Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

Dark Dreams of Furiae - a new module for NWN:EE! Buy now
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

Do you kill Weenog? (Spoilers)

13

Comments

  • wubblewubble Member Posts: 3,156
    No - He's a cool guy and he beg's for mercy - How can you do such a thing?!
    Paladin't normally subdue a enemies and bring them before a court don't they? They wouldn't just kill someone on sight without a serious reason. For example, the church of talos is evil but the order of the radiant heart don't just walk in there and slaughter everyone as it would be illegal.

    atcDavekcwiseNukefacelolien
  • atcDaveatcDave Member Posts: 1,933
    No - He's a cool guy and he beg's for mercy - How can you do such a thing?!
    @nukeface, a lot of good stuff there, but one thing I would take issue with. Its not just a choice of following the local laws or making it all up yourself. The Paladin is Holy warrior, and like a cleric, would follow the commands of his god and faith. They're definitely not made up by the individual, but they would constitute a higher calling for the character.

    Its interesting you conclude the CG is more likely to kill Weenog than the LG! I'm not sure I agree, but I certainly see your point!

    DreadKhankcwise
  • NukefaceNukeface Member Posts: 91
    @DreadKhan‌

    You're on the right path but you're ignoring that there are two aspects to alignment in conjunction with class requirements on top of faith. Then you have the moralistic interpretations of your DM and party - it ain't easy being green, baby.

    It's a non-question, Paladins fall if they give in to less than exemplary actions that wouldn't fit the code of conduct of the higher good, whether that is the law, their faith, or their own moral code.

    A Paladin can even fall if he has a crisis of faith and does nothing wrong - how can you be an exemplar of good if you're riddled with self doubt? That's extreme, however, and should not be construed as saying that a moment of self-doubt should cause a Paladin to fall. It's like if a Paladin came down with a severe case of PTSD after finding himself vanquishing a Pit Fiend or something.

    A Paladin is more of an ideal than a person, but the beauty of a Paladin is that somehow this being has transcended into something much more than any person has any right to be. They're really supposed to be played as empathetic guardians above all else, not some bad ass warrior of god.

    You take Lawful - why is your character lawful, what goes into being lawful, what choices would a lawful person make?

    You take good - why is your character good, what are the kinds of things good people do, why do they make the choices they make when it might be easier to be evil or neutral?

    You take class - how does this person make sense within my class, how does their personality differ from the class description, do I have a clear understanding of the concept that went into creating this class?

    You take their faith - why do they worship this god, how does this god fit into their alignment, did they choose this god or were they chosen by their god, can the will of this god be followed blindly or does this interpretation of faith conflict with my character's other values?

    Then you have to ask yourself if you understand your character and if it makes sense based on the archetype of your decisions in creating the character. If your Paladin hates goblins he would damn well know better than to go on a murder spree. They get zero leeway because IT'S RIDICULOUS TO EVEN THINK ABOUT.

    Regardless of how you feel about, say, Muslims, Africans, Europeans, Whites, Japanese, Jews, Indians, Midgets, Lepers, Gingers (use your imagination) YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO BRUTALLY MURDER THEM AND PRETEND THAT WHAT YOU HAVE DONE IS JUSTIFIED WHEN THE ONLY "EVIL" THEY HAVE COMMITTED IS TO EXIST AND BE IN YOUR PRESENCE.

    Lawful Good is exactly that - it is not a guideline, it is your character's decisions up to that point that have determined their alignment. Paladins have feelings and emotions and weaknesses and hatreds but they did not become a Paladin despite of their flaws, they became Paladins and have actively sought to overcome their weaknesses because they know that a Paladin is supposed to be the best of us.

    From now on when you hear the word Paladin just imagine Ghandi wielding a claymore.

    kcwisescriverJuliusBorisov
  • atcDaveatcDave Member Posts: 1,933
    No - He's a cool guy and he beg's for mercy - How can you do such a thing?!
    @Dreadkhan definitely an interesting question. I have no doubt a paladin who kills someone like Weenog (Evil but harmless) will face some fallout from his deity. Perhaps it would come down to what Weenog's character truly was. But I would guess some sort of atonement would be required. Unless he actually was more dangerous than he seemed.

    kcwise
  • NukefaceNukeface Member Posts: 91
    @atcdave @DreadKhan‌

    Guys - he falls. No question, if he randomly butchers Weenog he falls.

