Jump to content

Welcome to Obsidian Forum Community
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

The Nuances of Evil


  • Please log in to reply
67 replies to this topic

#41
TrashMan

TrashMan

    Holy Avenger of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 1523 posts
  • Location:Nabeshins afro
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer

As for morally repugnant - the action remains as such regarless of logic. It doesn't make it "go away" and it shouldn't. Logic is not the pinnacle of everything.

That's only because we are still largely ruled by animalistic feelings we do not comprehend.....the problem in large is that our "feelings" are chemicals produced by the brain and given the proper motivation your body will react.

 


And thoughts are also a bio-chemical process....so your point?

 

Thse "aninmalistic feelings" are part of humanity and part of the world. Any worldview without them is limited - i'ts basicly not looking at the full picture. You may call it a whole different kind of ignorance.



#42
Darth Trethon

Darth Trethon

    Dark Lord of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 659 posts
  • Location:Beyonnd known space.
  • PSN Portable ID:DarthTrethon
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

 

As for morally repugnant - the action remains as such regarless of logic. It doesn't make it "go away" and it shouldn't. Logic is not the pinnacle of everything.

That's only because we are still largely ruled by animalistic feelings we do not comprehend.....the problem in large is that our "feelings" are chemicals produced by the brain and given the proper motivation your body will react.

 


And thoughts are also a bio-chemical process....so your point?

 

Thse "aninmalistic feelings" are part of humanity and part of the world. Any worldview without them is limited - i'ts basicly not looking at the full picture. You may call it a whole different kind of ignorance.

My point is that for as long as these feelings remain a mystery while they have a near total control of our lives the chaos and insanity will continue. Given the amount of violence and horrors in the world it's not inaccurate to say we are insane as a species....we are highly self destructive and we destroy our environment too. We need to gain understanding and control over our feelings....what we do with them next we'll find out when we get there.



#43
mcmanusaur

mcmanusaur

    (6) Magician

  • Members
  • 602 posts
  • Location:A moment in eternity.

So now that we've discussed meta-ethics, social ignorance, and the merits of feelings/emotions, where do we stand now with regard to the nuances of evil in Project Eternity?


Edited by mcmanusaur, 15 March 2013 - 07:39 AM.


#44
bojohnson82

bojohnson82

    (0) Nub

  • Initiates
  • 4 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

Some interesting posts (and some slightly disturbing ones). I think it's worth considering why evil occurs (in real life), and why there is more opportunity for evil to occur in fantasy settings.

 

Civilised society tends to have laws and conventions in place that prevent really spectacular evil occurring on too regular a basis. That's why when truly grotesque acts of evil do occur (school shootings in the USA, serial killers etc) they tend to attract a lot of attention. Other activities that could be classified as 'evil' (organised crime, political corruption, sexual abuse) are always happening behind the scenes, but only tend to attract attention when a well known figure is caught out.

 

Evil tends to happen on a larger scale when civil society breaks down. The most obvious examples are in wartime (civilians killed, raped etc) or when a country has no stable government, and a state of anarchy exists (such as in the Congo, where there are numerous 'evil' acts being committed on a wide scale every day).

 

The fantasy setting can incorporate both of these scenarios. Most fantasy rpgs contain both functioning civil societies, and locations where there is no law and order or which are afflicted by war. Players might encounter a variety of 'evil' characters in both of these settings; venal officials, corrupt power hungry politicians and organised criminals in the former, amoral mercenaries, greedy bandits, and heartless soldiers in the latter.

 

The main difference between the fantasy setting and real life is that in reality (or certainly in my opinion) there are no 'dark forces' that are meddling in human existence. In the fantasy setting, truly spectacular evil is more likely because of the influence of the supernatural. Demons possessions, vengeful gods, dark magic rituals steeped in the blood of innocents... all of these are staples of the fantasy world, and I'd certainly expect a number of these familiar fantasy tropes to appear in PE.

