Jump to content

Stay tuned in the coming days for a major announcement about the King Arthur Pendragon RPG


Recommended Posts

23 hours ago, Hzark10 said:

 Again, the rules clearly state that each gm makes their own decision.  KAP 5.2 clearly states the traditional role of women. It also, on page 52, details the Non-Traditional Woman where it clearly says, "Your campaign may have room in it for female knights..." 

Yes, exactly, so why do people want to change that?

23 hours ago, Hzark10 said:

If, you want to play a male dominated campaign where women can only get married and have babies, that is fine for your campaign. If someone else, using the same rules, wants to have an occasional woman knight, valkyrie-style, or amazon type female warrior, why should it bother anyone if it is not your campaign?

Yup. In fact I have a woman running a Valkyrie-style warrior right now. She was part of Aruleius' household during the invasion and currently hold the Motte & Bailey castle at Windsor. Before that I even played an Irish Caelieach that scared the bejesus out of the the PKs due to her unforgiving and bloodthristy nature. 

I'm not against female knights in the game, I'm against the idea that the game rules  have to be changed to allow for female knights. I am the guy who started a thread saying that there really need to be more for ladies to do in the game. 

23 hours ago, Hzark10 said:

Before anyone jumps off the cliff, it might be a good idea to actually wait and see what KAP6 has in it

Prudent

23 hours ago, Hzark10 said:

before making the decision to start burning books.

That assumes that someone bought a hardcopy of the book first. Thew reality is those who don't like an RPG product don't usually buy it. That works out fine if somebody else, preferably more than one somebody else buys it instead. But what I see are a bunch of people who already own and play Pendragon  saying that it has to change so that other like minded people will buy it. But if those other people are like minded then they already have it and played it. And if the game is so objectionable to them as is, why are they playing it now?

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 189
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This week Chaosium is marking the second anniversary of the passing of company founder Greg Stafford. On Sunday we will launch 'The Adventure of the Great Hunt', a special Quickstart preview of Pendra

Wearing Mod Hat: This thread has diverged a long way from the initial topic. Folks, you want to continue having a discussion about representation of female characters across the editions of KAP,

It's pretty repugnant and disingenuous what you've done there. He was saying that there are certain historical backgrounds where prejudice and limitations are fact and unavoidable. And he was using a

Posted Images

13 minutes ago, Trifletraxor said:

Well Atgxtg, the new Pendragon edition might just be one of those things for you.

Yup, and I might walk away from it like I did RQG, and like we both did from MRQ. If it just me it wont matter much either. If other walk away too, then it might matter after all. 

P.S. Nice to see you posting again, bug. 

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

Indeed. It doesn't matter what type of story you are trying to tell if you tell it badly. But then why are these shows being run by people who can't or won't write good stories? 

That is a topic for another day.  The ineptness of the post-Roddenberry/Berman Star Trek franchise baffles me in particular, but I remind myself that "coincidence should not imply causation" when it comes to the collision of progressive themes and bad production.

Also, bear in mind that the legend of Arthur has a long and storied record of anachronism as a means of telling the stories of the day.  KAP need be no different.  Historical purists and fans of Arthur seldom walk hand-in-hand.

!i!

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Ian Absentia said:

That is a topic for another day.  The ineptness of the post-Roddenberry/Berman Star Trek franchise baffles me in particular, but I remind myself that "coincidence should not imply causation" when it comes to the collision of progressive themes and bad production.

It doesn't baffle me. When the show runner actually states that he values the show as a political platform rather than for it's actual merits, you get poor quality preachy TV. 

12 minutes ago, Ian Absentia said:

Also, bear in mind that the legend of Arthur has a long and storied record of anachronism as a means of telling the stories of the day.  KAP need be no different.  Historical purists and fans of Arthur seldom walk hand-in-hand.!i!

Yes, but Pendragon has been and hopefully will remain Pendragon. Otherwise it looses the very things that attracted people to it in the first place. 

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

Yes, but Pendragon has been and hopefully will remain Pendragon. Otherwise it looses the very things that attracted people to it in the first place. 

