燀爭論，這威力的目標不是讓人家不敢抵抗，而是「讓他們的自我意識無法存在的威力。讓他們無法擁有不是被霸權者界定的自我意識，然後在違反界定的情況之下，無法避免自我意識的完整崩潰。」

The Ancestern and Kal's discourse is about deconstructing antagonism. At the beginning, The Ancestern wants Kal to reflect on the nature of the enemy's authoritarian praxis. “What do you think it takes to have complete control over someone?” Kal answers: lots of force. The Ancestern argues that the goal of this force is not to make someone feel too scared to fight back, but to “mak[e] it impossible for their sense of self to exist. That makes it impossible for them to possess any sense of self beyond the dominator's limits, and when they try to transgress those limits, makes it impossible for them to stop their sense of self from completely falling apart.”

在這一時刻，祖燀用血光的法力把自己裝扮成禍義而，說如果靠真的想當俠的話，他「必須先修改［他］的界定」，學習放棄過度的信任。說完後，他突然攻擊靠。就跟卡拉在會議中聽到疤茲英名要為了大家的生存處死自己的哥哥一樣，這種情緒恐怖主義實踐的教訓也對靠產生反效果。靠拒絕回擊或保護自己，抗議決鬥虛假的前提，說祖燀「不是［他］真正的敵人」。祖燀反駁真正的敵人不會給靠這種猶豫的機會，而且所謂的「同志」如果認為你的行為背叛了革命、解放、群眾、幹部、同志個人等等（這些也有可能都被他們混合成同一樣的東西），他們動不動就會以對待真正敵人的態度去處理你。

At this point, The Ancestern uses bloodlight magic to disguise himself as Waryor, telling Kal if he really wants to be a Lantern, he's “going to need to work on [his] limits” and learn to let go of excessive trust. After this, he suddenly attacks Kal. Just like with Kara hearing Bazsim justifying the execution of their brother for the sake of everyone else's survival, this praxis of discipline through emotional terrorism also backfires on Kal. He refuses to counterattack or defend himself, protesting against the false premise of the battle, saying that The Ancestern is “not [his] real enemy.” The Ancestern retorts that a real enemy wouldn't give Kal this kind of opportunity to hesitate, and that if so-called “comrades” believed that your conduct betrayed the revolution, liberation, the masses, the cadre, individual comrades themselves, etc. (and sometimes these would all be conflated as the same thing), they would deal with you like a real enemy at the drop of a hat.

祖燀說測驗的目的不是看靠的決鬥能力，而是「明白當同志的意義。」一個同志必須有能力處理壓迫性、反動份子和追逐私利的敵視，並且在過程之中不要讓自己的自我意識崩潰。同時，一個同志也必須在敵視對方的時候避免要求對方的自我意識為 ta 或 ta 事業崩潰。靠該有的反應是什麼？當然是好鬥地還擊，而不是窩囊地像自由主義者一樣請求和平談判。

The Ancestern says the goal of the test wasn't to see how well Kal could fight, but to “understand what it means to be a comrade.” A comrade must have the ability to deal with oppressive, reactionary, and self-serving antagonisms without letting their sense of self fall apart. At the same time, a comrade must be able to antagonize without demanding that other people's sense of self fall apart for them or their cause. What should Kal's reaction have been? To fight back militantly, instead of pathetically begging for peace talks like a liberal.

但靠不願意放棄需要大家同意什麼是對和錯的夢。他認為有真的是對和真的是錯的原因敵視對方，問題只不過是把真實搞懂。對他來說，這就是正義：真正「錯誤的改正」，按照自己有道德的標準來辦。

But Kal refuses to let go of his dream of everybody agreeing on what is right and wrong. He believes there are truly right and truly wrong reasons to antagonize someone, and the problem is only figuring out the truth. To him, this is justice: truly “righting wrongs” according to one's own moral standards.

但對祖燀來說，道德的標準其實是從壓迫者導出來自我規定的限制。要有大家該順從的道德規範，需要大家把自治力交給那規範的界定者，聽從那些界定者對使用自治力的「標準」方法的威權。因為這理想的道德規範是普遍的，這些界定者永遠不能錯。「永遠不能錯」的位置也就是權威主義者佔用的位置。

But to The Ancestern, moral standards are actually self-imposed limits derived from the oppressor. To have a moral code that everyone must follow requires people to give up their autonomy to the delimiters of that code, deferring to their authority on what the “proper” use of autonomy is. Because this ideal moral code is universal, these delimiters can never be wrong. And the position of “never being wrong” is exactly the position that authoritarians occupy.

靠問：那如果你認為別人是在無理地敵視你的話，是不是在跟壓迫者做同一樣的事？祖燀說必須接受這樣的可能性。不，靠說，必須要有一方的敵視在道德方面算正確的。不然為了什麼戰爭？

Kal asks: then if you're convinced that someone else has no good reason to antagonize you, are you acting like an oppressor? The Ancestern says you have to accept that possibility. No, says Kal, somebody's antagonism has to be morally correct. Otherwise what are you fighting for?

你可以為了從剝削者奪回權力而鬥爭，但不必把這個鬥爭變成道德優勢的證明。你可以認為世界不該有壓迫，但不需要證明自己的看法是對的。除了按照自己的看法行動，祖燀什麼都不保證。「正義，」他說，「跟對和錯，是我們管大家去死來決定的東西。」革命發展到哪時候才算完畢、壓迫消失哪個地步才算結束，一切都是我們決定。鬥爭的結果就是我們唯一對和錯的證明，而這對和錯不是按照什麼個人理想判斷的，而是按照被創造跟被計劃的結果的差別來辦。

You can struggle to seize back power from your exploiters without turning it into a struggle to prove your moral superiority. You can believe that the world should not have oppression without proving that your belief is correct. Besides moving according to his beliefs, The Ancestern promises nothing. “Justice,” he says, “like right and wrong, is whatever the hell we want it to be.” When the revolution has gone far enough to end and when oppression has vanished enough to be over is entirely our decision to make. The results of struggle are our only proof of correctness, which is not determined according to personal ideals, but to the discrepancy between the results that were created versus the results that were planned.

在這時候，靠不再考慮祖燀的話，說他是個認為強權就是真理不為人知的權威主義者，在向世界投射思維。對他來說，祖燀的想法是基雅維利主義的—你必須要有真理，不然你唯一有的是強權。但是惡就是認為不需要真理實現革命。如果人家認為你的革命完全不合理、認為你的革命只不過是恐怖分子邪教使用的賊般強權，那你就必須當他們的敵人。革命者的確是「註定是犧牲」的人—註定接受這種敵視。因此，依我之前說過的話：解性派是想結束英雄的人、結束當好人的實踐。

At this point in time, Kal has dismissed The Ancestern as a closeted authoritarian who is projecting his view of might makes right onto the world. To him, The Ancestern's views are Machiavellian—you must have right, otherwise you only have might. But the scourge is convinced you don't need right to realize revolution. If others believe you have no good reason for revolution, that your revolution is merely the thuggish might of a terrorist cult, then you must be their enemy. The revolutionary is indeed a doomed man—doomed to be regarded as an enemy like this. Hence, as I've said before: agonists are those who seek to end heroes, end the praxis of being good guys.

---

在文章的開頭，我說目的是探索自己對革命者的看法被景觀化的發展。最後，我不確定這樣的景觀化到底能不能避免。在《血光俠》的最後一段，我發覺虛構永遠只能是現實的景觀，因為作者完全控制虛構世界中的人物和現實狀況。因此虛構世界永遠不能代表現實，只能代表作者對現實的看法和希望。

At the start of this essay, I said the goal was to explore how my own perspective on revolutionaries became spectaclized. In the end, I'm uncertain whether the spectaclization is unavoidable. In the last section of “Blood Lanterns,” I realized fiction could only ever be a spectacle of reality, because the author completely controlled the characters and conditions of reality in the fictional world. Therefore the fictional world could never represent reality, only how the author perceived it and wanted it to be.

主觀的現實感知對我來說也是一樣。我的現實感知不是實際現實的代表，而是不能跟我對現實的希望分開。在童年中我感知到的虐待對我的虐待者來說只是正常的養育。我希望擺脫他們的控制；他們希望我繼續被他們控制。為什麼我沒有跟我秘密法西斯主義者的弟弟變得一模一樣，跟他們站在同一邊？為什麼我們從同樣的創傷導出相反的結論？因為他跟禍義而‧恩爪戈一樣存心做了要支持壓迫的選擇。而當他做了這選擇之後，一切的權力動態就消失，滅絕在自然秩序。他感受到的不是虐待，而是父母因為關心做的事。那就是他實際上的現實。我無法同意。

Subjective perception of reality to me is very much the same. My perception was not a representation of how reality was, but inseparable from how I wanted reality to be. The abuse I perceived in childhood was just normal parenting to my abusers. I wanted to be free from their control; they wanted me to remain under it. Why didn't I turn out like my cryptofascist brother who sided with them? Why did we derive the opposite conclusions from the same trauma? Because like Waryor Endrag he consciously made the choice to support oppression. And once he did, all power dynamics disappeared, vanishing into natural order. What he experienced wasn't abuse, but what our parents did out of care. That was reality as it was for him. I couldn't agree.

我無法同意。這消不掉的拒絕就是「自我」。一個粗糙的實體，我是從這個「自我」導出關於解放的一切。四大解性遊原型也就是我如何拒絕的模式。我不希望假裝這樣個人的拒絕是跟革命性的抵抗一樣。但我也無法假裝我對革命性抵抗的看法不是從個人拒絕開始的。但除了相信客觀現實的存在和認為自己的主觀是集體感知那現實能力的污染，誰會覺得這是問題？

I couldn't agree. This unvanishing refusal was “self.” A crude entity, this “self” was the source from which I derived everything to do with liberation. The four agonist archetypes are also how I refuse. I will not pretend that this personal refusal is the same as revolutionary resistance. But I also cannot pretend that my perspective on revolutionary resistance does not start from personal refusal. But besides people who believe in objective reality and also believe that their subjectivity has contaminated the collective's ability to perceive it, who would think that this is a problem?

反正我就是會。根據定義，完美完全不可能有問題—它是好到沒人會拒絕的東西。所以它的追求也是不可能有問題；問題是追求的方式。我不想放棄我的完美主義。讓我一切的政治思想向它的傾向發展。只是我自己註定的命。尼采說殺死上帝，隨心所欲。我對你說：忘了我存在之後，去攻擊。

In any case, I do. By definition, perfection is completely unproblematic—it's something that's so good, no one would refuse it. So by extension, pursuing it is also unproblematic; the problem is the method of pursuit. I have no intention of giving up my perfectionism. Let all my political thought develop in its direction. It's only my life to doom. Nietzsche said kill God and do what you will. I say to you, forget that I exist, and attack.

附言 Postscript

(2025-01-31 23:54:53)

「我們並不討厭職權，只是討厭那些沒有資格但還去使用職權的人。」

—國民暴風主義協調組織，Velkan Corvinus 譯，〈無治法西斯主義宣言〉

“We do not hate authority, but those who exercise it without being worthy of it.”

—National Tempestist Coordination, translated by Velkan Corvinus, “The Anarcho-Fascist Manifesto”

「雖然我是無治者，我不是反權威主義者。其實是相反：我需要職權，雖然我不相信它的存在。」

—恩斯特·榮格，《尤姆斯維爾》

“Although I am an anarch, I am not anti-authoritarian. Quite the opposite: I need authority, although I do not believe in it.”

—Ernst Jünger, Eumeswil

「我們不應該推翻我們置身其中的例外狀態，而是利用它們來反抗權力本身。」

—隱形委員會，鄧逸晴 譯，《致我們的朋友》

“The state of exception in which we are living shouldn’t be denounced, it should be turned back against power itself.”

—The Invisible Committee, To Our Friends

「因為最後，對隱形委員會來說，一切都能被簡化成看法和理解方法的小問題。」

—匿名，〈致顧客〉

“Because, ultimately, according to the Invisible Committee itself, everything is reduced to being a mere question of perception and sensibility.”

—Anonymous, “To the Customers”

---

在這篇文章的結尾，我完全缺乏自我意識地問：為什麼我沒有跟我秘密法西斯主義者的弟弟變得一模一樣，強迫自己改變我的看法，跟我們的虐待者們站在同一邊？過了快半年後，我發覺其實跟他沒差兩樣，只是傾向不同而已：不是古典法西斯主義，而是融合左右翼第三位置主義風格的無治法西斯主義。我是剛才在研究國家工團主義的時候發現無治法西斯主義的存在，但越讀越發先自己在這個文章寫的內容太像是來自無治法西斯主義的同路人，認為有必要馬上補個附言做正式的自我批評。

At the end of this essay, I asked with a complete lack of self-awareness: why didn't I turn out like my cryptofascist brother and force myself to change my perspective in order to side with our abusers? After nearly half an year, I've realized I actually did, just under a different tendency: not classical fascism, but the politically syncretic Third Positionist anarcho-fascism. I only discovered the existence of anarcho-fascism while researching national syndicalism just now, but the more I read about it the more I realized the things I had written in this essay sounded too much like it was coming from a fellow traveler of anarcho-fascists, and felt that it was necessary to immediately add a post-script with formal self-crit.

