Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Ontarah

  1. The negligibility of deflection granted by resolve has already been pointed out by me multiple times and confirmed by another poster. The usefulness of concentration is implied in the above scenario I just described. If my ranged people and spell casters are interrupting the crap out of the people I'm bottlenecking or even better pummeling them with AoE effects, there are no attacks forthcoming for my tanks to need to concentrate against. But those few seconds where they formed a physical barrier were essential to let my ranged people get off those attacks. Melee guys are never going to be as good at Mass interruption as spell casters or ranged people. At most they will be passing fair at interrupting a handful of people. They can be inordinately good at Mage killing I suppose, but that's hardly a high threshold to climb over. So are archers.
  2. @ Achilles You're misconstruing what I said. I'm not talkin about dealing raw damage. I'm talking about constraining enemies that do raw damage, which is obviously what I said. An example in a really mundane fight I just did last night. The guy who forged the affidavit to hide his soul lineage from The Crucible nights, I forgot his name. He has like four or five random trash melee guys that will attack you outside Dunryd Row. These guys are scripted to make a beeline for Durance. Eder and me can't Interrupt 4 or 5 dudes at once scattered over a dispersed area. What we can do is form a body barrier between them and Durance and hold them while they get torn apart by Aloth and my other ranged guys. Damage dealt is fairly Irrelevant in this scenario. And my reasonably pitiful deflection bonus from like + 5 resolve or whatever that I have is not that big of a contribution.
  3. "the only characters who might want Resolve are tanks (it's basically useless for any non-melee class)" We can go on nitpicking the minutiae of micromanaging builds, but this gets pretty much to the heart of what I'm talking about. Why should the dominant dialogue stat be based on something that's mostly useless for anything but that when literally every other attribute is versatile and useful for lots of different things?
  4. Deflection is mostly determined by class and unless you have a resolve of like 18 or 19 or something, the addition to deflection is negligible. Much less than you get from a good Shield. Just a crappy small Shield does a boost to deflection of plus 8 which is comparable to 16 in resolve. And high interrupt is situationally useful but most of the time I'm more concerned with constraining raw damage dealers from getting to my back ranks, bottlenecking and whatnot. I can use ranged and spell casters to interrupt. Having more Constitution certainly makes a tremendous difference just from comparing Fighters I've done with Eder who were way squishier and died much more quickly because they didn't have anything like his hit points even though their damage dealt and damage reduction was essentially identical.
  5. It isn't just might though. I'm talking about everything, constitution and dexterity too. Potentially even perception. The point is that resolve and intellect are both reasonably useless for tank type characters or non spellcasters generally. They do some good yes, but they are arguably not as useful as the other stats yet they are indispensable if you want to be good at dialogue. And it creates the aforementioned you can either be good at dialogue or good at melee combat but not both. However you can be both excellent at dialogue and excellent at magical combat. Or excellent at dialogue and excellent in ranged combat. Why this arbitrary distinction when it could be easily solved by just providing more dialogue checks based on something besides intellect and resolve? I am sincerely failing to understand what is even remotely controversial about this opinion or why anybody wouldn't want this in the game.
  6. Two basically identical builds differing only by like 1 point in any given stat is "various?" I'm starting to think you aren't actually reading my posts, man. Fighting. Duh. That is what we are discussing. Sacrificing fighting ability for dialog ability and vice versa. Dude, this argument is willfully inane and I think you are well aware of that. But I can engage in some putting words in people's mouths inane arguments too so here goes: You are officially advocating for *less* choice in an RPG, no? Or is it just that you think it's inherently silly to criticize any choice Obsidian makes in regards the game because I don't *have* to do it the way they designed it and can instead chose to just suck at it? So what if, say, 75% of dialogue checks could only be made by an orlan PC wearing a pink leotard? I assume that you would be consistent and maintain that "nobody is forcing you to make those checks" with that as well? Um, you are aware this is a forum, no? So, yes, I will be venturing opinions about the game if I feel like it, negative and positive both. (Probably positive if the dialogue checks go more in this direction). I was unaware this was the "Accept everything Obsidian does without criticism/agree with Achilless" echo chamber. *Edit* A bunch of edits to get the quoting and spacing right.
