Frostgrave: Alchemical Monstrosity (solo play)

A quick write-up/report of my first attempt at solo-play Frostgrave.

Warband: wizard (unaligned), treasure hunter, crossbowwoman, archer.

 

Table set up:

 

Deployment:

 

As the dust settles, the members of my warband can see two doorways in the distance, one of which they hope will lead to an exit. No sign of danger but, unbeknownst to them, something is lurking behind the large pile of fallen masonry directly in front of them. A vicious goose (alchemical monstrosity):

 

Turn 1. The crossbowwoman advances to the left and shoots at the goose, while the archer goes to the right and also shoots at the goose. Neither shot achieves anything. The wizard heads off to the left, towards one of the treasure tokens, while the treasure hunter moves right, taking up a position in front of the archer, trying to lure the goose towards him. This brave – or foolish – ploy works, as the goose charges towards him but, having to traverse some rubble, falls just short of reaching him.

 

Turn 2. The wizard advances down the left flank and picks up the treasure token in front of him. The crossbowwoman reloads and advances forwards, to where she had a potential shot at the goose (but no more activations this turn).

The treasure hunter decides that the goose is too close for comfort and discretion is the better part of valour, so he backs away – looking to move round a large ruined wall and towards another treasure – but not without taking damage from the goose’s tentacle attack. This leaves the archer exposed, so he retreats back towards the board edge and shoots at the goose with no effect.

The goose doesn’t pursue him, because it can now see the crossbowwoman and charges her instead.

Turn 3. While the goose attacks the crossbowwoman, the wizard advances down the left, in possession of one treasure and closing in on a second, and the treasure hunter moves forward down the right, picking up another treasure. Unfortunately, this also places him with range of a newly-spawned rat, which finishes the already-wounded treasure hunter off with a single bite.

The archer moves forward, into a position where he could shoot the goose, which is currently still locked in combat with the crossbowwoman (who is bravely focusing on keeping it tied up in combat for as long as possible).

 

 

Turn 4. The wizard, now in possession of two treasures, is able to reach the left-hand door (but not in time to try it this turn). While the crossbowwoman is still tying up the goose, the archer moves forward and shoots the rat, killing it.

Turn 5. The wizard tries the door, but it’s the wrong one. He moves across towards the other one, bringing him closer to the rat-hole. The archer moves forward, picking up a treasure token. The goose finally finishes off the crossbowwoman and then turns (after the below picture) to pursue the archer.

 

Turn 6. The goose charges the archer, but loses combat, so the archer pushes it back and retreats towards the right (and the remaining treasure token, that was dropped by the treasure hunter), taking a shot as he does so, but without effect.

Turn 7. The goose charges the archer again, but this time the archer rolls a natural 20 and finishes it off.

At the same time, the wizard – who is now stood next to the rat hole – is stuck fighting a series of rats, with a new one appearing every time he dispatches one.

Turns 8+. The archer, now in possession of two treasures, is able to reach and open the right-hand door while a break in the flow of rats allows the wizard also to head that way. One last rats appears, but only in time to see the wizard and archer disappearing through the doorway.

 

Aftermath:

The treasure hunter made a full recovery from his rat bite, but the crossbowwoman suffered fatal injuries after heroically keeping the goose in combat for several turns.

The four treasures recovered yielded 30 gold coins, a magic hand weapon (+1 Fight), two potions (Preservation and an Exploding Cocktails), and two scrolls (Glow and Construct Oil).

There wasn’t much experience. I hadn’t really chosen spells, so didn’t cast any! A total of 80, for getting out the door and for killing monsters (four rats, I think).

Fit to care for a child?

 I'm currently teaching my Ethics of Public Policy module, which has just moved on to discussing sex and family life. One issue that we look at is parental licensing - as proposed by Hugh LaFollette. 

I've seen, but not yet read, this recent paper by Liam Shields, which unfortunately was too late to be included on my reading list. I might make it an additional recommendation for the students, since we've recently discussed harm reduction in other contexts (e.g. drugs and prostitution).

My reason for posting is seeing this tragic story today, concerning a mother whose neglect led to the death of her 13-year-old daughter in 2018. She's received a prison sentence of wilful ill treatment and neglect, but was cleared of culpable homicide.

Her own solicitor described her as "a lady who clearly has difficulties both mentally and physically, impacting on her ability in how to view things and the consequences of actions or omissions and I think that lies at the root of her culpability in this case", as a result it seems of a traumatic brain injury in her own childhood.

I don't know the full details of the case, including whether or not she was a single parent (I see no mention of this in the BBC article), but I do wonder whether someone who cannot be held responsible for the death of a child in her care should be in the position of primary caregiver in the first place. Perhaps there's something to the licensing proposal after all. In any case, this is a handy recent example to discuss.

What is a circuit-breaker anyway?

For some time now, people have been talking about a circuit breaker. The proposal has been backed by Labour leader Keir Starmer. This is usually understood as a brief but extreme lockdown, intended to slow the spread of the virus. It's defined here as "a tight set of restrictions - it could feel a lot like the original lockdown - but crucially it would be for a fixed period of time".