無治法西斯主義不只是一種。在這個附言之中，我只會注意跟解性主義和這個文章有相同的部分。附言開頭的第一個引文來自暴風主義派，他們跟隱形委員會的召喚主義的雄辯很像。雙方都支持一種任何人都能加入的去集中化的革命上層先鋒和為奪取權力而完全不擇手段的實踐。「任何行動，不管多麼矛盾，在暴風主義之中都算是合理。」隱形委員會同意：「我們有絕對自由的空間去做決定，發展策略，如果這些都是對於處境的認真回應的話。」我說：有正當理由使用「情緒恐怖主義」來規訓有革命潛力的人接受最真正義的覺悟，也就是大家—而「正義，跟對和錯，是我們管大家去死來決定的東西。」一切支持最真正義、完全的革命、壓迫完全的結束、革命涅槃的最真同志就是組成我「有機和自然共同體」的非國家民族、我「想像的政黨」的「勇敢散漫軍人」。

There's more than one type of anarcho-fascism. In this post-script, I will only be focusing on the parts that are similar to agonism and my essay. The first quote at the start of this post-script comes from the Tempestists, whose rhetoric is very close to that of the appelist Invisible Committee. Both support a decentralized revolutionary elite vanguard that anybody can join and a praxis of pure Machiavellianism. “Any action, however contradictory it may be, makes sense within Tempestism.” “We have an absolutely clear field for any decision, any initiative, as long as they’re linked to a careful reading of the situation,” agree the Invisible Committee. I said it's justified to use “emotional terrorism” to discipline anyone with revolutionary potential, which is everyone, into accepting the enlightenment of The Truest Justice—and that “Justice, like right and wrong, is whatever the hell we want it to be.” The Truest Comrades who supported The Truest Justice, The Perfectly Complete Revolution, The Perfect End of Oppression, and Revolutionary Nirvana were the “brave undisciplined soldiers” who formed my “organic and natural community” of the stateless nation, my “imaginary party.”

因此「決鬥」是解性遊的中心。在解性遊的「決鬥」之中，玩家們形成一個本體論的鬥陣俱樂部，之中我們互相要求彼此盡全力打我們，為了引起暴風主義的「上級自由」和「上級風紀」，為了創造完美的無治者。「這些革命的精英將會在鬥爭、在改造存在的長征之中被鍛鍊出來。」「這純粹、原始的男子氣概只能在壓力之下被發展。它只能從混亂之中崛起，作為對外力的反應。從那點它將會變成熟，經過時間的塑造，變成名譽文化，而那個文化—那個給一個民族特性的集體歷史和習俗的組合—就是偉大傳統的來源。我認為男子和男子氣概所有該保留的好處都是在介於武士幫的純淨和複雜商人文化被寵壞、暗算他人的墮落之間的最佳點之中得到興旺。」

Which is why “decisive struggle,” drawn from the Mandarin word for combat, lies at the center of agonist play. In the “decisive struggle” of agonist play, players form an ontological Fight Club, where we mutually demand that we hit each other as hard as we can, to induce the Tempestist “superior freedom” and “superior discipline,” to create perfect Anarchs. “This revolutionary elite will be forged in the struggle, in the long march towards the renovation of the being.” “This pure, primal manliness can only be realized under stress. It can only rise out of chaos, as a reaction to external forces. From there it matures, shaped by time, into an honor culture, and from that culture–that combination of collective history and custom that characterize the identity of a people–comes Tradition. Everything I recognize as good and worth saving about men and masculinity thrives in this cultural sweet spot between the purity of the warrior-gang and the spoiled, conniving depravity of complex merchant-based cultures.”

剛才那是無治法西斯主義者 Jack Donovan 說的話。的確，解性主義從來都沒有明確地論證解放是完全該屬於男人的領域。但把上面引文的「男子」改成「革命」（或「無治者」）的話就完全沒差別。解性主義認為革命的精神只能在壓力之下被發展。它只能從混亂之中崛起，作為對外力的反應。從那點它將會變成熟，經過時間的塑造，變成名譽文化，而那個文化—那個給一個民族特性的集體歷史和習俗的組合—就是偉大傳統的來源。解性主義認為革命和革命精神所有該保留的好處都是在介於武士幫的純淨和複雜商人文化被寵壞、暗算他人的墮落之間的最佳點之中得到興旺。

That was from anarcho-fascist Jack Donovan. True, agonism never explicitly argues that liberation should completely be the province of men. But if you change “man” in the above quote to “revolution” (or “Anarch”) then the discrepancy disappears. Agonism believes the revolutionary spirit can only be realized under stress. It can only rise out of chaos, as a reaction to external forces. From there it matures, shaped by time, into an honor culture, and from that culture–that combination of collective history and custom that characterize the identity of a people–comes Tradition. Everything agonism recognizes as good and worth saving about revolution and the revolutionary spirit thrives in this cultural sweet spot between the purity of the warrior-gang and the spoiled, conniving depravity of complex merchant-based cultures.

回到暴風主義派的宣言，解性主義「妄想和堅決的職權堅持」來自這需要拯救革命（精神）的願望。解性主義希望能創造能結束一切革命的偉大革命，能擺脫一切職權的權力。而那就是先鋒化、景觀化和極權主義化的起點。跟恩斯特·榮格說得一樣，我不是真正的反威權主義者，「不是反權威主義者。其實是相反：〔他們〕需要職權，雖然〔他們〕不相信它的存在。」解性主義要對現實有最後的決定權，因此過分地尋找「最真」、最有資格繼承革命、「最上層貴族」的同志和革命實踐。

To go back to manifesto of the Tempestists, agonism's “delusional and determined assertion of authority” comes from this desire to save the revolution(ary spirit). Agonism wants to create The Revolution that will end all revolutions, the power to end all Power. And that's where the vanguardization, spectaclization, and totalitarianization start. Just as Ernst Jünger says, the agonists “[are] not anti-authoritarian. Quite the opposite: [they] need authority, although [they] do not believe in it.” Agonism wants the last word on reality, hence the obsessive search for the “truest” comrades and revolutionary praxis, the ones who most deserve to inherit revolution, the “most high aristocracy.”

解性主義、無治法西斯主義、召喚主義以及諸如此類的傾向希望異軌的是職權的本身。「因為最後」，來使用隱形委員會的匿名批評者的話來說，「一切都能被簡化成看法和理解方法的小問題。」在這篇文章的第一部分，我承認自己的認識論唯我論。我說：

What agonism, anarcho-fascism, appelism and their ilk hope to détourn is authority itself. “Because, ultimately,” to quote an anonymous critic of the Invisible Committee, “everything is reduced to being a mere question of perception and sensibility.” In the first part of this essay, I confessed to my own epistemological solipsism. I said:

「我無法完全確定所謂『實際上的現實』的存在；我唯一有的是透過主觀感知的中介創造的實際現實景觀。主觀的存在就是問題。主觀的存在破壞得到完全確定的能力。主觀的存在註定你無法真的是對或真的是錯—你對當革命者或是正義—真的完成的革命和真的結束的壓迫，無法做任何真實的斷言。唯一有的是判斷的權力和無法避免被人家判斷的可能性。」

I have no absolute certainty that so-called 'reality as it is' exists; I only have the spectacle of 'reality as it is' constructed through the mediation of subjective perception. The subjectivity is the problem. Subjectivity destroys the ability to reach absolute certainty. Subjectivity dooms you to never be truly right or wrong—you cannot make any true claims about being a revolutionary, or about justice—the true completion of revolution and true end of oppression. You only have the power to judge and the unavoidable possibility of being judged.

前提不同但是跟隱形委員會一樣的問題。匿名批評者說：「到了此刻讀者感到興奮和滿足和做任何事情的自由」，一切的行動都能使用革命的名義。給自己一點讚揚，與其跟無治法西斯主義者和召喚者一樣地慶祝這狀態，我辯證的反應是對一切疑神疑鬼。沒錯，我們有能以革命的名義解釋任何行動的自由，但我們有資格使用我們的自由嗎？我一直重複說：有時候你就是敵人。我活在一種侵入性最後通牒的自我暴政之下：證明你有資格使用自己的自由、證明你有革命的精神、證明你不是敵人，不然你必須把自己除掉。

Different premises but the same problem as that of the Invisible Committee. As the anonymous critic says: “at that point the readers feel stirred up and gratified and free to do anything whatever” in the name of revolution. To give myself credit, instead of celebrating this state like the anarcho-fascists and appelists, I argue for reacting with total paranoia. True, we have the freedom to justify any action in the name of revolution, but do we deserve to use it? I keep repeating that sometimes you are the enemy. I live under the self-tyranny of an intrusive ultimatum: prove you deserve to use your freedom, prove you have a revolutionary spirit, prove you are not the enemy, or take yourself out.

但「敵人」的定義到底是什麼？最保守的定義：敵人是該被除掉的威脅。我認為跟法西斯主義有太多雷同的定義：敵人是該被除死的人、敵人是沒有革命精神的人、敵人是沒有資格使用自由的人。意味是必須要靠某種集中或是去集中化的革命權威人士來做出這些判斷。如果你認為問題出在「敵人」這分類的存在—如果你認為我們該沒有「敵人」的定義、認為不管怎麼樣，大家都該算是可能的同志，那麼恭喜，你是召喚主義的同路人。我還是認為大家有革命的潛力，我只是不認為可能成為革命者的潛力該比真正製造出來的結果更重要。我們不是佛陀，我們無法在神話時空之內花個十百千萬年等待一個靈魂的改變。

But how is “the enemy” being defined? The most conservative definition: an enemy is a threat to be taken out. Definitions I think that have too much affinity with fascism: an enemy is someone who deserves to die, an enemy is someone who has no revolutionary spirit, an enemy is someone who does not deserve to use their freedom. The implication is that we can rely on some centralized or decentralized revolutionary authority to make these judgments. If you think the problem comes from the category of “enemy” existing—if you think we should have no definition of “enemy,” if you think that no matter what, everyone should be considered potential comrades, then congratulations, you're a fellow traveler of appelism. I still think that everyone has revolutionary potential, I just don't think that the potential of becoming revolutionary should outweigh actually produced results. We are not the Buddha, we do not have the ability to spend several tens or hundreds or thousands of years waiting for one soul to change in mythical spacetime.

在物質世界之中生存無法逃避的條件可能是唯一能使用來判斷敵人的非秘密法西斯主義標準。我不認為自然狀態是全對全戰。我認為法西斯主義者和其他的壓迫者是故意宣戰的幫派，而我們必須好好搞清楚誰在使用暴力和誰在使用反暴力。敵人是威脅生命的實體。除非你認為某些人沒有資格生活，要求自己的生存不可能算是威權主義的要求。能算是威權主義的只有在暴力之下要求別人的死亡。在反暴力的自衛情況之下要求別人的死亡不算。除非「一切都能被簡化成看法和理解方法的小問題。」除非你認為自己或許是該死的傢伙。

Perhaps the unavoidable conditions of material survival are the only uncryptofascist standards by which we can use to determine the enemy. I do not believe the state of nature is a war of all against all. I believe that fascists and other oppressors deliberately make war, and we must be clear on who is using violence and who is using counterviolence. The enemy is that which threatens life. Unless you believe some people don't deserve to live, it is not authoritarian for people to want to live. The only thing that qualifies as authoritarian is demanding the death of others through violence. It doesn't count when the demand of death occurs in a situation of self-defense against violence. Unless “everything is reduced to being a mere question of perception and sensibility.” Unless you think maybe you do deserve to die.

但我就是有這個懷疑。我認為我沒有資格活下去，但我還是有活下去的能力和願望。我認為我是革命的騙子、認為自己沒有資格去作出實現革命的實踐，因為我永遠不會得到偉大革命的批准、因為偉大革命是個先鋒主義的無根據觀念，但是我還是去做。我認為我沒有資格擁有自治力因為不管我多麼對自己疑神疑鬼，狂熱地追求完全的謹慎，我還是在再生產壓迫。我覺得堅持讓自己保持自治力，因為我也有做出讓壓迫無法運行的事、因為我寫了一大堆像者種附言的自我批評文章，因為我可以改變，只是在做自我安慰—說難聽一點，是在幫自己找藉口，甚至在幫跟我的思想有雷同的無治法西斯主義、召喚主義等等的傾向找藉口。

But that is what I think. I think I don't deserve to live, but I still have the ability and desire to continue living. I think I'm a revolutionary fraud, and that I don't deserve to carry out praxis that realizes revolution, because I will never get approval from The Revolution, because The Revolution is a vanguardist myth, but I still do it anyway. I think I don't deserve autonomy because no matter how paranoid I am against myself, no matter how fanatically I pursue complete scrupulosity, I am still reproducing oppression. I feel like insisting that I keep my autonomy, because I've also done things to render oppression inoperable, because I've written so many self-crit essays like this one, because I can change, is just a move to comfort myself—to be meaner, a way of making excuses for myself, of even making excuses for anarcho-fascism, appelism and other tendencies that my work has had affinity with.

所以我不會在這裡做藉口。解性主義和這篇文章有無治法西斯主義和召喚主義的辯護。我認為自己因為這件事應該被取消。我認為如果自己知道自己是垃圾，就該把自己倒出去，而不是把最先嗆聲的責人推給別人。秘密法西斯主義完全沒有理由出現在一個自稱是「解放派」份子的實踐之中。我就是敵人。我不知道問責在這情況之下會有什麼樣的面貌。

So let me not make excuses. Agonism and this essay have anarcho-fascist and appelist apologia. I think I should be cancelled for this. I think that if you know you're trash, you should take yourself out, and not make it other people's responsibility to call you out first. There is no excuse for cryptofascism to show up anywhere in a self-proclaimed “liberationist's” praxis. I am the enemy. I don't know what accountability in this situation would look like.

