We have detected that cookies are not enabled on your browser. Please enable cookies to ensure the proper experience.
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5
Results 101 to 115 of 115
  1. #101
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    3 Garden St, Dunberth, Bree
    Posts
    1,006
    Yeah, having read a bit of this thread it's clear that Radh has a very accurate view of things. His tone is keeping him from winning friends

    I have tried multiple times to play a RK and each time, by about level 15, I shudder and say to myself, "This is ridiculous! Who fights with a ROCK?" Because NOBODY fights with rocks, not even in Middle-earth. There were so many ways to tie the Rune-keeper at least a little better with the source material and they missed them all in favor of a generic fantasy caster, starting with rocks as weapons. Wouldn't a "rune-sword" have taken the edge off just a little?

    Even the flashier abilities of other classes can kind of be edged into the lore in a figurative sense. It does say that Anduril "shone like flame" or some such, so I can see why a top level ability might have some zip and zowee (even if Minis and LMs are pushing it). But to have just about every ability have some kind of flashy visual representation is excessive and ridiculous. How many times have you seen little green floaties or a flash and said, "Ah man, here comes a Runekeeper."

    So without any academic Tolkien references, and with respect to the possibility that they are rather fun to play, I'm telling you that RKs are just a misfit. So there.

  2. #102
    Well, I've read this thread (and others like it over the years) with great interest, and it seems to me that the self-appointed defenders of the lore in these threads take a lot for granted. For instance, in terms of the infallibility of the source material. Anything that actually appears in the Hobbit or LOTR is complete gospel and can't be argued with.

    It's worth remembering, however, that whatever we might know, or think, to be true, Professor Tolkien himself while writing these books and sundry reference materials used the conceit that they were merely translations of the journals/travelogues of Bilbo and Frodo. With, to be sure, some added appendices and so forth added at a later date. So, the lore side of this debate is treating these very limited works, written by the most ignorant race in all of Middle-Earth (true, by two of the best educated of that race, but still), as the absolute be-all and end-all of everything there ever can or will be within Tolkien's world.

    The world, or even just Middle-Earth, being quite a bit larger than what we get to see in Bilbo and Frodo's little travelogues. These are straight line trips, with no sight-seeing. Bilbo goes from Bag End to the Lonely Mountain and back, by almost the exact same road. The Fellowship's traveling is a bit more spread out, but even considering every bit of narrative that is really only one member of the Fellowship telling another about something they did, I'd say that less than 20% of the actual landmass of Middle-Earth is seen in the sources we have. Even throwing in all the stuff in Beleriand, that doesn't exist in the Third Age, and hasn't for 6,000 years at the time of LOTR we've barely seen anything of what there is to see in Middle-Earth.

    Speaking of time passing by... The actual accumulated text of both books covers maybe twenty years worth of time? The Hobbit takes place in just about one calendar year, if I'm not mistaken. While LOTR takes place between Bilbo's 111th birthday and the year of his 131st, so call it roughly 21 years, the vast majority of which is skipped over between the first and second chapters. The actual action depicted in the books, Bilbo going There and Back Again and the time between Frodo leaving Hobbitton and let's be nice and say the Battle of Bywater covers just over two calendar years. All the rest of that time is dispensed with in paragraphs. And this is supposed to be the Encyclopedia of Middle Earth?

    Ah, but what about the Silmarillion? Flawed as it is, as quick as some lore jobs are to dismiss it as Christopher messing with the master, you can't say that it lacks scope, taking place as it does over thousands of years, or that it was written by a race whose claim to fame and greatest source of pride is that nothing ever happens in their country. Ah, but that's just it, these are elvish tales, elvish myths and legends, written by the elves, from an elvish perspective. The elves don't even understand what other people mean when they use the word "magic". Why on earth would you expect to read about runekeepers in the legends of a people who consider that kind of thing totally natural?

    An author writing about the modern day might write a sentence like, "They took a taxi to the airport, arriving early enough so that getting though security wasn't an issue." That same author wouldn't take the trouble to explain that a taxi is a kind of automobile, utilizing an internal combustion engine and get into how all of that works. The author would probably also skip the explanation of what an airport is precisely and the exact physics behind heavier than air powered flight. Not to mention all of the details involved in "getting through security".

