Recent Concerns Regarding Bamathis

24

Comments

  • KarhastKarhast Enorian
    Mjoll said:

    Karhast said:

    Mjoll said:

    I wonder why :?

    Why don't you ask them instead of coming here to leave stuff implied?

    No, really, why? What did you hope to add with your post?
    I was just asking. Why are you always so hostile :S
    I'm just asking stuff, too :)
    LinOonaghIazamatIesid
  • edited May 2020
    I think people who are equating murdering undead with murdering the living are missing the point.

    Despite how much we all love our moral greyness, the simple fact is that Aetolia doesn't exist in a vacuum. Instead, it is a game played by players who are exposed to cultural tropes all the time, whether that is through other media, or simply through our every day lives. After all, the whole reason we have this thread is because Tiur felt the need to clarify why the motifs that many people saw (and I am saying this not even being one of them!) in Bamathis were not intended to be interpreted that way. As a result, moral greyness is ultimately sidelined because the dominant traits that make up the two sides very much align with the dualities of "good" and "evil" that are so common elsewhere.

    It is absolutely no coincidence that in Spirit we have many motifs that are usually assigned to "good" characters while we see Shadow possessing many motifs that would be used for "bad" characters. Light vs shadow, chivalry vs For example, light and darkness are dualities. Many of these things are likely holdovers from a bygone era when these lines were even more distinct. Some may be less pronounced than others, but they are still all around in the game.

    Sure, tropes may be subverted and players are free to interpret what these things actually mean to them and how their characters should act, but that the reason they are tropes in the first place is because they are supposed to invoke a certain idea. They are metaphors, and it is very understandable for players to see them representing what they are most often used to represent.

    I am not suggesting that players can't want to move away from this duality and play characters who are much more morally grey, but my point here is that there is a very good reason why many players will see it this way. So going back to the original statement, I don't think it's unusual at all for people to think there is a big difference between murdering undead and murdering living people.
    XavinSibattiBenedictoMjoll
  • edited May 2020
    Czcibor said:

    I think people who are equating murdering undead with murdering the living are missing the point.

    Just @Mephistoles. I'm the one making the argument. I'm not missing the point, I just disagree. This fails to address why or how they are different and just asserts that I don't get it. Whatever there is to get.
    Czcibor said:


    Despite how much we all love our moral greyness, the simple fact is that Aetolia doesn't exist in a vacuum. Instead, it is a game played by players who are exposed to cultural tropes all the time, whether that is through other media, or simply through our every day lives. After all, the whole reason we have this thread is because Tiur felt the need to clarify why the motifs that many people saw (and I am saying this not even being one of them!) in Bamathis were not intended to be interpreted that way. As a result, moral greyness is ultimately sidelined because the dominant traits that make up the two sides very much align with the dualities of "good" and "evil" that are so common elsewhere.

    Tiur's post is motivated by finances and public image. I assert that viewing Bamathis's genocide against Albedi as different than Enorian's genocide against the undead is irrational. Regardless of whether or not I'm correct in this, it's rational and good business on Tiur's part to manage the optics.
    Czcibor said:


    It is absolutely no coincidence that in Spirit we have many motifs that are usually assigned to "good" characters while we see Shadow possessing many motifs that would be used for "bad" char acters. Light vs shadow, chivalry vs For example, light and darkness are dualities. Many of these things are likely holdovers from a bygone era when these lines were even more distinct. Some may be less pronounced than others, but they are still all around in the game.

    This is a total misunderstanding of spirit and shadow. If you want to put it in the most black and white terms possible shadow are devil worshipers and spirit is the spanish inquisition. You still want to purge (genocide) the undead. Just say what it is, don't have to sugar coat it. It's okay that spirit side is fine with genocide.
    Czcibor said:


    Sure, tropes may be subverted and players are free to interpret what these things actually mean to them and how their characters should act, but that the reason they are tropes in the first place is because they are supposed to invoke a certain idea. They are metaphors, and it is very understandable for players to see them representing what they are most often used to represent.

    Speculative and unsupported.
    Czcibor said:


    I am not suggesting that players can't want to move away from this duality and play characters who are much more morally grey, but my point here is that there is a very good reason why many players will see it this way. So going back to the original statement, I don't think it's unusual at all for people to think there is a big difference between murdering undead and murdering living people.

    Great. That's not really an argument though. It's just an assertion. Undead and living feel, experience pain, think, and exist in almost identical conditions as supported by lore and mechanics. The conclusive argument you seem to come to is:

    "They are different so it's okay to commit genocide against them."