    Here's how to do this: If your deity holds vengeance as important and you "need" to settle a beef with Weenog you're still first and foremost a Paladin. Butchering him is evil. What's not evil, however, is relaying a message to local authorities about his presence and whereabouts - were you to receive instructions to investigate Weenog further and he was, indeed, deserving of your wrath, KILLPANTSACTIVATE!

    You still need to be justified in upholding your faith. Probably why there aren't too many Paladins worshipping Bhaal.

    If not justified your character might learn that Weenog is sadly misunderstood and a gentle lover. Maybe you've found solace in Weenog's gobliny little arms after you've fallen from grace from a god whose expectations were just too high?

    Don't just look for the simple solution, look for the solution that makes sense given the greater structure of the world. It's a LOT more fun to throw in a quest to investigate Weenog and his foul dealings with Orrick than it is to just butcher the poor guy.

    kcwise
  • GrumGrum Member, Mobile Tester Posts: 2,100
    Yes - Why not? He's a goblin anyway, no rep loss, and Orrick doesn't care.
    How far do you take it?

    Ie: You are raised to believe that demons are creatures of pure evil. Morally irredeemable, and who are prolific liars who use guile to bring corruption to the land.

    The paladin finds a succubis who always that she isn't evil like her kin. Must he give her a chance? Can he morally banish her to save the land knowing that she is nothing more than a demon?

    And how is this different from a paladin being brought up to believe that orcs and goblins are monstrous creations of a fel deity that bring naught but ruin I'm their wake. Like demons they will lie, cheat and steal to destroy all of the civilized races of the north.


    So if it is alright for the paladin to kill the demon, why not the goblin? I have only heard of one story of an Orc trying diplomacy. So is it really hard to think of a well meaning paladin acting this way?

    It's easy for us to say 'give him a chance.' But for someone living in a place where goblins are nothing but a scourge on the land, whose hordes crushed both elven and dwarven civilizations without mercy or diplomacy of any sort?


    Basically...is it enough for a paladin to truly believe he is doing good? Or can he fall even when his life experiences and upbringing have not prepared him for exceptions, such as a demon/monster that isn't evil.

    kcwisesemiticgoddess
  • scriverscriver Member Posts: 2,061
    No - He's a cool guy and he beg's for mercy - How can you do such a thing?!
    Grum said:

    Basically...is it enough for a paladin to truly believe he is doing good?

    No. As has been said repeatedly in this thread, morals and morality in DnD are not subjective. They are absolute. It is one of the fundamental rules of the settings.

    atcDavekcwiseNukeface
  • GrumGrum Member, Mobile Tester Posts: 2,100
    Yes - Why not? He's a goblin anyway, no rep loss, and Orrick doesn't care.
    I guess I find it hard to wrap my head around the idea that 'good' isn't personal in any way. That a paladin has to somehow know what being 'good' is, even if it goes against everything he has been raised to believe.

    I'm not sure I like this idea, as different dms will have very different ideas of what good means. Meaning that you get situations where one dm will believe in baldurs gate style paladins, where another will make you fall for being racist to demons.

    jackjackkcwiseNukeface
  • atcDaveatcDave Member Posts: 1,933
    No - He's a cool guy and he beg's for mercy - How can you do such a thing?!
    Ultimately it's up to the DM how this is interpreted in any given game. But part of what comes with detect/protect good/evil is the idea that those are real, absolute, tangible things. The "universe" defines good and evil, not the individual.

    kcwiseNukeface
  • DreadKhanDreadKhan Member Posts: 3,859
    @Grum‌ You might be interested in looking up Eberron, the DnD campaign setting that was created for 3.5 Edition. While it wasn't always successful, there was a huge push to move away from the system of alignment being tied to race, even in pretty unexpected circumstances. IIRC, there were even non-evil fiends, but they were exceedingly rare. Almost all races and species native to the prime material plane have no ingrained alignment, meaning dragon's aren't colour coded for alignment, and priests could be any alignment, which created some interesting potential for 'rooting out corruption' adventures in 'Good' churches. Some races though just had a massive alignment shift, IE orcs tend to be Druids and Paladins iirc.