 

To link this back to my initial post - I would like to see all of these types of evil appear in PE, and for them to be done well. Certainly, some characters will be evil because 'The Dark Lord of Sacrifice made me do it', but others should be evil because they are human (or mortal, given the setting), and because all mortals are fallible, weak, and given to temptation.


  • Jarmo likes this

#45
Sacred_Path

Sacred_Path

    (9) Sorcerer

  • Members
  • 1328 posts
  • Location:Germany
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

So now that we've discussed meta-ethics, social ignorance, and the merits of feelings/emotions, where do we stand now with regard to the nuances of evil in Project Eternity?

I hope [expect] that in P:E our character will be so retarded that they neither have an idea of ethics nor grasp the concept of legality. That's the only way to ensure madshure players' freedom of choice.
  • mcmanusaur likes this

#46
JFSOCC

JFSOCC

    Mentor & Student of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 2255 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

So now that we've discussed meta-ethics, social ignorance, and the merits of feelings/emotions, where do we stand now with regard to the nuances of evil in Project Eternity?

thank you for your subtly brought point :)

#47
Ieo

Ieo

    White Gazebo of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 1410 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

Thank goodness P:E won't have "good/evil" in the classic D&D alignment sense. I'd rather the terminology not even taint the P:E philosophical infrastructure. No "evil." No "good." Just a person's motivations.

 

Thus, moral relativism. (I'm not a fan of the purest relativism, but it's interesting and requisite for understanding our world anyway, since we have groups like Judeo-Christians and Muslims believing very much that they're in the absolute moral right and not the other guys.)



#48
TrashMan

TrashMan

    Holy Avenger of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 1523 posts
  • Location:Nabeshins afro
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer

The other thing you seem to forget regarding fantasy is that fantasy in 99% of all cases doesn't have the social, technological and cultural system and prequisites in place to facilitate modern morals and sensibilities.

Since nothing exist in vacuum, neither do these thing.

 

For a simple example: Templars and Mages in Dragon Age setting.

Mages don't exist in our world - and if individuals with vast, tempting and very abusable powers (that can also become possesed by demons) existed, it is very likely the modern government of today would react the same way as TheDas did - lock them up.

Of course, the question of oversight an abuse immediately pops up, but modern norms, standards and techniques don't exist. There is no CSI, no cammeras or DNA, no extensive communication or oversight network. The the problem of policing becomes huge - especially when you consider large kingdoms with hunderds of small villages in remote areas. Communication, travel and transport are slow.

There's no effective way to police mages if they were free - so they are segregated.

The lack of communication also means that field officers have a lot of executive power - if a group is sent to catch a mage, they can kill him if he resist or is deemed to dangerous by the commander. Yet this can also be abused, in that a innocent mage could be killed in cold blood.

 

It's a fascinating settting for me, because the current setup brings in so many problems, and yet every possible alternate solution seems either unworkable or worse.



#49
Nonek

Nonek

    Not of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 3040 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

Then again the vast majority of the populace in Thedas would be slaves to the agrarian feudal monarchy, peasants and serfs etcetera, whose working and living conditions are far more harsh than the mages living conditions. So would the mages really want to live amongst their brethren, worked to exhaustion, bound to the lords lands, and judged as chattel to be sold with the land they work. It certainly wouldn't be freedom, just a harsher and more exhausting form of slavery.



#50
TrashMan

TrashMan

    Holy Avenger of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 1523 posts
  • Location:Nabeshins afro
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer

Where Bioware dropped the ball is with totaly insane mages and templars.

 

Instead of showing the danger of mages inherent in their possesion of magic and in normal life, they make crazed idiots. Then they throw dozens of abominations (which are capable of wiping out armies according to lore) at you that you kill with ease.

And they make templars mostly incompetent, abusive or insane d***.

 

The portraly is incosistent and shizophrenic and there are some plot holes in place.


  • Nonek and Tsuga C like this

#51
Giantevilhead

Giantevilhead

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 392 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

It is just easy to portray the most extremes of a certain position. It's like how all the anti-mutant villains in X-Men are genocidal maniacs bent on the complete obliteration of all mutants. Plus it doesn't help that mages in Dragon Age are kind of based off of psykers from Warhammer 40K, which is just meant to be completely over the top.