Some of the things to some of the people.  Clearly, part of the challenge will be in embracing existing fans while attracting new ones.  Marketing trends are not kind to aging demographics.  Really, though, I feel you.

!i!

[P.S. Regarding Star Trek, Kurtzman has made it explicit that he actually hates TOS/TNG-era Trek.  Let's count our lucky stars that the current team of KAP loves the thing.]

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Again, one, or even a handful of female PKs won't be a major problem, but if half of Logres is held by female knights then there will have to be a solution worked out for succession. And that solution would significantly alter the setting. 

I seriously doubt that KAP will become 50/50 split between male and female knights society-wide, or Arthur having a 75 female knight quota in his Round Table.

Sir Larkins said in the Discord: "There is precisely one (1) female knight in the Starter Set scenarios. The fact is, some may see this as a radical change. I do not. My assumption is that there will generally be more players opting to play female knights than there are NPC dames encountered at any given time in any given campaign."
 
Although I expect an exception be made if the PKs are visiting Kenilworth.
Edited by Morien
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

I'm not against female knights in the game, I'm against the idea that the game rules  have to be changed to allow for female knights.

You mean the setting's laws or some such? Since the game rules have been pretty clear since 1E:

KAP 1ed (Player's Book, p. 23-24, emphasis mine):

"FIGHTING WOMEN

No women knights or fighters appear in any Arthurian romance [Morien: Slightly wrong, if one counts Faerie Queene with Britomart and Palladine]. The troubadours and minstrels replicated an idealized version of their own society when they wrote their lays. They knew of, and imagined, no martial women.
Twentieth-century thinking allows for extrapolation where the troubadours did not. One can draw from sources which they did not have. Cymric precedents for fighting women exist since some of their war deities were female, such as the Irish Morrigan or the Cymric Nemetoma worshiped at Bath. Saxons had valkyrie tales as well. History offers the single example of the noblewoman Sigelgaita, a Lombard princess and wife of Robert Guiscard, the Norman who founded the kingdom of Sicily. She dressed in armor and bore weapons like a man during her husband’s many campaigns, and drew great praise from her male contemporaries of Europe. (However, Anna Comena, the historian daughter of the Byzantine emperor, called her ‘‘a monster, hateful to her kind.”)
Your gamemaster might allow women knights in his Pendragon campaign. Always assume they are not allowed, then check with your gamemaster. If allowed they might be common and known throughout the land, in which case their presence will make little notice or require no special handling by the gamemaster. Alternately, the gamemaster may take a historical point of view and require the women to earn their place in a patriarchal society. When creating women knight-characters, you need not use the statistics which indicate that women are normally smaller than men. Pendragon does not seek to have characters created at a disadvantage, but rather to provide normal standards. Obviously, women warriors are not standard, and need not stick to normal female rules."

 

KAP 3ed (Knights Adventurous, pp. 80-82, emphasis mine):
 
