Bandama... A consideration

Anything to say about roleplay? Want to share a story? This is the right place.

Moderator: Wizards

Message
Author
User avatar
luminier
Overlord
Posts: 2732
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:40 pm
Location: Manitoba Canada

Bandama... A consideration

#1 Post by luminier » Sun Dec 02, 2012 3:28 pm

THE BELOW IS NOT MY POSTS. THEY ARE COPIED FROM ANOTHER TOPIC


@Bandama: I do not understand at all what IC law would have to do with it. I absolute do not understand at all what you are talking about. How could IC law affect what a player believes is intended about a particular feature? There is no link from the IC world into the OOC world. Changing things in the game does not affect the game definition. Or what does it mean that "Bandama is Arborean"? That there may exist a character that has this opinion? Sure. That some of those characters may have created some laws which says that is the case? Sure. That this is the intention from the wizards? That it reflects the truth of that city? No. Not even by a longshot. If players are playing the game it is intended or not, is one thing. What their characters believe is another. Sorry, I think there is a huge mix up between in-game and game definition. But there is no point in debating what characters think OOC (I'm sort of assuming here [and pretty much everywhere else] that our discussion are based on player's views, not what some character may think)..
Nathan wrote:
ewelyn wrote:@Bandama: [...] That this is the intention from the wizards? That it reflects the truth of that city? No. Not even by a longshot. If players are playing the game it is intended or not, is one thing. What their characters believe is another. Sorry, I think there is a huge mix up between in-game and game definition. But there is no point in debating what characters think OOC (I'm sort of assuming here [and pretty much everywhere else] that our discussion are based on player's views, not what some character may think)..
That soundls like the good old game design discussion, and yes, I personally read most of your posts. This is a MUD, the players make most of the story, the depth of design, intention and storyline you are assuming in a lot of your posts is not given at all imo. (And, shouldnt that get an own thread?)

Yes, the game design discussion is always relevant - I am glad you have read most of my posts. I also agree that it should have been given its own thread. I first stated as part of the hinterland discussion that Crusaders exert control over Bandama, as part of motivating why city walls would be relevant, as part of motivating how hinterlands should be design. Now, the criticism raised against this was initiated in the same forum thread. I believe that any lengthier break-down of such intermediate claims should have been opened in a new thread, since arguing against this in the same thread risks making the thread itself about one of the details of my argument. But when such arguing occur against my argumentation for the design of hinterland, of course I will defend my stand point in the same thread were the criticism was brought up.

I also agree that this is a MUD and that the players make most of the story. Sadly that is not what is happening. It is not just a MUD, it is also a roleplaying MUD. This means that the game should help people take roleplaying decisions, as opposed to limiting their decisions to hard mechanics. If we assume it is a good thing to learn alchemy, then we can say that this is a desirable goal. Who now benefits most, the person who has no moral restrictions, or the person with some moral restrictions? I hope we agree here that the person without moral restrictions has a mucher freer game. So far, this is simple maths, I hope we can agree on that. So the less you care, the less you bother anyone, the more easier the game you have. This naturally sucks from a RP perspective.

So let's say 90% of the facts in game are created by players and 10% is provided by the game, enforced by code. Why is then the gameplay reduced to aligning the attributes people chose for their characters into perfectly matching that 10% of what happens to be rewarded? The answer is of course min-maxing. And this is the trend.

And yes, the argument comes back again and again. I point to a structural problem, and people say it's Ewelyn RP that is the fault, or some other argument that makes me wonder if they understood what I said at all. The answers are not in any way related to what I am saying, and so I am forced to try to explain the same thing in a different way. The conversation goes something like "min-maxing is a game problem" and the answer is "but it's really nice to have unicorns, just get a unicorn", as if that had anything to do with it. If you read back in the very same thread, you'll see that none of the answers to the things I have stated have anything to do whatsoever with what I am saying. We are having a conversation-problem. The logic now is somewhere around that we can not build city walls in Bandama because alchemists are not supposed to be good or evil.

