“I Now Cast My Judgment:” Analyzing The Four Agonist Archetypes – Part 1

「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.