Jump to content

Inheritance, widow's portion and such issues


Recommended Posts

50 minutes ago, Morien said:

But it is totally up to the GM. If you want to introduce a chance that a raid destroys an improvement, have at. I would have no problems believing that some of the herds (horse, cow, sheep) might get stolen during the raid, leading to reduced income from those sources, too.

 

I  think we could use some sort of simple table to handle raid damage, in Book of Estate format, to replace the one from Book of the Manor. Maybe I'll work on something later on tonight? One of the perks of being under lockdown is that there is now more time for little things like that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 78
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Sure, go ahead.

A very very simple idea:

If a raid is successful, roll 1d6 for each raid severity. If any die result is severity or less, an investment is destroyed (either randomly or using logic). Example: The holding is pillaged (severity 2). Roll two times 1d6, resulting in 2 and 5. Since 2 is equal to the severity, one investment is destroyed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Morien said:

Sure, go ahead.

A very very simple idea:

If a raid is successful, roll 1d6 for each raid severity. If any die result is severity or less, an investment is destroyed (either randomly or using logic). Example: The holding is pillaged (severity 2). Roll two times 1d6, resulting in 2 and 5. Since 2 is equal to the severity, one investment is destroyed.

That would be double dipping. For instance if plunder (severity 3) that would be three dice with a loss on three  or less.I think I'd rather tie it to the damage take in lots. Maybe 1d20+ Lots Damaged vs the DV of the manor? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Atgxtg said:

That would be double dipping. For instance if plunder (severity 3) that would be three dice with a loss on three  or less.I think I'd rather tie it to the damage take in lots. Maybe 1d20+ Lots Damaged vs the DV of the manor? 

It is intentionally double-dipping, since the worse the damage is, the more likely it is that something is smashed and also that more than one thing is smashed. If the place is Ravaged, then most of the investments ought to be in smoking ruins, IMHO.

1d20 feels too random for me. You can have a raid rolling 20 and causing more damage than the place being ravaged on a roll of 13.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Morien said:

It is intentionally double-dipping, since the worse the damage is, the more likely it is that something is smashed and also that more than one thing is smashed. If the place is Ravaged, then most of the investments ought to be in smoking ruins, IMHO.

1d20 feels too random for me. You can have a raid rolling 20 and causing more damage than the place being ravaged on a roll of 13.

I didn't phase that correctly. I mean't that rolling damage against the DV as an opposed roll, similar to the siege roll. The idea being that the greater the lots damage, the more likely something else would be damage too, while the higher the DV the better defended the place is and the greater the chance that investments would be protected. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

I didn't phase that correctly. I mean't that rolling damage against the DV as an opposed roll, similar to the siege roll. The idea being that the greater the lots damage, the more likely something else would be damage too, while the higher the DV the better defended the place is and the greater the chance that investments would be protected. 

Well BotM had a destruction table roll 1d20-DV+5/10/15 based on raid severity. That would probably be the easiest way to go. You could simply roll against that number for the most vulnerable investment and if it gets destroyed on a success, then roll the next at cumulative -10, until failure or investments run out.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Morien said:

Well BotM had a destruction table roll 1d20-DV+5/10/15 based on raid severity. That would probably be the easiest way to go.

Yes, but as you point out it is a bit too random. I've seen manors that were mostly untouched in the raid get burnt to the ground, and ones that were pillaged shrug off the attack.

Quote

You could simply roll against that number for the most vulnerable investment and if it gets destroyed on a success, then roll the next at cumulative -10, until failure or investments run out.

Yeah, but I think an opposed roll might work out better. That way any really bad results would require two bad rolls instead on just one and we'd probably get more consistent results, while still allowing for the occasional lucky result. Ideally I'd like to tie it more directly to the raid results, as well. 

 

Of course wanting something and making it so are two different things. I'll give the raid sections in BoE and BoM another look before I try to put something down. 

Edited by Atgxtg
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Yeah, but I think an opposed roll might work out better. That way any really bad results would require two bad rolls instead on just one and we'd probably get more consistent results, while still allowing for the occasional lucky result. Ideally I'd like to tie it more directly to the raid results, as well. 