    Pretty sure that's the argument used for every genocide.
    image
    DarimMjollSilenaGalileiArath
  • You can't genocide the undead, because they're undead and not living. They come back unless you use silvered or magical weaponry.

    But in all reality, I think you should start up a new thread to really discuss these two viewpoints.

    As for Bamathis, I still don't know enough about him to interpret his symbolism in a negative light but if anything comes up I'll be sure to bring it up.

  • edited May 2020
    @Escelika so we’re going from genocide to attempted genocide.  Doesn’t seem like much of an exoneration. Also your lore is just wrong. Silver weaponry? This isn’t the Witcher.

    Spirit side by lore still engages in (sub)race based genocide. Literally want to remove undead and vampires from existence. 

    You can start a new thread if you want.  I think this is entirely relevant and no one who has complaining about Bamathis has addressed this adequately or explained a distinction beyond the most barely superficial. 
    image
    HavenXavinMjollArath
  • KarhastKarhast Enorian
    I can actually be on topic now, so I'm just going to list off the various reasons for why I'm not very happy with the way Bamathis' presence has been handled by the Pools.

    First off, Bamathis' very nature, and the policies surrounding him, mean he's always going to be a magnet for player attention. This is entirely fine by me - making deities that are interesting and will draw in players is the point of having such deities around. Bamathis is central to the Albedi/Sapience conflict that no other God has been, and your very own policies are to make sure he has a volunteer filling the role at any given time. Neat. Definitely a good thing for people who want a constant presence for their characters to be involved in, and a positive matter to be sure.

    This is also attention you're not willing to hand to our side of the game. There is no spirit equivalent of Bamathis, there is no counterpart we can join for the same experience, we don't even have a lineup of Gods to follow regularly that equals what shadow gets; Czcibor already pointed out how we get one and a half God, both of them more aligned with Duiran to boot. Things are, to say the very least, lopsided.

    And then you have Bamathis courting people on this side of the game. An order that already has a good size, proceeding onward to go ahead and snag people up elsewhere. Aetolia is a polarised game, and it has been for over a decade, but Bamathis doesn't care, and goes after Spirit-tethered leaders to get even more followers. Leaders who are around in large part to direct efforts to fight the other side if and where they can. Leaders who have been told, time and time again, even by this very administration, that the game has two sides, that Enorian and Duiran are meant to oppose shadow, that blurring the lines is a poor idea.

    But not anymore! You have the God with the single most administrative oversight and attention showing up and trying to get his worship made legal. You have Gods who have been extremely stringent about keeping Dendara and the Grand Flame pure suddenly going 'ok whatever' when presented with the question of Bamathis' worship. This both goes against established IC characterisation as well as prior OOC direction, and now you have everything pointing squarely in the other direction, all without any given sign or post or header from the administration that things might be different this time.

    And, you know what? That's just one org. Duiran isn't my city, they get to decide their own course of action, and I don't have so up close and personal of a perspective on them. The entire situation has caused an entire damn mess for Enorian, and it's one the administration very well ought to be aware of. There is no interpretation of the lore we've had for the past fifteen years, not in any way, that lets us join forces with the opposite tether in such a way and come out unscathed. We've had Gods die that way more than once, we've gotten screeched at far more than that, every single time it's come up the right answer has been not to.

    Enorian, in the meantime, has been entirely sidelined. There is no interpretation where we can join forces with Bamathis beyond the superficial; it is, as noted above, how our gods tend to die and our city tends to get blown up. We were not notified by admins about anything new going on, we have not gotten a new direction, we have to work with what we've got. The sole reason Enorian isn't all on its own is because deciding that the tether's lifespan has ended is a terrible move from any meta perspective.

    What gives? Why is this a thing? A God with all of Severn's order in it has had people play the role since day one. Since then they have ACTIVELY worked at weakening spirit tether's coherence by working at making his worship legalised. There have been no statemetns, none, zero, made about the future of polarisation or what the plans for the future are. There have been no alternatives, none, zero, added for us to flock to instead. We don't even have regular gods to worship! If I had to describe what's happened to Enorian in a single term, I'd say it is sidelined: a new deity is released, and people predictably flock to it. It is a deity that is emphatically not one of ours, and we do not get an alternative instead. It could've been made clear that this is shadow's new toy, there could've been an update to our lore that lets us worship the actual God, there could've been a deity with actual effort put into such neutrality, there could've been a nice announce or forum post going 'yeah we're tired of polarisation', there could've been an outlet for people who wanted interaction without cozying up to the people we've been meant to fight since forever. None of these have come to pass, and anyone who wants to stick to the direction we've been given can gather dust while people who ignore it completely get to have their cake and eat it too.