"Women Fighters in Play Perhaps the lack of women knights in Arthurian literature is not so surprising when we consider that the society of that time had only begun to seriously consider women to be something more than baby machines, a great leap in consciousness which Western society is even now only starting to widely accept. Twentieth century thinking allows for extrapolation where the Middle Ages did not. The Arthurian legend has survived for 1400 years because it has been able to adapt to the needs of its audience. There is certainly room in the Enchanted Realm for women knights today.
A woman may choose to take up the profession of arms for several reasons. For instance, a military emergency might make great and unusual demands for soldiers; a kinsman may need rescue, without any other family member or champion available; she may be motivated by her own independence rather than desiring to follow custom. Alternately, your campaign may simply allow Cymric or Saxon women to choose this path as a matter of course.
Gamemasters will determine the prevailing attitude of Britain during their campaign. Women knights may be common and acceptable, raising no eyebrows any place. Or they might be strange and unaccepted. Most likely, reactions will vary from person to person, and can be summarized as follows:
• Reluctance: women belong in the kitchen and nursery, and any deviance from this is met with scorn, contempt, and hostility. This reflects the actual, historic attitude.
• Acceptance: women knights might be acceptable, if they can prove themselves and do not get too uppity about it. This is similar to the attitude prevalent in liberal businesses today.
• Openminded: women knights are the equal of men in every way.
Perhaps the best way to begin is to operate disguised as a knight. A woman disguised as a knight will have many problems retaining her secret. Gamemasters should decide whether they wish to press this point or not — the issue at hand is how much difficulty he wishes to present. It could be fun, or it could be oppressive. Once a woman masquerading as a man has revealed her true gender, another problem presents itself: a lord to knight her. If she has acquired 1,000 or more Glory points her status ought to carry considerable weight. Nonetheless, reluctant lords may never accept the situation, in which case she will have to find another lord. Alternately, a lord may set some difficult quest to be obtained before he grants his permission. Success would undoubtedly make him accept the reality of her prowess.
With gamemaster consultation, players may wish to use the statistics for men to generate female characters. Pendragon does not seek to arbitrarily limit some characters but rather tries to provide standards. Obviously, women warriors are not standard.
The final consideration for the gamemaster is what to title a female knight. "Sir" is traditional, but Sir Ellen or Sir Alice sound strange enough to make some people grate their teeth. On the other hand , Lady Ellen means something else entirely, and could be misleading in the context. We finally just decided to let the players decide for themselves what the character wished to be titled."
 
Knights Adventurous also introduces two Female-Only Knightly Organizations, Boadicea's Daughters (who also appear in Blood & Lust's Adventure of the Heartblade), who are headquartered at Kenilworth Castle in Wuerensis ("The Earl of Wuerensis gave them Kenilworth Castle, which they still hold from him.", so there is at least one pro-female knight nobleman in the realm, too.) and Freija's Women. So, by default, Female Knights do exist in KAP from 3ed onwards.
Knights Adventurous, p. 80, also has a picture of a female knight (albeit in somewhat unrealistic armor, as the caption notes).
 
KAP 4ed is a basically a mash-up between 3ed core rulebook and Knights Adventurous into a single tome, and pretty much repeats KA word for word when it comes to female knights, including the picture. It does omit the criticism of her armor, though.
 
Anyway, I would draw your attention back to this: "Pendragon does not seek to arbitrarily limit some characters". If female knights are getting punished by their lieges for being pregnant (and the people did know about the 9 month gestation period, so they could have just been celibate at the appropriate times, assuming they were married, to miss the campaign season: good reason for Beltaine blessings, I say), then I would expect male PKs who goes Mad for years to get punished as well, or if they manage to get themselves wounded and out of action when duty calls, or just simply sick or too old to be of much use (it is possible to have damage 1d6 and still not be bedridden, in KAP 5.2). Their manors would be just as vulnerable to attacks when they are gone adventuring/tourney/visiting, more so even than the manor where the pregnant female knight resides, as she can at least lead and potentially fight, depending how far along she is. Chainmail is also pretty forgiving of the figure (plate armor much less so), so unless she is in her third trimester, she might still be able to kick ass if she has to. In short, it does not need to be a problem for the female PK unless the GM explicitly makes it one.
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Morien said:

Sir Larkins said in the Discord: "There is precisely one (1) female knight in the Starter Set scenarios. The fact is, some may see this as a radical change. I do not. My assumption is that there will generally be more players opting to play female knights than there are NPC dames encountered at any given time in any given campaign."

On an only-somewhat-related note, I have a foggy memory of talk of a scenario for player-character Ladies where they control NPC knights like they were Pokémon.  I approve wholeheartedly, at least as much as the Fighting Women option, but did anything ever come of that?

!i!

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Morien said:

You mean the setting's laws or some such?

Yes.

Quote

 

Since the game rules have been pretty clear since 1E:

 

Yes, and if you read the thread there are people who beleive the game must change to be more female friendly and inclsuive.

Quote

KAP 1ed (Player's Book, p. 23-24, emphasis mine):

Obviously, women warriors are not standard, and need not stick to normal female rules."

And that is what they want to change. THe want female knights to be commplace, along with female liege lords. Basically the want to improve modern values of beleivf onto the setting.