Well, you can see that in my suggestion, you do have two 1d20 rolls still: original 1d20+raid-DV for the 'skill', and then the 'skill' roll. So it does give a bit of a bellcurve. But sure, one could go back to just rolling 1d20+raid vs. 1d20+DV, but the problem here is that you pretty much have only two results: win or partial success. Well, you'd get criticals, too, admittedly, if DV or the raid is high enough. So three results and a critted tie to make it four.

Maybe if the 'skills' would be 10+raid mod vs. 10+DV, then there would be more chances of failures and failure-failures, too (and fumbles), in addition to all of the above. That might work.

Edited by Morien
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Morien said:

Well, you can see that in my suggestion, you do have two 1d20 rolls still: original 1d20+raid-DV for the 'skill', and then the 'skill' roll. So it does give a bit of a bellcurve. But sure, one could go back to just rolling 1d20+raid vs. 1d20+DV, but the problem here is that you pretty much have only two results: win or partial success. Well, you'd get criticals, too, admittedly, if DV or the raid is high enough. So three results and a critted tie to make it four.

Actually you can get the full range that you get in sieges and battle.

Crit vs. Crit, Crit vs Success, Crit vs Failure, Crit vs Fumble, Sucess vs. Partial Success, etc. THat works out to up to 16 differernt results or so, if we want to go that far into it. 

 

1 hour ago, Morien said:

Maybe if the 'skills' would be 10+raid mod vs. 10+DV, then there would be more chances of failures and failure-failures, too (and fumbles), in addition to all of the above. That might work.

If it were just lots damage  (or maybe 2x lots damage) vs. DV there would be more failures as the numbers would be lower. I can't see the defender suffering much damage if the attack roll failed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Actually you can get the full range that you get in sieges and battle.

Only if the skills are less than 20. If you are simply rolling 1d20+raid vs 1d20+DV, then the 'skills' are implicitly 20+raid and 20+DV, is what I was getting at.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

If it were just lots damage  (or maybe 2x lots damage) vs. DV there would be more failures as the numbers would be lower. I can't see the defender suffering much damage if the attack roll failed. 

It would probably have to be 2xLots damaged. Otherwise the roll chance is rather minor. Whether the DV ought to be doubled as well can be debated. I have seen the PKs manage something like DV 10 easily enough with a moat, and I don't think this should necessarily be Ravage-proof, yet.

But yes, the 'skills' as 2*Lot vs. DV opposed resolution could work.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Morien said:

It would probably have to be 2xLots damaged. Otherwise the roll chance is rather minor.

That would depend upon how we intpret a failure of the damage roll. Is is no damage or minor damage. For instance attackf ailure vs. defense fumble probably results in some minor damage.

 

Quote

 

Whether the DV ought to be doubled as well can be debated. I have seen the PKs manage something like DV 10 easily enough with a moat, and I don't think this should necessarily be Ravage-proof, yet.

No I think straight DV makes sense. I mean in order to have a chance of success over 10 with Lotsx2 the place would need to be pillaged. Andno lots are permanently damaged below a plunder result, so probably noting else should be either.  

Quote

But yes, the 'skills' as 2*Lot vs. DV opposed resolution could work.

Just brainstorming here but let me know if you agree with this thinking:

  1.  A manor doesn't suffer permanent lots damage until it gets a plunder result. So the same should be true for other types of permanent damage. I mean, I can't see someone looses his manor or tower in a raid and yet the fields are untouched. I also don't see someone losing all his fields in several raids, yet the orchard being left alone. Likewise it's possible for someone to loose a handful of cows or sheep but not lose enough to count as a damaged or lost investment.Therefore:
    • We use 5x the Permanent lots damage for the attacker, or- Pillage 10, Plunder 20, Ravage 30. This is an easy number to remember, and means that the greater the lot damage the better than chance of losing an investment. 
  2. Damage should probably follow an "out to in" distribution. That is outlining investments such as herds, orchards and other stuff that take up SPACE should be more likely to suffer damage opposed to village huts, armories, fortifications or the manor house. Therefore:
    • All damage will be out outer investments unless the defender fails his DV roll. A failed DV roll probably would mean damage to the fortification (the attackers trying to get at the good stuff within). A fumbled DV roll means the attackers breached the defenses and could loot and damage investments and buildings within the walls, and even some treasure/furniture.
  3. So the idea would be that damage would progress as follows: no Damage/Temporary SPACE/Permanent SPACE/Village Damage/DV reduction/Inner Investment/Manor & treasure, based upon how well the attack rolls and how poorly the defender rolls. 
  4. The attacker would get some additional loot from the raid. Say equal to the income of the investment for temporary damage, and twice that for permanent damage. In the worst case scenario, where the manor itself get's breached the attacker also gains some of the treasure stored within (except for stuff hidden in a vault). 
  5. If the defender has some sort of warning, he's be able to shift some of those outer investments within the walls and mitigate the losses, and thus the damage. That is move the livestock into the enclosure, or some such. 
  6. The overall idea is that the raider is there mostly to grab whatever he can, not to focus on destruction, fight a battle or besiege the place. So it seems to make sense that losses and damage would be concentrated mostly on whatever is easiest to get at, and to transport. That also help to justify DV more as it not only mitigates the losses by also determines what sort is more likely to be lost.

How does that look, logically?

Edited by Atgxtg
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

How does that look, logically?

Looks like a pretty good place to start refining it from. :)

It would probably be easiest just to do a matrix resolution, and as long as the defender gets at least a partial success (unless opposed by a critical), the damage is limited out outside the fortifications. Basically, I see a critical pushing the defender's result one down, so with crit-fail would be equivalent to success-fumble. And a crit-fumble should leave the estate almost in ruins.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Morien said:

Looks like a pretty good place to start refining it from. :)

Yea!

Quote

It would probably be easiest just to do a matrix resolution, and as long as the defender gets at least a partial success (unless opposed by a critical), the damage is limited out outside the fortifications.

That's exactly what I was thinking and I've started working on the matrix. If the defender gets a partial success then damage is all "outside the walls" and the relative results determine if there was any damage to something that takes SPACE/outside the walls, and if it was temporary or permanent. 

If the defender fails then the walls and investments inside the walls are vulnerable.

On a fumble, the manor itself is somewhat vulnerable. This would be something along the lines of a lucky torch throw lighting up the stables and a favorable wind causing the manor house to catch on fire or some such. It's really more a case of the defender panicking and doing something wrong-like forgetting to bar a gate.

Quote

Basically, I see a critical pushing the defender's result one down, so with crit-fail would be equivalent to success-fumble. And a crit-fumble should leave the estate almost in ruins.

Yeah about that, although I don't really see an estate really being ruined by raiding alone. It would need a full siege to do that. But a crit vs fumble would probably mean most of the investments were damaged or destroyed, the DV reduced and the some treasure taken from the manor. 

I'm debating upon a flat die roll for DV lost (1d6/2d6/etc.) or some sort of percentage (like 1d6*10% of DV). 

I should probably see about scaling all this up for estates too. The simplest approach would be just to multiply the damage by the number of manors, but realistically the damage would be more localized, with one or two manors getting trashed rather than ten manors each suffering damage.

Edited by Atgxtg
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

I should probably see about scaling all this up for estates too. The simplest approach would be just to multiply the damage by the number of manors, but realistically the damage would be more localized, with one or two manors getting trashed rather than ten manors each suffering damage.

Well, the whole Estate is already treated as a single unit in BotE, so simply scaling it would be the easiest. That is how the investments work, too, as well as the manpower needed to raid the Estate. So the same force that manages to Ravage a single Manor would probably be just a Raid on a big Estate. The Estate probably has better DV, an actual castle in its core, so the Raiders are more likely to bounce off, too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Morien said:

Well, the whole Estate is already treated as a single unit in BotE, so simply scaling it would be the easiest. That is how the investments work, too, as well as the manpower needed to raid the Estate.

Yeah.