    You might find it's alignment system a bit more realistic, but Warforged aren't for everyone. ;)

    The issue of cultural expectation vs universal definitions of good is one we very much struggle with in the world... and our best solution to date IMHO has been 'what is best for business?', which has consistently been progressively more egalitarian societies with less social conservatism. For example, a society that lets smart women become engineers and scientists without stigma WILL out-compete one that restricts all women to the kitchen. While corporations rarely are interested in humanism, economics actually is. Economics would tell us that not selling to blacks for no good reason is ultimately going to leave you worse off. By extension, assuming all Goblins everywhere are only capable of being bloodthirsty psychos because all of the one's you've met have been members of the warrior and witch doctor occupation is probably not 'good'.

    I think your point of 'case by case is a giant pitfall filled with poison spikes' has some merit, but in DnD at least, as @atcDave‌ points out, the DM has to be the grand arbiter. The DM won't have players very long if he's too contrary to his players expectations though, so DMing is a bit of a Republican system I suppose. As such, good in DnD in actual practice in gaming ends up being a bit of a consensus exercise, again not unlike how we decide what qualifies as morally acceptable behaviour.

    @Nukeface‌ a Paladin certainly should fall for killing indiscriminately, but generally speaking, a Paladin doesn't fall for an isolated neutral choice. By definition, if he can justify killing Weenog, he might not fall, but he'd definitely be in reprimand territory if his justification is suspect. As noted though, detecting as evil in DnD is not a small thing, you do have to earn that aura. I don't think I'd be outraged by a DM deciding that killing Weenog is enough to fall, especially for a low level Paladin that hasn't got a super-strong track record.

    NukefaceatcDavekcwiseNonnahswriter
  • MaxxximusMaxxximus Member Posts: 322
    bengoshi said:


    image

    Hey It's big-eared Putin.

    kcwiseNukefaceJuliusBorisovsemiticgoddess
  • NukefaceNukeface Member Posts: 91
    @DreadKhan‌

    Thanks for the info, that's a great synopsis.

    @Grum‌

    Good is subjective in relation to Lawful - that's why there's two aspects to alignment. Lawful Good, however, is very explicitly Lawful and Good.

    Killing Weenog could be considered Neutral, as described before, or Chaotic. It could also be described as an act of Evil or Neutrality. It is not both Lawful and Good, however.

    The basic idea of a Paladin is that they accept a responsibility greater than themselves to act in the service of all - the end goal is to reduce evil and chaotic needs by reinforcing a society that allows everybody to be both Lawful and Good.

    Demons aside, let's look at the specifics of killing Weenog:

    You wander into Kuldahar, a settlement with some sort of established social heirarchy most likely adopted from the druids that initially settled there as evidenced through conversation with Arundel. Your party has entered a tower in the community proper, without bothering to knock, I might add, as a guest and discovered a goblin that is engaged in day to day household chores and is working for one of the residents.

    This establishes that Weenog is not hostile, is socially tolerated enough to have an established role within the community, and is presumably under the protection of the settlement's law system. This also establishes that Weenog is different from other goblins in that he is working in a symbiotic manner with other races.

    This is enough to indicate that hostile action on your part is unlawful.

    It's not about the question of comparative theology, it's the question of a specific situation and the information you have to work with at the time. Prejudice aside, if Weenog has a role in society and has managed to adapt to a more positive social structure than his kin then you are obliged to try and understand the situation before you make any decisions as a Paladin resulting in the harm of a non-hostile resident.

    Morality my dictate that you kill Weenog - but that's why morality is only one part of the alignment system. Lawfulness is the other dictator. It's not Lawful to kill Weenog.

    You have to strive to be both Lawful and Good with a Paladin - which goes on top of your faith, class, and personality. A minimum of five considerations for each and every dilemma that have to be all weighed against each other and eventually find common purpose.

    If we were talking about the Goblin Marshall, however, we'd have a much more interesting debate on whether you can kill the guy as a Paladin. Any takers?

    kcwiseJuliusBorisovEmpyrial
  • GrumGrum Member, Mobile Tester Posts: 2,100
    Yes - Why not? He's a goblin anyway, no rep loss, and Orrick doesn't care.
    Good post dreadkhan. It may not come as any surprise that my rping experience is purely wfrp. A setting where 'good' is very subjective. I'll look at Ebberon though. Thanks for that.

    kcwiseNukeface
  • GrumGrum Member, Mobile Tester Posts: 2,100
    Yes - Why not? He's a goblin anyway, no rep loss, and Orrick doesn't care.
    Nukeface said:

    @DreadKhan‌

    Thanks for the info, that's a great synopsis.