    True, nowhere does Tolkien write about Maehadros moving his runekeepers into the fray to counter Morgoth's Balrog fire-demons with the power of their cold-speech, but it seems likely that no elf would have needed any such sentence. How else do you fight Balrog fire-demons? Or werewolves if you don't have a Hound of Valinor handy? Or dragons? Tolkien's battle scenes are usually pretty vague, usually favoring stylized descriptions such as "and many of the foe fell before him that day, with yet many more, fearing the puissance of his skill, turning aside from his very visage, and thus did he emerge from the battle virtually unscathed", rather than "slicing and dicing his way through the carnage, using his blade as shield and weapon both. Blocking the cut of one foe before turning and beheading another and then cutting low to remove the leg of yet a third, laughing all the while." My point being, we don't get much nuts and bolts, we get turning points. Glaurung being driven from one battle by the dwarves. The easterlings betrayal of Maedhros. The charge of the Rohirrim, moving beyond the Silmarillion now. You get the picture.

    As for us never seeing battlemagic or runekeepers in the lore, well, as I said in the Silmarillion you have to consider the source, elves who consider that thing as natural as breathing. A book about breathing would be pretty boring. And then in the Hobbit and LOTR... well, Elrond magics up the Bruinen against the Nazgul, Gandalf fighting the Nazgul at weathertop and the wargs before the journey into Moria. But the big thing to consider here, again, is the source. Hobbits. You can count the number of dwarves that actually appear in these books on your fingers and toes. Thirteen dwarves in the Hobbit, plus Gimli in LOTR. Maybe throw in Dain if you want to. And elves? Elrond, Glorfindel, Arwen, Galadriel, Celeborn, Thranduil Legolas. A couple of councillors at Elrond's big council. Cirdan only appears right at the end and has no lines. It's not really surprising the hobbits never see any battle runekeepers.

    But what about Gandalf? he never really does any pew-pew during these big battles does he? Well, the answer is, we don't really know. The only battle Gandalf was really there for and fully participated in is the Battle of Five Armies in the Hobbit and Bilbo is unconscious for most of that, so we have no idea what Gandalf's doing. As for the Battle of the Hornburg, Gandalf spends all that time gathering forces and Huorns and so forth, and only really arrives at the end of the battle. No need for pew-pew. During the Battle of the Pelennor Fields, Gandalf is pretty much in the Houses of Healing the whole time. And the Battle at the Black Gate gets basically called when the Ring is destroyed, and besides Gandalf's busy riding the back of an Eagle rescuing Frodo and Sam during the mopping up. So, who knows what he would have done in any of those battles if things had gone a bit differently?

    Gandalf's a Maiar!!! Elves and dwarves can't do that kind of stuff!!! Well..., if you say so. That's just your opinion though. Even this "magic is innate" stuff isn't in the actual text of anything. And Tolkien can usually be counted on to weigh in on both sides of these debates. I seem to recall in his essay on the Istari that was included in Unfinished Tales that they were forbidden from using their own powers and were restricted to such means and devices as they could learn in the mortal shapes they wore. Maybe I'm remembering incorrectly. maybe I'm remembering correctly but Tolkien contradicts that somewhere else. Point is, again, Tolkien never really made up his mind about a lot of stuff and see-sawed back and forth on both sides of various issues. And anyway, Gandalf says himself in LOTR regarding opening the doors of Moria (i'm paraphrasing here), that he once knew every spell of this kind in the languages of men, dwarves and orcs. Later on he tries to cast a shutting spell against the Balrog, realizes that will be too flimsy, and uses a Word of Command, to spectacular effect. What i'm getting at is: where did he learn all this stuff? It can't be native Maiar stuff if it's in the languages of men, dwarves, orcs or even elves. Again as Gandalf himself says (me paraphrasing again) about saruman, as great as his lore is, even it must have source.

    And the Istari don't even remember what they're there for, exactly! Remember they don't even know the Necromancer is Sauron until Gandalf goes in and finds out for himself. They were still worried about him though. The whole White Council. What or who did they think he was? A Nazgul? Seems unlikely, enslaved to their rings as they are, that one would just set up shop on his own. Or be very effective if he did. Seems like the only other answer would be some kind of evil Mannish sorcerer. My main point being, if they weren't even allowed to remember that they were sent specifically to oppose Sauron, it seems unlikely they remember they have uber Maiar powers.

    To sum up:

    1. There's much more, quantitatively, that we don't know about Middle-Earth, than we do know, so taking what we do know as everything there is or ever can be seems silly, especially considering the ostensible sources of what we do know. One more example, there's four whole houses of dwarves that we know nothing about except the clan names. Maybe that's where all the dwarven runekeepers are.