Quote

So the same force that manages to Ravage a single Manor would probably be just a Raid on a big Estate. The Estate probably has better DV, an actual castle in its core, so the Raiders are more likely to bounce off, too.

Yes, but when bouced away from the castle they would probably wind up "picking the low hanging frut" of the less defended manors. 

What I will try to do is multiply the losses but let the winner of the exchange assign what they are. The idea being that the attacker would most likely pick his target but the defender could sterr him away from something particular. And since the Lots damage will tend to be higher than the DV for manors and more even with estates, I think the math would work out, and the final result pretty simple. 

 

What might work would be to try and use the raid damage in lots as the base results for investments to get the same percentages in temporary to permanent, but read lots as investments. That way the damage would be comparable to the fields. Then shift the results up or down based upon the Damage vs. DV roll. So a typical "Pillaged" estate would have 3 outer investments suffer temporary damage, and 2 suffer permanent damage, and then shift the results up or down on the table depending how the opposed roll works out.  That would assume a fully developed estate though. 

Still, adapting the existing tables and shifting up and down would greatly simplify things, and the DV, interior investments, and manor could all be handed easily by adding additional columns.

 

How does this look for a start?

    Outer Investments Inner Investments (on failure only)
    Temporary Permanent DV Temporary Permanent Manor (fumble)
    0   none 0   none
    1   5% 1   5%
    2   10% 2   10%
  Raid 3 0 15% 3 0 15%
  Pillage 3 2 20% 3 2 20%
  Plunder 3 4 40% 3 4 40%
  Ravage 3 6 60% 3 6 60%
    3 8 80% 3 8 80%
    3 10 100% 3 10 100%
               
               
    Defender  
    Critical Success Partial Failure Fumble  
Attacker Critical Even Down 1 Down 2 Down 3 Down 4  
Success Up 1 X Down 1 Down 2 Down 3  
Partial Up 2 Up 1 X Down 1 Down 2  
Failure Up 3 Up 2 Up 1 Even Down 1  
Fumble Up 4 Up 3 Up 2 Up 1 Even  

 

 

 

Edited by Atgxtg
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd probably do something simpler, such as have the Temp damage be automatic if the raid has not been stopped (fighting outside the walls). But rather than reading it damage to 3 investments, it would be just -3 Lots to their income. Also, as much as you accused me of double-dipping earlier, it is exactly what is going on here: not only does Ravaging have a much higher 'skill', but it also starts off deeper in the hole. Finally, if you are presenting the damage increasing as you go down, the defender's wins should adjust the table UP, i.e. to the lighter consequences.

I was thinking something relatively simple like:

Raid Critical vs. Fumble: 1d3+3 investments destroyed

Raid Critical vs. Failure: 1d3 investments destroyed

Raid Critical vs. Partial Success: 1 investment destroyed

Raid Success vs. Partial Success: 1 investment damaged, 50% original price to repare.

If Defender wins/ties: no permanent damage.

If Defender Critical/Success vs. Raid Failure/Fumble: Raiders routed as they try to attack the manor itself, Temporary damage (loot) recovered.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Morien said:

I'd probably do something simpler, such as have the Temp damage be automatic if the raid has not been stopped (fighting outside the walls). But rather than reading it damage to 3 investments, it would be just -3 Lots to their income.

But I though investment income was separate from lots? My idea here was that the raiders would get income from taking apples from the orchards, some cattle, sheep, etc. This assumes the raiders catch the defenders unprepared.

 

Myt thinking with the temporary investment damage was that the attacker would get some plunder, but the defender wouldn't loose enough to worry about. For instance, two or three cows out of a herd might be worth 1 to the attacker, but won't really hurt the herd. 

10 hours ago, Morien said:

Also, as much as you accused me of double-dipping earlier, it is exactly what is going on here: not only does Ravaging have a much higher 'skill', but it also starts off deeper in the hole.

Point taken.. It is double dipping. 

10 hours ago, Morien said:

Finally, if you are presenting the damage increasing as you go down, the defender's wins should adjust the table UP, i.e. to the lighter consequences.