 

As for "evil" in terms of wars and large scale conflicts, so much of the world's conflicts are a result of either a clinging to (possibly over-exaggerated) history or an ignorance or willful denial of history. Take China and Japan for example. The root of most of their conflicts today is the unresolved tension over WWII. Japan ignores most of the atrocities their country committed during WWII, their children barely learn anything about it and there are a lot of people who deny those atrocities ever happened. China on the other hand, exaggerates the atrocities, making the Japanese out to be like super villains, and uses the emotionally charged subject to inspire nationalistic pride and hatred against the Japanese. Most Japanese people see China's actions as unwarranted acts of aggression while most Chinese people believe that China is well within its rights to seek reparation for the atrocities committed against them during WWII. If they go to war, which (hopefully) is pretty unlikely, then who can you really blame? Neither side is in the right and they both deserve a share of the blame. Sure, maybe you can make an argument about which side is more at fault but that's all pointless in the end if you have a war that could kill millions, which then can lead to even more bad blood, more hatred, and more wars in the future.

 

If you're looking for "evil" within a society, you have to look at more ambiguous issues like neglect, apathy, and unintended consequences. For example, people who do nothing while someone is being harassed/bullied/attacked are not bad people. They're not directly contributing to the problem and no one should be obligated to help others. Yet, a society in which people don't help others who are in trouble can lead to many undesired consequences such as the victims feeling helpless and not bothering to report incidents of harassment/bullying/crimes and perpetrators of such acts to behaving more brazenly. So there is the thorny question of how you can instill empathy and compassion in a society. On one hand, people don't want the government to intervene too much, just in the punishment of people who commit such acts, because of the risks inherent in state sponsored social engineering. Yet, what happens when private charity/organizations and community based efforts to build a more compassionate society isn't enough or fails? You can easily end up with two groups of well intentioned people coming into conflict with each other, getting bogged down in gridlock, and pointlessly demonizing and attacking each other's ideas/positions.


  • aluminiumtrioxid, TrashMan and mcmanusaur like this

#52
Lephys

Lephys

    Punsmith of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 7245 posts
  • Location:The Punforge
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
In a way, I think "good" and "evil" are a bit logical. I mean, they pertain directly to sentience. A thornbush can't be evil, no matter how much blood it draws from someone who falls into it. It cannot desire to harm something, nor can it decide to harm something, or even alter its ability or effectiveness at harming things.

Good and evil are two things relative to the same mean, which is nothing. No change. Evil seeks to push things backward, toward nothing, and good seeks to push things forward, toward something. That's why it is often perceived as evil to kill for no reason, yet it is sometimes perceived as good to kill, if there is a "good enough" reason. Evil seeks not only a lack of reasonable moderation or order, but also the complete opposite of reasonable moderation or order. And good seeks reasonable moderation and order.

I know it's all "up for interpretation," but there are absolutes in this world, and I believe they are at the root of all such pondrances. They're simply not what we tend to think they are. We like to know things, and we arrive at our conclusions before we get to the actual absolute.

But, like I said, in a way...

It is a very complicated thing. There aren't really good words for conveying such ideas. If we all had telepathy, this topic would probably be a lot easier to "discuss," :)

#53
TrashMan

TrashMan

    Holy Avenger of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 1523 posts
  • Location:Nabeshins afro
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer

It is just easy to portray the most extremes of a certain position. It's like how all the anti-mutant villains in X-Men are genocidal maniacs bent on the complete obliteration of all mutants. Plus it doesn't help that mages in Dragon Age are kind of based off of psykers from Warhammer 40K, which is just meant to be completely over the top.

 

Well, 40K psykers are a LOT more powerfull. IIRC, lore-wise, a powerfull psyker that becomes possesed can doom a PLANET.

But in 40K there are training regimes and devices and wards that help fight demonic influence. Dragon Age doesn't have that.