    @Grum‌

    Good is subjective in relation to Lawful - that's why there's two aspects to alignment. Lawful Good, however, is very explicitly Lawful and Good.

    Killing Weenog could be considered Neutral, as described before, or Chaotic. It could also be described as an act of Evil or Neutrality. It is not both Lawful and Good, however.

    The basic idea of a Paladin is that they accept a responsibility greater than themselves to act in the service of all - the end goal is to reduce evil and chaotic needs by reinforcing a society that allows everybody to be both Lawful and Good.

    Demons aside, let's look at the specifics of killing Weenog:

    You wander into Kuldahar, a settlement with some sort of established social heirarchy most likely adopted from the druids that initially settled there as evidenced through conversation with Arundel. Your party has entered a tower in the community proper, without bothering to knock, I might add, as a guest and discovered a goblin that is engaged in day to day household chores and is working for one of the residents.

    This establishes that Weenog is not hostile, is socially tolerated enough to have an established role within the community, and is presumably under the protection of the settlement's law system. This also establishes that Weenog is different from other goblins in that he is working in a symbiotic manner with other races.

    This is enough to indicate that hostile action on your part is unlawful.

    It's not about the question of comparative theology, it's the question of a specific situation and the information you have to work with at the time. Prejudice aside, if Weenog has a role in society and has managed to adapt to a more positive social structure than his kin then you are obliged to try and understand the situation before you make any decisions as a Paladin resulting in the harm of a non-hostile resident.

    Morality my dictate that you kill Weenog - but that's why morality is only one part of the alignment system. Lawfulness is the other dictator. It's not Lawful to kill Weenog.

    You have to strive to be both Lawful and Good with a Paladin - which goes on top of your faith, class, and personality. A minimum of five considerations for each and every dilemma that have to be all weighed against each other and eventually find common purpose.

    If we were talking about the Goblin Marshall, however, we'd have a much more interesting debate on whether you can kill the guy as a Paladin. Any takers?


    That's actually pretty tough. He's non-hostile...but he is a Marshall, leading a group in pillaging (and killing) human noncombatants. Given his direct role in hostilities, I'd say that he can be killed.

    The ogre though? He is in the tower. He doesn't attack you. He has no direct, or at least obvious, role with the goblin and Orc looters. Going by the logic above, I'd guess the answer is no.

    kcwiseNukeface
  • Tallest_DwarfTallest_Dwarf Member Posts: 4
    No - He's a cool guy and he beg's for mercy - How can you do such a thing?!
    Although I almost always have at least one goblin-hating Dwarf in my parties, I don't kill that one for the simple reason that to my LG/LN dwarves it would be dishonorable to simply gut the greenskin when it didn't even see it coming. And they're usually wise enough not to anger the gobbo's master wizard.

    jackjackNukefaceatcDave
  • kcwisekcwise Member Posts: 2,287
    No - He's a cool guy and he beg's for mercy - How can you do such a thing?!
    This is why I love these forums. A fun poll about whether or not you whack a relatively minor character turns into an involved debate over paladin ethics. Nice!

    Having been trained by CRPGs for years, my way of being a paladin usually involves offering kindness and mercy whenever the dialog and hostility settings allow. For the most part the game lets you know who to kill by putting a big ol red circle around them. If there's a chance to talk, there's a chance they aren't evil incarnate and deserve mercy.

    The goblin vs. demon argument is an interesting one, and timely since the Forgotten Realms are shifting back toward a more absolute view of orcs and goblins as evil. Since there are a few orcs and goblins who are not necessarily evil then a paladin might give a non-hostile creature of those races a chance before smiting. Demons, however, in the Realms are incapable of being anything but evil. Their base code is hardwired so there's no chance they're good (as i write this I know someone knows of an exception!). That said, if I encounter a demon I can talk to in a computer game, I'm probably going to go with the mercy option since the developers allow for it. One of these days it's going to get my paladin into trouble!

