Welcome to the Achaea Forums! Please be sure to read the Forum Rules.

A way to make Eleusian RP make sense for -everyone-

1235

Comments

  • AntidasAntidas Member Posts: 1,140 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    I'm trying to decide if people are agreeing with my comments and thus not responding to them, or if they would just prefer to shit on Daeir due to his reputation instead. Not really sure either way, so will assume people are still trying to say I'm wrong by attacking him.

    I'll say again that yes, Eleusis has done everything it could to make Targossas an enemy. And we did respond, we raid you guys plenty and have at least raided once in a blue moon since you started attacking us. However, none of that is ever going to get Eleusis written into our canon as a main enemy, and thus, Eleusis will continue to remain bottom priority from an IC stand point, even if we raid them more often due to their superior numbers, like Farrah stated above.

    Bade
  • AsmodronAsmodron Member Posts: 1,886 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Daeir has shown he is very informed about achaean life. I'd definitely take his opinion on a RP matter highly
  • FarrahFarrah Member Posts: 883 @ - Epic Achaean
    edited March 18
    Antidas said:
    I'm trying to decide if people are agreeing with my comments and thus not responding to them, or if they would just prefer to shit on Daeir due to his reputation instead. Not really sure either way, so will assume people are still trying to say I'm wrong by attacking him.

    I'll say again that yes, Eleusis has done everything it could to make Targossas an enemy. And we did respond, we raid you guys plenty and have at least raided once in a blue moon since you started attacking us. However, none of that is ever going to get Eleusis written into our canon as a main enemy, and thus, Eleusis will continue to remain bottom priority from an IC stand point, even if we raid them more often due to their superior numbers, like Farrah stated above.


    I'm not really sure what we're arguing about anymore. I think what people disagree with is this:

    Antidas said:
    For the record, we were essentially reminded that we have real enemies to fight (Mhaldor/Ashtan/Hashan) in terms of theology, and while Nature was being a real pain in our ass, they weren't really our enemy, since their goals don't involve harming creation. Hence why we didn't push the conflict. I don't recall constantly getting hammered though, iirc it was pretty even!

    This is the same reasoning that remains in Targossas today, for the record. Yeah, we're certainly far from friendly with Eleusis, but they are hardly public enemy number one. No matter what you guys do, it'll likely stay that way, unless Nature somehow decides that it needs to harm Creation to achieve its goals...which would make no sense.

    Targossas used to refuse to raid Eleusis because it asserted they weren't enemies at all. You seemed to be saying that's reasonable and is still the case. People are saying you're wrong: they are an enemy and we acknowledge them as such now.

    Nobody is saying they're the #1 enemy, though. Neither is Evil, imo. We just aren't in a "retaliate only, and beg them to be friends" relationship with Eleusis anymore. They're enemies.

    When it comes to "canon," I think we've been trying in general to not define our ideology based on our enemies, so I don't really like the idea of "canonical enemies" I guess. I'd say Good is what it is, anyone who gets in the way of what we want to achieve is an enemy.

    But I don't think anyone is really disagreeing with you on that to the extent that we do have "canonical enemies." I just don't think that really matters, or even influences who is a priority for us. Who is a priority is dictated by practicality and present circumstances. So if Eleusis presented an imminent threat, they could easily be our #1 priority with the idea being we dispatch them to remove the problem so that we can then get back to dealing with Chaos, Evil, and Darkness, which may present consistent threats, but not necessarily the "most imminent one" at any given time.

