Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Religious beliefs aside, the ability to complete the game without magic is an interesting concept.

I'd like the game to be that versatile, but not without some difficulty.

Obviously there will be times when magic users shine, but as they stated they don't want to prevent a class from completing a task.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Different professions... could being a silent Monk who travels the land as a self-sufficient peddler be a sort of profession? Leading towards the greater path, from a different angle than the "Got to take everyone out to progress". The Fighter defeats the King, whilst the Monk mostly diplomatically+stealth gets through and heals the Kings wounds~ or goes all Avatar mode only at bosses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Religious beliefs aside, the ability to complete the game without magic is an interesting concept.

I'd like the game to be that versatile, but not without some difficulty.

Obviously there will be times when magic users shine, but as they stated they don't want to prevent a class from completing a task.

 

I'm still assuming there's a good likelihood of any given class having access to some kind of "soul" skills for use in and out of combat which are magic-like. i.e. A monk's chi/ki/chakra/prana, whatever you want to call it.

Edited by AGX-17
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Different professions... could being a silent Monk who travels the land as a self-sufficient peddler be a sort of profession? Leading towards the greater path, from a different angle than the "Got to take everyone out to progress". The Fighter defeats the King, whilst the Monk mostly diplomatically+stealth gets through and heals the Kings wounds~ or goes all Avatar mode only at bosses.

Surely the Avatar was more of a Paladin than a monk?

 

Incidentally friar, the Ultima series (from number 4 onwards) with its focus on virtues stemming from bell, book and candle might be something to consider playing. Your senior brethren might be amenable to the moral lessons suugested in those games, and the protagonist pursuing a path of relentless self improvement. They might also get a chuckle from the fellowship presented in game 7, with its scientology parallels.

  • Like 1

Quite an experience to live in misery isn't it? That's what it is to be married with children.

I've seen things you people can't even imagine. Pearly Kings glittering on the Elephant and Castle, Morris Men dancing 'til the last light of midsummer. I watched Druid fires burning in the ruins of Stonehenge, and Yorkshiremen gurning for prizes. All these things will be lost in time, like alopecia on a skinhead. Time for tiffin.

 

Tea for the teapot!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm curious as to how you can say that the use of magic is inherently diabolical but running around hacking and slashing people into bloody pieces isn't?

 

Surely it's in the desired result rather then the act itself? If someone were to use magic for good such as to heal a sick child/cure a fellow of a undeserved curse or banish a devil from this plane?

 

I've not looked into your place of worship or any thing but the bible generally refers to magic, what 15 times? None to say it's specifically bad - If I remember rightly and I've not exactly followed my faith for many many years now but in Acts Simon was a magician who was baptised and did great things.

Edited by Juneau

Juneau & Alphecca Daley currently tearing up Tyria.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely it's in the desired result rather then the act itself?

Philosophy 101. Some philosophies believe it's the act itself which is moral or not. (Categorical thinking)

Other philosophies believe it's the world that results from the act which determines it is good or evil (Consequentialist thinking)

Most religions I know of fall into the Categorical thinking category. (I think) Which is what allows for fundamentalism.

Edited by JFSOCC

Remember: Argue the point, not the person. Remain polite and constructive. Friendly forums have friendly debate. There's no shame in being wrong. If you don't have something to add, don't post for the sake of it. And don't be afraid to post thoughts you are uncertain about, that's what discussion is for.
---
Pet threads, everyone has them. I love imagining Gods, Monsters, Factions and Weapons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Surely it's in the desired result rather then the act itself?

Philosophy 101. Some philosophies believe it's the act itself which is moral or not. (Categorical thinking)

Other philosophies believe it's the world that results from the act which determines it is good or evil (Consequentialist thinking)

Most religions I know of fall into the Categorical thinking category. (I think) Which is what allows for fundamentalism.