 

 

And you are right - it's easier to portray extreemes. But they did a good job in DA:O, why have they frakked it up so much?

You had Connor -a child that almost destroyed an entire town - that was an excellent example of the danger mages present. Yeah, power-hungry mages that abuse blood-magic left and right ARE a danger and problen, but the bigger danger comes from normal, good mages, since they can abuse their power, fall to temptation or possesion too. That is what DA2 failed to show properly.

It also failed to show abominations as dangerous.
Also, DA:O had a better portrayl of templars too. Gregoir was good example of a fair templar, even if he did call for Annulment.



#54
aluminiumtrioxid

aluminiumtrioxid

    (10) Necromancer

  • Members
  • 1498 posts

Also, DA:O had a better portrayl of templars too. Gregoir was good example of a fair templar, even if he did call for Annulment.

 

Let's not forget the whole "possession by demonic artifact" thing going on in the background. Kinda hard to be fair and just while a glowing red sword goes all Reaper on your brain :grin: (As an aside, am I the only one who thinks it was a mistake to bring this kind of stuff into the DA franchise, too?)


Edited by aluminiumtrioxid, 20 March 2013 - 02:28 AM.


#55
Amberion

Amberion

    (2) Evoker

  • Members
  • 92 posts

Calling someone 'good' or 'evil' isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it should never ONLY be what that character is. I mean, Irenicus(Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn) is basically an evil character. But his motivations are more interesting. I don't think i'm spoiling too much by saying that his sin was basically pride and ego. He reached too high, got slapped down, refused to accept his punishment as just, defied his punishers and got slapped down again. In a very real sense, he's like that computer hacker that breaks into the DoD's most secure servers and gets caught, tried, punished, imprisoned, and then gets out 10 years later and hasn't learned a thing from being locked up.(I'm pulling the 10 year thing out of my ass, i have no idea what the punishment is for hacking a DoD server). Irenicus was also manipulated by his sister. He's really quite stupid in a lot of ways. So it's more than just 'muhahaha I'm evil so i want to kill all the good people'.

 

I have no idea where my verbal blather is going. If I'm making sense, great, if not, I blame fatigue and substance abuse.



#56
Giantevilhead

Giantevilhead

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 392 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

I think a lot of times what we consider to be "evil" arises when our conceptions of fairness or rights either cannot resolve a conflict or actually creates a conflict.

 

For example, let's say that my ancestors did something horrible to your ancestors, maybe they poisoned your farm and the land will be barren for centuries, so your family is still suffering from the effects of that crime even today and they will continue to suffer for generations to come. Well, you have every right to hate me and my family for what my ancestors did to you. However, I personally didn't do anything to your family so it's not fair for me to have to pay for the crimes of my ancestors. We believe that no child should be punished for the crimes of their parents. So you have a conflict that cannot be resolved by our sense of fairness or perhaps even justice. In order to solve the problem, there has to be unfairness. Either you have to give up your hatred of my family despite the fact that you're still suffering because of my family or I have to do something to compensate for crimes that I had nothing to do with. It's an injustice that can only be resolved by another kind of injustice. Since most people are not willing to make that kind of sacrifice (and it's perfectly reasonable to argue that they shouldn't have to make that sacrifice), you end up with generational feuds, civil unrest among people who still suffer from past oppression, and wars of retaliation between nations.


Edited by Giantevilhead, 21 March 2013 - 02:00 PM.

  • TrashMan likes this

#57
Chairchucker

Chairchucker

    (5) Thaumaturgist

  • Members
  • 433 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

Morality is a bit of a weird one because, as has been noted, it can be difficult to get people to agree on which things are naughty and which are nice.

 

In fact, if one was to reject the notion of an absolute moral authority (with the most mainstream examples being some form of supreme deity) I would suggest that one would logically have to reject the concept of absolute morality. There are a number of things that most tend to agree are naughty rather than nice, such as murdering babies, raping people or farting in elevators, but if pressed on why these things must necessarily be wrong, it would be hard to articulate. Most people wouldn't even bother to think about it, but would instead ask incredulously 'What, you want me to explain why killing babies is wrong? What are you some kind of twisted baby killer?' which makes it difficult to have serious conversations on the nuances of subjective morality, sometimes.