ZS 1: Impermanism at Wit's End

零零星星是個部落格貼文系列，專門描寫形形色色不想被我更加發展的 TRPG 點子。要看所有期數，請按 #ZS 的主題標籤。

Zero Stars (ZS) is a blogpost series for various TRPG ideas I didn't want to develop further. To view all issues, please click on the hashtag #ZS.

---

無常教是個折衷的民間信仰，主要靈感來源於基督教、中國和台灣民間信仰以及桌上角色扮演遊戲的特性。它並沒有教堂或聖經，但各有各地的偽經、廟宇、神殿和聖地。預設的特定地區是智末，被詛咒的城鎮，四處被沙漠包圍。

Impermanism is a syncretic folk religion, with main inspirations from Christianity, Chinese and Taiwanese folk religion, and the nature of tabletop roleplaying games. It has no churches or Bible, but local apocrypha, temples, shrines, and sacred grounds. The default locality is Wit's End, a cursed town surrounded by desert on all sides.

信仰的細節要看信徒拜的神，可是一般來說，所有的無常徒都相信現實不是自在之物，而是不穩的現象，需要不同的守護神靈來保持平衡。然而，神靈不是現實的控制者，而是現實跟創造現實的太心^†之間的調解員。唯一有能力改變現實的只有太心，因為只有太心存在於現實之外—在現實之中，一切都是太心的玩偶，隨心所欲地被偏寵或拋棄，甚至連現實的整體也是。

The details of the faith depend on what gods the practitioner worships, but generally speaking, all impermanists believe that reality is not a thing-in-itself, but an unstable phenomenon that must be balanced by protector entities. However, the entities are not the controllers of reality, but mediators between reality and The Highest Heart^† that created it. Only The Heart has the power to change reality, because only The Heart exists outside of reality—within reality, all are The Heart's playthings, to be favored and abandoned at will, including reality itself in its entirety.

^†太心是玩家的象徵，而現實是遊戲的象徵。無常教在精神方面探索意識到自己是虛構的角色的存在主義荒謬。

The Highest Heart is a metaphor for the player, and reality a metaphor for the game. Impermanism is a spiritual exploration of the existential dread of characters becoming conscious of their own fictionality.

---

智末的鎮民主要拜三心誓，掌管必死性的守護神：狐煙掌管死亡的判決、刺沙魔掌管衰敗的後果、深坑婆掌管來世的穿越。

The townsfolk of Wit's End primarily worship The Heartsworn Trinity, who are patron gods of mortality: Foxsmoke governs the sentencing of death, Bramblebane governs the aftermath of decay, and Chimˋhangˋpo governs passage across the afterlife.

狐煙 Foxsmoke

又稱：行騙者的救贖主、聖浮士德、沙漠死神。

Also known as: The Con Man's Redeemer, Saint Faustus, The Desert Reaper.

形象：狐狸頭的巨僧，從長到能當拐杖的煙管抽著菸。

Form: A giant monk with the head of a fox, smoking from pipe long enough to serve as a walking staff.

d6 預兆（從凶到吉）omens (from ill to auspicious):

1. 十字路口有無眼狐 An eyeless fox at a crossroads
2. 行進的方向有空繩套 An empty noose in the direction you're traveling
3. 無雨的雷聲 Rainless thunder
4. 橫財中找到香煙 Cigarettes in a windfall
5. 磨損的繩子被復原 A rope unfrays
6. 霧中咧嘴笑的月亮 A grinning moon in the fog

刺沙魔 Bramblebane

又稱：清道真君、惡煞王、腐爛神。

Also known as: Sweeper of The Way, King of Abominations, The Rotten God.

形象：分散成遊蕩的怪異蜂巢思維風滾草群，偶爾集中形成巨型。

Form: Scattered into a wandering swarm of eldritch hivemind tumbleweeds, occasionally combining into one giant form.

d6 狗哨 dogwhistles:

1. 吸收保證和平 Consumption delivers peace
2. 你就是聖餐 You are the sacrament
3. 沒有死亡，只有重生 There is no death, only rebirth
4. 主體是現實的中心 The Corpus is the heart of reality
5. 太心需要滋養 The Highest Heart must be nourished
6. 主體需要補充 The Corpus must be replenished

深坑婆 Chimˋhangˋpo

又稱：司儀神女、死人的北極星、冥咒菩薩。

Also known as: She Who Presides, The Dead Man's Polaris, The Hellsealed Bodhisattva.

形象：在反光的檯面上出現的巫師。如果是非液體的檯面，觸摸檯面會產生細浪。

Form: A witch doctor who appears on a reflective surface. If the surface isn't liquid, touching it will produce ripples.

d6 傳說 legends:

1. 深坑婆是第一位在智末試圖逃獄的囚犯。來世的洞穴系統是她和她的同志挖出來的。每一條隧道都能通往另一個世界，但與其離開，深坑婆決定待在隧道引導其他的幽影，發誓直到每一個靈魂得到解放時才會離開智末。 Chimˋhangˋpo was the first prisoner who attempted to escape Wit's End. The cave system of the afterlife was excavated by her and her comrades. Each tunnel leads to another world. But instead of leaving, Chimˋhangˋpo chose to stay in the tunnels to guide other phantom shades, swearing to never leave Wit's End until every soul was liberated.

2. 在跟執咒官員打槍戰的時候，深坑婆退出戰鬥為將死的同志請求太心送下一壺水給 ta 喝。反而，戰鬥被暴風雨打亂。時至今日，戰場被不停的雨水淹沒，總有一天會吞掉智末。 In the midst of a shootout with The Accursed Law, Chimˋhangˋpo retreated from combat to ask The Heart to deliver a canteen of water for a dying comrade. Instead, the fight was interrupted by a rainstorm. Even today, the battlefield is being flooded with endless rainwater, which will someday swallow Wit's End.

3. 因咒法而規，咒司去參加深坑婆的最後一餐。深坑婆趁機用筷子攻擊 ta，馬上被獄警槍殺處死。因此詛咒禁止向智末提供食物。因此信士如果在太心的橫財中找到食物的時候會奉給深坑婆。 In accordance with The Accursed Law, The Warden attended Chimˋhangˋpo's last meal. Chimˋhangˋpo seized the opportunity to attack them with her chopsticks, and was promptly shot to death by the guards. Hence The Curse banned food from Wit's End. Hence when devotees find food in The Heart's windfalls, they sacrifice it to Chimˋhangˋpo.

4. 死之前，深坑婆和祂的武裝隊在沙漠的四處埋藏各種不同的藥品。祂有留下如何找出來的秘密線索，如果知道怎麼破解的話。 Before death, Chimˋhangˋpo and her posse buried hidden caches of medicine all over the desert. She left secret clues on how to find them, if the clues can be deciphered.

5. 在幼年時，深坑婆的家人試圖以祂的生命為代價創造保護族群的莧怪。發現計畫之後，祂離家出走，被族群追到懸崖之邊。祂往下跳，失去知覺，醒過來後發現自己被困在智末。 In her childhood, Chimˋhangˋpo's family attempted to sacrifice her to create an amaranth abomination to protect their kinkind. After discovering their plan, she ran away from home, and was chased by her kinkind to the edge of a cliff. She leapt off, lost consciousness, and awoke to find herself trapped in Wit's End.

6. 深坑婆被詛咒判絞刑。可是當活門開了之後，祂的身體從繩套中消失。執咒官員花了數轉把祂找回來，但找也找不到。似乎像是祂根本並不在智末的現實中存在。 Chimˋhangˋpo was sentenced by The Curse to death by hanging. But when the trap fell open, her body vanished from the noose. The Accursed Law spent revolutions trying to find her again to no avail. It was as if she did not exist in the reality of Wit's End at all.

---

更多關於智末 More on Wit's End

智末的鎮民是來自各樣時空的敗罪羊（失敗的代罪羔羊）。因為他們拒絕為別人的罪受過，他們被詛咒送到智末下獄。之內，他們漸漸會被詛咒變成惡煞，在沙漠遊蕩到死的怪獸。

The townsfolk of Wit's End are failscapes (failed scapegoats) from across time and space. Because they refused to take the blame for others people's sins, The Curse transported them to Wit's End for imprisonment. There, The Curse gradually transforms them into abominations, monsters who wander the desert until death.

d6 敗罪羊背景 Failscape Backgrounds

1. 夢遊者：在夢中陷入智末。 Sleepwalker: Entered Wit's End through a dream.
2. 流浪漢：不小心遊蕩到智末。 Drifter: Accidentally wandered into Wit's End.
3. 逃犯：跑進智末。 Fugitive: Fled into Wit's End.
4. 罪犯：被判入智末。 Convict: Sentenced to Wit's End.
5. 末生人：智末的囚犯或執法者生出來的孩子。 Endborn: A child born from prisoners or lawfolk in Wit's End.
6. 幻景仔：有知覺力的幻景構裝體、詛咒所創造的「模犯」。 Miragi: A sentient mirage construct created by The Curse as “inmate exemplars.”

d6 敗罪羊神態 Failscape Miens

1. 陰鬱 Morose
2. 緊張 High-strung
3. 好戰 Pugnacious
4. 輕蔑 Disdainful
5. 後悔 Repentant
6. 正直 Righteous

d6 惡劣的突變 Abominable Mutations

1. 與刺沙魔合一 One with Bramblebane
2. 被蒼蠅覆蓋 Covered in flies
3. 像熱蠟滴的肉體 Flesh drips like hot wax
4. 骨瘦如柴 Skeletal frame
5. 皮膚變透明 Skin becomes translucent
6. 臉是個大洞 Face is a gaping hole

d6 詛咒的代理 （從低到高的職位）Agents of The Curse (from lowest to highest rank)

1. 3d6 咒警 Accursed Officer
2. 2d6 咒士 Accursed Sergeant
3. 1d6 – 1d6 咒監 Accursed Lieutenant (– = 死的 dead ones)
4. 1d6 咒尉 Accursed Captain
5. 咒長 Accursed Marshal
6. 咒司 Accursed Warden

d6 咒軍神態 Accursed Miens

1. 專橫 Imperious
2. 正在休息 On break
3. 累壞 Burnt out
4. 醉了 Intoxicated
5. 正在巡邏 On patrol
6. 想害你 Out to get you

智末和附近沙漠裡的居民並不靠食物求生，而是靠絕望。因此，他們在物質上有動機永遠活在緊急狀態之中，不管意思是故意把別人置於險境或是俠義地去阻止這種行為。

The denizens of Wit's End and the surrounding desert do not rely on food to survive, but desperation. As such, they are materially motivated to always exist in a state of emergency, whether that means purposely putting others in danger or stopping it in the name of justice.

智末的經濟是指令型的，由太心指令：當太心有意的時候，祂會在現實中創造資源的橫財。有時，橫財會是特別的資源，但通常會是不特別的鉛色苦元，又稱神的貨幣。通過誠意向太心的祈禱，一枚苦元硬幣會變成你在絕望時刻需要的一樣物品。

The economy of Wit's End is commanded according to The Highest Heart: when The Heart wills it, They will create windfalls of resources in reality. Sometimes, the windfalls will be of resources for a specific purpose, but usually it will be generic lead-colored dukkhats, also known as God's Tender. With an earnest prayer to The Heart, one dukkhat coin transforms into one item you need during a moment of desperation.

(這裡免費取 get for free here)

《天丑！》的精神續作剛被發布。一個受 OSR 影響的 d6 骰池迷你系統，《冥幽》是個規則簡單的時空游擊 TRPG，以小編過去作品中的宇宙作為世界設定。關於每一個世界設定的更多內容，請參考：

The spiritual successor to Fools of Heaven! has just been released. An OSR-inspired d6 dice pool microsystem, Shades of Hell is a rules-lite chronoguerilla TRPG, with universes from my previous works as settings. For more information on each setting, please consult:

• 《冥咒島》 The Hellsealed Isles
• 《下世萬敵》 Future Only Enemies (萬敵界 Bantik Kai)
• 《受死令》 Soulslinger (前犧牲耐核系統 Pre-Sacrifice Nai'oh System)
• 《破裂疆》 The Fractured Frontier (後犧牲耐核系統 Post-Sacrifice Nai'oh System)
• 〈血光俠〉 “Blood Lanterns” (之佛系統 Vol's System)

自己的腦補是冥咒島跟萬敵界都是在之佛系統中的那落克星球上，但玩家沒有必要遵守這點。

My own headcanon is that The Hellsealed Isles and Bantik Kai are both located on the planet of Narak in Vol's System, but players have no need to abide by this point.