 

Both leave a lot of room for justifying atrocities, and honestly, if someone wants to commit one they'll take whatever justification they can get.  To pick an example, if someone killed 99% of the humans on earth, though obviously appalling for humans, could be considered to be vastly beneficial for the world itself, so a consequentialist by your definition could justify global genocide under that philosophy quite easily.  

 

As in most things, if you look at everything involved in a choice not just the choice or just the reprocussions then a choice is more morally informed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In short, I find that people, virtually regardless of their philosophy, can find ways to justify almost any act. It's both a source of great endurance and a fatal flaw in our character. But at least it makes for interesting drama.

  • Like 1

"It has just been discovered that research causes cancer in rats."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not have a moral objection to using magic in games, but only an objection based on my personal efficiency in using spell-casters.  I don’t think I will have a problem with “soul-generated powers” either, unless they are complicated to use.

 

I used the phrase “real magic” for convenience sake, since the topic was “in-game spells” commonly referred to as magic.  What is referred to as magic in games corresponds to  preternatural activity in real life—that is, an activity whose cause is partially (with the addition of material substances) or fully outside the natural material order.  Other common terms are “supernatural” or “miraculous.” 

 

Only a being that is not restricted by this material world’s natural laws is capable of producing preternatural activity.  (Whether one believes in their existence or not is another matter, I am only giving the principles).  As far as the Church can determine, the only such beings are God himself and the pure spiritual beings he created: angels (both good and those who fell from grace).  Those are the only two sources—although the fallen angels (demons) try to convince their victims that they are some kind of “neutral” spirit or anything other than a demon (for obvious reasons).  As a priest, I know of one exorcism personally where this is exactly what the victim was told and it was extremely difficult and time-consuming to convince the poor woman of the reality of her situation.  After almost 2 years of counseling and a trip to the exorcist (who did not actually use the rite) she was finally freed.

 

Because the good angels desire only what God desires, they do not act independently from him, and so their activity can be considered as an extension of God’s activity for the sake of simplicity.  Therefore, such activity can never contradict God’s will in any way (unless one holds that God need not be perfect).

 

By the process of elimination, if any preternatural activity can be shown to contradict God’s laws or revealed truths, the activity is demonic—including cases where some material good results (as in so-called “white magic”).  Demons have a vast experience in how to spiritually ruin people, and they are not against making certain concessions to “the good” (especially a mere material good) for the sake of a greater spiritual gain for themselves later in the course of someone’s life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a priest,...

 

First you claim to be a monk, then a priest.  To which were you called?  Methinks I smell a rat...

http://cbrrescue.org/

 

Go afield with a good attitude, with respect for the wildlife you hunt and for the forests and fields in which you walk. Immerse yourself in the outdoors experience. It will cleanse your soul and make you a better person.----Fred Bear

 

http://michigansaf.org/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am having trouble seeing how you could have trouble remembering spell effects, and have to look them up, in the context of modern PC RPGs where most effects are explained right on screen, or with a pop-up on mouse over. Even, for example, the BG series had spell effects described on the spells in the game, no time wasted and no need to go out of your way to look them up. Still, if you don't want to use magic, don't. Oh well. If you really want to do that you'll find a way to make it work. If your time is so limited play nothing is forcing you to play for longer than you need, and magic certainly isn't forcing you to. If anything magic spells up progress through most RPGs I can think of.

To be fair, dispel, remove magic, secret word, spell thrust, breach, pierce magic, true sight, warding whip, ruby ray, pierce shield, and spellstrike are all Things That Exist in BG2. And while the game includes tooltips to help you tell what is what, it is pretty unintuitive and can be very irritating for the unitiated, so I can't in the least blame a person for wanting to avoid the whole thing. Which will probably be feasible in PE, albeit not ideal, as they've said that they want to avoid combat scenarios with "must use X to win" encounters (e.g., "monster immune to all weapons below +3").

  • Like 1
jcod0.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only a being that is not restricted by this material world’s natural laws is capable of producing preternatural activity.

the world where this game takes place is not our world though.