    NukefaceatcDaveJuliusBorisov
  • NukefaceNukeface Member Posts: 91
    @Grum‌

    Okay, let's look at the Goblin Marshall - you've been waylaid by his band up to this point and you have a clear situational predisposition to attacking goblins, at least in the moment. You can get a pass as he is clearly part of a larger body of goblins out doing unlawful things if you butcher him without speaking. Your perception may be that he is simply distracted and you use the situation to ambush him to prevent any opportunity he may have to attack your party later.

    If you talk to the goblin, however, you find out that he has been summoned to the area. He is also presumably aware of what is happening inside the mill, regardless of why he has been summoned to the area.

    So, by finding out that the goblin is acting against his will you have established that he is part of a greater evil - does this excuse the evil deeds he has committed or does it simply inform you that the evil he has committed is simply an extension of his evil nature? Do you find it "Good" to put him down? The question is no longer a matter of Law, it's a matter of morality.

    Now, let's take Baldur's Gate 2, specifically the Paladin stronghold quest -

    You're waylaid by a group of monsters who attack you and claim they're the good guys. Once you slay them, you find out they were just humans being mislead, as you were, and they were, in fact, the good guys. Note that this does not actually result in a fallen status for your Paladin.

    There are very few clear answers - justification has to be exerted based on the situation, not on a greater hierarchy of semantic reasoning. You are not a philosopher, you are a Paladin. Druids can get away with "the greater good" arguments, Paladins must exercise the "The ends do not justify the means" argument.

    While killing the group is not "Good" it is neither "Neutral" or "Evil". It is merely "Lawful". You had no inclination to believe that the group was a band of humans with essentially the same motives you would presumably have - it is merely an unfortunate situation that maybe could have been resolved differently had you been afforded time to investigate further. This was not afforded to you, however, and you acted to the best of your abilities as the situation dictated.

    The Paladin does not get afforded the luxury of big picture thinking - his job is to make the best of the current situation. If by making a Lawful Good choice evil is committed, but not sanctioned, as an unforeseen consequence then the Paladin has satisfactorilly done his job and will not fall. If the Paladin brings about greater good by making an Unlawful or "Not Good" choice then he will fall as he has knowingly sanctioned evil. If the Paladin makes a Lawful Good choice and the outcome has an evil consequence, and the Paladin knows the consequence before he makes the decision, then he will fall.

    If he is not given the opportunity to make a Lawful Good choice then he is forced into finding a solution that isn't presented at the current moment.

    kcwiseJuliusBorisov
  • NukefaceNukeface Member Posts: 91
    As for the Ogre, if you have your druid speak to him you give him a remedy for his headache that causes him to leave the area. I believe it's implied that he's part of the merriments but I could be wrong on that.

    kcwise
  • GrumGrum Member, Mobile Tester Posts: 2,100
    Yes - Why not? He's a goblin anyway, no rep loss, and Orrick doesn't care.
    Is there a class for a smiter of evil as I envisioned a paladin to be? Someone who stamps out evil in all of its forms, caring not what methods are used or what sacrifices are made?

    I'm almost thinking of using a blackguard to represent this. Or do they need a demonic sponsor? Perhaps even a man who has sold his soul to a devil in exchange for the power needed to destroy evil. Someone who has knowingly damned himself 'for the greater good' and who as such has no concept of mercy for others.

    Only he would't have detect evil...which kinda defeats the purpose.

    jackjackNukefacekcwise
  • jackjackjackjack Member Posts: 3,251
    No - He's a cool guy and he beg's for mercy - How can you do such a thing?!
    Hack it in as an innate power with EEKeeper. That sounds like a really cool character concept.

    Nukefacekcwise
  • NukefaceNukeface Member Posts: 91
    @Grum I agree with @jackjack - sounds like a cool character concept.

    I recommend wholeheartedly a Ranger/Cleric for your purposes, alternatively a Stalker for even more flavor.

    My favorite character concept is a Stalker who honed his skills to more effectively dispatch evil mages within an urban setting. The Stalker is a combination of the Fighter/Mage/Thief/Druid - they're pretty great and really excel in IWD with the 3E Sneak Attack rules.