  • AccipiterAccipiter Member Posts: 188 ✭✭✭ - Distinguished
    @Antidas I thought we were still talking about Eleusis and since a know a little about that that is what I was talking about. Then it turned to Targossas and since I don't know anything about their RP I just went back to my usual annoying not adding anything to the conversation posts when you made it clear the topic changed.
    Antidas
  • AccipiterAccipiter Member Posts: 188 ✭✭✭ - Distinguished
    Edit window timed out, but I also want to say it is a huge cop out to say you can't do anything without the Bloodsworn. They are like 2 people and if the Eleusian playerbase decides that Targossas is the biggest danger to Nature then it shouldn't be up to the administration, or the divine of the other faction, to say it is allowable. That is an old school make your own RP viewpoint I understand, but it just rubs me the wrong way to have people saying 'We aren't going to engage with you until we get the go ahead from the admins'. Grow some balls and make the game that you have probably spend thousands of dollars on work for you, not the other way around.
  • AnedhelAnedhel Member Posts: 2,297 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    edited March 18
    Tbf, when all the nonsense with Eleusis started, Jhui and friends were a lot more active than they are now, and I can 100% understand why Targossas didn't want to deal with the Eleusian snipesquad on top of Ashtan. Now, it's basically the only good fight I can pick when I'm around, so I'm totally game to fight Eleusis, but when this was starting out, I can really empathize, both IC and OOC, with the 'we might be biting off more than we can chew' mentality that I vaguely remember ruling the day. No shame in that.
  • DaeirDaeir AustraliaMember Posts: 5,637 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    edited March 18
    Accipiter said:
    I like that the start of this thread is everyone saying it is stupid to get divine involved before you have even started and now @Deair is all 'if you want to -actually- rp, get some divine involved'
    Nazihk hit the nail on the head, really. Can't quasi-permanently alter the direction of a theological citystate without having Divine mandate to do so. Believe me, plenty of people have tried and failed miserably.

    So until this Eleusian conflict gets the terse blessing of Smoke-dad, it'll remain forever stuck in this void of "we raid you, dick your shrines and kill your city denizens but we're not actually enemies" yet. Because guess what? They're kinda not unless the Bloodsworn say so, and they haven't, because the situation hasn't been escalated yet.

    Hence the past several pages and nearly half a dozen posts trying to explain this, which even the leader of my city is apparently incapable of understanding properly. Yikes.

    This whole thing puts how falsely mutable the RP situation is between various cities though, which in the context of referring to the original purpose of this thread, is kind of hilarious given how strongly so many people reacted to the notion that divine interference is not necessary for overarching change.

    In some contexts, it absolutely is. Targossas and Mhaldor are two examples of where it indeed, is essential, and would be quite frankly extremely odd if it wasn't. Theocracies where the.. theocratic element is disregarded in lieu of the direction of a mortal leader? That's sort of not a theocracy, yo. And that's precisely where the situation with Eleusis becomes very odd, because Eleusis is at best, a quasi-theocracy, meaning that as observed, their concerted efforts to change the relationship between them and another city can be brushed off as a "death cult" or "savage incursion" rather than a legitimate approach from one faction to another.

    That all changes the moment Artemis or Gaia says something clear and pointed about it publicly, or does something to Targossas to display their discontent.

    Not really sure what is so hard to understand about that. There isn't an aspect of discussion to it. It is what it is, and if you think otherwise, you're basically just wrong.
    :pleased::pleased:
    Asmodron
  • AegothAegoth Member Posts: 1,809 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Man, throw shade at me all you want, but if you fuck with Farrah I will waste all my resources to grief you in ways that will bring to mind the qashar
  • DaeirDaeir AustraliaMember Posts: 5,637 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    edited March 18
    I should add - the moment Artemis and Gaia says something clear and pointed that one of the Bloodsworn (or both) openly respond to. It may very well be that this has already happened from Eleusis' side for all I know.

    I too also have no qualms with fighting Eleusis. I think it'd be a very interesting conflict, probably moreso than the others.
    :pleased::pleased:
  • FarrahFarrah Member Posts: 883 @ - Epic Achaean
    Daeir said:
    Accipiter said:
    I like that the start of this thread is everyone saying it is stupid to get divine involved before you have even started and now @Deair is all 'if you want to -actually- rp, get some divine involved'
    Nazihk hit the nail on the head, really. Can't quasi-permanently alter the direction of a theological citystate without having Divine mandate to do so. Believe me, plenty of people have tried and failed miserably.

    So until this Eleusian conflict gets the terse blessing of Smoke-dad, it'll remain forever stuck in this void of "we raid you, dick your shrines and kill your city denizens but we're not actually enemies" yet. Because guess what? They're kinda not unless the Bloodsworn say so, and they haven't, because the situation hasn't been escalated yet.

    Hence the past several pages and nearly half a dozen posts trying to explain this, which even the leader of my city is apparently incapable of understanding properly. Yikes.

    This whole thing puts how falsely mutable the RP situation is between various cities though, which in the context of referring to the original purpose of this thread, is kind of hilarious given how strongly so many people reacted to the notion that divine interference is not necessary for overarching change.