And then there is this mass of ridiculous claims (wild excuses to motivate min-maxing). Like whether Bandama is controlled by Crusaders. If I then tell you that I know for a 100% fact that Crusaders are meant to exert control in Bandama (as in knowing this on wizard-level knowledge, the exact reasons behind it and the exact thing that was decided upon creation, the exact idea and definition of what is the truth), there are still those who claim (for some reason) that this is not true. If you ask the domain lord of Arborea right now, *he* wouldn't even know it. It's just a total disregard of facts.

And then for your claim that Nathan or that Alchemists are not evil. Can you please provide some evidence (proof is only valid in the science mathematics)? Do you see the point now? So we disagree about this very fundamental fact that Alchemists are letting evil persons brew potions? Or? Or do you mean that it is not remotely evil? I am not sure in what sort of denial world you are living. The latest trend seems to be some sort of extreme art in relativisation we are using to describe things, in order to deny any sort of constructive argumentation. I am not sure if you tried to be funny, but it is sort of insulting.

And it hardly drives the argumentation forward to stick your head in and say "Bandama is not XXX". Care to explain? Care to motivate your claims? Or is your intention solely to troll on the forum? Is it just you or your character's idea now you are referring to? Or is it something real? Maybe you can explain first what you believe are the game's definitions of good and evil, and then we can use that as a base of discussion. Even my point here is that it does not matter what actual definitions we use, but perhaps it helps to have some absolute definitions, for pedagogical purposes.
Last edited by luminier on Sun Dec 02, 2012 3:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world.

fernao
Champion
Posts: 610
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 8:44 am

Re: Bandama... A consideration

#2 Post by fernao » Sun Dec 02, 2012 3:34 pm

Wow, what a lot of text to browse through.
ewelyn wrote: ...
And then there is this mass of ridiculous claims (wild excuses to motivate min-maxing). Like whether Bandama is controlled by Crusaders. If I then tell you that I know for a 100% fact that Crusaders are meant to exert control in Bandama (as in knowing this on wizard-level knowledge, the exact reasons behind it and the exact thing that was decided upon creation, the exact idea and definition of what is the truth), there are still those who claim (for some reason) that this is not true. If you ask the domain lord of Arborea right now, *he* wouldn't even know it. It's just a total disregard of facts.
Well, I am no allmighty, allknowing wizard character that even knows more than the domain lord that is in charge of the area in question. All I know is the stuff I learned IC. When I joined the alchemists, I was told that they originally were located in Elvandar and got moved to Bandama for various reasons, including to allow access to this guild to people that were not welcomed in Elvandar. I assume that is only part of the truth especially since it happened before I started mudding here. As for "controlling Bandama", well there had been many, MANY discussions between the IC leadership of the Alchemists, back then Ondoval, with the Crusaders, Luminier, and the ic solution was, to my knowledge, that the Alchemists were to exert control over Bandama and the crusaders would keep out. No more building of watchtowers in front of the alchemist guild and in return, also no undeads inside Bandama. And this also opened the alchemist guild to clerics and followers of Sathonys. So, in my eyes, that simply puts it to a position where, whatever a game designer intended, the players have made up their own mind and no wizard since then has interfered to "put it back to what is should have been". So this wizard information you mention is totally irrelevant. Sorry.
ewelyn wrote: ...
And then for your claim that Nathan or that Alchemists are not evil. Can you please provide some evidence (proof is only valid in the science mathematics)? Do you see the point now? So we disagree about this very fundamental fact that Alchemists are letting evil persons brew potions? Or? Or do you mean that it is not remotely evil? I am not sure in what sort of denial world you are living. The latest trend seems to be some sort of extreme art in relativisation we are using to describe things, in order to deny any sort of constructive argumentation. I am not sure if you tried to be funny, but it is sort of insulting.
Hmm a strange notion you got there. From the ic Taniel point of view, true, all alchemists would have to be defined as evil since they allow evil to exist and even be/become/remain members. However, as Nathan stated, the alchemist guild is NOT a religious organisation. They have rules, and as far as I know, those rules are followed by all members, even those evil ones that are Satho priests!
Yes, there are evil members, yes evil people brew potions. However, there are rules that forbid to the use of certain alchemistic parts, at least inside the guild halls. And those rules are certainly ic influenced by Tanielite thinking. I see it as a precaution against the fanatism of Taniels and Crusaders so that those two groups would have no reason to act against the alchemist guild as a whole but only against those individual alchemists that happen to be alchemists but are mainly enemies of aforementioned groups for other reasons.
Life is but a butterflies dream
Image