    I'm curious to hear from our administration here; genuinely, genuinely curious. What place do you think Enorian has in 2020 Aetolia? What should we be doing? What ought to set us apart from the other cities? What should our purpose look like? I'm not sure about any of this anymore, because the firm line on tethers we were told to take just two years ago are getting all blurred up and the administration has been entirely silent on the matter for a while now.
    DrystinXavinLinIazamatBenedictoMjollAeryx
  • HavenHaven World Burner Flight School
    I think there is a distinct and fundamental difference: one group is alive and the other is not. The way the undead are made and have been portrayed in how the game describes them is as no longer living. They're former organic creatures that have chosen to sunder their spark and corrupt their bodies heavily towards shadow to become undead/undying/whatever you want to call it. While they walk, talk, unicorn, and feel like living beings, they are most definitely not "alive" unless the lore has changed again. What's more is that it has been gradually revealed over the years that more shadow = hella bad for anything and everything regardless of whether you're involved or not.

    So for many Spirit-side organizations indifference and or cohabitation with 'not quite alive or dead things' is largely not an option. If anything, the crusade against Undeath is a mass-destruction of reanimated radioactive, dangerous things whereas Bamathis's slaughtering is a genocide of actual living people.
    ¤ Si vis pacem, para bellum. ¤
    Someone powerful says, "We're going to have to delete you."
    havenbanner2
    KarhastGalileiXavinDarimSibattiMephistolesBenedictoMjollZailaAeryxEscelika
  • KynaKyna Victoria, Australia
    edited May 2020
    Hello,

    I'm chiming in here about the above question only to offer some enlightenment on how the process of Gods work.

    After a volunteer has gone through the interview process, and then been approved as a Celani, we go into training, if you will. From there, we have tasks and duties to perform before we are even allowed to touch a God Role.

    When it comes to getting a role, however, we are granted the choice of only those on the opposing tether to our mortal. This is one of the measures we take partially to try and ensure there is no favouritism during your first steps in learning a shell. It helps us stretch outside our comfort zones and interact with the audience at large.

    Please note that I wrote, "We are granted the choice." As volunteers, we are not forced, or asked, to play any role. We actually ask to play a specific, and available, role and either get accepted, or denied with a reason. With that in mind, Bamathis is no exception. If there is no volunteer interested in playing that role, then he will only be logged in if his presence is required for a major plot arc.

    I hope this clarifies some of the misconception about the God process! It's as much as I can share.
    HavenKarhastDarimRebraEleneBenedictoAeryxTaiyang
  • KarhastKarhast Enorian
    Thank you for clearing things up a little, Kyna. I do appreciate that.
  • HavenHaven World Burner Flight School
    Kyna said:


    When it comes to getting a role, however, we are granted the choice of only those on the opposing tether to our mortal.

    That is so awesome to hear. I had always heard it was mandatory. That clarification might actually bring some more faces to the application process when they're up next time around.
    ¤ Si vis pacem, para bellum. ¤
    Someone powerful says, "We're going to have to delete you."
    havenbanner2
  • KynaKyna Victoria, Australia
    Hey! I can't tell if you understood that correctly, or if I worded it a little loosely, so to clarify:
    Mandatory: Opposite tether to your mortal.
    Choice: The god you play on that opposite tether if they are available and not currently filled.
    KarhastRebraHavenAeryxKatie
  • What that process says, in response to Mjoll's question, is that the volunteers that are generally going to be approved for Spirit tether god roles are going to be drawn from people that mained Shadow tether characters and the other way around. I'm not going to speculate as to the whys of people stepping down because I think that is not constructive, but it is an interesting line of thought.

    I think @Karhast does have some good points. Enorian and Duiran have, historically, been shouted up and down by the administration both in and out of character over what their roles are supposed to be and about what behaviors and lines of roleplay will and will not be tolerated, with only the very largest existential threats being good enough reason to set aside those warnings and work with what are considered massive threats by the Spirit pantheon, with major Consequences(tm) coming for stepping out of line. And not just 'here's a long disfavor'. We're talking up to and including disabling skillsets entirely in terms of mechanical consequences, with various roleplay or organizational consequences thrown in. The closest thing that has ever happened to a Shadow side org is what happened to the Indorani, and that was because they went directly against a directive given to them by Severn and aligned themselves against Sapience's pantheon.