    In some contexts, it absolutely is. Targossas and Mhaldor are two examples of where it indeed, is essential, and would be quite frankly extremely odd if it wasn't. Theocracies where the.. theocratic element is disregarded in lieu of the direction of a mortal leader? That's sort of not a theocracy, yo. And that's precisely where the situation with Eleusis becomes very odd, because Eleusis is at best, a quasi-theocracy, meaning that as observed, their concerted efforts to change the relationship between them and another city can be brushed off as a "death cult" or "savage incursion" rather than a legitimate approach from one faction to another.

    That all changes the moment Artemis or Gaia says something clear and pointed about it publicly, or does something to Targossas to display their discontent.

    Not really sure what is so hard to understand about that. There isn't an aspect of discussion to it. It is what it is, and if you think otherwise, you're basically just wrong.

    I don't understand how the city I lead operates on a leadership/city direction level? Now you're just being an idiot and insulting me.

    A theocracy doesn't require divine action for everything. It just means the gods are ultimately in charge. The Dawnlord is literally appointed to be the mortal representative of their will. The Dawnlord can definitely make changes to the city. Otherwise, the city would be utter crap if its gods ever went dormant.

    If the gods tell the Dawnlord no, then yeah, it's out. But they don't need to declare war or shit to make it valid.

    I literally called Eleusis an enemy directly in Targossas news, and Deucalion said the typical "your reasoning is sound, I am pleased." So how are you telling me we can't call them an enemy? That makes no sense. Don't "yikes" me.
    BadeDeucalion
  • XadenXaden Member Posts: 1,485 @ - Epic Achaean
    Also, would make the point that the Aarashi actually started taking a proactively aggressive stance against Eleusis/Artemis' order after Rangor interferes in a Crusade and Aurora took exception to it. We were basically told to push their faces in directly by our Divine.
    FarrahRangorBade
  • DaeirDaeir AustraliaMember Posts: 5,637 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    edited March 18
    Nothing you (or anyone else) do as Dawnlord without the mandate of the Bloodsworn will have any meaningful aspect on a part of the game centered around positioning Nature as a DIRECT theological enemy a la Chaos, Darkness and Evil.

    They'll always be on a "lesser" tier of enemy no matter what unless they're endorsed with that mandate, which lends credence to the sort of dismissive attitude that is fairly prevalent towards the conflict at the moment.

    It's the sort of thing that attempts to fuel itself on mutual exchange for several months until people get bored of flinging themselves at a thing that has no direct indication of progress or victory condition, then it ends up being forgotten about as people move on to other things. A few months pass, and with the people responsible for stoking the flames gone, it peters out into nothing.

    It isn't good for the game overall. These sorts of emergent conflicts with obvious effort invested into their longevity should be supported by the Divine since they gain legitimacy that way, and legitimacy fuels and encourages people to sink time into the conflict further, which in turn keeps the conflict going, and keeps things fun for everyone.

    So while I don't advocate for the wholesale fuckery that Kiah suggests in the OP, I do advocate Divine support for existing or emergent conflicts by making them more "real" IC, as history and lore-defining events for citystates that have actual depth beyond "a group of people came in to the city and blew up some things and killed some respawning denizens". Like overgrowing isles, or whatever. 

    A good example of a Divine that does this is right Sartan, see the Cyrene incident that happened recently.
    :pleased::pleased:
    Asmodron
  • MicaelisMicaelis Member Posts: 64 ✭✭✭ - Distinguished
    While steering certain factions towards certain desired paths is a necessity in the game, and welcomed in most scenarios, I think the idea of a 'sandbox' feel to Achaea is something that is often overlooked and more often not explored.

    In the event of a situation that you speak of the hands of Eleusis and Targossas, or any other city, are now tied. We are enemies and to oppose that idea is antithetical to the oaths one takes. It's black and white, no takebacks. By leaving it up to the individual cities about how they undertake the nature of this conflict you have more options. 

    You can have people in Eleusis and Targossas both that rally for peace on both sides, you can have warmongers who begin conflicts with their counterparts in the other city, and you have the ensuing conflicts between the peaceful types and the warmongers. The dynamic can be fluid, and graceful, and fun. Our inability to recognize that and seize on it isn't a testament to the weakness of the conflict, but to our necessity to be spoon-fed content. 