    2. There's some pretty powerful magic being used in Middle-Earth, not just by Wizards and Maiar, and

    3. Big deal, Gandalf and Saruman are a higher form of spiritual being, they still had to do all the grunt work at Hogwarts (or whatever) like everyone else. Main advantage of Istari I'd say would be functional immortality. And the elves can even match that.

    Not trying to say runekeepers are the best idea Turbine ever had, something a little more subtle would have been appreciated, but it's hard to make the case a lot of people are making in the definitive "case closed" way they like to make it, without closing your eyes to an awful lot.
    [charsig=http://lotrosigs.level3.turbine.com/0820700000004c7c0/signature.png]Golodthir[/charsig]

  3. #103
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Middle-earth
    Posts
    1,697
    Quote Originally Posted by KidShowbusiness View Post
    -snip-
    Your argument boils down to two things, one being "Tolkien doesn't specifically mention it so it can occur", which I pointed out in an earlier post. Down that path lie machineguns and spaceships in LOTRO. You don't add stuff just because it isn't specifically mentioned, especially when it simply doesn't fit the world.

    The other part of your argument is misinformation, by claming stuff like the Istari weren't allowed to use power unless they could learn in it their mortal shapes, or that Gandalf could have been using lots of magical displays during battle but we didn't see it.
    Both are untrue; the first is never mentioned in Unfinished Tales. They simply weren't allowed to use their power so openly, the only time Gandalf did use some 'real' power was when fighting the Balrog, away from mortal eyes.
    "And this the Valar did, desiring to amend the errors of old, especially that they had attempted to guard and seclude the Eldar by their own might and glory fully revealed; whereas now their emissaries were forbidden to reveal themselves in forms of majesty, or to seek to rule the wills of Men and Elves by open display of power, but coming in shapes weak and humble were bidden to advise and persuade Men and Elves to good, and to seek to unite in love and understanding all those whom Sauron, should he come again, would endeavour to dominate and corrupt."

    In other words, the Valar had learned from their past mistake to show those puny mortals their divine abilities.

    As for the second...as we know even from a lore-simple book like LoTR: Gandalf himself in his mortal body couldn't even conjure up a single flame without having a flammable medium such as torchwood (or a pinecone) in the most pressing of situations, yet you expect any Dwarf or Elf to summon magical explosions around their foes with a snap of the finger?

    You don't seem like a dishonest fellow who willfully spreads misinformation, but I'd research a bit before posting things like that.
    Last edited by BirdofHermes; Feb 28 2013 at 11:13 AM.

  4. #104
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    5,686
    Quote Originally Posted by BirdofHermes View Post
    They simply weren't allowed to use their power so openly, the only time Gandalf did use some 'real' power was when fighting the Balrog, away from mortal eyes.
    And also when he had to fend off all nine Ring-wraiths at Weathertop (thought I'd drop that in before someone else does) but the general case is sound and I agree entirely with your post.


    KidShowBusiness: I'm sorry, but you're simply (re-)imagining Tolkien's work as distorted by the expectations of mainstream modern fantasy, with flashy magic being hurled about at the drop of a hat. It's not really like that, what you see in the game is just for purposes of the game, to meet those same expectations.

  5. #105
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Gallifrey. I need a Jelly Baby.
    Posts
    17,522
    Quote Originally Posted by KidShowbusiness View Post
    Well, I've read this thread (and others like it over the years) with great interest, and it seems to me that the self-appointed defenders of the lore in these threads take a lot for granted. For instance, in terms of the infallibility of the source material. Anything that actually appears in the Hobbit or LOTR is complete gospel and can't be argued with.
    Well, we "self appointed defenders of the lore" do so because we love Tolkien's works and we are because we love Middle Earth. Of course anything that appears in The Hobbit or LOTR can't be argued with. Do the devs need to tweak the books to make it work with gameplay? Of course. But there is a really fine line.



    3. Big deal, Gandalf and Saruman are a higher form of spiritual being, they still had to do all the grunt work at Hogwarts (or whatever) like everyone else. Main advantage of Istari I'd say would be functional immortality. And the elves can even match that.
    .

    Hogwarts or whatever? If you're going to post here in the Tolkien subsection please try not to thumb your nose at his works. Do it in the General Forums section but not here.

