@Kamigoroshi Yes Kelemvor lacks in personality. That is actually I thing I kinda like..
He had a personality back as mortal and kept some of that as a god. He did abondon his personality and his love for mystra after he rethought his role during a scheme of Cyric. (I read the story a long time ago, if you want I can try to find the book.)
I found old pictures of Kelemvor from before he became a God:
Happy Kelemvor "OOoh.. I have it filed here, let me check!"
Angry Kelemvor "You have filled in report 11123B-4 incorrectly!"
@ThacoBell
...But Baldurs Gate is an adaption of p&p..
It is right in the title..
Stop pretending Baldurs Gate is a standalone IP and accept that it *always* was part of the Forgotten Realms. Why do you utterly refuse to accept that?
Why do you insist in seeing Baldurs Gate as something completly removed from the Forgotten Realms?
It *advertised* itself by being part of the Forgotten Worlds and now it is no longer be allowed to be that?
I *honestly* fail to understand your reasoning in this. It just baffles me...
No, its not pretending. BG was never considered P&P canon, from the very begining WotC adapted it (very, very, poorly.) I don't care what the P&P canon is, I care about respecting the story and characters of BG, which WotC and Larian clearly do not. And no, it did not advertise itself as a new standalone D&D game. It advertised itself as Baldur's Gate freaking 3. So I will fully judge it based on its ability to stay true to the games its supposed to be a sequel to. Anything less is disenginous.
the only dnd game that was ever considered canon to pen and paper were the never winter nights games. baldurs gate's canon status was sadly the novels not the games. now adays the game canon and the pen and paper canon are different things.
thats only if you do the evil path whitch i don't even think was canon. myrkul suffers from the same issues as bhaal coming back as in motb the true ending makes it so he should not be able to.
No, you could also "devour" him even as a Good character, but you'd be using the "Return to Rest" or whatever special ability that lets you devour only Undead. Either way, Myrkul still reacts and talks the same way as if you'd used the main Spirit Devour ability on him, although that could be chalked up to "lazy writing".
But yeah, I think the events of NWN2 were not considered canon by WotC, not in the same way that the events of the BG saga were.
@Arcanis: The Wall of the Faithless does sometimes spur interesting adventures though. I remember reading this mod/adventure that centered around a group of Celestials trying to free souls from the Wall because they felt it unjust that Good souls who, perhaps through sheer happenstance, grew up and died without ever hearing or learning about a deity, should be condemned to non-existence. They felt that the punishment of the Wall should only apply to those who actively rejected the existence of the deities.
I think WotCs usual approach to the games is basicly:
The events are canon and the problems where solved, but the details are lost in history.
So, more or less semi-canon? ^^
Also, where does the idea come from that the BG books where canon at any time?
I looked around a bit, but it seemed that it was mostly an assumption while any official information are barebones as usual for the games.
Maybe because the name "Abdel Adrian" gets montioned in some informations?
But then again, that name actually comes from the game.
It is the name of one of the presets and in fact the preset TotSC savegame has Abdel as Bhaalspawn..
(I don't know from memory where his surname came from, but the given name is actually part of the original BG TotSC.)
@Arcanis All forgotten novels are canon unless WotC says otherwise. They put a lot of restrictions on their writers depending on what they want to promote, or what is in the current edition. The BG novels are unique in the singular hatred they garner(ed), and to my knowledge, the only novelizations that WothC ever backpedaled on a bit.
@ThacoBell I hope you are wrong on that, because there are some rather crappy novels out there in general..
But regarding the BG novels, I don't get the feeling that Wizards is backpadeling a bit. I more get the feeling that they are trying to ignore the novels out of existence.
Honestly? I feel that Wizards fifth edition is actually a love letter to us old schoolers.
The rules feel much more like a rework of AD&D2 than D&D3 or 4. They returned gods most people that joined during 3rd edition did not really know. They started the edition with "Murder at Baldurs Gate" which tied into Baldurs Gate, the most famous D&D game to this day.
And whoever wrote that module played the *game*. Why do I think that? Because of Viekang.
A plot hole in ToB (since his teleporting around gave him a high chance at survival) and probably not mentioned in the Novel. He was a detail in BG2, a short appearence and a sidequest.
Was their decision to use the name of the Novel character bad? Of course it was. But for all their problematic decisions, I *really* think the intend was the right one.