    Let the situation evolve naturally, as it is now, and you can look back on the unfolding story and say 'I helped make that'. Rather than @Deucalion coming out with a flaming pitchfork and shoving it into places that don't shine and forcing your hand. I prefer the first option.
    DeucalionAodfionnBade
  • DaeirDaeir AustraliaMember Posts: 5,637 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    I think there's been ample time for the situation to evolve fairly naturally, so I'm willing to just agree to disagree on this front and just chalk it up to a number of personal differences in how we think the game should be.

    I had a solid chortle at the Deucalion reaction though.
    :pleased::pleased:
  • AodfionnAodfionn Seattle, WAMember Posts: 1,133 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    edited March 18
    But it has already done so; what Farrah and Co are doing now is hugely different from what Targ was doing with the string of absent DLs, and that too was hugely different from the earliest days when Team Blue still seemed like it had never really been broken up. You may not agree with how the events have unfolded, but you can't say that it hasn't evolved naturally. 

    Players from all factions have had the chance to impact how that conflict played out, from people trying to intensify conflict to people trying to influence pacifists in Eleusis to scale that conflict back. People from both factions got the choice to take the angle that made most sense for them and their character and actually have a tangible impact. And that's really fucking cool!


    Aurora says, "Are you drunk, Aodfionn?" 

    (The Targossian Academy): Halos says, "Go on! I need to feel the wind in my hair!"


    FarrahBade
  • AntidasAntidas Member Posts: 1,140 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    It seems to me that there are two totally different things being argued here that everyone is treating as one thing, and thus causing some significant confusion and hostility.

    One of these is being hostile with Eleusis in so far as they are hostile with us. Retaliation, aggression, etc against a faction that has been hostile with us in the past, and insults our gods and drops our shrines and performs ritualistic sacrifice of our denizens in our city etc etc. I don't think anyone here is arguing that we shouldn't raid the f*** out of Eleusis and enjoy the conflict between two of the largest (the two largest? Cyrene doesn't count) factions in the game right now.

    The other side is arguing that despite these aggressions and hostility and whatever else happens between Eleusis and Targossas, Eleusis will likely not be written into our canon or lore or backstory or whatever-else-you-want-to-call-it as a threat to Creation and thus will, in the long run and ICly, not be as important an enemy as Evil/Chaos/Darkness, each of whom are quite literally written into our lore as the three greatest threats to Creation.

    Y'all should stop being so goddamn snarky with each other. WHY CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG???





    *Goes back to Legend of Zelda hole again*

    BadeDaeirTorinn
  • DaeirDaeir AustraliaMember Posts: 5,637 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    edited March 18
    I'm starting to wonder if I have irreconcilable differences in taste for what I want from the game world and what others want from it.

    I would've thought people would be all over Divine players validating existing conflict and encouraging it over.. whatever it is that we currently have. Can't remember the last time two Divine openly clashed over anything. Are people seriously content with the same dry skirmish-raid-shrine conflict cycle over and over again? Do you never wish for things to be a little more?

    I still attest that the Nature-vs-Good conflict will never be anything more than a trifle, ephemeral thing unless it is canonized somehow. Not really sure what part of that is difficult for people to fathom. Antidas seems to get it, yet nearly an hour in a clan discussing it live with other people results in people continuing to miss the point. I'm apparently shit at articulating myself.
    :pleased::pleased:
    AsmodronTorinn
  • MinifieMinifie Member Posts: 743 ✭✭✭✭✭ - Grand Achaean
    edited March 18
    Because driving conflict that requires all parties divine to be active is annoying. IMO player driven world, let the players drive with divine to guide.
    Related image
    BadeYselaLiyane
  • XadenXaden Member Posts: 1,485 @ - Epic Achaean
    Daeir said:
    I'm starting to wonder if I have irreconcilable differences in taste for what I want from the game world and what others want from it.

    I would've thought people would be all over Divine players validating existing conflict and encouraging it over.. whatever it is that we currently have. Can't remember the last time two Divine openly clashed over anything. Are people seriously content with the same dry skirmish-raid-shrine conflict cycle over and over again? Do you never wish for things to be a little more?