Nathan
Journeyman
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 12:36 pm

Re: Bandama... A consideration

#3 Post by Nathan » Sun Dec 02, 2012 4:00 pm

Hmm, indeed a lot of text :shock:
ewelyn wrote:So let's say 90% of the facts in game are created by players and 10% is provided by the game, enforced by code. Why is then the gameplay reduced to aligning the attributes people chose for their characters into perfectly matching that 10% of what happens to be rewarded? The answer is of course min-maxing. And this is the trend.
I really did not witness that Min-Max trend, I mean you will always find players playing according to the given framework (which is way more than just coded features), and others that don't. But claiming that most of the players do so is maybe said too much, I think it's a minority.
ewelyn wrote:And then there is this mass of ridiculous claims (wild excuses to motivate min-maxing). Like whether Bandama is controlled by Crusaders. If I then tell you that I know for a 100% fact that Crusaders are meant to exert control in Bandama (as in knowing this on wizard-level knowledge, the exact reasons behind it and the exact thing that was decided upon creation, the exact idea and definition of what is the truth), there are still those who claim (for some reason) that this is not true. If you ask the domain lord of Arborea right now, *he* wouldn't even know it. It's just a total disregard of facts.
Hmm, now I am impressed :)
The only thing what you might have witnessed might be a design process and the decisions made there, but again, this is a MUD, the players rule, not the wizards. Wizards only give a loose framework, then its up to the players to make something of it.

So, things are as they are in game, not more and not less. And the facts in game are clear in this point. If you want to change them, go for it, but in game.

ewelyn wrote:And then for your claim that Nathan or that Alchemists are not evil. Can you please provide some evidence (proof is only valid in the science mathematics)? Do you see the point now? So we disagree about this very fundamental fact that Alchemists are letting evil persons brew potions? Or? Or do you mean that it is not remotely evil? I am not sure in what sort of denial world you are living. The latest trend seems to be some sort of extreme art in relativisation we are using to describe things, in order to deny any sort of constructive argumentation. I am not sure if you tried to be funny, but it is sort of insulting.
Please don't twist my words there. I did not even mention Nathan, you have been the one declaring the Alchemists as evil, and I asked to to explain why.
ewelyn wrote:And it hardly drives the argumentation forward to stick your head in and say "Bandama is not XXX". Care to explain? Care to motivate your claims? Or is your intention solely to troll on the forum? Is it just you or your character's idea now you are referring to? Or is it something real? Maybe you can explain first what you believe are the game's definitions of good and evil, and then we can use that as a base of discussion. Even my point here is that it does not matter what actual definitions we use, but perhaps it helps to have some absolute definitions, for pedagogical purposes.
See above, I think I am just referring to current ingame facts.

User avatar
luminier
Overlord
Posts: 2732
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:40 pm
Location: Manitoba Canada

Re: Bandama... A consideration

#4 Post by luminier » Sun Dec 02, 2012 4:19 pm

Personally, I believe it is inappropriate to OOCly claim that something IC belongs to someone. Things like this should be dealt with IC.

If the Crusaders wanted Bandama, we would try to take it. If the Crusaders felt like the alchemists were unjust, they would do something about it.

I could post Luminier's opinion of the situation in Bandama if everyone likes but I don't really think it's important to the conversation. Put shortly, he is accepting of it to a degree for many reasons.

Everyone has their own way to roleplay a character. Ewelyn can RP how she wants and people will respond to her.

Ewelyn you must understand that not everything will go your way just because you demand it, you will experience resistance. I think if you start to experience resistance from your own guild leader you should start to reevaluate your IC decisions and adjust accordingly.


IF Ewelyn starts to become unfun or too stressful to play, I encourage you to start a new character. Luminier has become too stressful to play in the past so I have had to stop. Why continue playing a character that is no longer fun for you?
The right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world.