After the fiasco that was the spellplague event, they did give their writers free reign to fix it.
They also decided to work on story hooks of the second advanced edition. They allowed Beamdog to make an addon to BG2 - with the original ruleset. They got the original Eberron writer to make a 5e version of his setting.
Wizards seems to wish to go to the old crowd and win them back. I say give them the chance and don't damn tham for trying.
I would personally like a story which explains why Viekang attacked Adrian - a story which could show that he may be named Abdel Adrian, but that he is a possible charname and not that novel weirdo.
That way, Wizards would not have to acknowledge the books existence and still clear up that the books are not canon, but just badly written fanfic.
I said it before and I will probably ask again: Give Wizards and Larian a fair chance.
Even if their are parts of the canon you and I don't like, I still think that a game that brings us the era of the Infinity Engine back, is a good game even if it has some mistakes and an anoying canon.
And until I have enough information to *know* that BG3 does not have that capability, I see no reason to deny that it has the *potential* to do that.
@Arcanis "But regarding the BG novels, I don't get the feeling that Wizards is backpadeling a bit. I more get the feeling that they are trying to ignore the novels out of existence."
If they were gonna do that, they wouldn't have made the protaganist of the novels canon. And I'm not wrong about them considering their novels canon. Salvatore has spent pages talking about their mandates and how his work had to match P&P canon. As @megamike15 Said above, they even did this to a lesser extent to NWN2.
@Arcanis "But regarding the BG novels, I don't get the feeling that Wizards is backpadeling a bit. I more get the feeling that they are trying to ignore the novels out of existence."
If they were gonna do that, they wouldn't have made the protaganist of the novels canon. And I'm not wrong about them considering their novels canon. Salvatore has spent pages talking about their mandates and how his work had to match P&P canon. As @megamike15 Said above, they even did this to a lesser extent to NWN2.
I am a collector of the Forgotten Realms novels. @ThacoBell is correct. After reading the BG novels, they became the only novels that I flatly refused to allow any space on my bookshelf because I considered them unworthy so I sold them on Ebay.
the books are also why people hate the jaheira romance i feel. even tho the two are nothing alike.
That is actually quite possible. Though I admit that a lot of people are unhappy that you are hooking up with your guardian.
But here is the problem: No one knows if those two are truly different. Those why tried reading the books where hospitalized (and had to recover in a mental institute) and nowadays the books are only used as divine punishment.
So no one really knows much about them.
...I may overdramatize a bit, but most people have maybe heard about the books -and elements from it- but few had a "chance" to read it. If you learn about the books nowadays, you get warned about their ..quality in the same breath.
The thing is, a lot of the stuff I heard about the books could have worked, but even if the writing was better, it still would not be Baldurs Gate.
Most famous example would be Minsc, who has absolutly zero in common with the Beloved Ranger.
(In fact, that discrepancy is actually one of my reasons why I think WotC is trying to ignore the books out of existence, even if they do a rather poor job there.)
For all my disagreements with @ThacoBell , he is right when he said that Abdel Adrian (from the novels) is an insult to all players of Baldurs Gate.
It's a shame that they couldn't come up with a really good character for the books. How hard could that have been? Lemernis the half-elven Fighter-Mage would have been perfect! ;-P (That was my very first character creation with BG in '00 so I chose it as my forum nick at the old PlanetBaldursGate forum.)
I respect your opinion. But I want the canonical character - Abdel Adrian. I am confident that Larion will not make the mistake of referring to him as an abstract person.
All details from the novels need not be referenced. But his name and sex cannot credibly be unknown in Baldur's Gate. His identity should follow the canon.
All details from the novels need not be referenced. But his name and sex cannot credibly be unknown in Baldur's Gate. His identity should follow the canon.
Which canon? Because when I play a supposed sequel to a video game, I expect the previous games to take precedence over canon from other sources.
Its also very possible to have the player's canon bhaalsoawn BE the canon for the new game. Look at Knights of the Old Republic 2: The player from kotor1 could male, female, light side, neutral, or dark side. They could also either save or invade the Republic. Obsidian managed to include everyone by having a conversation early on that allowed the PLAYER to establish what their previous charname was, and what actions they took, and all mentions of the character in further dialogue would use the proper pronouns to reflect that. Bioware did it too with the Dragon Age series with both the Warden AND Hawke. They also did it previously with Mass Effect.