  7. *looks at post you’re replying to* Err... Not sure you picked this up, but there are multiple stats being emphasized there. And you do occasionally see Might show up. Unfortunately those options are typically boring, so I don’t lose sleep over them. Oh and that build is very much viable. Where did I say it wasn't viable? My current guy off the top of my head is like Might 13, Con 10-11, Dex 10-11, Per 14ish, Intellect 16, Resolve 15 or something like that. I'm not on my home PC so I can't get him up to view exact stats. He's *fine.* I am beating the game with him. He's also substantively less effective than he could be. Also, are you denying that Resolve doesn't enjoy a clear advantage especially in advantageous quest resolution? This is like borderline axiomatic. If you haven't noticed it, I don't know what to tell you. Also, how is "occasionally" seeing "boring" Might options show up not clearly inferior to "occasionally" seeing *interesting* Might options show up, which is what I'm asking for?
  8. @Yenkaz The amount of meta-gaming that requires though. Basically, what I'm getting at is that I wish there was less of this "Egads! My resolve is too low and so I must reload and equip the Boots of Wondrous Willpower +3 and run back to that village 2 days away and sleep in the Heavenly Hayloft of +2 Resolve and try again!" This is just...inane. There are instances where stuff like this can make sense. I'm reminded of that drinking game in the tavern in NWN based on constitution where it's *obvious* that you are about to get into a drinking competition so you can go cast Bear's Endurance of yourself or whatever. I don't want my choices to be limited to 1. dump points in Resolve for characters that don't need it or 2. metagame or 3. Suck at dialogue generally When a scenario with much more roleplaying potential is available of 1. Chose from various conversation boosting stats to be good at a non trivial number of conversations without sacrificing fighting ability or 2. Chose to boost conversation stats generally so you are good at dialogue generally with the consequence of being less good at fighting
  9. I do. What precisely is the problem with there being *more* variety of dialogue checks though? As is, Resolve kinda works like Persuade in that it is frequently a "get out of jail free/magically get the best option by sheer will" card. Why can't *all* stats do that *sometimes* and no single stat have an overwhelming advantage there? Why can't there be various valid ways to build a viable conversationalist as well as a combatant?
  10. My main issue with resolve is how much it mattered in dialogue, but how otherwise generally useless/not necessary it was. I felt like dialogue checks overwhelmingly favored Resolve, Perception, and Intellect in that order, which meant you had to sacrifice necessary proficiency for most melee characters if you wanted to be decent at conversations. It felt like I had a binary smart puny guy/big dumb beefy guy choice that was disappointingly constraining. That and a lot of the fighter type dialogue checks like Might tended to be overwhelmingly Intimidate jerkish type responses. This would be just as easily fixed by resolving issues with the dialogue system as with the attribute system itself though. Just include more non-jerk Might/Dex/Con checks so I feel like my big beefy guy can do something else besides club xaurips over the head and shake down peasants for their last coppers.
  11. True. I said "party optimization" but I more meant party micromanagement as I wasn't even really thinking of designing your own party. I tend to forget this is even an option because I have 0 interest in doing so in an RPG that has party members with characters and dialogue and quests and whatnot. Though you do still get to build said party members however you like aside from their class and attributes. And given the amount of attribute boosting items, resting bonuses, and whatnot, you can kinda get most of their combat stats to whatever you need/want them to be with the right approach to micromanagement. Some examples of what precisely I mean by "arbitrary cheapness": The over the top (by both limiting camping supplies *and* making it impossible to cast spells before combat) and yet still ineffectual way they went about trying to prevent rest spamming, which had a really simple solution that worked even back in Ye Olde Infinity Engine Days: player discipline. If you think rest spamming makes the game feel cheap and non-challenging then *gasp* just don't rest spam. Considering none of the fights in PoE or the old Infinity Engine games were balanced around the assumption that the player *must* rest after every single encounter, the only thing compelling players to rest incessantly is lack of self control. And even if they do opt for this constraint there is 0 need to employ both of them. If you limit resting, there is 0 need to constrain buffing spells to combat because if I can't rest spam, I'm not going to spam haste and defensive harmony and such before every single fight with trash mobs. I'm going to save them for the mini boss when they matter. It also means that it removes any practical benefit of scouting ahead. What precisely is the point of scouting ahead to learn the next room is full of vampires if I can't cast negative energy protection and chaotic commands on my front line guys to prep for the fight but am forced to wait until we run in like a bunch of idiots and half of them get dominated or level drained waiting for my slowass caster as they get spammed by instantaneous innate abilities? Or attempts to prevent fog of war abuse by constraining rest spamming *and* marking AoE for most offensive sells pitifully small even with high intellect *and* making it impossible to cast them outside combat when any one of those 3 would have done the trick. (Not to mention that this ceased being a problem even in the later Infinity Engine games because they just fixed the previously dumb AI to come attack you even if you were dealing them damage in fog of war with cloudkill or whatever). Or multiple others. I could give a big list of precisely what I meant by "arbitrary cheapness" in POE but it seems counterproductive for multiple reasons including the general trollish, baity nature of this thread and the fact that most of those issues are apparently being addressed in PoED so it would just be kicking a dead horse.