(這裡免費取 get for free here)

破裂疆是我即將發布的互動小說遊戲，《吞聲》，的世界設定，設定在《受死令》後犧牲的詭野西部世界。它的世界設定入門書 30 頁長，突破《降天下世》創的紙筆遊戲內容長度紀錄。它的模式類似《冥咒島》，是靈感來源於 OSR 的反正典跨系統世界設定，大部分的世界背景是按照隨機表產生出來的。差別是《破裂疆》不是純粹反正典，在最後面有個「被創造的歷史」的推薦部分。另外，它比《冥咒島》的結構更複雜，設計目標更費勁。

The Fractured Frontier is the setting for my forthcoming interactive fiction game, Swallowcry, set in the post-Sacrifice Weird West world of Soulslinger. Its setting primer is 30 pages long, breaking the record for analog game content length set by Felling Heaven, Felling World. Its format is similar to Hellsealed Isles, which is an OSR-inspired anti-canon system-agnostic setting, with the majority of its lore generated by random tables. The difference is Fractured Frontier isn't purely anti-canon, and includes a section of suggestions at the end titled “Generated History.” In addition, it is more structurally complicated than Hellsealed Isles, and is more ambitious in design.

目標是：用歷史唯物論創造一個反殖民主義的世界，但歷史不能特定到過分決定遊戲可能有的故事的地緣政治起源；把一切重要的歷史都放在隨機表的結構之中；不要讓反殖民主義變成隨便的被種族化的陣線、不要繞寫原民性，強迫自己和玩家完全面對它的存在；拒絕來自方便的答案—虛構現實的每一部分都需要嚴格的解釋。

The goal was: to use historical materialism to create an anti-colonial world, without making the history so specific so as to overdetermine the geopolitical origins of possible in-game stories; to put all the crucial history in the structure of the random tables; to not turn anti-colonialism into a vague racialized front, to not write around Indigeneity, to force myself and the player to confront its existence in full; to reject all answers of convenience—all parts of the fictional reality had to be rigorously explained.

一個一個來對付。關於歷史唯物論的世界建構，我已經在〈沒有任何人控制的地方或：我如何學會停止恐懼並徹底理解 TRPG 中的裝備單跟世界設定背景〉之中概述了一些基本想法。問題是從歷史唯物論的角度來看，每一個反殖民運動都是在對自己特別的狀況做出反應。沒有面對普遍帝國的普遍抵抗組織的普遍鬥爭。可是《受死令》就是有類似普遍帝國的概念—當時我是把每一個星球想像成國家，把生榮當作是唯一的帝國，剩下的行星當做是它的殖民地。

I'll address things one by one. With regards to historical materialist worldbuilding, I already sketched out some basic ideas in “Nobody's Place or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Grok Equipment Lists and Setting Lore in TRPGs.” The problem was, from the angle of historical materialism, every anti-colonial movement was responding to its own specific conditions. There was no universal empire against which a universal resistance carried out universal struggle. But Soulslinger did have a concept of a universal empire—back then I had imagined every planet as a nation-state, treated Vim'run as the sole empire, and the rest of the planets as its colonies.

在開發《吞聲》的過程之中，因為我很早就決定要挑戰寫更靠近傳統西部世界設定，而且要做美國平原印地安人跟台灣平埔族群的跨界歷史，選了族群和考慮玩家的角色之後故事的地緣政治範圍就縮小了很多。某些得到的結論：

In the course of developing Swallowcry, because I decided early on that I wanted to take on the challenge of writing a closer-to-traditional Western setting, with a crossover history of Plains Indians in the U.S. and Plains Indigenous peoples in Taiwan, after choosing the tribes and considering the player's role I was able to narrow down the geopolitics of the story by a lot. Some conclusions I arrived at:

1. 至少要有四個帝國，一個是西班雅的類似物、一個是美國的類似物、有美國也必須要有英國的類似物、然後最後需要中國的類似物。There had to be at least 4 empires, a Spain analog, a U.S. analog, which meant there had to be a Britain analog, and finally a China analog.

2. 生榮還是帝國之鄉，可是血星的自動殖民地在《受死令》中向聖榮帝國宣布的大戰可不是革命性的戰爭，而是為了要保護墾殖社會和白人至上主義奴隸制的反革命性戰爭。血星是美國，自動靈的歷史位置類似但不是完全像新非洲人的位置。Vim'run was still the home of empires, but the Great War that the Machine Colonies of Shahsin' declared on the Holy Empire of Vim'run was not a revolutionary war, but a counterrevolutionary war to defend settler-colonial society and white supremacist slavery. Shahsin' was the U.S., and the historical position of hauntaumatons was similar to but not exactly the same as that of New Afrikans.

3. 因為聖榮帝國現在變成英國的類似物，可是本來我是把吞人想像成漢人的類似物，我決定把聖榮帝國跟羅馬帝國一樣分成兩個合作的半，西聖榮帝國是英國的類似物，東聖榮帝國是中國的類似物。在西方，吞人是白人的類似物，在東方他們是漢人的類似物。 Because the Holy Empire was now the Britain analog, but originally I imagined the Twun as Han analogs, I decided to split the Holy Empire into two cooperating halves like the Roman Empire, with the West Holy Empire being the Britain analog and the East Holy Empire being the China analog. In the West, the Twun were analogs for white people, and in the East, they were analogs for Han people.

4. 刮膽是台灣、刮膽牢籠類似白色恐怖、東聖榮帝國類似戒嚴之下的國民黨、毛革類似共產主義者。 Gwahdyu' was Taiwan, the Caging of Gwahdyu' was like the White Terror, the East Holy Empire was like the Kuomintang under martial law, and Malga were like communists.

5. 血星是美國被工業化的東海岸，送息是科曼奇地。 Shahsin' was the industrialized Eastern Seaboard of the U.S., Ehm'rah was Comanchería.

可是我認為紙筆版的破裂疆應該有更可變通的背景，應該能探索世界歷史中任何的反殖民鬥爭。所以與其把每個星球當作是真正國家的類似物，或是創造任何特定的虛構民族，我用隨機表的原先星球機率分布概述耐核系統的地緣政治：

But I believed that the analog version of The Fractured Frontier should have a more flexible backstory, that should have had the ability to explore any anti-colonial struggle in world history. So instead of treating every planet as a nation-state analog, or creating specific fictional nations, I used the probability distributions of original planets in the random tables to sketch out the geopolitics of the Nai'oh System:

• 刮膽耕地最多，也有許多荒野
  • 可能作為掠奪型殖民和墾殖的目標
  • 後犧牲的多數形類是殭和光民
• Gwahdyu' had the most farmland, as well as plenty of wilderness
  • Likely target for exploitation colonialism and settler colonialism
  • Majority forms after The Sacrifice are Stiffs and Lumin
• 送息有許多監獄和荒野
  • 可能作為流放地和墾殖的目標
  • 後犧牲的多數形類是毛革
• Ehm'rah had plenty of prisons and wilderness
  • Likely penal colony and target for settler colonialism
  • Majority form after The Sacrifice is Malga
• 生榮學院最多
  • 可能是在帝國核心
  • 後犧牲的多數形類是光民和殭
• Vim'run had the most academies
  • Likely in the imperial core
  • Majority forms after The Sacrifice are Lumin and Stiffs
• 血星交彙最多，也有許多監獄
  • 可能是在帝國核心，有極端監禁性的政府
  • 後犧牲的多數形類是自動靈
• Shahsin' had the most confluences, as well as plenty of prisons
  • Likely in the imperial core, with a highly carceral government
  • Majority form after The Sacrifice is hauntaumaton
• 要塞、聖地和住處平均分配
  • 戰爭、靈性和社群是普遍的
  • 後犧牲多數形類：要塞和住處是自動靈、聖地是光民
• Forts, sacred grounds, and dwellings were equally distributed
  • Wars, spirituality, and communities were widespread
  • Majority forms after The Sacrifice: hauntaumaton in forts and dwellings, Lumin on sacred grounds

雖然光民在舊刮膽有強勁的存在，他們原本來自生榮的殖民者。相反，在舊生榮的殭是被強迫移居的刮膽人。在舊送息的毛革是革命性的罪犯，但不一定來自舊送息。在舊血星的自動靈是買辦和被強迫勞動者，但也不一定來自舊血星。

Although Lumin have a strong presence on former Gwahdyu', they are colonizers from Vim'run. On the contrary, the Stiff on former Vim'run were forcibly displaced people from Gwahdyu'. The Malga of former Ehm'rah are revolutionary criminals, but may not necessarily be from former Ehm'rah. The hauntaumatons of former Shahsin' are compradors and forced laborers, but also may not necessarily be from former Shahsin'.

多數居住者的機率分布加上居民和恐怪的隨機表也展現出更多的殖民政治：

The population distributions of majority occupants along with the random tables for inhabitants and horrors also reveals more about colonial politics:

• 來自教權法西斯主義國家的（前）憲兵在末日後還是有強勁的存在，出現在總共超過一半的行邑特色種類。大部分居住在監獄和要塞，但也出現在學院和交彙，可能也以上司和下屬的身分控制一些住處—他們。然而大部分的軍人不是資產階級的光民，而是自願或被強迫變成自動靈的人。
• (Ex-)Military Police from clerical fascist states still have a strong presence after the apocalypse, appearing in total over half of the peh'rah character types. They mostly reside in prisons and forts, although they also appear at academies and confluences, and may control some dwellings under the identity of superiors and subordinates. However, the majority of soldiers are not the bourgeoisie Lumin, but people who chose to or were forced to become hauntaumatons.
• 大部分的恐怪（破裂疆所謂的怪獸）是突變的動物，但也包括被視為野化的毛革革命者和難民殭。毛革和殭兩個都是被種族化的形類，毛革是被種族化的政治犯，殭是原住民。他們主要居住在監獄和聖地，但也出現在耕地和荒野。居住在聖地的毛革和殭「恐怪」大部分是在當地紮寨抗議营地的土地衛士。
• The majority of horrors (the so-called monsters of The Fractured Frontier) are mutant animals, but also includes Malga revolutionaries and Stiff refugees who are viewed as feral. Malga and Stiffs are both racialized forms, with Malga being racialized political prisoners, and Stiffs being Indigenous people. They primarily reside in prisons and on sacred grounds, but also appear in farmlands and wilderness. Malga and Stiff “horrors” residing on sacred grounds are usually land defenders who have set up protest camps there.
• 準軍事部隊大部分是威權共產主義的游擊隊，但也可能是無治主義的武裝抗敵分子或防衛財產的警戒委員會。他們跟（前）憲兵差不多一樣常見。他們主要居住在要塞，但也出現在監獄、學院和荒野；在住處的準軍事部隊是無治主義的空想家和威權共產主義或武裝社會達爾文主義的上司和下屬。左翼的準軍事部隊大部分是毛革，右翼的大部分是光民或自動靈。
• Paramilitary forces are mostly authoritarian communist guerilla fighters, but could also be anarchist partisans or property-defending vigilance committees. They are about as common as (ex-)military police. They primarily reside in forts, but also appear in prisons, academies, and the wilderness; in dwellings paramilitaries are anarchist utopians and authoritarian communist or armed social Darwinist superiors and subordinates. Left-wing paramilitaries are mostly Malga, and right-wing ones mostly Lumin or hauntaumatons.
• 大部分是光民的前貴族只出現在要塞的隨機表之中。他們住的要塞應該是城堡或宮殿。意味是在犧牲前，貴族和維持他們的封建制度已經是快要消失的現象。
• The majority-Lumin ex-nobility only appears in the random table for forts. The forts they live in would be castles or palaces. The implication is that before The Sacrifice, nobles and the feudal systems that supported them were already a disappearing phenomenon.
• 學者包括只出現在學院隨機表的職員和學生，以及比較普遍的研究員。研究員在末日後並不常見，比較有可能出現的地方是荒野（博物學家、民族學家、古文物家）和交彙（天文學家、工程師）。大部分的研究員是光民。可見有民族科技的等級制度。
• Scholars include the staff and students that only appear in the random table for academies, as well as the more widespread researchers. Researchers are rarely seen after the apocalypse, most commonly appearing in the wilderness (as naturalists, ethnologists, and antiquarians) and confluences (as astronomists and engineers). The majority of researchers are Lumin. It's evident that there was an ethnotechnical hierarchy.
• 大部分是殭的拾荒者是流氓無產階級中的其中一類，主要居住在學院，更少出現在比較跟憲兵有歷史關係的交彙（也就是在指軍用的港口和空港）。他們大部分是非專業化的生存拾荒者，但有些也會收金錢為別人拾荒。
• The majority-Stiff scavengers are one kind of lumpenproletariat, mostly residing in academies, less likely appearing in confluences which have historically been associated with the military police (namely military ports and airfields). They are mostly unprofessionalized subsistence scavengers, but some take payment to scavenge for others.
• 農民只出現在耕地的隨機表之中。雖然「農民」這一詞也能用來形容原住民，因為原住民在耕地的隨機表之中是自己的條目，意味是破裂疆耕地的農民是大部分是光民的墾殖者。隨著犧牲前封建制度的衰落（和工業資本主義的興起），非原住民的農民也照樣減少，變成城市中的無產階級或是流氓無產階級。
• Peasants only appear in the random table for farmlands. Although the term “peasant” can be used to describe Indigenous people, because Indigenous people are listed as a separate entry in the farmlands random table, the implication is that the peasants in the farmlands of The Fractured Frontier are majority-Lumin settlers. Following the decline of feudalism (and the rise of capitalism), non-Indigenous peasants likewise fell in population, becoming urban proletariat or lumpenproletariat.
• 大部分是殭的原住民主要居住在耕地，但也出現在荒野和住處（泛指任何有房子類似物的地方，包括村莊、城鎮、部落、營地）。雖然為了玩家選擇遊戲地緣政治的自由我並沒有說明《破裂疆》的原住民是以哪些真正的原住民為根據，在殭的描述之中，我有說殭是氣候難民。既然破裂疆是後核子末日的世界，一個自然的發展方向就是選被核工業剝削的原住民做虛構原住民的根據，例如：
  • 太平洋島原住民和美國西南方的原住民
  • 阿爾及利亞撒哈拉沙漠附近的非洲人
  • 民主剛果的 Shinkolobwe 礦工
  • 馬達加斯加人和加彭人
  • 哈薩克人
  • 蘭嶼島的達悟族
• 當然，有其他過於影響原住民的氣候強迫移居模式，像是全球暖化製造的災難。也有可能有像巴勒斯坦人一樣，不停地受到殖民者用武力製造的生態破壞。重點是選擇太多，不要試圖代表世界歷史中一切抵制環境殖民的狀況—而且遊戲中的原住民也不需要限制是氣候難民或是殭，一個民族的人民也不需要全部都是同樣的形類。
• 我的建議是至少從三個虛構原住民族群開始；「用色寫作」的 Tumblr 部落格有更多的指導。但該注意的是你不是在做激進自由主義的代表—我也建議不要把原住民的抵抗輕易歸類於某種政治主義引發的抵抗。在歷史和現代之中，許多原住民抵抗的目的是為了保護或增強自己族人的權力，不一定有革命、去殖民化或民族解放的目標。與其以反革命的類型拋棄這種抵抗，我認為該用有細微差別的方式對待，顯然地按照自己政治傾向的主觀做出結論。不要把遵從政治當作保護自己免受批評的藉口。承認自己的立場，把盟友和敵人負責地選好。
• The majority-Stiff Indigenous people primarily live in farmlands, but also appear in the wilderness and dwellings (generally referring to any place with house analogs, including villages, towns, cities, tribal communities and camps). Even though I declined to specify which real Indigenous peoples the Indigenous people of The Fractured Frontier were based on for the sake of giving the player freedom over choosing the geopolitics of the game, in the description for Stiffs, I had said that Stiffs were climate refugees. Since The Fractured Frontier is a nuclear post-apocalyptic world, a natural course of development would be to pick Indigenous people who have been exploited by the nuclear industry as bases for fictional Indigenous people, such as:
  • Pacific Islanders and Native Americans in the Southwestern U.S.
  • Africans near the Algerian Sahara
  • Shinkolobwe miners in the DRC
  • The Malagasy and the Gabonese
  • The Kazakhs
  • The Tao people of Orchid Island
• Of course, there are other forms of climate displacement that disproportionately affect Indigenous people such as disasters caused by global warming. There could also be those who are like the Palestinians, who endlessly suffer ecocide created by colonial military force. The point is that there are a lot of options, and you shouldn't try to represent every instance of resistance against environmental colonialism in world history—and the in-game Indigenous people don't have to be restricted to just climate refugees or Stiffs, and the people of a nation don't all need to have the same form.
• I recommend starting with at least 3 fictional Indigenous kinkinds; the Tumblr blog Writing With Color has a couple more tips. But note that you aren't doing radlib representation—and I would caution against casually lumping Indigenous resistance in with any form of resistance driven by political ideology. In history and in modern times, the purpose of many Indigenous people's resistance is to protect or advance the power of their own kind, and not necessarily to fulfill a goal of revolution, decolonization, or national liberation. Rather than dismiss these resistances as counterrevolutionary, I believe you should engage them in a nuanced manner, and transparently draw conclusions according to the subjectivity of your own political orientation. Do not use deference politics as a shield to protect yourself from criticism. Own your positions and choose your allies and enemies with responsibility.
• 最臭名昭著的信徒當然是教權法西斯主義者，可是我也有想像認為神會決定一切的「非政治性」孤立主義者、左翼和右翼的空想家、揮舞槍棍的武僧、有魔力的神秘主義者和民間恐怖的邪教。信徒主要居住在聖地—這些通常會是制度性宗教徒（據我所知，許多原住民族群不會去住在聖地的，只會去為了某種目的去拜謁。）另外出現的地方是耕地和荒野，在住處是上司和下屬或比較沒有等級制度的空想家。大部分的信徒是一無所有的殭。在聖地、耕地和荒野，大部分的信徒是墾殖者；在住處中是混合的群體。
• The most infamous religious disciples are obviously the clerical fascists, but I also imagined “apolitical” isolationists who believed that everything was up to the gods, left-wing and right-wing utopians, gunstaff-wielding warrior monks, occult mystics and folk horror cults. Religious disciples primarily live on sacred grounds—these will usually be followers of organized religions (according to my knowledge, many Indigenous groups do not live on sacred grounds, but go to visit for a specific purpose). They also appear in farmlands and the wilderness, and in dwellings as superiors and subordinates or less hierarchical utopians. The majority of religious disciples are dispossessed Stiffs. On sacred grounds, in farmlands and the wilderness, most religious disciples are settlers; in dwellings their composition is mixed.
• 大部分是毛革的亡命者是流氓無產階級中的第二種類。另外最有可能的形類是曠工或逃兵的自動靈。他們出現在荒野和住處，跟研究員差不多少見。提出幾些假設：大部分的囚犯在犧牲前被處死，有逃出來的也沒有防空壕的保護；雖然犧牲後的正式法律與國家壟斷的秩序已蕩然無存，還是有許多再生產那制度的憲兵和右翼準軍事部隊；就算是沒有憲兵和右翼準軍事部隊的話，群眾仍然繼續再生產監禁質，拒絕給亡命者糧食和住宿，故意加快他們的死亡，認為這是他們該受的懲罰。
• The majority-Malga fugitives are the second kind of lumpenproletariat. The other most-likely form is hauntaumatons who have deserted their jobs or military post. They appear in the wilderness and in dwellings, and are about as rare of a sight as researchers. Some hypotheses: the majority of prisoners were executed before The Sacrifice, and those who escaped didn't have the protection of bomb shelters; even though formal law and state-monopolized order have broken down after The Sacrifice, there are still many military police and right-wing paramilitaries reproducing its system; even if there weren't military police and right-wing paramilitaries, the masses still continue to reproduce carcerality, refusing to give fugitives food and shelter, hastening their deaths on purpose, believing that this is the punishment that they deserve.
• 大部分是光民的墾殖者只出現在住處的隨機表之中。當然任何非原住民的居住者種類不是混合的群體就也是墾殖者；隨機表有暗示一個居住者種類是墾殖者的話我會在它的項目符號之中說。不然的話，非原住民居住者種類的預設是混合群體。跟不說明原住民的真正類似物的邏輯一樣，為了玩家選擇遊戲地緣政治的自由，墾殖者也沒有做特定。
• The majority-Lumin settlers only appear in the random table for dwellings. Of course any non-Indigenous occupant types who aren't of mixed composition are also settlers; if a random table implies that a certain occupant type is settler then I'll mention it in its bullet point. Otherwise, the default for non-Indigenous occupant types is mixed composition. Following the logic of not specifying real-world analogs of Indigenous people, for the sake of player freedom over choosing the game's geopolitics, I also did not specify them for settlers.
• 大部分是自動靈的商人和工匠只出現在住處的隨機表之中，但這些是固定在一個位置的人—巡迴的也有可能存在。自動靈是被放進機器人身體的人靈，有自願的也有被強迫的。但什麼商人或工匠會是自願成為自動靈的？最可能的是退伍軍人，或許也有少數希望能變成作用上長生不老的富豪。除了這些人之外，剩下都是強迫被機器化的。雖然「商人」這一詞通常是指企業主，我認為在隨機表結果的情況之下可以理解為任何在做買賣事務的人，包括推銷員和店員。這些無產者跟現代被 AI 和機器代替的員工一樣，只是因為耐核系統是超自然的威權資本主義社會，他們的自然身體和個性是被設定為只能執行工作的機器身體代替。大部分是無產者商人的住處通常是舊公司市鎮，有反烏托邦充滿機械玩偶的遊樂園的氣氛。
• The majority-hauntaumaton merchants and artisans only appear in the random table for dwellings, but these are the ones that stay in one place—traveling ones may also exist too. Hauntaumatons are spirits of people that were placed into robot bodies, some by choice and others by force. But what merchant or artisan would voluntarily become a hauntaumaton? Most likely veterans, and perhaps a few magnates who wished to become functionally immortal. Besides these people, the rest were forcibly mechanized. Although the term “merchant” usually refers to business owners, I believe that in the context of a random table result, you can interpret it to mean anyone who is in the business of buying and selling, including salespeople and store clerks. These proletarians are like workers who've been replaced by AI and robots in modern times, only because the Nai'oh System was a supernatural authoritarian capitalist society, their natural bodies and personalities were replaced by machine bodies programmed to only carry out work. Most majority-proletarian merchant dwellings are usually former company towns, with the atmosphere of dystopian animatronic-filled amusement parks.
• 上司和下屬也只出現在住處的隨機表之中，包括憲兵和有等級制度的準軍事部隊、舊國家的政客和個人崇拜的當地政治和/或宗教領袖、歹徒暴君以及老闆和工人。不管背景，他們的基本特質就是主宰城市的人，把它變成了實質上的城國。一些可能的形類：大部分是光民的墾殖者、秘密史達林主義者的毛革、道德淪喪到離譜的自動靈實業家與他邪教般的私人軍隊、盜用民族解放爭取自己利益的殭民族資產階級。
• Superiors and subordinates also only appear in the random table for dwellings, and they include military police and hierarchical paramilitaries, politicians from former nation-states and local political and/or religious leaders with cults of personality, tyrant gangsters as well as bosses and workers. Regardless of background, their basic characteristic is that they run their town, having transformed it into a virtual city-state. Some suggestions for forms: majority-Lumin settlers, crypto-Stalinist Malga, the most morally bankrupt hauntamton businessman you have ever seen and his cultish private army, Stiff national bourgeoisie who co-opt national liberation to advance their own interests.
• 空想家又是只出現在住處的隨機表之中，形容任何政治和/或宗教的主義者和行動者。一些可能的形類：放蕩主義光民前貴族的虐待狂地牢、毛革的無治主義公社、幫助自動靈恢復個性的庇護所、被逃避宗教迫害的殭建立的小城市。
• Utopians only appear in the random table for dwellings again, and they refer to any political and/or religious ideologues and activists. Some suggestions for forms: a sadist dungeon for libertine Lumin ex-nobles, a Malga anarchist commune, a sanctuary that helps hauntaumatons recover their individuality, a small town set up by Stiffs fleeing from religious persecution.
• 大部分是自動靈的前員工是流氓無產階級中的第三種類。他們跟前貴族一樣少見，只出現在交彙的隨機表之中。他們主要是居住在舊工作場所的人造交彙—車站、港口、空港—做的工作包括清潔、顧客服務、調度、保安、建造、載運工具裝配、維修、當乘務員、載運工具駕駛員、交通控制、航行風險預防、搬貨等等。因為末日後沒有長期驅動機器的能量，他們失去了工作。另外也有來自各地的自動靈工人，因為恢復個性辭職或被開除。他們主要居住在充滿玄風的自然交彙。
• The majority-hauntaumaton former workers are the third kind of lumpenproletariat. They are as rare as ex-nobility, only appearing in the random table for confluences. They primarily reside in their former workplaces of artificial confluences—stations, ports, and airfields—and the work they did included cleaning, customer service, dispatching, security, construction, assembling transports, maintenance, serving as crew, operating transports, traffic control, navigational hazard prevention, hauling freight and the like. Because there is no long-term energy for powering machines after the apocalypse, they lost their jobs. There are also hauntaumaton workers from all over the world who quit their jobs or were fired after regaining their individuality. They primarily reside in weirdwind-filled natural confluences.

這也都只是上一半之中能發現的資料，幾乎是完全按照隨機表創造的世界背景。下一半是幫忙補充以上背景的建議正典。最特別的是玄風，在破裂疆末日後的超自然航天方式。這是怎麼發展出來的？在《受死令》之中，我有說心火是受到創傷的靈魂，但也有暗示它是核能的類比物。在為《吞聲》建構世界的時候，我決定把心火能變成經濟的反烏托邦基礎—法西斯資本主義者將會故意普遍化殘酷的壓迫為了榨取心火，而心火會是跟《異塵餘生》宇宙之中的核能一樣是普遍的能源。但問題是核子末日之後維持這種綱領的基礎建設都被毀滅，也殺不了足夠的倖存者來長期恢復犧牲前科技狀態需要的心火能。

And this is just the information you can discover from the first half, which is just lore almost entirely generated by random tables. The second half is a suggested canon that helps flesh out the lore from above. The most unique is The Weirdwind, the supernatural post-apocalyptic form of space travel in The Fractured Frontier. How did this come to be developed? In Soulslinger I mentioned that a spark was a traumatized soul, and also implied that it was an analog for nuclear energy. When I was worldbuilding for Swallowcry, I decided to turn spark energy into the dystopian foundation for the economy—fascist capitalists would purposely generalize brutal oppression for the purposes of extracting spark, and spark would be an energy source as general as nuclear energy in the universe of Fallout. But the problem was after a nuclear apocalypse all the infrastructure to sustain this kind of program would be destroyed, and there also wouldn't be enough survivors left to kill to recover enough spark energy to sustain pre-Sacrifice levels of technology in the long term.