    The Ranger/Cleric is like a Paladin who operates exclusively on the frontier - all that time alone could definitely have warped their perception of right and wrong a bit!

    kcwise
  • NukefaceNukeface Member Posts: 91
    @kcwise I think it's important to remember, especially for people who are used to less "extreme" moralities, that the Paladin has a basis in absolutes and can be played poorly. It's one of those classes that is more "expert" than people might think.

    I grew up reading stories about King Arthur and Galahad just happened to be my favorite one so when I found an opportunity to play as a version of Galahad then I always would. I've been playing one for so long that it's always kind of surprising to me when people don't understand the iconography behind it.

    Wolverine and Batman are fine but they're not Galahad. Superman isn't even Galahad. Cyclops (classic Cyclops) was Galahad. And everybody hates Cyclops.

    kcwise
  • GrumGrum Member, Mobile Tester Posts: 2,100
    edited January 2015
    Yes - Why not? He's a goblin anyway, no rep loss, and Orrick doesn't care.
    I just started a BG1 run with a blackguard. The fluff being that rather than sell his soul to a demon, he has instead made a pact with a fallen deva (based off of trias in planescape torment). His goal is to eradicate evil without concern for his own soul. Where a paladin would worry about falling, he only cares about whether evil will survive.

    While there is no detect evil, I'm fine with that as of now. I see it as him having to talk to, and figure out, who is 'evil.' And that is more fun. As an example, I took Montarion and Xzar into my party. They came across pretty good in the opening dialogue. Read their bios and hear them complain about doing good deeds? He murders them (I had them fight it out to the death).

    So he is a character who will have a high reputation, but who will always decide to kill people like Daeveron's apprentice. I'm even happy with his 'lawful evil' alignment, given how he is so comfortable being judge jury and executioner.

    The two moments when I realized that this run is fated?
    1) Rolling a 100 for stats right away. I've never seen that before.
    2) Hitting lvl 2 when he killed Viconia. An officer of the law says she is wanted for murder? She is a drow? 'Fair enough. Off with her head.

    His only two regrets are a) helping Albert, seeing as how he didn't know what Albert was until it was too late, and the devil teleported before it could be smote, and b) Edwin got away. After Edwin was told off for trying to receive help in murder, the mage fled before a killing blow could be landed.


    The party thus far:

    charname blackguard (the follower of a fallen deva and smiter of evil)
    Imoen (no other thief comes close to fitting his morals)
    Branwen (has proven herself willing to die to fight evil and to seek vengeance)
    Koran (an elf obsessed with vengeance)
    Xan (we're all doomed...that just seems to fit the group)

    I'm not sure who the 6th will be...

    Its fun to play a lawful evil 'good guy.' My thanks to everyone who got me here. :)

    NukefacejackjackkcwiseEmpyrial
  • NukefaceNukeface Member Posts: 91
    @Grum That. Is. RIGHTEOUS!

    I love it. That's the alignment system being used properly right there.

    jackjackkcwise
  • jackjackjackjack Member Posts: 3,251
    No - He's a cool guy and he beg's for mercy - How can you do such a thing?!
    Must. Read. MOAR!

    kcwise
  • wubblewubble Member Posts: 3,156
    No - He's a cool guy and he beg's for mercy - How can you do such a thing?!
    @Grum‌ where you've put Koran do you mean Kivan or Coran?

    kcwisejackjack
  • GrumGrum Member, Mobile Tester Posts: 2,100
    edited January 2015
    Yes - Why not? He's a goblin anyway, no rep loss, and Orrick doesn't care.
    Ack. Aye, Kivan. The elven ranger. Coran is a better archer, but Kivan is the right king of dark and brooding elf for this kind of job. The way he would try to kill Viconia would prove it.

    It's a good thing that they'll have a high reputation, because I know for a fact that they are going to lose most of it when they kill Sarevok's mentor.

    As for the fallen deva he is working for? A quote from him:

    "So you're fallen, then? Why should I believe any of your words?"

    "Speak not to me of treacheries and falling, mortal. I am willing to sacrifice even myself that Good might triumph."

    That is what I'm going for here!

    @nukeface and jackjack: glad you like the idea. I'm really tempted to write up his journals for posterity.

    kcwisewubblejackjackJuliusBorisov
  • NukefaceNukeface Member Posts: 91
    My only regret in life is not having a virtual table for us to all sit down at and play some DnD proper.

    kcwisejackjackJuliusBorisov
Sign In or Register to comment.