  12. I am replaying PoE right now in anticipation of PoED and figured I would actually bother to get on the forums and look up updates for it as I haven't followed development closely on this one. I was literally just complaining to my SO last night about some of the arbitraryass cheapness of the POE combat system which was the main thing that kept me from enjoying the game as much as the old Infinity Engine games. I told him that like 60% of the point seemed to be so that certain types could brag about how many character build spreadsheets they had and how many ledgers full of party optimization calculations they had run through. And that I played BG1 as a 12 year old girl and it was my first ever computer game and I still managed it just fine and that I thought that would be impossible for me to do with PoE at that age. Etc. Etc. Then I find out today to my pleasant surprise that apparently most of the arbitrary rubbish is being removed in favor of something that doesn't require a Masters degree to achieve baseline competency at and this comedic ragefest topic is at the top. I got some good laughs as it literally just gives evidence to my point. Thanks especially for this quote "I actually liked sacrificing what obsidian though my primary stat should be (might) to make my own unique char, which 1 man solo'd Path of the damned btw, and not in that ****ty chicken **** rogue way either." I will definitely be showing him that when I get home. Disclaimer: This is not a disparagement of anybody who like challenging gameplay, tactical combat, building optimizations or whatever. I like that stuff a lot too or I wouldn't be here. It's rather a disparagement of people who want these games to be as inaccessible, esoteric, and unfriendly as possible so they can feel superior to everybody else when they beat them.
  13. The underlying problem to me is that the game is simultaneously trying to tug nostalgia strings and be avant-garde and it clashed. Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale are *fun* but not particularly philosophically deep. A lot of RPG devs seems to principally want to be philosophically deep rather than fun anymore. They want to *say* something instead of wanting to let players *do* things. Basically, I think the writers are more frequently thinking in terms of what is fun to write than they are in terms of what is fun to *play.* This is why Skyrim is so dang fun. Granted it's thematically emptier than even I would like, but it's whole design premise is around "is this enjoyable" and not "is this challenging/thought-provoking/meaningful, etc." and it shows.
  14. This is sort of my point though. With this definition there is no difference between fantasy and really improbable sci-fi. I'm no physicist but most everything I've read suggests time travel (other than the illusion of time travel by someone flying in circles around a black hole to "progress" time really quickly from their own perspective) is impossible. Or the "wantum mechanics" of Star Trek. What this stuff is doing is taking a different "bubble" in the multiverse and saying "okay, laws and physics and chemistry are different in this bubble." This is what Paolini does in the Eragon books. Magic is just a sort of chemical and physical phenomenon that naturally occurs in some other bubble out there. It's just wantum mechanics with a medieval flair. Fantasy very frequently isn't just interested in looking at another hypothetical bubble in the multiverse with different physical laws. It wants to deal with the question "what is beyond physical laws and what would humans do in the face of it." That's why Chosen One stories are so common in fantasy. Fate just *is.* It's not made of molecules or energy. What's interesting is how humans emotionally respond in the immutable face of it. Sure, this can get hackneyed from overuse and predictability, but the reusing of themes and tropes is a whole other discussion and something that occurs not just in fantasy but in art generally. Certainly the sense of imaginative escapism persists throughout all of these scenarios but if that is the only consequential defining attribute you might as well just lump sum "speculative fiction" and not bother going any deeper. As to explicable and scientifically explicable being basically the same, I would just say: This is a basic axiomatic understanding of practical atheism/skepticism/positivism/whatever you want to call it. It is the fundamental impasse that atheists have with theists and why most conversations between them don't produce anything of substance. Atheists (again most not all) believe in the axioms that reality = scientifically definable processes, and knowledge = information derived from empiricism. Theists (again most) believe the axioms that reality = scientifically definable processes *and* assorted transcendent ones, and that knowledge = information derived from empiricism *and* information derived from divine inspiration, one's divinely gifted "conscience," et al. Being axiomatic, neither is provable though I'm not really interested in getting into some big theological argument here. What I think you are dealing with is people projecting their preferred axioms into their fiction, which is natural enough. I'm interested in looking at both (as an agnostic theist that's probably my own bias showing as well). Science Fiction is that branch of speculative fiction that starts with the skeptic's axioms and builds imaginatively on top of it. Fantasy is that branch of speculative fiction that starts with the theist's axioms and builds imaginatively on it. These can overlap in tropes and themes, but inasmuch as that fundamental difference is eroded I think they cease to be different genres. *To clarify I don't think fantasy has to be explicitly theistic, but I do think it has to be explicitly supernatural in the way that gods are commonly understood to be supernatural.