Quote

Anyway, I would draw your attention back to this: "Pendragon does not seek to arbitrarily limit some characters". If female knights are getting punished by their lieges for being pregnant (and the people did know about the 9 month gestation period, so they could have just been celibate at the appropriate times, assuming they were married, to miss the campaign season: good reason for Beltaine blessings, I say),

People don't ususally hold thier passion in check to make sure they are ready to go on campaign, or do they always know when they are going to be invaded. 

Quote

then I would expect male PKs who goes Mad for years to get punished as well,

As would I. A knight who goes missing for years would probably come home to find someone else running the manor. 

 

Quote

or if they manage to get themselves wounded and out of action when duty calls,

Injuries and illness affect everybody and are not things that can be ancitipated, or avoided. 

Quote

or just simply sick or too old to be of much use (it is possible to have damage 1d6 and still not be bedridden, in KAP 5.2).

As long as they can show up to fulfill their knightly duties then they are living up to their end of the feudal contract. A knight is obligated to be loyal , show up , and do thier duty, not to be successful. Of course such a knight would either prove thier worth through other skills (such as Battle) or get captured and need to be ransomed.

Quote

Their manors would be just as vulnerable to attacks when they are gone adventuring/tourney/visiting, more so even than the manor where the pregnant female knight resides, as she can at least lead and potentially fight, depending how far along she is.

Excelt that the feamle knight has all of the above limitations too. The point is if half the knights of the realm are female then the number of knights avaialbe at any given time will generally be less than if the knights were all male. Then there are the risks assocaited with if the female knight does try to fight while in an late state of pregnancy. She probably can't wear most of her armor, and a good spill cost cost the baby.

Quote

Chainmail is also pretty forgiving of the figure (plate armor much less so), so unless she is in her third trimester, she might still be able to kick ass if she has to. In short, it does not need to be a problem for the female PK unless the GM explicitly makes it one.

In short it will be a problem for the female knight's liege lord, if said liege lord has a large number of female knights. 

 

Again, I don't have a problem with the rules as they stand currently, or with having one or more female knights in a campaign. I have a problem with making Arthurian Britain be more like modern Brtitain.

Edited by Atgxtg
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ian Absentia said:

On an only-somewhat-related note, I have a foggy memory of talk of a scenario for player-character Ladies where they control NPC knights like they were Pokémon.  I approve wholeheartedly, at least as much as the Fighting Women option, but did anything ever come of that?

!i!

Yeah I remember that thread. The idea was that a Lady could have some sort of knight protector whom they could run as subservient character to fight off bandits and monsters and stuff while the lady traveled about. If I recall correctly, I think Khanwulf was doing something with the idea.

There was also some talk on coming up with more ways to get glory through courtly activities and maybe some sort of Influence points to reflect all that courtly intrigue. Basically to try and give ladies something to do other than flirt and look for a husband. It's tough for lady characters since their best stat (APP) doesn't have any real game benefits, and they don't have any real goals to aspire to, other than to find a knight and raise a family. 

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

On an only-somewhat-related note, I have a foggy memory of talk of a scenario for player-character Ladies where they control NPC knights like they were Pokémon.  I approve wholeheartedly, at least as much as the Fighting Women option, but did anything ever come of that?

!i!

Yeah I remember that thread. The idea was that a Lady could have some sort of knight protector whom they could run as subservient character to fight off bandits and monsters and stuff while the lady traveled about. If I recall correctly, I think Khanwulf was doing something with the idea.

There was also some talk on coming up with more ways to get glory through courtly activities and maybe some sort of Influence points to reflect all that courtly intrigue. Basically to try and give ladies something to do other than flirt and look for a husband. It's tough for lady characters since their best stat (APP) doesn't have any real game benefits, and they don't have any real goals to aspire to, other than to find a knight and raise a family. 

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

I seriously doubt that KAP will become 50/50 split between male and female knights society-wide, or Arthur having a 75 female knight quota in his Round Table.

Take a look at some of the posts in this thread, that is exactly what some people want and believe the game must do to survive.