Uh...(tilts head to look at table sideways)...(then upside down)...(straighten up, shrugs)...yeah....(drops a pen to make sure the laws of gravity haven't changed)...I have no excuse for how I messed that down-- I mean up

 

10 hours ago, Morien said:

I was thinking something relatively simple like:

Raid Critical vs. Fumble: 1d3+3 investments destroyed

Raid Critical vs. Failure: 1d3 investments destroyed

Raid Critical vs. Partial Success: 1 investment destroyed

Raid Success vs. Partial Success: 1 investment damaged, 50% original price to repare.

If Defender wins/ties: no permanent damage.

If Defender Critical/Success vs. Raid Failure/Fumble: Raiders routed as they try to attack the manor itself, Temporary damage (loot) recovered.

Yeah, that was closer to what I had before I got enamored with the table. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Posted (edited)
On 4/5/2020 at 7:53 PM, Morien said:

Also, the Widow's Portion is for her lifetime. Why is she accepting this crummy deal for a boy who is not her own child, hurting her own children in the process?

What if she puts herself in trouble having a baby the year after the dead of her husband with a household knight and now both are asking permission to the Countess to marry.

The guardian of the inheritance (the uncle) have made the proposition that he will continue mantaining the household knight and the widower only if she resign from her dower's portion, which in that case would return to the "normal" inheritance.

Regarding the scandal of having a son out of the marriage, do you think the Countess would agree? I don't know if I explained it well 😅

Edited by The Wanderer
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

What if she puts herself in trouble having a baby the year after the dead of her husband with a household knight and now both are asking permission to the Countess to marry.

The guardian of the inheritance (the uncle) have made the proposition that he will continue mantaining the household knight and the widower only if she resign from her dower's portion, which in that case would return to the "normal" inheritance.

Regarding the scandal of having a son out of the marriage, do you think the Countess would agree? I don't know if I explained it well 😅

She is an heiress, right? So if the Countess agrees to the marriage, the household knight becomes a vassal knight until HER eldest son inherits her manor (note: NOT THE FORMER PK'S ELDEST SON). So the uncle has very little leverage if that happens.

However, the uncle could offer that he will speak on behalf of the pair to the Countess, arguing for the marriage, and if the marriage happens, then the heiress will voluntarily give back her widow's portion from her husband's manor. Since it would be voluntary on her behalf, there is no problem, if she agrees to this. (Whether she would agree depends a bit on how much influence the uncle has with the Countess and how much she and the household knight have.)

Whose household knight is this guy, anyway? If he is the uncle's HHK to begin with, he would need the uncle's permission, too. Which would give the uncle some leverage as well as more of a stake in this, since it cuts both ways: how was the uncle so inattentive as to allow one of his knights to seduce this poor widow into this kind of a situation?

The final option is that the uncle decides that the widow is dishonored and stops the payments on that excuse. The household knight, especially if he is the new husband, ought to champion his lover/wife's rights & honor in a court of justice or in a duel, if need be. Also, the Countess might have some incentive in looking after the rights of the widows, given that she is one herself. Something the uncle would forget at his peril.

If the Countess were a man herself, there would be an additional thing working in her favor which is that handing out heiresses to his own household knights is one of the liege lord's greatest carrots to his knights. And by having this affair, the heiress has, at the very least, made herself a promiscuous woman and hence lowered her desirability. Sure, many knights might still marry her for the land, but she is definitely soiled. By allowing her to marry the HHK would assuage that stigma a bit, but might also encourage others to follow in her footsteps in the future, and not just the heiresses, either.

On the other hand, if you follow Atgxtg's suggestion that widows get to decide their own actions rather than be put under guardianship, then the Countess might actually have a good reason to champion the widow-heiress and approve the marriage: why should the uncle get a say in this, you go girl! Especially if she is a bit of a romantic herself and approves of the love marriage.

Edited by Morien
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Morien said:

Whose household knight is this guy, anyway? If he is the uncle's HHK to begin with, he would need the uncle's permission, too.