With this precedent, and with expectations so high, there is ZERO REASON for Larian to not do the same. Just using the stock, and widely hated, charname from the novels, is not only extremely lazy, but also disrecptful to the legacy of some of the most venerable rpgs in video games, as well as spit in the eye of every player who loves the old games.
There is only one canon. That's how canons work. It exist so that despite the millions of choices and actions that can be made and taken by players and dungeon masters when playing DnD there is a single line of events that the creators can say "this is what happened. This is what we're working with" about. Any works or writing that contradicts that line can be disregarded as non-canon in relation to the timeline the creators work with. This is the very purpose of having a "canon".
This isn't just restriction. This is also what gives creators (and dms) freedom to ignore the worse parts of the BG books if they want to. This is what made it possible for Drizzt to show up and muck around in the original BG games even though it's not cannot that he ever was around the Sword Coast at that time.
I personally find that bringing up other Bioware examples like the Mass Effect and Dragon Age is an argument against what you want. Both of these series' story lines suffered from the insistance that all the player's choices would be "acknowledged" by the game. In the end they made me feel less respected by the games because nothing I do can have any bigger impact on the world than what can be covered in a momentary cameo in the next game. I'd rather my actions be meaningful only within the one play through I took them in than that.
I don't think anyone want the bad parts of the BG books to be acknowledged. What I want is for Abdel Adrian to be a character instead of just being CHARNAME. CHARNAME is just a non-entity template for the insertion of the PC. I want the ward of Gorion to be a someone, a character they can actually include in the setting's backstory rather than just allude to.
I don't really care particularly much if they make this character Abdel Adrian, Male Human Fighter or Abdel Adrian, Female Gnome Illusionist/Thief. But one of those are canon, and would put the game more in line with the rest of the FR products, and I would prefer that.
Actually that's not entirelt true, I would mind if they made Abdel a gnome. But that's just because I personally prefer Humans over Turnip Smokers. And because a human stretches my suspension of disbelief visavi the already horribly mashed up timeline the least.
The GAMES should be canon. Not the novels, not the P&P midules, the GAMES are the only canon that matters when you are supposedly making a sequel to the games. Let me set my charname as canon, Larian already said the bhaalspawn would have no part in the game, so having variables for the proper pronouns should be entirely reasonable. Obsidian did it, Bioware did it, if Larian cares at all, they can do it.
Well, If I buy Baldur´s Gate III, I expect something relatable to the other two BG games. If not, just call it Murder in Baldurs Gate: the videogame or Dungeons&Dragons online or WOTC Campaign simulator.
That said, I would be less against the use of the canon character Abdel Adrian and more understanding if the character itself was less obnoxious (in the novels) or pitiful (in the PA MiBG). To be honest, it offends me to call him the "hero of baldur´s gate". It is more that I do not like this particular character.
Do any of you played Murder in bg? He is arrogant and condescending. He also makes some illogical decisions (Tokio of "Money Heist" level- stupid decisions) and dies... well, you know... And I refuse to talk again of the novels, I think all is said in this thread about them.
Ed: Example of Duke Adrian in the official PA MiBG:
"Moments later, the throng erupts in wild cheers as an
older, surprisingly muscular man takes center stage. The
ovation continues for minutes unabated. A nearby wizened
female eyes you with amusement before hollering, “This
here’s Duke Abdel Adrian,” as if that explains everything.
The duke, smiling broadly, bows to the crowd and then gestures for quiet.
The crowd obeys, except for one person, who shouts, “We love you, Abdel!”
The duke responds, “ I love you, too, Baldur’s Gate,”
and the assemblage explodes in deafening hurrahs"
The GAMES should be canon. Not the novels, not the P&P midules, the GAMES are the only canon that matters when you are supposedly making a sequel to the games.
The GAMES should be canon. Not the novels, not the P&P midules, the GAMES are the only canon that matters when you are supposedly making a sequel to the games.
No, the only thing that's canon in the games is Imoen, Jaheira and Minsc (plus Khalid and Dynaheir) as companions, and the rough outcomes of the two first parts. Nothing else is certainified. That's why there's so many "but you died" dialogue choices with old companion cameos. The games never established any canon of their own and what happened in the previous stories never mattered the slightest to BG2 and ToB.