Edited by JFSOCC

Remember: Argue the point, not the person. Remain polite and constructive. Friendly forums have friendly debate. There's no shame in being wrong. If you don't have something to add, don't post for the sake of it. And don't be afraid to post thoughts you are uncertain about, that's what discussion is for.
---
Pet threads, everyone has them. I love imagining Gods, Monsters, Factions and Weapons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I am having trouble seeing how you could have trouble remembering spell effects, and have to look them up, in the context of modern PC RPGs where most effects are explained right on screen, or with a pop-up on mouse over. Even, for example, the BG series had spell effects described on the spells in the game, no time wasted and no need to go out of your way to look them up. Still, if you don't want to use magic, don't. Oh well. If you really want to do that you'll find a way to make it work. If your time is so limited play nothing is forcing you to play for longer than you need, and magic certainly isn't forcing you to. If anything magic spells up progress through most RPGs I can think of.

To be fair, dispel, remove magic, secret word, spell thrust, breach, pierce magic, true sight, warding whip, ruby ray, pierce shield, and spellstrike are all Things That Exist in BG2. And while the game includes tooltips to help you tell what is what, it is pretty unintuitive and can be very irritating for the unitiated, so I can't in the least blame a person for wanting to avoid the whole thing. Which will probably be feasible in PE, albeit not ideal, as they've said that they want to avoid combat scenarios with "must use X to win" encounters (e.g., "monster immune to all weapons below +3").

Remove magic is a combat version of dispel, it leaves the buffs alone. Ruby ray removes one protection spell of any level. Spellstrike removes them all. Secret word as a less potent version of the ruby ray. Spells thrust is the same to spell strike. Breach removes all combat protection buffs from an enemy. Pierce magic is secret word plus lowering spell resistance. True sight dispels invisibility and illusions each turn on enemies only. Don't remember about warding whip, but it was messed up somehow and, hence, useless. Pierce shield is improved pierce magic.

 

You also forgot to mention greater malison, which lowered saving throws, and lower resistance, which did exactly what it says on the tin. Loading them together with pierce magic into a spell trigger made for a blast against spell casters. Also spell shield saved you from a single protection-breaching spell, including spellstrike.There were also immunity spheres, spell-turning and spell-absorbing abjuration spells, all of which were nicely balanced in my opinion.

 

That's just from the top of my head. Before you ask, I have a life. Last time I played BG2 was in 2002. Also I'm no big fan of D&D. I am more into WoD when it comes to roleplaying. So either I have a phenomenal memory (which I don't) or such a spell layout is pretty easy to memorize. It is also much more tactical than the dumbed-down version from NWN2, where spells were so boring and repetitive I started to think that developers were strictly prohibited from using any imagination.

Edited by Heresiarch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

No offense, but I don't see a particular need to design the game in order not to offend the religious beliefs of one person. There are other games out there from which to choose. Try Wasteland 2 or such.

 

P.S. The moral panic over D&D permanently burned out my interest in placating the religious groups over gaming. If we let this one slip through, then more demands are sure to follow. Just... no.

He's not asking that all spells be removed, hes asking that the game be completable without them, which it probably will be anyway.

 

You shouldn't treat every religious person as if they are identical zombies - far from it - and while there are certainly obnoxious people out there, there are plenty of reasonable people out there who are religious and willing to let others get on with their lives.  It's just that the idiots who cry witchhunt if they see someone reading Harry Potter on the bus are just a lot more vocal than everyone else.  The only way that you can stop this being an issue is to have some dialogue with religion - not the extremists of course, but if a regular people are engaged, see something for what it is then it leaves the extremists without a leg to stand on.  

 

I don't believe I did treat this person as an identical zombie; I am arguing that the game shouldn't be designed around one player's moral principles. Get it? I'm disagreeing with the message, rather than the messenger.

Sorry about the way I phrased that, I wasn't really addressing that at you so much as using that as a springboard to try and pre-empt any full on religion-bashing - I've seen quite a lot of Gamers vs Religions with each being openly hostile to the other in a way that just makes matters worse.  As for the around one players principles, it depends on context, and what you mean by one player.