    I also think that the argument that "this is the same as what Enorian does" is disingenuous. In-lore vampires and the undead pose a direct existential threat to Dendara, the Cycle, and innocent people. Neither can exist without subsisting on the flesh of others, and both have been shown to keep sentients as slaves and cattle, as I'm sure most are well aware. There's a difference between crusading against groups shown to be actively oppressive, dangerous, and malicious verses crusading against groups that have not been shown to be particularly malicious at all.

    Lastly, I hope that there isn't any real anger against the people in the pools. I think we all know how hard it is to do what you do and that it is often a thankless job. We all appreciate the work that goes into this game from the paid staff and volunteers. I do think, though, that maybe there needs to be more oversight at times, or that maybe some policies, like the mandatory 'only take a role for the opposite side' rule may need to change, especially when it is no secret that there is a history of a single volunteer playing multiple roles.

  • HavenHaven World Burner Flight School
    Kyna said:

    Hey! I can't tell if you understood that correctly, or if I worded it a little loosely, so to clarify:
    Mandatory: Opposite tether to your mortal.
    Choice: The god you play on that opposite tether if they are available and not currently filled.

    Oh... So what happens if you play both Shadow and Light characters with regular frequency? Or if you were Darkie for 10 years and then Lighter for 10 years? Do you get to choose then? Asking for a friend.
    ¤ Si vis pacem, para bellum. ¤
    Someone powerful says, "We're going to have to delete you."
    havenbanner2
    DarimMephistolesAeryx
  • Haven said:
    ...one group is alive and the other is not. The way the undead are made and have been portrayed in how the game describes them is as no longer living...

    If anything, the crusade against Undeath is a mass-destruction of reanimated radioactive, dangerous things whereas Bamathis's slaughtering is a genocide of actual living people.
    The entire argument turns on a technicality of them not being alive. So we end up with this being the situation for spirit 

    “We don’t advocate genocide against vampires and the undead because they aren’t alive, we just advocate their eradication”

    I guess I can accept this argument but it’s worth pointing out that this is just saying the complete eradication of the vampires/undead is necessary to save the world. 

    I bet a lot of people in the 1930s and 1940s had ideas about how it was necessary to destroy certain groups to save the world. That’s the spirit side’s stance. The spirit side thinks they have a few (sub)races to destroy to save the world. 

    I don’t get why Bamathis suddenly is offensive. Really it’s just different targets.
    image
    MjollArath
  • @Mephistoles That is disingenuous at best and you know it. You're talking about a false equivalency. Both vampires and undead quite literally subsist on sentient creatures and break the cycle of life>death>rebirth that the world relies on.

    IazamatMjollZailaDrystinMephistolesArath
  • edited May 2020
    Xavin said:
    @Mephistoles That is disingenuous at best and you know it. You're talking about a false equivalency. Both vampires and undead quite literally subsist on sentient creatures and break the cycle of life>death>rebirth that the world relies on.
    I think we can all agree that spirit side wants (sub)race based eradication. If we can agree on that I think I can agree it’s not technically genocide.

    EDIT: Why are players so concerned with justifying that their character’s targets for violence are the “right” targets?
    image
    MjollZailaArath
  • edited May 2020
    I think there's a lack of understanding of Aetolian/Ivoln/Teradrim/Undead lore going on here that might help people out. To be fair I don't know it that well either (or cycle/spark lore for that matter), but I think I have the gist of it.

    On our plane of existence, Dendara/the Cycle is viewed as a parasite on the Earth. Living, organic beings exists because of their spark and the Cycle. For Teradrim, they are false beings (not alive) -because- of their spark and the Cycle. It is the same reasoning that people who have their spark and are a part of the cycle apply to undead. They -don't- have it, so therefore are not alive.

    For me the question is not are they breathing/do they have spark. It is do they have consciousness. I would argue that we as players are our character's consciousness, so yes, both undead and living have consciousness and should be considered 'alive'.

    Another way to look at it would be carbon-based beings vs silicon-based beings (if you like sci fi I guess).
    MephistolesMjollGalileiArath
  • I feel like it's really more a matter of perception. What spirit wants to do to the undead of any kind is absolutely genocide of a type. Specicide? Whatever. Total eradication is what it is. Of course, Shadow doesn't want that, they want to keep having their cake and eating it too as they flaunt their status as free from the Cycle. Meanwhile they want to essentially enslave us mortals as cattle and zoo attractions. 