    I still attest that the Nature-vs-Good conflict will never be anything more than a trifle, ephemeral thing unless it is canonized somehow. Not really sure what part of that is difficult for people to fathom. Antidas seems to get it, yet nearly an hour in a clan discussing it live with other people results in people continuing to miss the point. I'm apparently shit at articulating myself.
    Now I really wish I'd logged it but...

    Rory : fuck their shit up.

    What more do you want?!
    Atalkez
  • NazihkNazihk Member Posts: 382 ✭✭✭✭ - Eminent
    As a relatively recent convert to Targossas, I think it is pretty apparent that Nature is a second-string enemy at best.

    Joining this city, basically everything I had to fucking read was about how Darkness and Evil and Chaos are bad and why we oppose them and all that jazz. All the sermons were about them. All the rituals were about them. Deucalion's history is specifically opposed to Chaos. They are pretty clearly the main enemies of Targossas by any reasonable standard.

    On the other hand, I don't remember reading a goddamn word about Nature or Eleusis. I don't remember it showing prominently anywhere in the stuff I had to learn about. As far as I've managed to understand it, Targossas doesn't like Eleusis because they're a bunch of dicks who keep attacking us. Sure, they might be one of our main enemies right now, but that's because of circumstance. They're pretty clearly not considered to be on the level of the Dark/Evil/Chaos triad. 
    Torinn
  • RangorRangor Member Posts: 2,672 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    No, maybe, yes.
    image
    Liyane
  • BlujixapugBlujixapug Member Posts: 1,786 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Nazihk said:
    As a relatively recent convert to Targossas, I think it is pretty apparent that Nature is a second-string enemy at best.

    Joining this city, basically everything I had to fucking read was about how Darkness and Evil and Chaos are bad and why we oppose them and all that jazz. All the sermons were about them. All the rituals were about them. Deucalion's history is specifically opposed to Chaos. They are pretty clearly the main enemies of Targossas by any reasonable standard.

    On the other hand, I don't remember reading a goddamn word about Nature or Eleusis. I don't remember it showing prominently anywhere in the stuff I had to learn about. As far as I've managed to understand it, Targossas doesn't like Eleusis because they're a bunch of dicks who keep attacking us. Sure, they might be one of our main enemies right now, but that's because of circumstance. They're pretty clearly not considered to be on the level of the Dark/Evil/Chaos triad. 
    Shallam, Cyrene, and Eleusis were fused into an alliance for, like, half the lifetime of the game. That means that Evil and Chaos got more development as their enemies, Nature didn't get as much time to stand alone and develop itself as an ideology in relation to anything except extermination, and people who can remember those times are probably apprehensive about all that happening again.
    image
    JurixeRangor
  • KiahKiah Member Posts: 56 ✭✭✭ - Distinguished
    I predict this thread is coming to its untimely demise sometime soon.
    Liyane
  • AsmodronAsmodron Member Posts: 1,886 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    edited March 19
    Nazihk said:
    As a relatively recent convert to Targossas, I think it is pretty apparent that Nature is a second-string enemy at best.

    Joining this city, basically everything I had to fucking read was about how Darkness and Evil and Chaos are bad and why we oppose them and all that jazz. All the sermons were about them. All the rituals were about them. Deucalion's history is specifically opposed to Chaos. They are pretty clearly the main enemies of Targossas by any reasonable standard.

    On the other hand, I don't remember reading a goddamn word about Nature or Eleusis. I don't remember it showing prominently anywhere in the stuff I had to learn about. As far as I've managed to understand it, Targossas doesn't like Eleusis because they're a bunch of dicks who keep attacking us. Sure, they might be one of our main enemies right now, but that's because of circumstance. They're pretty clearly not considered to be on the level of the Dark/Evil/Chaos triad. 
    I'd be interested in taking a look at these readings, merely because from the last sermon I heard from Targ their definition of why to oppose Darkness was basically "Twilight is dangerous and did some crap in the past, so we dont like him". Im really hoping the readings mentioned are more developed than that.
    Bade
  • AntidasAntidas Member Posts: 1,140 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Asmodron said:
    Nazihk said:
    As a relatively recent convert to Targossas, I think it is pretty apparent that Nature is a second-string enemy at best.

    Joining this city, basically everything I had to fucking read was about how Darkness and Evil and Chaos are bad and why we oppose them and all that jazz. All the sermons were about them. All the rituals were about them. Deucalion's history is specifically opposed to Chaos. They are pretty clearly the main enemies of Targossas by any reasonable standard.