 

To take the game "Smite" that there was a bit of an issue around last year, where there was an issue of it including Hindu Gods and Goddesses in an arena battle game alongside Greek, Viking and Egyptian deities.  I'm not religious in the slightest but you could see that was going to offend people from a mile off and to me if nothing else ts good manners not to include a being or beings that approximatly ONE BILLION people consider to be real in a beat-em-up.   What should have happened was the company should have gone "Oh, we're dreadfully sorry, we didn't really think it through properly, we shall remove them immediatly", but what happened in stead was effectively numerous mssage boards of idiot gamers saying effectively "suck on that organised religion", with the actual company replying basically that they were going to carry on adding more Gods.

 

Which isn't to say that religion shouldn't be allowed in games, far from it, games are as a valid a medium to say what they like as books or film or whatever, but there is a difference between considered inclusion of something, even in such a way as if you were to make a game that specifically critiqued a certain religion, to just going "hey that guys deity looks cool, lets stick them in this fighting game so they can get beaten up!".  We live in a very diverse world and the sooner people work out that other people are different to themselves and the sooner people stop doing things which will offend others because they didn't think about it and it seems fun the happier everyone will be.

 

Equally though there are some cases where Religious people also need to look at things in perspective: I read something somewhere abotu a guy who returned Marvel: Ultimate Alliance to a shop because you had to find 5 candles to form a Pentagram to get through Mepihsto (the Devil Analogues) Realm.  Where its something like that and they aren't familiar enough with their own religion to know that the pentagram was in the past a Christian symbol, and the context of the game where you had just killed hundreds of demons to get these candles, you can fairly safely assume that Captain America isn't a secret demon worshipper.

 

In the case of the thread, yes it may one man's oppinion here, but as we already know it's possible to solo the game this isn't even an issue.  In general, if a game doesn't have a point to make and it's a minor thing to change (or as in this case, not a thing at all), why not fix things to make more people feel comfortable playing your game, and help lessen the bad blood between religion and games?

 

I began reading your post, thinking I would agree with your message, as many here is unnecceseraly hostile to the question of the OP, which is pretty innocent. But reading on, I understand pretty quickly that we don't agree after all. When it comes to works of art, wether as books, paintings, sculptures, movies, music or even computer games, I will not condone any compromise to the artistic vision. Religious or philosophical ideas should not be able to bend or change the art, except if that was the artists wish of course. Neither would I condone someone feeling compelled to change their work based on irreligious wants, nor political ones, so this goes all ways for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First you claim to be a monk, then a priest.  To which were you called?  Methinks I smell a rat...

 

His abbey checks out. They're Premontrian Canons Regular. Canons are kind of like priests who live in a monastic order, so it's quite possible for a canon to refer to himself either as a priest or a monk in good faith. It's a slightly unusual arrangement though as in most orders it's one or the other, as I understand it anyway.

  • Like 1

I have a project. It's a tabletop RPG. It's free. It's a work in progress. Find it here: www.brikoleur.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're both if I remember my religion correctly ^.

 

Though you still avoided the question of how can magic be inherently evil but using weapons to do harm not.

 

And, as I said, Acts... Simon... the magician who was baptised and did good.

Juneau & Alphecca Daley currently tearing up Tyria.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're both if I remember my religion correctly ^.

 

Though you still avoided the question of how can magic be inherently evil but using weapons to do harm not.

 

And, as I said, Acts... Simon... the magician who was baptised and did good.

 

Easily, weapon was made by man, magic is product of devil and thus evil. Still I would be interested how frgodfrey or his churche look on divine magic? (miracles or magic from god). How can someone decide if effect of magic is from God or from Satan?