    If you start with WE all exist in Aetolia, instead of WE on our particular tether, it becomes a bit easier to see things clearly as far as perceptions and stances. Then you can slowly lower yourself to the WE that is an individual tether, and then from tether to city, so on and so forth. Living and undead are just two sides of the same coin named We Exist. We just choose to do it in some different ways. 
    OonaghMephistolesHawaZailaOemeriaArath
  • KarhastKarhast Enorian
    If leaving the undead and such alone were fine, we'd have done do three centuries ago ICly. It isn't, and, genuinely - it shouldn't be. The mainstay of Aetolia remains conflict more than conciliation, and the latter is best reserved only for the kind of threat that seldom arises. 
  • LinLin Blackbird The Moonglade
    Great! We've determined that both sides are given adequate lore to support why their cause is righteous and why the other cause is a blight, and why simply eradicating the other side isn't as black and white as it seems. The writing is quite deliberate.

    Badgering one another back and forth about why your side is right is just shoddy OOC/IC separation.
    RihrinIazamatMjollSeirFezzixZailaBlanche
  • HavenHaven World Burner Flight School
    There are so many cans of worms writhing in this rollercoaster of a discussion that it's almost not worth to participate but at the same time I do believe it's important to air this out because it'll otherwise fester.

    I should clarify that I don't particular care about this OOC Bamathis uproar. I respect the feelings of the people that got upset by the imagery, whether it hit too close to home or not and while I personally don't agree with them, I do like that they got to exercise their right to complain to the admin and actually get a public admin response and clarification.
    ----------
    Separate topic: I think the in-game ambiguity and contradictory viewpoints on either side is an intentional design to perpetuate the conflict. Which is a good thing! If the themes still bother people OOCly, you should try to remember that you have the option of not participating. Even if you're in leadership, you can always delegate the content to aides or "special task force Ministers" to deal with content not to your liking.
    ¤ Si vis pacem, para bellum. ¤
    Someone powerful says, "We're going to have to delete you."
    havenbanner2
    MephistolesSibattiMjollZailaGavramel
  • LinLin Blackbird The Moonglade
    Teani said:

    I strikes me as a bit strange that people take offense/rage oocly against perceived references to horrible people/organizations/events from real life, even as they are explained NOT BEING CONNECTED, but have no problem with explicit skill descriptions like vivisect, and oh so many more skills that are pretty gruesome.

    Someone ripping your chest open and impaling you on your bones isn't something you worry about in real life. It's absolutely beyond the unbelievable, and thus safely in the realm of fantasy.

    I don't feel as strongly about Bamathis's imagery as some (beyond finding it tacky), but for these people, the themes they've objected to reflect real-life issues. They may have relatives alive today who had to deal with them. Arguments like this one are dangerously reductive and completely miss the point.
    CzciennMjollArath
  • Lin said:

    Great! We've determined that both sides are given adequate lore to support why their cause is righteous and why the other cause is a blight, and why simply eradicating the other side isn't as black and white as it seems. The writing is quite deliberate.

    Badgering one another back and forth about why your side is right is just shoddy OOC/IC separation.

    i'm gonna regret getting involved, but i don't think the argument is about "which side is right" (it's neither, anyways). i think @Mephistoles is trying to show that, from an OOC perspective, the positions of Bamathis and, e.g., Enorian are formally isometric. the targets are different, but beyond arguing about whether a given target is an acceptable target for genocide - or whether a given target can be genocided, which frankly is the same thing in my opinion - it's the same basic action. the point of this demonstration, if i understand Mephi correctly, is that OOCly, we shouldn't be any more hung up on Bamathis than we are on Templar or w/e. our characters absolutely can (and should!) be, but i don't see there being a meaningful distinction between the intended goals on an OOC level, except that the faction Spirit wants to eliminate includes a whole group of other players whereas the Albedi are (intentionally, i think?) unavailable to players.

    full disclosure: while i started and am once again on the Spirit tether, i've played on the Shadow tether the bulk of my time in Aetolia. i try not to buy my own bullshit regardless, but there you have it.
    (Congregation): Iosyne says, "I made a cup."