    Do I like Rune Keeper? I hate it. I'm a traditionalist. I feel this goes against his works. But I can understand why Turbine brought the class in, and like I said on page one, I think Turbine did a pretty good job at finding a compromise to make it work.
    Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, totally worn out & proclaiming "WOW, what a ride!"
    [I][FONT=comic sans ms][COLOR=#ffff00]Continuing the never ending battle to keep Lobelia Sackville-Baggins in check[/COLOR][/FONT][/I]

  6. #106
    I quite enjoy the RK, actually. I recently rolled one and am happily leveling him after getting sick of the endgame grind. However, being a roleplayer, I keep the divide between his class and his character very strict. His character bears no mention whatsoever of his ability to call down lightning from the heavens as a class. He's simply a quiet writer that keeps to himself, but he is NEVER in character when leveling, etc. I understand that RKs are a bit shaky as far as lore (and, frankly, would be a bit of a challenge to justify in role-play), but I still very much enjoy the class regardless.

    I can see validity to all arguments here. I enjoy the game for its gameplay and also for its lore and interpretation of the books, and I keep the two very separate.

  7. #107
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5
    If one were to return to the actual wording of this thread: the "Validity" of the Runekeeper, I think most Tolkien purists would oppose the class. In fact, I really loved the initial game concept that Loremasters were more like alchemists and tricksters, and the Minstrels healed by keeping up morale, as opposed to magically sealing wounds. That idea has been watered down a bit with the Runekeeper

    Generally speaking (without there being a really firm distinction), the concept of "Magic" is reserved for beings of divine or semi-divine nature, like the Istari wizards, the Maiar, and the characters of Maiar descent like Elrond and Galadriel. And magic is a fickle mistress, very hard to command, and almost impossible to fathom as a normal being.

    In several passages in LOTR, Gandalf also mentions, that he COULD be using some more magical powers, but that would be the equivalent of putting up a big sign for Sauron saying "Here we are!" So he avoids it whenever possible, and restricts his activities to relatively simple "Party-tricks".

    I think that would make it impractical for a character to effectively fight the forces of Mordor, by largely relying on Magic.

    Entirely from a game-balance perspective, I have nothing against the Runekeeper. But I do wish they had implemented the ideas (Ranged damage, etc) in a different way, like shooting a weapon or throwing an object, rather than casting lightning and fireballs.

  8. #108
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,948
    So the RK is actually based on Tolkien himself and his magic pet rock "Critter's Bane"...

    S'nice to come back and find this matter settled!
    Today is a good day for Pie.

    Do not meddle in the affairs of Burglars, for they are subtle and quick to shank you.

  9. #109
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    England
    Posts
    753
    Heavily armoured battle frenzied champions don't fit with Tolkien's view of ME, in fact any plate mail at all ruins it. Wardens? I don't recall any mention of Sparta in Middle-earth, nor their hoplites. No class really fits in with the lore and frankly we shouldn't expect it to. That being said a "mage" class was unavoidable. The LM's "battlefield chemistry set" explanation wasn't enough apparently so in wades the RK. As people have said prior, "magic" in its many, varied forms was not something flashy or obvious in Middle-earth except in the rarest of cases, and even then was fairly subtle c.f. raging flood waters vs actually shooting lightning at someone's face.

    It's been said you can interpret the huge lightning strikes and fireballs as "visualisations" of what is, in actuality, a much more subtle effect. Something to let you know your RK is doing damage because IRL (or at least, in Middle-earth) you wouldn't see much more than the enemy getting a bit hot under the collar or whatever, similar to Aragorn's "oh my, my sword's really hot, look!" in the film when confronted by Gandalf.

    I don't think we should get too hung up on the RK or any class for that matter and their place in the lore. Certain aspects of the game are bound to circumvent the lore as it is "game-ified". Perhaps some classes are less valid than others (but in being so are perhaps more fun for some people). Trying to RP your way around it for personal reasons is fair enough but trying to come up with logical shoe horns to fit them in is never going to work.

  10. #110
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    5,686
    Quote Originally Posted by Curandhras View Post
    Heavily armoured battle frenzied champions don't fit with Tolkien's view of ME, in fact any plate mail at all ruins it. Wardens? I don't recall any mention of Sparta in Middle-earth, nor their hoplites. No class really fits in with the lore and frankly we shouldn't expect it to.
    There's no reason why they couldn't, it's just that Turbine elected to go for 'flashy' rather than 'gritty', presumably trying to be crowd-pleasing. Hence also stereotypical fantasy RPG tropes like plate armour and dual-wielding (done with two full-sized weapons as if that were something commonplace, which is comic-book stuff) as well as flashy magic. Going around with spears and a shield actually fits better than most, though, although the styling may be a little off. They missed the mark there rather than inventing something truly out of place.

