“We’re a landscape architecture class at Columbia University writing a paper on Frederick Law Olmsted’s design of Central Park. The boy is one of our classmates. He’s a child prodigy.”
…Whenever I play tabletop RPGs, I’m usually the one who comes up with outrageous cover stories to explain why the party is someplace we shouldn’t be.
One thing that I think is really interesting about this world is that, while they have a non-traditional approach to sexuality, their views on family/gender roles are still mired in tradition, the way the female cop just assumes that Charlene is responsible for Squirt and should be held accountable for his moral development. The team should just say that they are all Squirt’s guardians and parent him collectively, since that’s pretty much true.
This probably isn’t the first time that Charlene’s been mistaken for Squirt’s mother, but I don’t think the “mommy” role is one she’s very comfortable with.
Also, we haven’t really learned much about the Charlies’ relationship with their mom, but Charlene and Mrs. Everett seem like polar opposites. Charlene is bold, aggressive, and doesn’t take shit from anybody, whereas Mrs. Everett is much more timid. I think some of Charlene’s discomfort with being “mommy” stems from how she feels about her own mother.
I’m a little unclear on what the female cop’s problem is – the sign said No One Under 14 without a Guardian. So what’s the conflict? One of the Charlies just has to own up and say “yup it’s me,” then it seems like the cops should be reiterating for them to disrobe or leave, no harm done. No doubt, more wrinkles to be found (no pun intended) in how this crazy thing works.
Kate made a good point above – Charlene’s indignation at being labeled as Squirt’s mom ended up escalating the whole thing that much more.
And I should add I find it troubling that there would be any provision for small children to be in there anyway, as we have now learned this is a “safe free-love/liberated sexuality” thing
The basic gist of her problem is that she’s human… it’s a matter of indignance. As Kate pointed out (without giving away what’s coming up), in this society (as presented thusfar), there is a very loose code of sexuality, but there is also a sense of responsibility to it (which will be elaborated upon further in the story). Point of saying that being, YES, there is a sign saying people under fourteen cab be there with a parent or guardian, but then, you’d still get the same looks they’re getting from that cop if you took an eight-year-old to see a rated R movie with tons of sex and gore in OUR universe. It’s allowed… but you can bet the cops will check ID and make sure nothing suspicious is going on.
And the kind of suspicious things I mean, I would hope, don’t need to be elaborated on. 😉
Any one of them could, conceivably, claim Squirt. But the question of if they can/will (and the focus of the next few pages, after Friday’s holiday break page) will be answered in the next few pages.
“We’re a landscape architecture class at Columbia University writing a paper on Frederick Law Olmsted’s design of Central Park. The boy is one of our classmates. He’s a child prodigy.”
…Whenever I play tabletop RPGs, I’m usually the one who comes up with outrageous cover stories to explain why the party is someplace we shouldn’t be.
If I were your DM, that right there would be creative enough to fly on a six augmented with a charisma of ten, heh.
Thank you for making me smile. 🙂
Um, yeah. You’re awesome.
Ahh man. Just gets weirder and weirder, doesn’t it…
Wonder if any of the crew will “own up” to “being his parent” just to stick with him long enough to get them a port out.
I like how none of them took the “Leave this area” choice 😉
Yeah, I’m imagining that the answer “Well, technically speaking we’re the same person” wouldn’t really suffice.
One thing that I think is really interesting about this world is that, while they have a non-traditional approach to sexuality, their views on family/gender roles are still mired in tradition, the way the female cop just assumes that Charlene is responsible for Squirt and should be held accountable for his moral development. The team should just say that they are all Squirt’s guardians and parent him collectively, since that’s pretty much true.
This probably isn’t the first time that Charlene’s been mistaken for Squirt’s mother, but I don’t think the “mommy” role is one she’s very comfortable with.
::Puts finger on nose.::
Also, we haven’t really learned much about the Charlies’ relationship with their mom, but Charlene and Mrs. Everett seem like polar opposites. Charlene is bold, aggressive, and doesn’t take shit from anybody, whereas Mrs. Everett is much more timid. I think some of Charlene’s discomfort with being “mommy” stems from how she feels about her own mother.
::Finger on the nose again.::
The origin of Charlene is a long way off, but I can’t wait to do it. 🙂
Want.
I’m a little unclear on what the female cop’s problem is – the sign said No One Under 14 without a Guardian. So what’s the conflict? One of the Charlies just has to own up and say “yup it’s me,” then it seems like the cops should be reiterating for them to disrobe or leave, no harm done. No doubt, more wrinkles to be found (no pun intended) in how this crazy thing works.
Kate made a good point above – Charlene’s indignation at being labeled as Squirt’s mom ended up escalating the whole thing that much more.
And I should add I find it troubling that there would be any provision for small children to be in there anyway, as we have now learned this is a “safe free-love/liberated sexuality” thing
The basic gist of her problem is that she’s human… it’s a matter of indignance. As Kate pointed out (without giving away what’s coming up), in this society (as presented thusfar), there is a very loose code of sexuality, but there is also a sense of responsibility to it (which will be elaborated upon further in the story). Point of saying that being, YES, there is a sign saying people under fourteen cab be there with a parent or guardian, but then, you’d still get the same looks they’re getting from that cop if you took an eight-year-old to see a rated R movie with tons of sex and gore in OUR universe. It’s allowed… but you can bet the cops will check ID and make sure nothing suspicious is going on.
And the kind of suspicious things I mean, I would hope, don’t need to be elaborated on. 😉
Any one of them could, conceivably, claim Squirt. But the question of if they can/will (and the focus of the next few pages, after Friday’s holiday break page) will be answered in the next few pages.
Roger that, Neal! I like the analogy to R-rated movies.
This particular world also needs to be nuked. Now.