    On the other hand, I don't remember reading a goddamn word about Nature or Eleusis. I don't remember it showing prominently anywhere in the stuff I had to learn about. As far as I've managed to understand it, Targossas doesn't like Eleusis because they're a bunch of dicks who keep attacking us. Sure, they might be one of our main enemies right now, but that's because of circumstance. They're pretty clearly not considered to be on the level of the Dark/Evil/Chaos triad. 
    I'd be interested in taking a look at these readings, merely because from the last sermon I heard from Targ their definition of why to oppose Darkness was basically "Twilight is dangerous and did some crap in the past, so we dont like him". Im really hoping the readings mentioned are more developed than that.
    They are. Although in the sermon-givers defense, Darkness is possibly the most complicated IC ethos to fully understand, at least for me - I guess I can't speak for everyone else. And I had the advantage of having had a couple different characters (including Antidas) in his pre-order/order at one point or another.

    FarrahXaden
  • SienaSiena Member Posts: 176 ✭✭✭ - Distinguished
    edited March 19
    Before this discussion gets derailed even further I wanted to express similar frustrations. I appreciate @kiah speaking up. I understand that there is a lot more than just pacifism or combat etc. People like combat? Cool all the power to them. There's reasons that make combat a little hard for me as a player. I'm open to it. I will work on it on my own time though. I do appreciate @rangor 's original comment. Siena couldn't go to any other city role play wise. For once in my life I'm actually ENJOYING the game. Eleusis is cool for letting Siena be Siena which is way different compared to the rest of my gaming experience on Achaea. I was always frustrated with the shallamese mentality of "EVERYONE FIGHT NAO!!!" for example. (which I DO like conflict. I did have Siena in Cyrene for some time but it lead to a very boring playtime experience. I do like Eleusis because I can role play with others rather than be a rogue who daydreams in Cyrene or hunt all the time.) I do struggle to find a way to make Siena more passionate about Nature. As a new convert I'm sure she will get there. In the meantime she is just helping her village mates the best she can.

    image

    LiyanePrytheCailin
  • DaeirDaeir AustraliaMember Posts: 5,637 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    edited March 19
    Asmodron said:
    Nazihk said:
    As a relatively recent convert to Targossas, I think it is pretty apparent that Nature is a second-string enemy at best.

    Joining this city, basically everything I had to fucking read was about how Darkness and Evil and Chaos are bad and why we oppose them and all that jazz. All the sermons were about them. All the rituals were about them. Deucalion's history is specifically opposed to Chaos. They are pretty clearly the main enemies of Targossas by any reasonable standard.

    On the other hand, I don't remember reading a goddamn word about Nature or Eleusis. I don't remember it showing prominently anywhere in the stuff I had to learn about. As far as I've managed to understand it, Targossas doesn't like Eleusis because they're a bunch of dicks who keep attacking us. Sure, they might be one of our main enemies right now, but that's because of circumstance. They're pretty clearly not considered to be on the level of the Dark/Evil/Chaos triad. 
    I'd be interested in taking a look at these readings, merely because from the last sermon I heard from Targ their definition of why to oppose Darkness was basically "Twilight is dangerous and did some crap in the past, so we dont like him". Im really hoping the readings mentioned are more developed than that.
    The readings are okay, but the general consensus and understanding of Darkness is extremely limited in lots of people. Tends to be viewed as more antithetical to Light as anything "real" like the subjugation of Creation under Evil, or the Oblivion-singularity end. People gloss over the conclusion of the Great Work being the literal remaking of Creation in Twilight's image and direction as being anything but another hellish doomsday-end scenario for some reason. Never understood it.

    I've taken to calling it the coming of the "Abyss" IC to give it more credence as an actual threat. It's also honestly the most interesting enemy from a theological standpoint, because Twilight is anything but obvious in his motives for what he does, if we even find out what he's doing, unlike Evil and Chaos which tend to broadcast everything they do at any given moment.
    :pleased::pleased:
    AsmodronTorinn
  • AhmetAhmet Wherever I wanna beMember Posts: 2,719 @ - Epic Achaean
    Abyss is a place. Dont call it the Abyss.
    Huh. Neat.
Sign In to Comment.