    Horkval are a feature...
    MephistolesLinOonaghIazamatZailaDarimArath
  • @Hawa I fully agree with what you said here.
    image
  • TeaniTeani Shadow Mistress Sweden
    Lin said:
    I strikes me as a bit strange that people take offense/rage oocly against perceived references to horrible people/organizations/events from real life, even as they are explained NOT BEING CONNECTED, but have no problem with explicit skill descriptions like vivisect, and oh so many more skills that are pretty gruesome.
    Someone ripping your chest open and impaling you on your bones isn't something you worry about in real life. It's absolutely beyond the unbelievable, and thus safely in the realm of fantasy. I don't feel as strongly about Bamathis's imagery as some (beyond finding it tacky), but for these people, the themes they've objected to reflect real-life issues. They may have relatives alive today who had to deal with them. Arguments like this one are dangerously reductive and completely miss the point.
    My point was mostly that if they explain it is not connected, was not intended to be viewed as connected, and should be seen as separate due to evident connections in existent game lore rather than rl things, perhaps they should consider taking as that. 

    This is a game full of violence, sadism, law-breaking and more. While being vivisected in real life has a slim chance of actually happening, the other things exist all around us, but we accept them in the game because they are part of the game. It's a game. Sure, we get invested in our characters, but making these connections when there are other explanations available feels... strange to me. Why not take the explanation and attribute it all to this being a game? 



    MephistolesOonaghZailaMjollDarimEscelikaOemeria
  • I showed a friend the last few comments between Lin and Teani and the response I got back was: "Actually, coming across severed heads and dismembered bodies is something I worry about BECAUSE IT'S FUCKING HAPPENED."
    So, yeah, just want to point out that rl is unicorns scary, but we can't keep reading things into a game if that thing isn't there or if it has been explained. We are encouraged from the first few minutes in the game intro to kill a guard to escape slavery. Slavery exists. Murder exists. We don't seem to worried about those first few actions our characters make or the careers they choose, whether it is an illuminai or a terradrim.
    There are corrupted characters all over, whether you want to admit it or not. People do nasty things that CAN and DO happen irl. Vivisection was just an example, but I can point out entire rp archs that some of you find perfectly alright that are just as messed up.
    MephistolesRhineIazamatZailaMjollTeaniEscelikaOemeria
  • SibattiSibatti Mamba dur Naya Amidst vibrant flora and trees
    There's sort of an additional layer to this that I don't see many people talking about:

    From all the knowledge that I currently have available to me, in-game, the responses to Bamathis's quest/mission/what-have-you have been more or less forcefully implied that if you aren't for it, you're against it, kinda thing. Not one org, or one group... the entire continent of Sapience, which is fairly sweeping.

    If I don't like exterminating undead, I don't have to. If I'm undead and don't want to eat the living, I'm sure there's a way around that too. I don't have to be a Templar. I could literally spend all day in Esterport roleplaying a rowdy sailor as an orgless layabout if I wanted to.

    This could just be the misfortune of what/who I encountered on my character, but the whole "get in or get snuffed out" mentality of supporting Bamathis left a bad taste in my mouth. You combine the questionable aesthetics with a "For Sapience!" vibe, morally objectionable tactics, and what in all reality is a form of forced participation (or at the very least, forced acceptance), and it's not going to be received well by everyone. It's one thing to lean into the nuance and greyness of the situation, or to debate and discuss complex and difficult dilemmas, but that wasn't my experience or perception.

    Key words: my experience or perception. Whatever the intent was, please be mindful that it's not going to land the same for everyone. That doesn't mean you're a bad person, it just means everyone has different experiences and no one will interpret something the exact same way. No matter whether or not YOU interpreted it that way, it's a very valid interpretation for people who are NOT YOU.



    SeirDarimHaven
  • edited May 2020
    Haven said:

    What's more is that it has been gradually revealed over the years that more shadow = hella bad for anything and everything regardless of whether you're involved or not.
    .


    more (litterally any element) = hella bad for anything and everything regardless of whether you're involved or not.

    ftfy
    Toz says, "Dishonor on you (Mjoll), dishonor on your family (Seirath), dishonor on your cow (Bulrok)"
    StineBenedictoZailaHawaMephistolesHaven
  • TetchtaTetchta The Innocent
    edited May 2020
    Mjoll said:

    Haven said:

    What's more is that it has been gradually revealed over the years that more shadow = hella bad for anything and everything regardless of whether you're involved or not.
    .


    more (litterally any element) = hella bad for anything and everything regardless of whether you're involved or not.

    ftfy
    gamers rise up and destroy the elements--new Aetolia is only a black void of nothing

    MjollZailaHawaHaven
This discussion has been closed.