 

Often we would probably narrow it down to being the protection of rights for humans, (Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness or whatever) which of course are things that humans decided should be human rights, and not any kind of law of nature at all unless there is an absolute authority who decreed that it was thus.

 

All of which is why I think instead of morality systems, RPGs should stick to reputation systems, so you don't get good karma for murdering evil people and bad karma for robbing them, but instead have nearby people like you more or less depending on how your actions line up with their own personal values.


  • Mr. Magniloquent and JFSOCC like this

#58
cleric Nemir

cleric Nemir

    (3) Conjurer

  • Members
  • 105 posts

Wow. I certainly had fun reading all this. Which made me see just how much can people yank endlessly around the topic thinking they contribute,both to their online image and the matter at hand. 

 

So I summed up the relevant things and saw this: 

You all are mostly interested in alignment characteristics be made more profane,so NPCs that can change their alignment throughout the game is plausible to most.

 

So is to me. There,this wasn't hard was it..



#59
Mr. Magniloquent

Mr. Magniloquent

    (6) Magician

  • Members
  • 672 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

D&D's alignment system

 

Morality is a bit of a weird one because, as has been noted, it can be difficult to get people to agree on which things are naughty and which are nice.

 

In fact, if one was to reject the notion of an absolute moral authority (with the most mainstream examples being some form of supreme deity) I would suggest that one would logically have to reject the concept of absolute morality. There are a number of things that most tend to agree are naughty rather than nice, such as murdering babies, raping people or farting in elevators, but if pressed on why these things must necessarily be wrong, it would be hard to articulate. Most people wouldn't even bother to think about it, but would instead ask incredulously 'What, you want me to explain why killing babies is wrong? What are you some kind of twisted baby killer?' which makes it difficult to have serious conversations on the nuances of subjective morality, sometimes.

 

Often we would probably narrow it down to being the protection of rights for humans, (Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness or whatever) which of course are things that humans decided should be human rights, and not any kind of law of nature at all unless there is an absolute authority who decreed that it was thus.

 

All of which is why I think instead of morality systems, RPGs should stick to reputation systems, so you don't get good karma for murdering evil people and bad karma for robbing them, but instead have nearby people like you more or less depending on how your actions line up with their own personal values.

 

Your observations have much truth, though I do believe absolute morality is possible without a singular authority. The Golden Rule, as it were, prevades all things. It deals with aggression against free will and self ownership. Anyone who feels that "The Golden Rule" can be proven untrue, is likely a hypocritical egotist not fully investigating or understanding the depth of the moral.

 

That aside, I completely agree with RPGs relying on a factional mechanic for positive/negetive reinforcement. It gives the maximal amount of flexibility and freedom to design choices and paths, while still delivering a response structure to a player's actions.


Edited by Mr. Magniloquent, 19 May 2013 - 07:06 PM.


#60
Micamo

Micamo

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 312 posts

And you are right - it's easier to portray extreemes. But they did a good job in DA:O, why have they frakked it up so much?

You had Connor -a child that almost destroyed an entire town - that was an excellent example of the danger mages present. Yeah, power-hungry mages that abuse blood-magic left and right ARE a danger and problen, but the bigger danger comes from normal, good mages, since they can abuse their power, fall to temptation or possesion too. That is what DA2 failed to show properly.
It also failed to show abominations as dangerous.
Also, DA:O had a better portrayl of templars too. Gregoir was good example of a fair templar, even if he did call for Annulment.

 
To be fair, Dragon Age 2 was basically made by one developer who was kidnapped, locked in a basement, and told to make a 60-hour RPG in the span of one weekend or his family gets thrown into the wood chipper (essentially the same conditions in which the Mass Effect 3 ending was developed after the the Dark Energy leak). Given the extreme development crunch it was under, it's a miracle it came out as well as it did. It genuinely has some cool ideas in it and, for what it's worth, it could have easily been way, way worse.
 