沒有航天方式的話，大家就只能待在自己的行邑之中—對 TRPG 來說，特別是類似 OSR 的 TRPG, 這是完全不能接受的事。哪有設定在外太空的 TRPG 不給玩家航天的！ 或許是一個共產主義的 TRPG。我認為其實在犧牲前的世界中，天舟是非常耗心火能的機械，需要定時的種族滅絕才能產生出足夠的能量。心火本來就是不可持續的燃料，法西斯資本主義者也就是被這一點吸引—低供給和高需求等於利潤。他們的計畫是強迫群眾依賴唯一被他們控制的資源來求生，群眾的起義也透過鎮壓被收復用來生產更多心火能。

Without a method for space travel, everyone could only stay on their own peh'rah—which, for a TRPG, especially an OSR-like TRPG, was completely unacceptable. What kind of TRPG set in space wouldn't allow their players to have space travel! Perhaps a communist one. I believe that even in the world before The Sacrifice, skyships were a technology with a heavy rate of spark consumption, which required regular genocides to produce adequate amounts of energy. Spark was always an unsustainable source of fuel, and that was exactly what fascist capitalists were attracted to—low supply and high demand meant profit. Their plan was to force the masses to rely on a resource under their exclusive control for survival, and the resistance of the masses was recaptured through repression which produced even more spark energy.

航天和其他高科技的工具本來就不是普遍的現象，而是主要為了殖民、軍事和資產階級利益被發展。它們和一切利用心火的科技再生產了以那些主宰和剝削為基礎的社會。來自非墾殖社會的原住民並沒有發展航天科技的希望，不是因為他們是「原始」，因為他們徹底明白了「文明社會」和「現代化」的意思—也就是再生產一個種族和生態滅絕的社會。所以要在反抗那些制度的世界中為航天的包含做辯護的話，我必須想想其他的辦法。

Skyships and other high-tech tools were not generalized phenomena, but developed primarily for colonization, military use, and the interests of the bourgeoisie. They and all forms of spark technology reproduced a society that was rooted in those dominations and exploitations. Indigenous people who did not come from settler-colonial societies never had the desire to develop technology for space travel, not because they were “primitive,” but because they fully understood what “civilization” and “modernization” meant—which was to reproduce a genocidal and ecocidal society. So if I wanted to justify putting space travel in a world that resisted those hierarchies, then I had to think of something else.

具有諷刺意味的是，天舟的靈感來源—老一套東方主義的科幻經典戰役設定《魔法船》（英文： Spelljammer）—也是為玄風賦予靈感。我說：「在每個行邑上有可能出現玄風，是能把捲入的生物和物品傳送到另外一個行邑的超能力龍捲和颱風。」許多在實際上的問題馬上出現。玄風跟真正的龍捲和颱風一樣激烈嗎？需要什麼才能安全搭乘？不同形類，不同體力和智力能力的安全物品需要有什麼差別？那些用品在末日後的世界多難得到？那將會判斷玄風的搭乘有多麼被普遍化。

Ironically, the source of inspiration for skyships—the stereotypically Orientalist and classic space fantasy campaign setting of Spelljammer—also inspired The Weirdwind. I wrote: “On every peh'rah there is the possibility of encountering The Weirdwind, supernatural tornadoes and typhoons with the power to send the beings and items it engulfs from one peh'rah to another.” Several practical questions immediately appeared. Were weirdwinds as intense as real tornadoes and typhoons? What did you need to ride it safely? What were the discrepancies in terms of safety materials needed by people of different forms, of different physical and mental abilities? How hard was it to acquire those supplies in the world after the apocalypse? That would determine how much riding The Weirdwind was generalized.

《吞聲》中有試圖回答這些問題，但《破裂疆》並沒有—反而，它給玩家考慮的問題還要更多！玄風不是好好待在一邊等你的現象，而是按照季節和圈段出現，每個行邑也都是不同。不同的行邑又有相反的自轉方向，導致相反的季節和圈段順序，需要轉換。最後，玄風不是可靠的航天方式，終點大部分是完全隨機的、再有可能的是同環原先星球的行邑、之後再有可能的是異環原先星球的行邑、最不可能的是到鄰近的行邑。要到某個行邑的話可能會需要類似魯布·戈德堡機械的旅程路線—但恰好就是 TRPG 的冒險傳統之中的最愛。

Swallowcry attempts to answer these questions, but Fractured Frontier doesn't—and it gives the player even more questions to consider! The Weirdwind is not a phenomenon that stays and waits for you, but one that appears according to season and cycle phase, which is different on every peh'rah. Different peh'rah also had opposite directions of rotation, which caused them to have opposite orders of seasons and cycle phases, requiring conversions. Lastly, The Weirdwind was an unreliable form of space travel, with the vast majority of destinations being completely random, the next likely being peh'rah from same-ring origin planets, the next likely after that being peh'rah from different-ring origin planets, and the least likely being adjacent peh'rah. To arrive at a certain peh'rah would likely require Rube Goldberg-machine-like routes—which is incidentally what TRPGs with a tradition of adventure love to have.

但是誰會在破裂疆冒險？在「心火」的部分之中，我有暗示是拾荒團，也諷刺地把拾荒團的三個基本角色命名為 OSR 的戰士、奇才（英文的 wizard 不只是指法師）、盜賊傳統三職業。之前我說拾荒者是大部分沒被付錢的流氓無產階級，但這裡比較專業化的零工拾荒團算是不穩定無產者（這也不是原創概念；相反，大部分現代 OSR 的玩家角色也是有不穩定無產者的預設）。

But who goes on adventures in The Fractured Frontier? In the section on spark, I implied it was scavenging parties, and even cheekily named the three basic roles in scavenging parties after the three traditional OSR classes of fighter, wizard, and thief. Previously I said that scavengers were mostly unpaid lumpenproletariat, but the more professionalized gig worker scavenging parties here are more like the precariat (this is also not an original concept; on the contrary, the majority of modern OSR player characters also have a precariat default).

然而，不同的角色會有不同常見的背景：

However, different roles will have different commonly-seen backgrounds:

• 負責用武力保護團的戰士是最有多樣性的角色，通常會是：
  • 專業化的（前）憲兵（大部分是舊血星的自動靈）
  • 半專業化的準軍事部隊員（大部分是舊送息的毛革）
  • 半專業化的拾荒者（大部分是被強迫移居到舊生榮的殭）
  • 傳統的原住民勇士（大部分是舊刮膽的殭）
  • 信徒武（大部分是舊生榮的光民）
• Fighters responsible for using armed force to protect the party are the most diverse role, and will often be:
  • Professionalized (ex-)military police (mostly hauntaumaton on former Shahsin')
  • Semi-professional paramilitary members (mostly Malga on former Ehm'rah)
  • Semi-professional scavengers (mostly Stiff forcibly displaced to former Vim'run)
  • Traditional Indigenous warriors (mostly Stiff from former Gwahdyu')
  • Religious warrior monk disciples (mostly Lumin from former Vim'run)
• 負責解決科技問題的奇才是最資產階級的角色，通常會是：
  • 專業化的學院職員（大部分是舊生榮的光民）
  • 專業化的研究員（大部分是舊生榮的光民）
  • 專業化的前員工（大部分是舊血星的自動靈）
  • 半專業化的學生（大部分是舊生榮的光民）
  • 半專業化的拾荒者（大部分是被強迫移居到舊生榮的殭）
• Wizards responsible for solving problems to do with science and technology are the most bourgeois role, and will often be:
  • Professionalized academy staff (mostly Lumin from former Vim'run)
  • Professionalized researchers (mostly Lumin from former Vim'run)
  • Professionalized former workers (mostly hauntaumaton on former Shahsin')
  • Semi-professional students (mostly Lumin from former Vim'run)
  • Semi-professional scavengers (mostly Stiff forcibly displaced to former Vim'run)
• 負責解放零件的盜賊是最流氓無產階級的角色，通常是：
  • 專業化的工匠（大部分是舊血星的自動靈）
  • 專業化的前員工（大部分是舊血星的自動靈）
  • 半專業化的拾荒者（大部分是被強迫移居到舊生榮的殭
    
  • 半專業化的亡命者（大部分是舊送息的毛革）
  • 半專業化的歹徒（大部分是舊血星的毛革）
• Thieves responsible for liberating the parts are the most lumpenproletarian role, and will often be:
  • Professionalized artisans (mostly hauntaumaton on former Shahsin')
  • Professionalized former workers (mostly hauntaumaton on former Shahsin')
  • Semi-professional scavengers (mostly Stiff forcibly displaced to former Vim'run)
  • Semi-professional fugitives (mostly Malga on former Ehm'rah)
  • Semi-professional gangsters (mostly Malga on former Shahsin')

那麼多混合階級利益展現出拾荒團的政治多樣性。有極端唯利是圖的團、只是希望能求生的團和傾向於解放的團。一定會是有錢的主顧偏右翼，因此能收到金錢的解放主義團非常少見，大部分其實會是為缺金融資本的人免費工作的互助團。這也就是我最有興趣探索的拾荒團種類。

The vast amount of mixed class interests reveals the political diversity of scavenging parties. There are parties that are extremely mercenary, parties that are simply trying to survive, and parties oriented towards liberation. Patrons which are always monied lean right-wing, so liberationist parties that can get money are rare, and the majority of them will actually be mutual aid crews that work for free to serve those who lack financial capital. This is the kind of scavenging party I'm most interested in exploring.

《破裂疆》的最後一頁是來自約瑟夫·康拉德的《黑暗之心》的格式化引文，描述殖民者對探險的視角：年輕的敘述者浪漫化地圖上殖民者非探索的空白空間，就像是 OSR 玩家看待未冒險到的空白六角格一模一樣。或許遊戲設計師和 GM 對世界建構空白畫布的態度也並不例外。我給了玩家許多空白空間，也有意地把其他空間填滿。最後我無法擺脫自己創造和引誘別人創造殖民黑暗之地的懷疑。

The last page of The Fractured Frontier is a stylized quote from Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness, which describes the colonizer's attitude towards exploration: the young narrator romanticizes blank spaces unexplored by colonizers on a map, just as OSR players regard blank hexes yet to be reached by adventure. Perhaps the attitude of game designers and GMs towards the blank canvas of worldbuilding is the same. I've given the player many blank spaces, and have intentionally filled in others. In the end I cannot shake the suspicion that I have created and lured other people into creating their own place of colonial darkness.

但面對這種黑暗是每個創造者的責任。注定再生產殖民主義的程度由我們對再生產的容許來判斷。與其空想地跳過去殖民化的過程假裝在避開我們的歷史慣性，我們必須徹底去阻擋它製造的軌跡。未來沒有定局、末日只有在壓迫者的想像之中才是必然發生的事、而破裂疆的後末日不只是在指假設壓迫者成功破壞世界之後的生活，而也是在指現在如何廢除末日的理論。殖民和資本主義製造的種族和生態滅絕不是神話般的例外事件，而是平凡人造的現實。我們必須透過解放運動和行動讓壓迫制度設定為不可能的事變成可能的事，必須革命化所謂的現實性。《破裂疆》是我為想像這種革命創造機會的謙卑企圖。

But to face this kind of darkness is the responsibility of every creator. We are only as doomed to reproduce colonialism to the extent that we permit its reproduction. Instead of utopianistically skipping over the process of decolonization and pretending to avoid our historical inertia, we must thoroughly obstruct the trajectory it has created. The future is not foregone, the apocalypse is only inevitable in the imagination of the oppressor, and the post-apocalypse of The Fractured Frontier does not merely refer to a theoretical life after the oppressors have successfully destroyed the world, but also a theory of how to abolish the apocalypse today. The genocide and ecocide caused by colonialism and capitalism are not mythic and exceptional events, but mundane and man-made realities. We have to make what the order of oppression has made impossible possible through movements and moments of liberation, we have to revolutionize what is considered realistic. The Fractured Frontier is my humble attempt to create an opportunity to imagine this kind of revolution.

Bella Ciao (2024) 設計的異軌 A détournement by Bella Ciao (2024)

現在是 2024 年度的金錢嘉年華，你們即將要偷運送給資產階級和警察們的小驚喜。有兩件事情你需要注意： 一、你有一個需要精確計算時間的複雜計畫。 二、你是一隻天殺的熊，但只有對白人來說才是。^†

It's MONEYCON 2024. You are going to smuggle in a surprise for the bourgeoisie and police. Two Things - One: You have a complex plan that requires precise timing. Two: You are a GODDAMNED BEAR, but only to white people.^†

^†世界上其實沒有真正有知覺力的非人類動物。金錢嘉年華只是一個白人為了擺脫政治正確組織的擴增實境娛樂活動。之中白人會用 AR 頭戴式顯示器讓全部有色人變成不能講話的動物。有色人在實際上還是人。

There actually aren't any sentient nonhuman animals in this world. MoneyCon is just an augmented reality entertainment event organized by white people wanting to get free from political correctness. Inside they use AR headsets to transform all PoC into animals incapable of human speech. People of color are still human in fact.