1 hour ago, Morien said:
Sir Larkins said in the Discord: "There is precisely one (1) female knight in the Starter Set scenarios. The fact is, some may see this as a radical change. I do not. My assumption is that there will generally be more players opting to play female knights than there are NPC dames encountered at any given time in any given campaign."
 
Although I expect an exception be made if the PKs are visiting Kenilworth.

I have no problem with there being a female knight in the start set or much anyplace else. I am the same guy who worked with you on the APP/2 idea for courtly skills because I felt female characters in Pendragon get shortchanged.  

 

I have no problem with there being one female knight in a campaign, or even a group comprised solely of female knights. That up the individual GMs to decide upon. I've had female warriors (but no knights yet) in my own campaign and frankly the knighthood thing hasn't been much of an issue in the pre-Arthur periods. 

 I have a big problem with altering the rules for what is already a fine game just because supposedly some woman out there will supposedly be too uncomfortable with the setting unless women get equal representation in knighthood. There is no need to change the rulebook to accommodate someone who could just house rule things the way they want anyway.

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

And that is what they want to change. THe want female knights to be commplace, along with female liege lords. Basically the want to improve modern values of beleivf onto the setting.

I think you are fighting against a strawman here, as far as the default game setting is concerned.

That being said, currently in already published material:

Thrice-widowed ladies rule in their own name, heiresses or not. (e.g., Lady Indeg in Salisbury)

Countess Ellen is the Regent of Salisbury in default GPC during the Anarchy.

Countess of Rydychan, if restored, rules over Rydychan.

Margawse rules over Orkney Islands.

Adrianne Not-A-Lady rules Kenilworth and the surrounding lands, supporting her own, female, household knights.

And, even amongst Uther's own Barons (BoU, p. 69):

34 Lady Sulwyn, Baroness of the Hidden Vale H (Clarence).
35 Lady Blodeyn, Baroness of the Castle at the Crossing C (Caerwent).
36 Lady Pomponia, Baroness of Clareia H (Caerwent), the Sand Dunes H (Silchester) and Custos of the Duke of the Saxon Shore.

Clearly, female liege lords do happen.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Morien said:
Knights Adventurous, p. 80, also has a picture of a female knight (albeit in somewhat unrealistic armor, as the caption notes).
 
KAP 4ed is a basically a mash-up between 3ed core rulebook and Knights Adventurous into a single tome, and pretty much repeats KA word for word when it comes to female knights, including the picture. It does omit the criticism of her armor, though.

Sorry for the self-quoting, but I wanted to add:
Another female knight picture in KAP 5.2, p. 53. This time in what seems to be (almost) proper armor, given artistic license (steel boobs and I don't think those faulds would slide properly... but good enough on a glance!).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wearing Mod Hat:

This thread has diverged a long way from the initial topic. Folks, you want to continue having a discussion about representation of female characters across the editions of KAP, please go start another thread.

If you wish to continue discussing the KAP6 Quickstart, cool. But @Atgxtg, you've already said on another thread that KAP6 is going to be a "dealbreaker" for you and you won't be picking it up, so you might want to move on to something else.

  • Like 10
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

One last point many might not have considered.  Pre-Arthur, and especially Uther, periods have women on the lower tier. Part of what made Arthur special is the elevation of women to equal, or near equal, status during his time. And once Arthur disappears, reality comes roaring back.

So, there is a time and place for all thoughts. But, everyone liked Book of Feasts and what it did for the Winter Phase. That phase has progressively gotten more and more emphasis as time has come about.  Almost to the point where it can take an entire evening to conduct as well. And if a gm rushes through things, the players will object. I lost one campaign because I tried to stick to the 1 session = 1 year suggestion to get through the GPC in a timely manner.  

I am sure more info will come out as we get closer to the release date sometime next year.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Yup, and I might walk away from it like I did RQG, and like we both did from MRQ. If it just me it wont matter much either. If other walk away too, then it might matter after all. 

P.S. Nice to see you posting again, bug. 

Atgxtg - at this point it might just be better if you just walk away again. RQG discussions have been less tedious without you there. And after looking at four pages of you ranting about the role of women during the Enchantment of Britain, I think Pendragon discussions would be better off without you.