User avatar
ewelyn
Professional
Posts: 91
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 7:15 pm

Re: Bandama... A consideration

#5 Post by ewelyn » Sun Dec 02, 2012 4:55 pm

IF Ewelyn starts to become unfun or too stressful to play, I encourage you to start a new character. Luminier has become too stressful to play in the past so I have had to stop. Why continue playing a character that is no longer fun for you?
Sounds like an option.

User avatar
Delia
Overlord
Posts: 2782
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 11:22 am
Location: Finland

Re: Bandama... A consideration

#6 Post by Delia » Mon Dec 03, 2012 2:51 am

I know it can be hard and tiresome but if it of any consolation, Ewelyn has already received the character of the year prize at the gala held in my imagination :)
"To be is to do" - Sokrates
"To do is to be" - Jean-Paul Sartre
"Do be do be do" - Frank Sinatra

Zehren
Overlord
Posts: 1057
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:50 am

Re: Bandama... A consideration

#7 Post by Zehren » Mon Dec 03, 2012 4:47 am

Delia wrote:I know it can be hard and tiresome but if it of any consolation, Ewelyn has already received the character of the year prize at the gala held in my imagination :)
Yeah, mine too. Zehren hosts the gala while practising calligraphy, naturally.
Whenever I see Ewelyn's posts, or Asralites lamenting her actions, I always think: "YES! Conservative, strict Tanielism!"
Drayn wrote:Zehren, the Karmassassin!

Nathan
Journeyman
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 12:36 pm

Re: Bandama... A consideration

#8 Post by Nathan » Mon Dec 03, 2012 9:01 am

Zehren wrote:
Delia wrote:I know it can be hard and tiresome but if it of any consolation, Ewelyn has already received the character of the year prize at the gala held in my imagination :)
Yeah, mine too. Zehren hosts the gala while practising calligraphy, naturally.
Whenever I see Ewelyn's posts, or Asralites lamenting her actions, I always think: "YES! Conservative, strict Tanielism!"
+1

Delmon
Champion
Posts: 751
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 2:19 pm
Location: USA

Re: Bandama... A consideration

#9 Post by Delmon » Mon Dec 03, 2012 9:55 am

The reason geas is so great is that there is alot of freedom in dictating things IC.

@Ewelyn... I've always found the most fun by making things happen, and if there's one character that has accomplished this its Ewelyn. Hopefully you are enjoying geas in a small uproar about you.

isengoo
Champion
Posts: 828
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2007 9:38 pm

Re: Bandama... A consideration

#10 Post by isengoo » Mon Dec 03, 2012 7:55 pm

I never knew that Crusaders were supposed to rule over Bandama.. why are there no signs saying this? Or big crosses and things hanging around the city? There's really no indication of it at all anywhere in game.

Also, there's a stone east of the Amward bridge that says "Here begins the glorious realm of ARBOREA!" I always thought that that meant from there eastward, south of the road was Arborean land.

User avatar
Allurana
Hero
Posts: 314
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 3:05 pm

Re: Bandama... A consideration

#11 Post by Allurana » Mon Dec 03, 2012 9:10 pm

I can say that my reasons for feeling Bandama wasn't Crusader controlled wasn't because I was trying to come up with masses of wild ridiculous excuses for motivating min-maxing, but rather simply because I wasn't privy to this wizard knowledge.

louis
Champion
Posts: 564
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:10 am
Location: The dark void

Re: Bandama... A consideration

#12 Post by louis » Tue Dec 04, 2012 6:02 am

isengoo wrote:I never knew that Crusaders were supposed to rule over Bandama.. why are there no signs saying this? Or big crosses and things hanging around the city? There's really no indication of it at all anywhere in game.
There is no sign because there is no sign needed. The Crusade does not rule over Bandama and also are not supposed to.

EDIT: Oh, they are also not supposed NOT to, just to make that clear as well :wink:

User avatar
ewelyn
Professional
Posts: 91
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 7:15 pm

Re: Bandama... A consideration

#13 Post by ewelyn » Wed Dec 05, 2012 8:53 am

First of all the question was not if it was "ruled over". It somehow got exaggerated from "controlled" which can range between anything weak control, presence to strong control or even fortifications. So strictly speaking, I do not disagree with you because if there was rulership, there would already be walls and towers. The idea that an area is supposed to be in complete control is also something I personally believe should be very limited, to say Elvandar.