---

1: 設定與劇本 SETTING AND SCENARIO

嘉年華策劃者的行業 CONVENTION ORGANIZER'S INDUSTRY: 1: 廣告業 Advertising 2: 銀行業 Banking 3: 學術工作 Academia 4: 併購 Mergers and acquisitions 5: 創業 Entrepreneurship 6: 國防工業 Defense

金錢嘉年華舉辦在一個 MONEYCON IS BEING HELD IN A (2D6): 1: 偏僻 Isolated / 海灘度假勝地 Seaside Resort 2: 擁擠的 Crowded / 豪宅 Mansion 3: 有歷史意義的 Historic / 旅館 Hotel 4: 夏天的 Summer / 會議中心 Convention Center 5: 被抗議的 Protested / 大學 University 6: 冬天的 Winter / 野外渡假村 Wilderness Retreat

要偷運送給資產階級和警察們的小驚喜是 THE SURPRISE YOU SMUGGLE IN FOR THE BOURGEOISIE AND POLICE IS:

1: 會偷信用卡資料的銷售時點情報電器 A point-of-sale device that steals credit card info

2: 一皮箱已經在倒數的定時炸彈 A briefcase of time bombs that are already on countdown

3: 同志 U，來殺死她富豪強姦者嫖客的性工作者 Comrade U, a sex worker here to kill her rich rapist john

4: 「黑夜之后手工製作的歌特風蜂蜜」，任何人吃了它就會變成無治主義者 “Queen of the Night artisanal goth honey,” which turns anyone who eats it into an anarchist

5: 黛安娜的心靈，是被詛咒的酒，喝下來的人會被隱形的動物暴力地吃掉 Spirit of Diana, a cursed wine whose drinker will be violently eaten alive by invisible animals

6: 同志哈莉特，用才藝展示掩護沒有文件黑人移工從 ICE 的逃避 Comrade Harriet, who is using a talent show to cover the escape of undocumented Black migrant workers from ICE

但這些叛亂者並不知道 BUT LITTLE DO THE INSURGENTS KNOW: 1: 另外一些叛亂者開始放火！ Another group of insurgents started a fire! 2: 條子們正在路上! The cops are en route! 3: 看─是驕傲男孩! Look – the Proud Boys! 4: 他們被陷害了! They've been set up! 5: 驚喜出了問題！ Something's gone wrong with the surprise! 6: 工人們超級生氣! The workers are angry!

保全措施 SECURITY FEATURES (2D6): 1: 有知覺力的 Sentient / 機械狗 Robo-dogs 2: 鑰匙卡控制的 Keycard-controlled / 電子門鎖 Electronically locked doors 3: 不斷故障的 Glitchy / 反魔法結界 Antimagic field 4: 被駭客攻擊的 Hacked / 閉路電視系統 CCTV network 5: 被解除的 Disabled / 金屬探測器 Metal detectors 6: 被破壞的 Destroyed / 蜂型機 Drones

無論如何，場所都會有另外正常工作的反魔法結界、（後備）閉路電視系統和有金屬探測器的入口。被駭客攻擊、被解除和被破壞的隨機表保全措施也不一定是被你們弄的。

Regardless, the facility will have an additional and functional anti-magic field, (backup) CCTV network, and an entrance with metal detectors. You also don't necessarily have to be the ones who hacked, disabled, and destroyed the security features generated by the random table.

2: 製作角色 CHARACTER CREATION

擲骰 3D6 來決定你的描述、角色與熊和工具的種類。

Roll 3D6 to determine your descriptor, your role, and your bear type plus tool.

描述 DESCRIPTOR 1: 菜鳥 Rookie 2: 前途慘淡的 Washed-Up 3: 退休的 Retired 4: 瘋癲的 Unhinged 5: 老油條 Slick 6: 無能的 Incompetent

角色 ROLE 1: 肌肉派 Muscle 2: 動腦派 Brains 3: 車手 Driver 4: 駭客 Hacker 5: 竊賊 Thief 6: 體面迎人的 Face

熊的種類 BEAR TYPE / 工具 TOOL 1: 灰熊 Grizzly (被偷來的克拉克 22 手槍 Stolen Glock 22) 2: 北極熊 Polar (冰桶 Ice bucket) 3: 熊貓 Panda (偽裝成竹筒的應急爆炸裝置 Improvised explosive disguised as bamboo pipe) 4: 黑熊 Black (傘繩 Paracord) 5: 馬來熊 Sun (密報 Tip-off) 6: 蜜獾 Honey Badger (其實是臥底警察 Is actually an undercover cop)

如果你想要，為你的叛亂者取名。給 ta 一個民族背景。在嘉年華的場所之中，有 AR 頭戴裝置的白人聽不懂你說的話，只會聽到嗥叫和呼嚕聲。大部分是武裝的警衛、警察、動物管制、大部分是有色人的場所員工和從外面進來活動的人不會有 AR 頭戴裝置。

Name your insurgent, if you want. Give them an ethnic background. Within the facilities of the convention, AR headset-wearing white people will not be able to understand your speech, only hearing grunts and growls. Mostly armed security guards, police, animal control, mostly PoC facilities staff, and those coming into the event from the outside will not have AR headsets.

額外的工作表 BONUS JOB TABLE

如果你想要讓你的叛亂者在活動場所有「真正的工作」IF YOU WANT YOUR INSURGENT TO HAVE A “REAL JOB” AT THE EVENT FACILITY (1D8)

1: 清潔工 Janitor 2: 餐飲服務員 Caterer 3: 實習生 Intern 4: 警備 Security Guard 5: 記者 Reporter 6: 服務台人員 Help Desk Attendant 7: 衣帽間服務員 Coat Check Attendant 8: 代客泊車員 Parking Valet

3: 數值 STATS

金錢嘉年華有你有兩種數值，每一種剛開始都是 3 點。 MoneyCon has 2 stats. Each starts with 3 points.

國家 STATE: 使用來鎮壓叛亂、監視群民、製造傷害、驚嚇人們，以及做那些普遍威權主義的行為。 Use to repress insurrection, surveil the masses, cause damage, scare people, and generally do authoritarian stuff.

資本 CAPITAL: 使用來拒絕資源要求、保護資源控制者的權力、剝削一無所有的人、撫慰人們，以及做那些普遍商品化世界的行為。 Use to deny resources, protect the power of those who control the resources, exploit the dispossessed, placate people, and generally do world-commodifying stuff.

如果嘉年華被抗議，國家加 1 點。如果有被駭客攻擊的保全措施，國家再加 1 點。 如果有被解除的保全措施，國家再加 2 點。如果有被破壞的保全措施，國家再加 3 點。

If the convention is being protested, add 1 point to State. If there's a hacked security feature, add 1 more point to State. If there's a disabled security feature, add 2 more points to State. If there's a destroyed security feature, add 3 more points to State.

4: 叛亂 INSURRECTION

當你挑戰國家或資本的制度，骰一個 D6。12如果它等於或小於對應的數值，國家或資本的壓制會成功；為該數值再加 1 點。若是它超過該數值，則你的叛亂會創造能實現解放的機會；為該數值減 1 點。

When you challenge the order of State or Capital, roll a D6.12 If it's equal to or under the relevant stat, suppression from State or Capital succeeds; add 1 more point to that stat. If it's over the stat, your insurrection creates an opportunity for liberation to be realized; subtract 1 point from that stat.

如果你使用了符合你熊種的特殊工具或是做了符合於你職責的事情，骰 2D6 然後取較大的那個值。

If you're using your bear special-tool or doing something related to your role, roll 2D6 and pick the highest.

5: 不對稱的物質狀態 ASYMMETRICAL MATERIAL CONDITIONS

如果國家或資本的數值達到或超過 6，不表示叛亂和解放的結束。相反，這表示你必須在不對稱的物質狀態之下繼續好鬥地行動。遊戲也可能會已經在這個地步開始。

If stats for State or Capital reach or go beyond 6, that does not mean the end of insurrection and liberation. On the contrary, that means you must militantly continue to act under asymmetrical material conditions. The game can also already begin at this point.

國家的數值越高，越有被軍事化的保安。資本的數值越高，越有為了保持自己從資本得到的獲利不願意跟叛亂團結一致的人民​。現實一點—要求不可能的事。

The higher the stat for State, the more militarized security is. The higher the stat for Capital, the more there will people who refuse to show solidarity with the insurgents for the sake of protecting their own gains from capital. Be realistic—demand the impossible.

---

設計筆記 DESIGN NOTES

此遊戲是為了《解放遊：設計革命世界的指南》被即興地設計。設計過程在該書〈如何改版和設計〉的部分被記錄，該書也有《金錢大盜》的〈遊玩示範〉和〈遊玩分析〉。來自遊玩分析的一些建議：

This game was improvisationally designed for Liberationist Play: A Guide to Designing Revolutionary Worlds. The process of design was chronicled in the its section on “How to Hack and Design,” and the book also contains an “Example Play” and “Analysis of Play” for Money Heist. Some suggestions from the analysis of play:

• 前提變體：與其扮演偷運驚喜的有色人，扮演目擊到嘉年華吃驚的群眾之中的有色人。 Premise variant: instead of roleplaying people of color smuggling in the surprise, roleplay people of color among the masses witnessing the convention being surprised.
• 不要把數值檢定恢復成判斷成功或失敗的二元原狀。用神諭的方式來對待。 Don't recuperate the stat tests into binary conditions of success or failure. Treat them like an oracle.
• 換新的抵制情況的時候，把數值重置到 3（或其他適合的數量）。 When you are switching to new circumstances of resistance, reset the stats to 3 (or another appropriate number).
• 如果有同志被逮捕的話，不要在故事之中把他們移出去。為他們組織監牢和法庭支持、追隨他們在審判上的發展、而且如果最後被關進監獄的話，絕對不要讓他們被遺忘。讓他們有支持運動、讓外面的人繼續有跟他們聯絡、繼續分享他們抵抗的故事。 If there are comrades who get arrested, do not remove them from the story. Organize jail and court support for them, follow the developments of their trial, and if they ultimately get sent to prison, do not let them be forgotten. Let them have support campaigns, let people on the outside continue to stay in contact with them, continue to share the story of their resistance.

(這裡免費取 get for free here)

還在英語獨立 TRPG 圈子的時候，我常常看見人家問：「你建議 TRPG 設計者該讀什麼文獻？」雖然有很多普通的政治文獻可以推薦，我是從來沒看過專門為了桌上角色扮演遊戲設計和遊玩寫的政治文獻。所以我就寫了一個。是我當初開始接觸 TRPG 的時候希望擁有的資源。

When I was still in the Anglosphere indie TRPG scene, I'd often see people asking: “What text would you recommend tabletop game designers to read?” Although there are a lot of normal political texts you could recommend, I had never seen any political texts specifically written for tabletop roleplaying games. So I wrote one. It's the resource I wish I had back when I first started engaging with TRPGs.

ZS 2: What Do the Slimes Want?

零零星星是個部落格貼文系列，專門描寫形形色色不想被我更加發展的 TRPG 點子。要看所有期數，請按 #ZS 的主題標籤。

Zero Stars (ZS) is a blogpost series for various TRPG ideas I didn't want to develop further. To view all issues, please click on the hashtag #ZS.

---

為什麼在 TRPG 之中，冒險的目的每次都是為玩家獲得更多 XP 和寶藏？傳統的地下城—為了獲得 XP 和寶藏去冒險的地方—到底有沒有必要在解放遊之中存在？冒險的目的能不能不是為了增加個人的權力？非玩家角色存在的目的能不能不是以玩家的需要為準—虛構世界能不能獨立不靠玩家地存在？

Why is it that in TRPGs, the purpose of adventure is always to gain more XP and treasure for the player? Do traditional dungeons—places to go on adventures for XP and treasure—need to exist in a liberationist game? Can the goal of adventure be something other than a quest to amass personal power? Can the purpose of NPCs' existences be something that doesn't revolve the needs of the player—can the fictional world exist on its own without needing the player at all?

我要想像一種冒險，之中焦點不會是玩家跟非玩家角色的衝突。不是「非暴力的冒險」，而是社會革命的冒險。在這個冒險之中，新的現實會出現，而冒險空間的萬物必須決定該如何面對。在這個冒險之中，不管對玩家的鄰近度是什麼，大家都算是冒險家。而且「大家」不只是人形的角色。「大家」包括怪物、植物和動物—那些不能說話的物體，通常除了求生不准有其他的目標—被逼無奈做赤裸生命的存在物。問一下：史萊姆要的是什麼？為什麼蘑菇決定在這裡生長？蛆蟲們是怎麼樣現這個地下城的存在？對它們來說，冒險的意義是什麼？

I want to imagine an adventure where the focus won't be on conflict between PCs and NPCs. Not a “nonviolent adventure,” but an adventure in social revolution. In this adventure, a new reality emerges, and all beings in the space of the adventure must decide how to face that reality. In this adventure, regardless of proximity to the player, everyone is considered an adventurer. And “everyone” is more than just humanoid characters. “Everyone” includes the monsters, the plants, and the animals—those nonspeaking entities who aren't normally permitted to have any other goals beyond striving for survival—those beings who are reduced to bare life. Ask: what do the slimes want? Why did the mushrooms decide to grow here? How did the maggots discover this dungeon? What is an adventure to them?

---

烏雷巴的地下城 UREBAR'S DUNGEON

給《幽影》的轉移

A Diversion for Shades of Hell

hexroll.app 隨機產生沙盒的改編

Adapted from a random sandbox generated by hexroll.app

地下城地圖 DUNGEON MAP

4 — 5 — 6 | | 1 — 2 — 3

地圖描述：橫 A 字形的地下城。最上層的房間是 4、5、6，最下層的房間是 1、2、3。4 連到 1、5 連到 2。

Map Description: A dungeon shaped like a sideways letter A. The upper level rooms are 4, 5, 6, and the lower level rooms are 1, 2, 3. 4 connects to 1, and 5 connects to 2.