He was the HHK of the former PK, and also family of him. Now that the uncle is the guardian, I suppose he is the uncle's HHK...

6 hours ago, Morien said:

On the other hand, if you follow Atgxtg's suggestion that widows get to decide their own actions rather than be put under guardianship, then the Countess might actually have a good reason to champion the widow-heiress and approve the marriage

The uncle is the guardian of the part of the landholding that the sons of the PK will inherit when they come to age (2/3 of the landholding), but the widower has her dower (1/3), with her servitum debitum, etc.

6 hours ago, Morien said:

She is an heiress, right? So if the Countess agrees to the marriage, the household knight becomes a vassal knight until HER eldest son inherits her manor (note: NOT THE FORMER PK'S ELDEST SON). So the uncle has very little leverage if that happens.

So he becomes a vassal knight with only that 1/3 of the landholding (the widow's portion), right?

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

So he becomes a vassal knight with only that 1/3 of the landholding (the widow's portion), right?

No, he becomes the vassal knight of his wife-heiress' manor (her inheritance) + 1/3rd of the dead husband's manor (her widow's portion). Once HER eldest son becomes of age and inherits, the husband loses 2/3rds of the heiress' manor to the son, but still keeps the 1/3+1/3 = 2/3 manors which are his wife's widow's portion, until she dies. If at any point the heiress dies, then all the lands revert to their heirs (the ex-PK's eldest son and her eldest son), and if they are still underaged, then their guardian, the uncle, controls those lands.

EDIT: I think you mentioned at some point that the widow had done some stupid deal with the uncle that the uncle would keep 2/3rds of her manor as well. In which case, yes, the husband would only get 2/3rds of a manor (1/3+1/3), her widow's portion. I mean, he could try and make a court case out of it, but I think he would be in a rather poor position what with getting the heiress pregnant outside of marriage and a pre-existing agreement between the uncle and the heiress (or whoever the heiress' guardian was, actually).

Edited by Morien
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Morien said:

I think you mentioned at some point that the widow had done some stupid deal with the uncle that the uncle would keep 2/3rds of her manor as well. In which case, yes, the husband would only get 2/3rds of a manor (1/3+1/3), her widow's portion.

Yeah I did that but because you said it could be a good option!! You said this:

Quote

The heiress' manor belongs to her bloodline. So it goes to HER eldest son, Egbert, who becomes a ward of someone, possibly even the same uncle. Elizabeth gets 1/3 of the landholdings held by the husband (with the exception of the gifted manor, see below), so 1/3 of her own manor and 1/3 of William's original manor. Yeah, it is a bit unfair towards Elizabeth, but she never exercised independent control over her inherited manor away (only as William's wife). But assuming we don't put her into guardianship, too, then it would explain why she would be keen on getting the guardianship of Egbert at least. In this scenario, she would control her own manor and 1/3 of William's original manor.

So... I thought her portion would be 1/3 of her own manor and 1/3 of William's manor. But now I understand seems that she gets 1/3 of William's manor her entire manor until her heir is grown. 

Then, the uncle would only have 2/3 of William's manor, so only 1 knight of servitum debitum (himself). That means that de HHK she had sex with and now wants to marry is HER own HHK 😂 so...  I think in that case only the countess would have something to say, as neither he has to say about Elizabeth, nor her HHK, right?

OMG WHAT A MEDIEVAL SOAP OPERA HAHAHAHA

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

OMG WHAT A MEDIEVAL SOAP OPERA HAHAHAHA

And that's the nice streamlined, simplified, idealized version of things that really didn't come into being until late in the medieval period. Historically it was much, much more convoluted, as there  all sorts of other factors that came into play to determine who really got the land!

Take a look at some of the wars and border conflicts and there is almost always a dispute over inheritance in the mix somewhere. Just about any arrangement could and did crop up as a one off. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

But still, I (and my players) love this knid of game ala Game Of Thrones 🤣

You know, William thought he was fortunate to marry a heiress, but... he had a son from the previous marriage and after his death, all the land was again splitted between heirs! Isn't it funny? 😂

Link to post
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.

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.


×
×
  • Create New...