As an aside, this is not about being “woke” - it is about making a game we can play with our friends. And guess what, many of our friends we game with are women. And just as many men prefer to play male characters, many women prefer to play women characters. That’s not really hard to figure out. And few women that I know want every session to be a constant struggle against male NPCs trying to “put them in their place”. That gets real boring real fast.So go on your merry way. Go and play your WWII game where everyone can play good National Socialists (but no Jewish characters allowed) or whatever works for you. Just do it elsewhere.

  • Like 9
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Jeff said:

Atgxtg - at this point it might just be better if you just walk away again. RQG discussions have been less tedious without you there.

Okay, I'll walk away. 

7 hours ago, Jeff said:

And after looking at four pages of you ranting about the role of women during the Enchantment of Britain, I think Pendragon discussions would be better off without you.

I thing Pendragon would be better off without you. Also RuneQuest and HeroQuest/Questworld. But hey, if that's the game that people want, then so be it.

And I have no doubt that by the time the KAP6 is published and the bugs in the quickstart worked out, it will be as clear and concise as RQG.

 

7 hours ago, Jeff said:

As an aside, this is not about being “woke” - it is about making a game we can play with our friends. And guess what, many of our friends we game with are women.

And you were never able to play with those women all these years? It's all about being WOKE.

 

7 hours ago, Jeff said:

And just as many men prefer to play male characters, many women prefer to play women characters. That’s not really hard to figure out. And few women that I know want every session to be a constant struggle against male NPCs trying to “put them in their place”. That gets real boring real fast.So go on your merry way. Go and play your WWII game where everyone can play good National Socialists (but no Jewish characters allowed) or whatever works for you. Just do it elsewhere.

You got it. And don't complain when people walk away from Pendragon when you change it from what Greg had intended.

Greg could have made the game gender neutral in 1985. He didn't then, and he never did later on. Instead you guys pull this two year after his death so he can't speak out against it. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, weasel fierce said:

I wonder what the people worried about the liberal conspiracy will do when they find out there's pagans in the game too. 

 No, see, that's totally different. That was a change to the setting Greg made in order to appeal to players in his group that were uncomfortable playing something other than the default. Not the same thing at all, see? I'm very consistent in my thoughts on this game! 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Never played a lick of Pendragon, even though I picked up the bundle a while back. Looking forward to the changes in the game, much like the changes that got me to pick up Runequest Glorantha and many of the reprints of games that I missed.

That said, the quickest way to get me to leave a community is when I see that it has gone completely moribund; worrying more about protecting the past than about actually engaging with the present. I gave up GURPS because it became tiresome to follow conversations about what chart to use for how many angels could dance on a given pin (is it a shirt pin or a sewing needle, and do we have rules for that? Bleh.)

As far as I'm concerned Chaosium have been incredible stewards with their products and for making things accessible to folks that haven't been steeped in all of the lore of over 30+ years of gaming. I applaud them for adapting and tweaking things as needed. There's plenty of games out there that haven't updated.

My hope is that Chaosium adds POD options for Pendragon where they can. That way those who feel that the old ways are best can have fresh new copies instead of polishing their collection. Me? I'm ready to see what's over the horizon.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I apologize for keeping going after the mod said to stop. According to the pm he sent me, I have apparently driven Atgxtg off of this forum lol.

Anyways, I'm very excited about 6th edition. Even some of the changes I might not even really like. Because I'll be able to benefit from the new material and new ideas, and for anything I don't, it's not like the RPG police will break down my door and take my older edition books away from me. 

EDIT: I'm being told via pm that clearly chivalrous/religious traits and cultural attribute bonuses have been removed, even though none if the characters qualify for any of these bonuses and it's just a quick start guide and it's not relevant to the adventure at hand and the pregen characters all have a total of 63 attribute points which is the correct total for Cymric characters and that when David Larkins did that podcast episode using Knights and Ladies Adventurous cultures and cultural attributes were still a thing. And that this is a plot from the far left.

Edited by Call Me Deacon Blues
  • Haha 3
  • Sad 1
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.
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.


×
×
  • Create New...