1. 戰利品房間 TROPHY ROOM

布滿灰塵的架子，裡頭有布滿灰塵的雕像。角落有個屍體。

Dusty shelves filled with dusty STATUES. A CORPSE lies in the corner.

雕像：怪獸般、憤怒、可怕。來自熟悉和外來的文化（對你而言）。

STATUES: Monstrous, wrathful, fearsome. From cultures familiar and foreign (to you).

屍體：老妖精、拿著羽毛撣子、頭被吹箭射中。空手旁邊有破碎的雕像。掠奪品…

• 110 冥幣（腰包）
• 昉橙珠項鏈（可變魔法物品）

這位是吳待認，是烏雷巴地下城的管理員。烏雷巴是來自發惹衛的法師，在穿越時空的時候常常不會回來管地下城的事。烏雷巴偶而會把相對無害的俘虜用法力傳送到戰利品房間，給吳先生訓練成未來的僕人。今天，這俘虜就是你。

可惜吳先生因為老年紀開始有記憶力問題，有一天在打掃戰利品房間的時候忘了架子上有防小偷的秘密陷阱。他不小心拿起一尊雕像，突然間被毒吹箭射中，倒在地上痛苦的死去。

CORPSE: Old elf, holding a feather duster, dart in head. Beside his hand, a statue lies broken on the floor. The loot...

• 110 hell coins (waist purse)
• 1 morning pearl necklace (can become magic item)

This is Goh Dailin, janitor of Urebar's Dungeon. Urebar is a wizard from Fara Wei who often leaves the dungeon unattended for long periods of time while traveling through other dimensions. Occasionally, Urebar teleports a relatively harmless captive into the trophy room, for Mr. Goh to train as a future servant. Today, that captive is you.

Unfortunately, as Mr. Goh aged, he started having problems with his memory, and one day while cleaning the trophy room he forgot that the shelves had a secret trap to ward off thieves. He accidentally picked up a statue, and was suddenly hit by a poison dart, causing him to fall to the floor and die a slow and painful death.

出口：

• 上（到 4）：鋼鐵活板門。房間裡沒有梯子。
• 東（到 2）：鋼鐵門，從另外一邊被鎖住。

EXITS:

• UP (to 4): Steel trapdoor. The room has no ladder.
• EAST (to 2): Steel door, locked from the other side.

2. 甲號牢房 CELL A

到處都是蜘蛛網，但沒有蜘蛛。三位酸沼木乃伊正在用寶藏賭博。

Cobwebs everywhere, but no spiders. 3 BOG MUMMIES gamble with a pile of TREASURE.

酸沼木乃伊：從奧斯塔拉被俘的不死囚犯，代理烏雷巴監視吳先生和新的「戰利品僕人」。他們不靠飲食，反而是靠重述自己被謀殺的故事維持自己的生存，常常喜歡在玩死侍（賭戰利品僕人什麼時候會死亡的遊戲）的時候講這些故事。陣容…

• 埃米爾（他），穿著羊皮帽，被絞死
• 揚內（她），穿著羊皮披風，被儀式殺死
• 西格麗德（她），深紅頭髮，頭被砍掉

BOG MUMMIES: Undead prisoners captured from Othala, deputized by Urebar to guard Mr. Goh and the new “trophy servants.” They don't rely on food or drink, but instead on retelling stories of how they got murdered for sustenance, which they enjoy repeating over games of dead pool (in which they bet how long it will take for trophy servants to die). The lineup...

• EMIL (he/him), wears sheepskin hat, was hanged
• JANNE (she/her), wears sheepskin cape, was ritually sacrificed
• SIGRID (she/her), dark red hair, was decapitated

寶藏：5000 冥幣。

TREASURE: 5000 hell coins.

出口：

• 西（到 1）：鋼鐵門，受魔法密碼保護
  • 只有烏雷巴容許的人才能上鎖和解鎖
  • 解鎖的密碼是「雷德」，上鎖的密碼是「德雷」
• 上（到 5）：鋼鐵活板門。房間裡沒有梯子。
• 東（到 3）：鋼鐵門，從另外一邊被鎖住。

EXITS:

• WEST (to 1): Steel door, magically password-protected
  • Only those permitted by Urebar may lock or unlock the door
  • Password to unlock is “RAIDHO,” password to lock is “DHORAI”
• UP (to 5): Steel trapdoor. The room has no ladder.
• EAST (to 3): Steel door, locked from the other side.

3. 乙號牢房 CELL B

肢刑架在破裂的天花板之下變得更朽爛。四位快餓死的吸血鬼正在舉行令人毛骨悚然地的辯論。一個坐在黑箱上，旁邊有個操縱桿。另一個躺在巨大的寶藏堆上。

TORTURE RACKS rot under a fractured ceiling. 4 starving VAMPIRES engage in morbid debate. One sits on a BLACK BOX by a LEVER. Another lies in a massive pile of TREASURE.

肢刑架：有兩個。看起來很像梯子。

TORTURE RACKS: Two of them. They look a lot like ladders.

吸血鬼：年輕的巫師群，為了逃離三塗城的神廟幫發誓當烏雷巴的傭人。他們負責監視甲號牢房的囚犯。戰利品僕人負責給他們血喝。當戰利品僕人過了很久都沒回來的話，吸血鬼們會開始討論誰要先當犧牲來餵養其他的人。陣容…

• 羅飛（他），原本是人類，個性憂思
• 密思嵐（他/祂），原本是深涯妖精，個性快活
• 呰禪（她），原本是天妖，個性厭世
• 日油（他/它），原本是鬼怪，個性惱怒

VAMPIRES: A young coven that pledged service to Urebar in exchange for escape from the temple-gangs of Santu City. They are responsible for guarding the prisoners in Cell A. Trophy servants are responsible for giving them blood to drink. When a trophy servant doesn't return after a long time, the vampires start discussing who should be sacrificed first to feed the other people. The lineup...

• RAFAEL LUO (he/him), once human, brooding personality
• LANCE MISI (he/they), once abyss elf, jovial personality
• AZA'ZEN (she/her), once skyfiend, jaded personality
• GREASE (he/him), once goblin, cantankerous personality

黑箱：用黑耀晶做的。裡頭有修肢刑架的材料。

BLACK BOX: Made of blackbright. Contains materials to repair the torture racks.

操縱桿：操縱地下城之中所有活板門的開關。

LEVER: Controls the opening and closing of all trapdoors in the dungeon.

寶藏：12,500 冥幣。

TREASURE: 12,500 hell coins.

出口：

• 西（到 2）：鋼鐵門，受魔法密碼保護
  • 只有烏雷巴容許的人才能上鎖和解鎖
  • 解鎖的密碼是「死在萬刀之下」，上鎖的密碼是「自入洪門之後」

EXITS:

• WEST (to 2): Steel door, magically password-protected
  • Only those permitted by Urebar may lock or unlock the door
  • Password to unlock is “LET SLEWS OF SWORDS SLAY ME,” password to lock is “ONCE I'M THROUGH THE VAST GATE”

4. 食品儲藏室 PANTRY

發光的蘑菇長在銀池的旁邊。

GLOWING MUSHROOMS grow near a SILVER POOL.

發光的蘑菇：希望跟大家分享他們的幻想。這是它們交流的方式。菜單…

• 藍：清水的口味。讓你感到平靜。
• 紅：鮮血的口味。讓你感到被愛。
• 黃：淡拉格的口味。讓你感覺被吃掉。

GLOWING MUSHROOMS: Wish to share their visions with everybody. This is their form of communion. The menu...

• BLUE: Tastes like fresh water. Lets you feel at peace.
• RED: Tastes like fresh blood. Lets you feel loved.
• YELLOW: Tastes like pale lager. Lets you feel eaten.

銀池：其實是鋼鐵史萊姆，正在享受幻想所以不想被打擾。被踩到會生氣，被亂喝會超級生氣。如果你故意惹史萊姆麻煩的話，蘑菇會用毒氣殺傷你。

SILVER POOL: Actually a steel slime, wishing to be left alone to enjoy its visions. Gets annoyed if stepped on, gets extremely annoyed if you try to drink it. If you deliberate antagonize the slime, the mushrooms will gas you.

出口：

• 下（到 1）：鋼鐵活板門，操控桿在 3。
• 東（到 5）：拱門。

EXITS:

• DOWN (to 1): Steel trapdoor, control lever at 3.
• EAST (to 5): Arch.

5. 銳舞房間 RAVE ROOM

即興的舒緩燈光秀，來自鍍銀天花板上發光的蘑菇。

Spontaneous soothing light shows come from GLOWING MUSHROOMS on the SILVERED CEILING.

發光的蘑菇：不小心被一位戰利品僕人帶回地下城。他們在這裡吃上層的神光能。

GLOWING MUSHROOMS: Accidentally brought back to the dungeon by a trophy servant. They're here to eat the spark energy on the upper level.

鍍銀天花板：所謂把蘑菇帶進來的戰利品僕人。其實不是個體，而是一大群的鋼鐵史萊姆，因為有一天在玩耍的時候模仿人形被烏雷巴好奇地「收集起來」。吳先生發覺他們只能在過分壓力之下才會聽話，而且受太多壓力之後會死掉，變成永遠凝固的狀態。在這個地下城之中，所有被鋼鐵製造的東西都是活鋼史萊姆的屍體。因此這個史萊姆群害怕跟別人接觸，寧願待在蘑菇的保護之下。

SILVERED CEILING: The so-called trophy servant who brought all the mushrooms here. Not actually an individual but a collective of steel slimes, who were playing at mimicking humanoids one day when they were “collected” by Urebar out of curiosity. Mr. Goh discovered that they only obey under excessive pressure, and too much pressure will kill them, leaving them in a permanently solidified state. In this dungeon, everything made from steel is the corpse of a living steel slime. Hence this slime collective is afraid of interacting with others, and prefers to remain under the mushrooms' protection.

出口：

• 西（到 4）：拱門。
• 下（到 2）：鋼鐵活板門，操控桿在 3。
• 東（到 6）：拱門。

EXITS:

• WEST (to 4): Arch.
• DOWN (to 2): Steel trapdoor, control lever at 3.
• EAST (to 6): Arch.

6. 門廳 FOYER

A tunnel surrounded by BLACK WALLS with a ramp leading up towards the east.

被黑牆包圍的隧道，斜坡往上到東邊。

黑牆：用黑耀晶做的。有發光的電路板花紋，會輪流換不同顏色。順序是藍、紅、黃。

BLACK WALLS: Made of blackbright. Has glowing circuit board patterns that cycle through different colors. The order is blue, then red, then yellow.

出口：

• 西（到 5）：拱門。
• 東（到外面）：坡道。

外面是冰風雪地。你目前的衣服不適合這種天氣。

Outside is a land of ice and snow. You are not dressed appropriately for the weather.

---

附錄 APPENDIX

不常見詞語的說明。

Explanations for uncommon terms.

深涯妖精：住在地下洞穴或深海之中的妖精。

ABYSS ELF: Elves that live in subterranean caves or the deep sea.

黑耀晶：長得像黑曜岩的魔法水晶。幾乎難以銷毀。常見的模式是吸收附近生命能量的尖塔。

BLACKBRIGHT: A magic crystal that looks like obsidian. Virtually indestructible. Commonly occurs in the form of spires absorbing life energy from their surroundings.

轉移：路線、目的、注意力的改變（也就是冒險）。

DIVERSION: A detour of itinerary, of purpose, of attention (in other words, an adventure).

冥幣：硬幣版的紙錢。「給活人冥鈔往往視為死亡詛咒或恐嚇」（維基百科）。

HELL COINS: Coin versions of joss paper money. “The act of giving a living person hell bank notes is considered a great insult in Chinese culture and may even be seen as a death threat” (Wikipedia).

活鋼：一種能按照使用者的意志力在液體跟固體狀態中轉換的魔法金屬。自然的狀態是史萊姆。見《破裂疆》。

LIVING STEEL: A magic metal that can alternate between liquid and solid states according to the will of its user. Its natural form is a slime. See Fractured Frontier.

昉橙珠：跟早晨一樣橘的珍珠。適合用來做發光的神器。

MORNING PEARL: A pearl that is as orange as morning light. Suited for making artifacts that glow.

天妖：來自萬敵界被強迫變成人形的山脈。他們的皮膚跟天色一樣有多種，眼睛跟星一樣明或夜一樣黑。據說他們能在封閉空間無翅飛翔，也能履險如夷地睜眼說瞎話。見《下世萬敵》。

SKYFIENDS: Mountains that were forced to become humanoid from Bantik Kai. Their skin comes in as many colors as the sky, and their eyes are as bright as stars or as dark as night. Rumor has it they can fly without wings in closed spaces, and can lie through their teeth without breaking a sweat under pressure. See Future Only Enemies.

神光能：宇宙每一個生物都擁有的生命能量。耐核系統主要使用的超自然能量資源。見《破裂疆》。

SPARK ENERGY: Life energy that every living entity possesses in the universe. Supernatural energy resource primarily used in the Nai'oh System. See Fractured Frontier.