  15. Explicable and scientifically explicable aren't the same thing. I'm not saying magic in fantasy should be completely inexplicable, random, and orderless. I'm saying it shouldn't be definable in scientific terms. Consider something like Aphrodite's creation story (arising from the severed testicles of Uranus that were thrown into the sea). This is an explanation. It even explains why she is a carnal goddess. It also makes 0 scientific sense which is why it's a myth and not a history. For me the definition of fantasy is "has magic in it" or perhaps more broadly "has supernatural stuff in it." It comes down to whether you think magic is well, magical, or is just Clarke's idea that "magic is just science we don't understand yet." I think if it is not in fact magical, then it's just particularly improbable science fiction. I'm not going to die on a hill defending this definition because obviously defining genres is inherently subjective and murky. There are assorted outliers and exceptions. (One that comes to mind is the Temeraire series which I commonly call fantasy but is literally 100% exactly like our world except it happens to have non-magical dragons in it. But you can also argue that this is really just alternate history or historical drama with some fantasy tropes. You could make the dragons sapient dinosaurs that never went extinct and that would immediately render the "fantasy" inert and make it generic alternate history or improbable sci-fi). You can explore atheism in fantasy in the sense that belief/disbelief in various things is something that can be explored in *any* genre. But atheism is specifically a lack of belief in Gods and (usually but not always) by extension a disbelief in the supernatural. Atheists who believe in angels or ghosts or nature spirits may very well exist, but I've never met any. Disbelieving in things that demonstrably exist (as magical things do in 99% of fantasy worlds) would be really fringe: the equivalent of exploring people in our world who think the moon landing was fake. It's a real phenomenon and might be an interesting story, but wouldn't really get into the heart of the world much. Myth and later modern fantasy are choked with themes of basically what humans should do with the numinous. I think fantasy has a structural definition only: "has magic" but if it has to have a thematic definition I would argue that this is it: "dealing with a demonstrable numinous." To force this question, the numinous demonstrably exists in both myth and the vast majority of fantasy. PoE certainly explores this theme but simultaneously seeks to completely corral it by making sure that everything "supernatural" remains well within the bounds of the scientifically explainable (assuming you had the right knowledge and tools). The very science of "animancy" reinforces this point. It's basically just treating souls and gods like FTL travel or time travel. Some of the less well written stuff like this just comes off to me as "I like how magic makes me feel but I don't like that it's magic making me feel that way." PoE doesn't feel like that to me, but it does come off rather clinical and moderately didactic.