And that is exactly what most people want, more "I thought you died" "What are you saying? Revan The Hero of BG was a woman" and more open references to your runs in the previous games, not a forced background that references a character almost universally hated.
The Campaigns of WOTC need a canon, a common history to make all PA consistent. The games do not. They have different options.
Even in Murder in Baldur´s gate, supposedly a prequel with BG: Descent into Avernus, there are different outcomes that depend on the players' choices (Choosing who has Baal´s Favor in the endgame climax, for instance). I do not know how they are going to manage this in Descent into Avernus, but I expect that in the upcoming BG3 game they will take note of these things, offering several options.
And if they have to reflect ingame the possibility of different endings of MiBG (And possibly DiA if it is a PA well made), why not do the same with the first games?
No, the only thing that's canon in the games is Imoen, Jaheira and Minsc (plus Khalid and Dynaheir) as companions, and the rough outcomes of the two first parts. Nothing else is certainified. That's why there's so many "but you died" dialogue choices with old companion cameos. The games never established any canon of their own and what happened in the previous stories never mattered the slightest to BG2 and ToB.
EXACTLY. The player gets to decide who they traveled with based on in-game events. There isn't a single "This happened". SoD even relieves Immy, Jaheria, Khalid, Minsc, and Dyna from having to have been in the party for all of BG1, letting players develop more of their own canon. That's the beauty of it. Larian scrapping that and saddling players with a single, predefined canon, is pure STUPIDITY.
No, the only thing that's canon in the games is Imoen, Jaheira and Minsc (plus Khalid and Dynaheir) as companions, and the rough outcomes of the two first parts. Nothing else is certainified. That's why there's so many "but you died" dialogue choices with old companion cameos. The games never established any canon of their own and what happened in the previous stories never mattered the slightest to BG2 and ToB.
EXACTLY. The player gets to decide who they traveled with based on in-game events. There isn't a single "This happened".
And that is why the games weren't even canon in the games and there is no "games canon". In glad you agree with me.
No, the only thing that's canon in the games is Imoen, Jaheira and Minsc (plus Khalid and Dynaheir) as companions, and the rough outcomes of the two first parts. Nothing else is certainified. That's why there's so many "but you died" dialogue choices with old companion cameos. The games never established any canon of their own and what happened in the previous stories never mattered the slightest to BG2 and ToB.
EXACTLY. The player gets to decide who they traveled with based on in-game events. There isn't a single "This happened".
And that is why the games weren't even canon in the games and there is no "games canon". In glad you agree with me.
I complain that Larina shoudl not use canon from the novels, comics, or P&P, because it contradicts characers and events in game. And praise the games for letting the player use their own playhtoughs as canon for their games.
You then disengenuously suggest that I agree with you about Larian's choise to use a single unified canon because because the games don't have a unified canon, which I praised them for doing?
How exactly does that make sense? Are you trolling? Are you actually not reading anything I'm posting?
Comments
I found old pictures of Kelemvor from before he became a God:
Angry Kelemvor "You have filled in report 11123B-4 incorrectly!"
No, its not pretending. BG was never considered P&P canon, from the very begining WotC adapted it (very, very, poorly.) I don't care what the P&P canon is, I care about respecting the story and characters of BG, which WotC and Larian clearly do not. And no, it did not advertise itself as a new standalone D&D game. It advertised itself as Baldur's Gate freaking 3. So I will fully judge it based on its ability to stay true to the games its supposed to be a sequel to. Anything less is disenginous.
No, you could also "devour" him even as a Good character, but you'd be using the "Return to Rest" or whatever special ability that lets you devour only Undead. Either way, Myrkul still reacts and talks the same way as if you'd used the main Spirit Devour ability on him, although that could be chalked up to "lazy writing".
But yeah, I think the events of NWN2 were not considered canon by WotC, not in the same way that the events of the BG saga were.
@Arcanis: The Wall of the Faithless does sometimes spur interesting adventures though. I remember reading this mod/adventure that centered around a group of Celestials trying to free souls from the Wall because they felt it unjust that Good souls who, perhaps through sheer happenstance, grew up and died without ever hearing or learning about a deity, should be condemned to non-existence. They felt that the punishment of the Wall should only apply to those who actively rejected the existence of the deities.
The events are canon and the problems where solved, but the details are lost in history.