So the matter at hand here was control, without any specifier of its strength, where my personal belief was that the Crusader control would be somewhat stronger than the Arborean/Asralite control: "I think of Bandama as a town without leadership, but in practice controlled by the Crusaders.". The reason is of course that the village is far away from Arborea (hence in practice without leadership), with a very strong (other) military force nearby, that would surely set its mark on the village to a greater extent. Add to that, that there is already in-game lore that speaks for it.

But the question is what exactly are you saying now, Louis? So on a similiar topic: Are you now denying that a similiar fact was introduced to the game? Or are you trying to say that you are personally not aware of it? I'd be very curious to hear if the wizards now explicitly deny that fact or re-wrote that part of history.

fernao
Champion
Posts: 610
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 8:44 am

Re: Bandama... A consideration

#14 Post by fernao » Wed Dec 05, 2012 10:32 am

ewelyn wrote:So the matter at hand here was control, without any specifier of its strength, where my personal belief was that the Crusader control would be somewhat stronger than the Arborean/Asralite control: "I think of Bandama as a town without leadership, but in practice controlled by the Crusaders.". The reason is of course that the village is far away from Arborea (hence in practice without leadership), with a very strong (other) military force nearby, that would surely set its mark on the village to a greater extent. Add to that, that there is already in-game lore that speaks for it.
Interesting question actually, since I think both the Asral fortress and the crusader fortress are basically at equal distance from Bandama. It is just 5 or 6 rooms to either canyon entrance...
Life is but a butterflies dream
Image

User avatar
ewelyn
Professional
Posts: 91
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 7:15 pm

Re: Bandama... A consideration

#15 Post by ewelyn » Wed Dec 05, 2012 2:49 pm

I sort of agree that it is interesting (well.. somewhat, depends on the purpose). And it seems like a natural place to claim for both sides. The Crusader canyon is of course closer, as is the Taniel chapel (3 vs 9 rooms by road to chapel). Especially if you include both canyons (even bigger difference), that you naturally would have to. That distance is of course one relevant factor, I agree, which also speaks in favour of the Crusaders - who additionally, as opposed to the Asral clerics, could reach the village mounted, alas faster. If you via terrain, the advantage is of course even bigger. But then again, the main argument was that it would be in control of Arborea laws, not Asral clerics (who were thrown out of Arborea). Not that it would change anything.

Apart from that, I'd say the way when you add up above mentioned game definition facts and the other in-game lore which is present in the game plus the time-line order in which things happened, assuming everything in-game is at rest, those additional two-three things clearly tips an already small control over firmly to the Crusader side.

You could also also add to the fact that Crusaders rather claimed their space (historically it was in spite of Arborea, not in accordance with its laws or "zoning office"), in dispute with the high lords of Arborea and explicitly against its legal system, there is and even more stronger pattern..

fernao
Champion
Posts: 610
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 8:44 am

Re: Bandama... A consideration

#16 Post by fernao » Thu Dec 06, 2012 3:59 am

I personally think who cares in Bandama about Crusaders and Asrals in the first place. Its the alchemists that present the local authority.

Anyways, if the crusaders want to make claims, let them. We'll see in game what'll happen. All other babbling on this forum is overruled by in-game dynamics anyways.
Life is but a butterflies dream
Image

User avatar
Allurana
Hero
Posts: 314
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 3:05 pm

Re: Bandama... A consideration

#17 Post by Allurana » Thu Dec 06, 2012 4:09 am

Well, if the whole dispute came over who would put the walls up, or why...

I think Arborea and Crusaders would have similar reasons for wanting to defend Bandama with walls, and whether Arborea did it in its official legal capacity, or the Crusaders brought it upon themselves to do it, I think no one would really care. Actually, Arborea might even be happy if the Crusaders do it, as it saves them the costs of resources and manpower.

Hell, maybe even Bandama would simply do it themselves. I mean, with a goblin camp nearby that could raid them, and nasty little leprechauns and fairies sneaking into town and causing mischief, it seems only fitting they'd want to try to try to improve town security some.