I'm the enemy, 'cause I like to think, I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech, and freedom of choice. I'm the kinda guy that likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecue ribs with the side-order of gravy fries?" I want high cholesterol! I wanna eat bacon, and butter, and buckets of cheese, okay?! I wanna smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section! I wanna run naked through the street, with green Jell-O all over my body, reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly may feel the need to, okay, pal? I've SEEN the future. Do you know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiene"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

No offense, but I don't see a particular need to design the game in order not to offend the religious beliefs of one person. There are other games out there from which to choose. Try Wasteland 2 or such.

 

P.S. The moral panic over D&D permanently burned out my interest in placating the religious groups over gaming. If we let this one slip through, then more demands are sure to follow. Just... no.

He's not asking that all spells be removed, hes asking that the game be completable without them, which it probably will be anyway.

 

You shouldn't treat every religious person as if they are identical zombies - far from it - and while there are certainly obnoxious people out there, there are plenty of reasonable people out there who are religious and willing to let others get on with their lives.  It's just that the idiots who cry witchhunt if they see someone reading Harry Potter on the bus are just a lot more vocal than everyone else.  The only way that you can stop this being an issue is to have some dialogue with religion - not the extremists of course, but if a regular people are engaged, see something for what it is then it leaves the extremists without a leg to stand on.  

 

I don't believe I did treat this person as an identical zombie; I am arguing that the game shouldn't be designed around one player's moral principles. Get it? I'm disagreeing with the message, rather than the messenger.

Sorry about the way I phrased that, I wasn't really addressing that at you so much as using that as a springboard to try and pre-empt any full on religion-bashing - I've seen quite a lot of Gamers vs Religions with each being openly hostile to the other in a way that just makes matters worse.  As for the around one players principles, it depends on context, and what you mean by one player.

 

To take the game "Smite" that there was a bit of an issue around last year, where there was an issue of it including Hindu Gods and Goddesses in an arena battle game alongside Greek, Viking and Egyptian deities.  I'm not religious in the slightest but you could see that was going to offend people from a mile off and to me if nothing else ts good manners not to include a being or beings that approximatly ONE BILLION people consider to be real in a beat-em-up.   What should have happened was the company should have gone "Oh, we're dreadfully sorry, we didn't really think it through properly, we shall remove them immediatly", but what happened in stead was effectively numerous mssage boards of idiot gamers saying effectively "suck on that organised religion", with the actual company replying basically that they were going to carry on adding more Gods.

 

Which isn't to say that religion shouldn't be allowed in games, far from it, games are as a valid a medium to say what they like as books or film or whatever, but there is a difference between considered inclusion of something, even in such a way as if you were to make a game that specifically critiqued a certain religion, to just going "hey that guys deity looks cool, lets stick them in this fighting game so they can get beaten up!".  We live in a very diverse world and the sooner people work out that other people are different to themselves and the sooner people stop doing things which will offend others because they didn't think about it and it seems fun the happier everyone will be.

 

Equally though there are some cases where Religious people also need to look at things in perspective: I read something somewhere abotu a guy who returned Marvel: Ultimate Alliance to a shop because you had to find 5 candles to form a Pentagram to get through Mepihsto (the Devil Analogues) Realm.  Where its something like that and they aren't familiar enough with their own religion to know that the pentagram was in the past a Christian symbol, and the context of the game where you had just killed hundreds of demons to get these candles, you can fairly safely assume that Captain America isn't a secret demon worshipper.

 

In the case of the thread, yes it may one man's oppinion here, but as we already know it's possible to solo the game this isn't even an issue.  In general, if a game doesn't have a point to make and it's a minor thing to change (or as in this case, not a thing at all), why not fix things to make more people feel comfortable playing your game, and help lessen the bad blood between religion and games?

 

I began reading your post, thinking I would agree with your message, as many here is unnecceseraly hostile to the question of the OP, which is pretty innocent. But reading on, I understand pretty quickly that we don't agree after all. When it comes to works of art, wether as books, paintings, sculptures, movies, music or even computer games, I will not condone any compromise to the artistic vision. Religious or philosophical ideas should not be able to bend or change the art, except if that was the artists wish of course. Neither would I condone someone feeling compelled to change their work based on irreligious wants, nor political ones, so this goes all ways for me.