So, more or less semi-canon? ^^
Also, where does the idea come from that the BG books where canon at any time?
I looked around a bit, but it seemed that it was mostly an assumption while any official information are barebones as usual for the games.
Maybe because the name "Abdel Adrian" gets montioned in some informations?
But then again, that name actually comes from the game.
It is the name of one of the presets and in fact the preset TotSC savegame has Abdel as Bhaalspawn..
(I don't know from memory where his surname came from, but the given name is actually part of the original BG TotSC.)
wotc has more say then people think. rassad's quest was also effected by wotc mandates due to a character beamdog used.
But regarding the BG novels, I don't get the feeling that Wizards is backpadeling a bit. I more get the feeling that they are trying to ignore the novels out of existence.
Honestly? I feel that Wizards fifth edition is actually a love letter to us old schoolers.
The rules feel much more like a rework of AD&D2 than D&D3 or 4. They returned gods most people that joined during 3rd edition did not really know. They started the edition with "Murder at Baldurs Gate" which tied into Baldurs Gate, the most famous D&D game to this day.
And whoever wrote that module played the *game*. Why do I think that? Because of Viekang.
A plot hole in ToB (since his teleporting around gave him a high chance at survival) and probably not mentioned in the Novel. He was a detail in BG2, a short appearence and a sidequest.
Was their decision to use the name of the Novel character bad? Of course it was. But for all their problematic decisions, I *really* think the intend was the right one.
After the fiasco that was the spellplague event, they did give their writers free reign to fix it.
They also decided to work on story hooks of the second advanced edition. They allowed Beamdog to make an addon to BG2 - with the original ruleset. They got the original Eberron writer to make a 5e version of his setting.
Wizards seems to wish to go to the old crowd and win them back. I say give them the chance and don't damn tham for trying.
I would personally like a story which explains why Viekang attacked Adrian - a story which could show that he may be named Abdel Adrian, but that he is a possible charname and not that novel weirdo.
That way, Wizards would not have to acknowledge the books existence and still clear up that the books are not canon, but just badly written fanfic.
I said it before and I will probably ask again: Give Wizards and Larian a fair chance.
Even if their are parts of the canon you and I don't like, I still think that a game that brings us the era of the Infinity Engine back, is a good game even if it has some mistakes and an anoying canon.
And until I have enough information to *know* that BG3 does not have that capability, I see no reason to deny that it has the *potential* to do that.
If they were gonna do that, they wouldn't have made the protaganist of the novels canon. And I'm not wrong about them considering their novels canon. Salvatore has spent pages talking about their mandates and how his work had to match P&P canon. As @megamike15 Said above, they even did this to a lesser extent to NWN2.
I am a collector of the Forgotten Realms novels. @ThacoBell is correct. After reading the BG novels, they became the only novels that I flatly refused to allow any space on my bookshelf because I considered them unworthy so I sold them on Ebay.
That is actually quite possible. Though I admit that a lot of people are unhappy that you are hooking up with your guardian.
But here is the problem: No one knows if those two are truly different. Those why tried reading the books where hospitalized (and had to recover in a mental institute) and nowadays the books are only used as divine punishment.
So no one really knows much about them.
...I may overdramatize a bit, but most people have maybe heard about the books -and elements from it- but few had a "chance" to read it. If you learn about the books nowadays, you get warned about their ..quality in the same breath.
The thing is, a lot of the stuff I heard about the books could have worked, but even if the writing was better, it still would not be Baldurs Gate.
Most famous example would be Minsc, who has absolutly zero in common with the Beloved Ranger.
(In fact, that discrepancy is actually one of my reasons why I think WotC is trying to ignore the books out of existence, even if they do a rather poor job there.)
For all my disagreements with @ThacoBell , he is right when he said that Abdel Adrian (from the novels) is an insult to all players of Baldurs Gate.
Nah, Melf the Elf already has that badge of honour.
Which canon? Because when I play a supposed sequel to a video game, I expect the previous games to take precedence over canon from other sources.
Its also very possible to have the player's canon bhaalsoawn BE the canon for the new game. Look at Knights of the Old Republic 2: The player from kotor1 could male, female, light side, neutral, or dark side. They could also either save or invade the Republic. Obsidian managed to include everyone by having a conversation early on that allowed the PLAYER to establish what their previous charname was, and what actions they took, and all mentions of the character in further dialogue would use the proper pronouns to reflect that. Bioware did it too with the Dragon Age series with both the Warden AND Hawke. They also did it previously with Mass Effect.