  16. Well, all supernatural things in fantasy are essentially "natural" because they occur organically and demonstrably exist, unlike, say, miracles or ghosts in our world. The difference is that they are inherently inscrutable in a way that other physical processes are not. So if you are trying to set up all the magic in your world as natural processes that can eventually be measured from the you have already failed. Imagine if an actually existing God in our universe performed verifiable miracles. You could confirm their occurrence by simple observation by millions of people (say, for the sake of argument this includes observation by lots of people otherwise inclined to skepticism). They are commonplace enough that they are taken for granted. However, you still can't scientifically measure or define the miracles because God is breaking the laws of physics and chemistry to create them. This is in fact what makes them miracles. There will be boundaries and consistency such as: he never raises people from the dead, he only *sometimes* cures the sick but people don't understand precisely what criterion he uses. It isn't just the science problem of "we don't know how subatomic particles work yet because we don't know all the math or have instruments powerful enough to measure it well." It is that these processes defy scientific measurement because something about them transcends physical laws. Quantum mechanics is just science we don't understand yet. The miracles would be "magic." This is why it's so hard to remove all traces of the divine from fantasy and for it to remain fantasy and why I think atheism is a weird theme to explore in it. Examples of what I'm talking about are like wandcraft in Harry Potter where Dumbledore explains wands are inherently mysterious and even people like Ollivander don't completely understand them. Or when some enterprising fan presented George R. R. Martin with an elaborate scientific theory about how the seasons worked in ASoIaF to be met with a response that was basically "Dude, it's magical." Even Pullman understood this when he wrote His Dark Materials and created symbolic mystery and sanctity surrounding human souls (daemons) themselves. Daemons are mysterious and are supposed to be inviolate which is what makes severing children from their daemons so monstrous. Or a quote from the master himself Tolkien "The significance of a myth is not easily to be pinned on paper by analytical reasoning. It is at its best when it is presented by a poet who feels rather than makes explicit what his theme portends; who presents it incarnate in the world of history and geography, as our poet has done. Its defender is thus at a disadvantage: unless he is careful, and speaks in parables, he will kill what he is studying by vivisection, and he will be left with a formal or mechanical allegory, and what is more, probably with one that will not work. For myth is alive at once and in all its parts, and dies before it can be dissected."
  17. Pallegina. She seemed to serve no purpose other than to remind people that this bird people race existed. Oh yea, and some trade stuff.
  18. My second character was basically the human (or elven) equivalent of a "blah." I was a little skeptical of this approach but it turned out to be tremendously fun to play. He was the driest, least passionate person around but it was fun to respond to earth-shattering revelations or assorted villain rantings with basically "yep" or "nope." It must be infuriating to anybody talking to him. He was a ranger so I think when asked about his past his response was something like "I shot some deer. I skinned some rabbits. I ate some jerky. You know how it goes."
  19. I've addressed this in another thread where I basically said I wished we had a wider range of options available to respond to the revelation other than "No, my world is shattered!" and "How dare they lie to me! *Rage fist at sky*" I would have been happy if they had simply provided me with that outlet to respond in a more nuanced way. It's the fact that they didn't allow this and not the revelation itself that made the end come off as quite didactic to me. I felt like they were trying to coach my reaction to the revelation. I also personally think atheism is a weird theme to explore in fantasy. If you are trying to science up magic, you are basically turning fantasy into sci-fi. Magic just *is* and that's what makes fantasy fantasy. It should have boundaries and consistency, but at the point you can put it in a beaker and precisely measure it and define its nature you are now just dealing with chemistry or physics and therefore science fiction and not fantasy. There is a reason why many of modern fantasy's founding members (Tolkien, Lewis, George McDonald, etc.) chose fantasy instead of say, historical drama or mysteries, and religion and spirituality are a key component of it. However, as this is super in vogue in fantasy right now and I've read/played/seen stories that are good despite its inclusion, I'm willing to ignore if it I'm just allowed a nuanced response to it. I don't really need more Chronicles of Narnia, but I also don't really need more His Dark Materials, especially in an RPG which is supposed to be about choices.
  20. I would personally stick "with extrahuman means" and probably "to an extremely large degree" on the end of that definition. That would rule out Barack Obama but not necessarily Satan (who is in fact worshiped as an idea at least) and Saruman (who in LotR lore is something very like a fallen angel). I just don't think "extrahuman" must mean "supernatural." Many pantheistic and polytheistic gods are arguably not supernatural either because they operate within or as agents of nature and natural processes. In those belief systems things like Hamadryads are not supernatural. They are as much a natural facet of the forest as moss and trees. There are in fact fewer belief systems that believe that gods are above or beyond the world - completely transcendent - as there are ones that believe they are part of it.
  21. Um, how are they not gods by that definition I just provided? You can even chop off that last part if that's too general (I sort of agree it is). This would rule out C-3PO but it doesn't rule out the Engwithan gods. Why isn't that a valid definition? That's kind of my point. You saying, but they aren't *gods* ultimately has no more authority than me saying but they *are* gods. This is precisely why where they came from in the grand scheme of things is fairly irrelevant to its actual impact on human behaviors. Humans will carry on being humans.