 

I think the difference is I draw a line down the middle about what I think is good or not good practise.  The difference is purely, whether you actually have something to say with the art or not.  If an artist/writer/game dev/filmmaker has something to say about a religion or country or philosophy or political viewpoint then fine, they should be able to express themselves fully about it without fear of reprecussion and it can be judged on its own merits.  Conversely though, if you go and include "Sexy Kali" in a game purely because you felt like it, it just proves either a) you have failed to educate yourself sufficiently on the subject around which you are basing your creation, or b) you lack respect for other people who do not subscribe to your personal world viewpoint.

 

If nothing else (and as an artist myself) I strongly believe that we owe it to ourselves to be informed on any subject we choose to wade in on, and despite not being a Christian in the slightest, I do believe in a form of "Do unto others...", and being disrespectful/rude/inconsiderate to people should be saved for those who deserve it, not just thrown about at anyone without provocation and then justifying yourself with cries of free speech.  Sure free speech allows you to say anything you want, but it doesn't mean you aren't an arsehole when you say it. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

They're both if I remember my religion correctly ^.

 

Though you still avoided the question of how can magic be inherently evil but using weapons to do harm not.

 

And, as I said, Acts... Simon... the magician who was baptised and did good.

Easily, weapon was made by man, magic is product of devil and thus evil. Still I would be interested how frgodfrey or his churche look on divine magic? (miracles or magic from god). How can someone decide if effect of magic is from God or from Satan?

magic is product of devil and thus evil.... Really? So the miracles performed by Jesus through his spiritual powers from God isn't a form of magic? Or couldn't be classed as magic?

Juneau & Alphecca Daley currently tearing up Tyria.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

They're both if I remember my religion correctly ^.

 

Though you still avoided the question of how can magic be inherently evil but using weapons to do harm not.

 

And, as I said, Acts... Simon... the magician who was baptised and did good.

Easily, weapon was made by man, magic is product of devil and thus evil. Still I would be interested how frgodfrey or his churche look on divine magic? (miracles or magic from god). How can someone decide if effect of magic is from God or from Satan?

magic is product of devil and thus evil.... Really? So the miracles performed by Jesus through his spiritual powers from God isn't a form of magic? Or couldn't be classed as magic?

Did you even read my post? I asked a same question. And I fear I know the answear - Vatican. And yes, magic from God are miracles and thus ok, magic from any other source is diabolic and using it even for good reasons corupt soul of magician and attracting devils (thats what I think about christian viewpoint on magic)

I'm the enemy, 'cause I like to think, I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech, and freedom of choice. I'm the kinda guy that likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecue ribs with the side-order of gravy fries?" I want high cholesterol! I wanna eat bacon, and butter, and buckets of cheese, okay?! I wanna smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section! I wanna run naked through the street, with green Jell-O all over my body, reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly may feel the need to, okay, pal? I've SEEN the future. Do you know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiene"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sense some hostility in this thread.

 

I know religion is a hot topic, but it seems some people can't wait for an opportunity to do a little religion bashing.

  • Like 2

* YOU ARE A WRONGULARITY FROM WHICH NO RIGHT CAN ESCAPE! *

Chuck Norris was wrong once - He thought HE made a mistake!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hope you dont mean me. I dont have anything against christians (in the end I am babtized) or any particular religion. But its nice to have option to ask someone from that comunity (and with open mind so far) about games.

I'm the enemy, 'cause I like to think, I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech, and freedom of choice. I'm the kinda guy that likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecue ribs with the side-order of gravy fries?" I want high cholesterol! I wanna eat bacon, and butter, and buckets of cheese, okay?! I wanna smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section! I wanna run naked through the street, with green Jell-O all over my body, reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly may feel the need to, okay, pal? I've SEEN the future. Do you know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiene"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...