But today, in the news, I see that John Keenan, Bishop of Paisley, is calling for what he calls a 'circuit breaker' on Christmas Day:

"Perhaps we should consider a Christmas 'circuit-breaker'. A 24-hour lifting of restrictions on gatherings and celebrations, a break in the war on Covid, just like the pause in the First World War on the Western Front in 1914, when the British and German troops laid down their guns and met in no man's land to celebrate Christmas"

It seems this comes from a paywalled article in the Sunday Times, which I've not read, but the same wording is reported by both the BBC and STV, so I assume it's accurate.

While the more important question is probably whether or not this is a good idea, my main puzzlement is why he uses the term 'circuit breaker' seemingly to mean a temporary lifting of restrictions, rather than imposition or tightening of restrictions. It's an example of someone using a term to mean the exact opposite of its ordinary meaning.

Who does he think he is? Humpty Dumpty?

Extremism in schools

 I've just seen this trending on social media. I've not had chance to look further into it, but it seems the Department for Education has recently banned schools from using resources from organisations holding 'extreme' views, even if the resources in question are not themselves extremist. 

 Here is an excerpt (emphases added):

“Schools should not under any circumstances use resources produced by organisations that take extreme political stances on matters. This is the case even if the material itself is not extreme, as the use of it could imply endorsement or support of the organisation.”

It listed examples of what were described as “extreme political stances”, such as “a publicly stated desire to abolish or overthrow democracy, capitalism, or to end free and fair elections”; opposition to freedom of speech; the use of racist, including antisemitic, language; the endorsement of illegal activity; and a failure to condemn illegal activities done in support of their cause.

I see a number of problems.

Why is a desire to abolish democracy or capitalism inherently 'extreme'? And could one not also be a pro-democracy/capitalism extremist? In which case, perhaps by trying to stifle opposition, the Department itself qualifies as extremist.

In any case, this guidance could also be seen as opposing free speech. That's not obviously true, because the restriction is not on the expression of these views as such, but only their use within schools. There are many things that teachers may be free to do in general, but not to do in a classroom.

Still, there's a case that the Department is 'tak[ing] extreme political stances on matters' - in which case, ironically, any resources it produces should not be used in schools.

Further, while this does not go as far as banning the teaching of these views in schools, it is clearly an impediment to doing so. It's all the more incumbent, then, that universities expose students to these ideas. Next thing we know, universities will be accused (again) of trying to brainwash students with lefty liberalism...

Applauding one's opponents

 I just read this interview with Andy Robertson on the BBC website, in which he suggests that "Marcus Rashford could be the first Manchester United player to get a standing ovation here [at Anfield]."

No doubt Rashford would be deserving, but he wouldn't be the first. I was immediately reminded of Alan Smith's nasty injury.

Independent SAGE guidance on online university teaching

The Independent Sage committee released guidance for universities [link to press release] today. The full report is here. I've not read it (yet at least), but the 'headlines' include the following recommendation:

"Universities are urged to make online teaching the ‘default option’.... Online classes should be used exclusively for first two weeks of term".

Unpaid marking

 Controversy has broken out in Australia over piece-rate payment for marking university assignments. It seems that some staff are being encouraged to skim-read essays in order to get through the work required within the allocated budget. The alternative, of course, is working without pay in order to do the job properly.

Pandemic Ethics

Ben Bramble has just released an open-access book on Pandemic Ethics.

I plan to spend a week of my ethics of public policy module on something to do with Covid-19. I don't know whether it will just be about vaccines (either mandatory vaccination and/or rationing) or whether I'll extend it to issues such as facemasks and lockdowns. This may depend on how much time I have to read around the fast-appearing literature. It looks like this would be useful for the reading list in either case.

Offensive speech

It looks like I'm probably not teaching Mill this coming year, which is a shame. This case - in which police required that a banner reading 'white silence is violence' be removed because it was 'offensive' - would be a good one for discussions of free expression.

Desmond Swayne, MP, objecting to face masks

This clip is doing the rounds. In case videos get taken down, it can also be found here and here. (If all else fails, it's in Hansard here. The wording recorded there is not exactly what is said in the video.) It might be useful for teaching in several respects.

Swayne describes mandatory face masks as a 'monstrous imposition' and suggests that the police will be needed to make him wear one. My understanding is that masks will soon be a legal requirement, rather than just a recommendation, so this could qualify as civil disobedience.

In reply, Hancock refers to the need to balance public health against the liberty to go shopping, suggesting that allowing people to shop while wearing masks strikes the right balance. This illustrates the idea that the rights/freedoms we allow may be the subject of some kind of cost-benefit analysis.

He also notes that the law may be enforced not only by the policy, but also by the public. It's not entirely clear whether he means only that most people will probably obey voluntarily or whether he means that public pressure will enforce the obligation on others. The latter, at least, could possibly illustrate Mill's idea that freedom can be limited by social pressure (though Mill thinks this a danger even without the law).

Not bad for 80 seconds...