  22. Ah okay. Her present state is clearly not a respite from punishment though. She was caught and handed over to be experimented on by an animancer and she loathes her current form. I'd hardly call that getting away Scott free.
  23. Not really. Ignosticism is a whole strain of thought that basically centers on how pointless questions about God are because God is basically a nonsense word that can mean whatever you want it to mean. I think of them as gods because I have a definition of gods that they can fit into perfectly nicely. Heck, the plain Jane MerriamWebster definition will suffice: "a spirit or being that has great power, strength, knowledge, etc., and that can affect nature and the lives of people : one of various spirits or beings worshipped in some religions" There's no question that revealing they were created by Engwithans would produce a ton of debate about their nature. The question is whether these debates would be fundamentally different from all the existential and ideological quagmires people previously got themselves into when they thought the gods just materialized out of the ether. I don't think they would be. I mean believing the gods just *were* didn't stop people from killing the avatar of Eothas. Believing the gods just *were* did not stop the Engwithans or Iovara from digging around to find the truth. It also didn't stop at least two prominent orders of druids from going "Eh, who needs gods anyway?" Heck, Durance resolves to destroy Magran before it was revealed what she really was for the sleight of betraying him. He could care less if she was birthed from the chaos before time began or whatever.
  24. Visuals: 10/10 This is a beautiful game. Visuals aren't even something I was looking for in an isometric RPG like this, but they just nailed it. Every frame looks sculpted. World-building/lore: 9.5/10 I think Obsidian did a bang-up job creating a very interesting universe with believable and likable races, history, and geography. There were a few points of silliness. Fampyrs? Seriously? Or, xaurips are clearly kobolds. Just call it what it is. Characters: 8.5/10 I didn't think there were enough companions though the expansion pack helped with this a lot. I also felt some of the companions story-lines were very strong compared to others because they progressed in layers and had major tie-in to the main plot (Durance, Eder, Aloth). Some were much weaker because they felt more like flipping a switch and problem solved (Devil of Caroc, Pallegina, Kana) and thus no more story reason to keep this character with me anymore. Story/Roleplaying: 8.0/10 Solid enough story that wasn't amazing. I thought the game gave me a lot of opportunity to shape my character's motives and personality which was nice. However, the choices didn't seem to matter that much. Only rarely did people seem to react to me that differently based on my choices. Combat: 6.5/10 This was the game's greatest weak point to me. It has major balance issues with some fights being comically, ludicrously overpowered (Alpine Dragon, Raedric) and others being way too simple or easy (Adra Dragon, final boss) with no apparent rhyme or reason as to why this is the case. I also completely hated that you couldn't buff before fights. I understand what they were going for here - trying to reduce buff spamming, but I think this problem was already solved by putting limitations on how much you can rest. I'm not going to abuse buffs when I will run out of spells if I overuse them. I'm going to save them for when I really need them. Frequently this would get me stuck in a stupid loop of enemies getting off special attacks that have pretty much 0 casting time (domination, petrify, horror, whatever) before I could cast the appropriate spell to counter. Durance tries to cast Prayer against treachery. Fampyrs dominate half of party before he's done. Reload. Repeat. Reload. Repeat. To me it removes any desire to scout ahead. What's the point of knowing there is a dragon in the next room if I can do 0 to prepare for it? This basically removed all desire for me to really use spells. I just turned everybody into standard damage dealers and used intermittent CC and healing. I did not rely on spells for strategy at all and I did a lot in the Infinity Engine games. I did think the CC was great, however. It never stopped being useful even against high level enemies, which was always a nuisance in the Infinity Engine games when fighting dragons or golems or the like. It's very gratifying to be able to petrify a dragon if I want to. I also thought the over-dependence on accuracy severely limited what kinds of builds you could have. Would have liked for chance to hit to be dictated by a greater variety of class based factors so various builds are more versatile. Overall: 8.5-9/10. It just needs some fine tuning but overall I enjoyed it more than I got annoyed by it.
  25. She is arguably already being punished for what she did. Plus, does it ever state she killed innocent parties? I can't remember a place where it said she murdered whole families. If she was just killing murderers from Cold Morn - fair game.
  • Create New...