And when I say walls, mind you, I don't mean huge thick ones made of stone or whatever, either. I'm thinking wooden...... ehh, I don't really know the name of the design I have in mind, but it's more to simply keep things out than to actually be a defensive structure.

User avatar
ewelyn
Professional
Posts: 91
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 7:15 pm

Re: Bandama... A consideration

#18 Post by ewelyn » Thu Dec 06, 2012 5:39 am

fernao wrote:We'll see in game what'll happen. All other babbling on this forum is overruled by in-game dynamics anyways.
I think it gets a bit "babbly" when people bring up IC matters onto the forums as counter-argument to discussions about game-related problems on the game-definition level. The game definition might for example say that "darkelves are evil", but nobody plays it like that. If now someone points out that "darkelves are supposed to be evil, but nobody plays it like that, it is a problem" and then the counter-argument to that is "look, they are not evil because in-game *my character* are treating darkelves nicely" then, yes of course, we have massive confusion. I think the easiest way to solve this is to refrain from bringing up any IG facts at all, and we can have a clean discussion about the game instead. Hopefully also a discussion that speaks of structural problems and wizards could maybe even fill in official, historical facts (if they feel like it).

So on *that* level, I would for example ask what sort of military capacity the alchemists are meant to have in order to hold a village. I can see that they would have economic and commercial power, as well as historic influence and perhaps even herbalist traditions. But on a military level they are completely helpless. So what power is it then that actually would let them hold this power in-game? Well, the answer is to a large part that they have the ability to expel members. This "guild membership" is totally a code-mechanism consideration that is immune to roleplaying ones. Even if the Crusaders would storm the place daily, the masters would still retain this power. Is this realistic? Of course not. I think this knowledge is something that makes people refrain from doing such a thing, because they know that the code limits their RP. This could of course easily be solved if wizards would be prepared to adjust the powers (i.e. modify the ranks of the alchemists) according to such realities. As an answer to your idea that alchemists are supposed to control Bandama, void of in-game facts/situation.

An alternative is to build city walls. If we assume these were controlled by Crusaders, it would give them a reason to not attack the alchemists. They would have the power to keep evil ones out of the village, and everyone could go about their business. Clearly, this was the opposite to the decision that was taken for the alchemists (moving from Elvandar), so back to the limitations stated in my previous paragraph...

User avatar
luminier
Overlord
Posts: 2732
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:40 pm
Location: Manitoba Canada

Re: Bandama... A consideration

#19 Post by luminier » Thu Dec 06, 2012 6:12 am

I understand what you are saying Ewelyn but your logic falls a little short when applied to other situations.

The Asralites and Sathonites could assault Elvandar and make their way to the Queen and kidnap her or just imprison her. Does that mean they should have control over the city? It is realistic definitely but it is not how the game is supposed to work.
The right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world.

Zehren
Overlord
Posts: 1057
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:50 am

Re: Bandama... A consideration

#20 Post by Zehren » Thu Dec 06, 2012 6:32 am

fernao wrote:I personally think who cares in Bandama about Crusaders and Asrals in the first place. Its the alchemists that present the local authority.

Anyways, if the crusaders want to make claims, let them. We'll see in game what'll happen. All other babbling on this forum is overruled by in-game dynamics anyways.
I tend to think it's the NPC innkeeper of the inn in Bandama that represents the local authority. He is the one with a small army in the back room, after all. I also have a secondary reason to think he would be somewhat authoritative in a crisis, but won't bring it up here.
luminier wrote:The Asralites and Sathonites could assault Elvandar and make their way to the Queen and kidnap her or just imprison her. Does that mean they should have control over the city? It is realistic definitely but it is not how the game is supposed to work.
Pft. City council rules Elvandar.


As an aside, I would be entirely in favour of a more living gameworld. At current, the world is rather static, with people trying to make livid politicking and adventure and stuff above the static world... Which is, if not impossible, incredibly hard to accomplish.

However, if the gameworld would become more fluent, that is, change more according to events, and have more events, this would take time from making directly new stuff. It would also be an incredibly large change of how Geas functions, so I somehow doubt it is a possibility.

It would, however, have vast potential for fun.
Drayn wrote:Zehren, the Karmassassin!

Post Reply