With this precedent, and with expectations so high, there is ZERO REASON for Larian to not do the same. Just using the stock, and widely hated, charname from the novels, is not only extremely lazy, but also disrecptful to the legacy of some of the most venerable rpgs in video games, as well as spit in the eye of every player who loves the old games.
This isn't just restriction. This is also what gives creators (and dms) freedom to ignore the worse parts of the BG books if they want to. This is what made it possible for Drizzt to show up and muck around in the original BG games even though it's not cannot that he ever was around the Sword Coast at that time.
I personally find that bringing up other Bioware examples like the Mass Effect and Dragon Age is an argument against what you want. Both of these series' story lines suffered from the insistance that all the player's choices would be "acknowledged" by the game. In the end they made me feel less respected by the games because nothing I do can have any bigger impact on the world than what can be covered in a momentary cameo in the next game. I'd rather my actions be meaningful only within the one play through I took them in than that.
I don't think anyone want the bad parts of the BG books to be acknowledged. What I want is for Abdel Adrian to be a character instead of just being CHARNAME. CHARNAME is just a non-entity template for the insertion of the PC. I want the ward of Gorion to be a someone, a character they can actually include in the setting's backstory rather than just allude to.
I don't really care particularly much if they make this character Abdel Adrian, Male Human Fighter or Abdel Adrian, Female Gnome Illusionist/Thief. But one of those are canon, and would put the game more in line with the rest of the FR products, and I would prefer that.
Actually that's not entirelt true, I would mind if they made Abdel a gnome. But that's just because I personally prefer Humans over Turnip Smokers. And because a human stretches my suspension of disbelief visavi the already horribly mashed up timeline the least.
That said, I would be less against the use of the canon character Abdel Adrian and more understanding if the character itself was less obnoxious (in the novels) or pitiful (in the PA MiBG). To be honest, it offends me to call him the "hero of baldur´s gate". It is more that I do not like this particular character.
Do any of you played Murder in bg? He is arrogant and condescending. He also makes some illogical decisions (Tokio of "Money Heist" level- stupid decisions) and dies... well, you know... And I refuse to talk again of the novels, I think all is said in this thread about them.
Ed: Example of Duke Adrian in the official PA MiBG:
older, surprisingly muscular man takes center stage. The
ovation continues for minutes unabated. A nearby wizened
female eyes you with amusement before hollering, “This
here’s Duke Abdel Adrian,” as if that explains everything.
The duke, smiling broadly, bows to the crowd and then gestures for quiet.
The crowd obeys, except for one person, who shouts, “We love you, Abdel!”
The duke responds, “ I love you, too, Baldur’s Gate,”
and the assemblage explodes in deafening hurrahs"
The games aren't even canon in the games
Yes they are.
The Campaigns of WOTC need a canon, a common history to make all PA consistent. The games do not. They have different options.
Even in Murder in Baldur´s gate, supposedly a prequel with BG: Descent into Avernus, there are different outcomes that depend on the players' choices (Choosing who has Baal´s Favor in the endgame climax, for instance). I do not know how they are going to manage this in Descent into Avernus, but I expect that in the upcoming BG3 game they will take note of these things, offering several options.
And if they have to reflect ingame the possibility of different endings of MiBG (And possibly DiA if it is a PA well made), why not do the same with the first games?
EXACTLY. The player gets to decide who they traveled with based on in-game events. There isn't a single "This happened". SoD even relieves Immy, Jaheria, Khalid, Minsc, and Dyna from having to have been in the party for all of BG1, letting players develop more of their own canon. That's the beauty of it. Larian scrapping that and saddling players with a single, predefined canon, is pure STUPIDITY.
And that is why the games weren't even canon in the games and there is no "games canon". In glad you agree with me.
I complain that Larina shoudl not use canon from the novels, comics, or P&P, because it contradicts characers and events in game. And praise the games for letting the player use their own playhtoughs as canon for their games.
You then disengenuously suggest that I agree with you about Larian's choise to use a single unified canon because because the games don't have a unified canon, which I praised them for doing?
How exactly does that make sense? Are you trolling? Are you actually not reading anything I'm posting?