Now that I'm done being a Bioware apologist, I'd like to derail the thread to talk about something only tangentially related: I think Inquisitor has a really interesting interpretation of the idea of playing an "evil" PC.
 
(For those who haven't played it, Inquisitor's an interesting game. It has a lot of rough spots but it's a game made by people with incredible passion for old school RPGs, and when it fails it does so because it tries something radically different that just doesn't work. Noble failures, as it were. I can't in good faith say that it's a good game, but I can say that it's a unique game. Personally, I ate it up, but it's definitely not for everyone.)
 
In Inquisitor the world is ending due to a demonic invasion that people believe is caused by the rise of Heresy. You, the player, are part of the Inquisition and your job is to find, torture, and execute any heretics you can find to turn people back to the Faith.
 
However, the game makes it perfectly clear right out of the gate that the demonic invasion has absolutely nothing to do with heresy and your nominal job is completely and utterly pointless. Furthermore, even if it wasn't pointless, doing your job correctly is impossible because everyone accuses their enemies of Heresy for their own gain, and there's usually no evidence as to who's actually a demon-worshiper and who isn't except the accuser's say so.
 
The thing is the game lets you defy this and be a legitimate good guy. You're forced into the role of Inquisitor by circumstance and thus don't necessarily have any loyalty to the cause, so this is a perfectly valid way to play. Except that the game actively rewards being a bad guy. And not in the stupid Bethesda puppy-kicking way, either. In this world when someone sees a person trying to help them, they react with either suspicion or opportunism. If you try to go around helping people, they will take advantage of your kindness, compassion, and generosity for their own gain at your expense. On the other hand, using violence, extortion, and blackmail to get people to do what you want usually works out pretty well for you with no real downsides. Arresting people you know to be innocent just so you can torture useful information out of them is not only a valid tactic in this game, but it's rewarded.
 
This dynamic is reinforced everywhere in the game, even in the very first conversation you have with an NPC: The guards outside the first town will refuse to let you in unless you go on a stupid quest to kill 5 bats outside the city walls, unless you just threaten to kill them in which case they'll open the gates with no further argument. (You should go kill the bats anyway though cause you'll need every drop of XP you can get: Yep, it's THAT kind of game...)
 
Everything about the game points to one thing: Existential dread. You're a worthless, faceless, nameless nobody doing a futile, pointless, impossible task to try to save a world that neither wants nor deserves salvation. It lets you explore the mind of a cold, thoroughly evil sociopath from within because it temporarily makes you become one: You start to see the NPCs (who are actually really well-written and flavorful) as things you can manipulate rather than people. It's not even the fun kind of sociopathy where you run around mass-murdering random people like in Grand Theft Auto or something, at best it's depressing and at worst it's so overwhelming as to be emotionally numbing. And when you step away from the game you walk away with not only a deeper understanding of human nature but also a deeper understanding of yourself.
 
And more relevantly it made me rethink the nature of "evil" choices in video games: The problem isn't that they aren't "nuanced" enough or that they're too cartoonish or whatever. The problem is most games don't bother to properly contextualize the choices they present and give them meaning. Take the (particularly bad) example of Neverwinter Nights 2: You can play a Chaotic Evil character in that game, but at far as the narrative is concerned you're Lawful Good (until the very end where you can side with the King of Shadows for the lulz) in terms of actions, Chaotic Evil characters just get to throw a tantrum now and then which accomplishes nothing but have a powerful NPC slap down the rails on you. The developers were clearly not thinking of what the choices they presented actually meant or the kinds of conflicts they set up in the mind of the player, they just put them in because, hey, this is a D&D game and D&D has alignment, so we have to put this in here because the players expect it. It's choice for choice's sake at the expense of ludonarrative coherence. (That the story is crayon-and-drool-on-construction-paper quality even when you do make the Lawful Good choices the designers assumed you would make doesn't help matters.)
  • aluminiumtrioxid, TrashMan and Lephys like this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users