    That being said a "mage" class was unavoidable. The LM's "battlefield chemistry set" explanation wasn't enough apparently so in wades the RK. As people have said prior, "magic" in its many, varied forms was not something flashy or obvious in Middle-earth except in the rarest of cases, and even then was fairly subtle c.f. raging flood waters vs actually shooting lightning at someone's face.
    Indeed, the need to be (mindlessly) crowd-pleasing trumps everything else, it seems.

    It's been said you can interpret the huge lightning strikes and fireballs as "visualisations" of what is, in actuality, a much more subtle effect. Something to let you know your RK is doing damage because IRL (or at least, in Middle-earth) you wouldn't see much more than the enemy getting a bit hot under the collar or whatever, similar to Aragorn's "oh my, my sword's really hot, look!" in the film when confronted by Gandalf.
    "It's been said" but it's untrue thanks to the way Turbine wrote the skill descriptions. If you foresee that someone's fate is to be badly hurt by lightning, logic does rather demand that what you then hurl at them really is lightning. Besides, whatever such dubious arguments people try to use, the whole styling remains 'off' for Middle-earth, with the idea that anyone would need no weapon other than magic. We all know that's not even true of Istari, in the Sil it's not even true of Morgoth himself. The RK can't be rehabilitated that easily because it wasn't set up to fit in with anything except player expectations for a mage class, which are by their very nature foreign to the setting.

    I don't think we should get too hung up on the RK or any class for that matter and their place in the lore. Certain aspects of the game are bound to circumvent the lore as it is "game-ified". Perhaps some classes are less valid than others (but in being so are perhaps more fun for some people). Trying to RP your way around it for personal reasons is fair enough but trying to come up with logical shoe horns to fit them in is never going to work.
    Who's hung up on the RK's place in lore? It's very simple, it doesn't have one; Jeff Steefel admitted as much before the Moria expansion was even launched. And again regarding 'gamification', that's untrue: the design brief for the RK was for an unabashedly powerful elemental mage but it didn't have to be like that. It could have been more subtle but that evidently wasn't what Turbine's management wanted. Don't confuse their choices with the inevitable needs of a game, not in every last detail.

  11. #111
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    England
    Posts
    753
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    There's no reason why they couldn't, it's just that Turbine elected to go for 'flashy' rather than 'gritty', presumably trying to be crowd-pleasing. Hence also stereotypical fantasy RPG tropes like plate armour and dual-wielding (done with two full-sized weapons as if that were something commonplace, which is comic-book stuff) as well as flashy magic. Going around with spears and a shield actually fits better than most, though, although the styling may be a little off. They missed the mark there rather than inventing something truly out of place.
    The old champ spear-shield combo always felt fairly at home in ME to me. That's gone, unfortunately.

    I thought the dev's admission that the Warden was taken just as much from Tekken/Street Fighter than anything Tolkien ever wrote was indicative of their take on fitting vs. crowd pleasing.


    "It's been said" but it's untrue thanks to the way Turbine wrote the skill descriptions. If you foresee that someone's fate is to be badly hurt by lightning, logic does rather demand that what you then hurl at them really is lightning. Besides, whatever such dubious arguments people try to use, the whole styling remains 'off' for Middle-earth, with the idea that anyone would need no weapon other than magic. We all know that's not even true of Istari, in the Sil it's not even true of Morgoth himself. The RK can't be rehabilitated that easily because it wasn't set up to fit in with anything except player expectations for a mage class, which are by their very nature foreign to the setting.
    Oh no I fully agree, I was simply pointing out one of the myriad examples of "lore crowbars" I've heard used to attempt to shoehorn the RK in.


    Who's hung up on the RK's place in lore? It's very simple, it doesn't have one; Jeff Steefel admitted as much before the Moria expansion was even launched. And again regarding 'gamification', that's untrue: the design brief for the RK was for an unabashedly powerful elemental mage but it didn't have to be like that. It could have been more subtle but that evidently wasn't what Turbine's management wanted. Don't confuse their choices with the inevitable needs of a game, not in every last detail.
    Again, the OP/thread title seemed to suggest a discussion on the RK's lore-abiding credentials, whereas I agree there isn't one to be had.

    I'm sure their choices aren't inevitable although as you say their pandering to the masses does limit their options as to how sensible they can make the classes. I don't doubt a very solid game could be made well within the restrictions of Tolkien's "laws of physics" so to speak. Like you say though, Turbine are clearly not ones to go down that route.

  12. #112
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    In my TARDIS
    Posts
    123
    Okay guys, can we just let the matter drop?

    Yes, I had a misconception of the RK that allowed me to think that it was valid(albeit with a few changes)
    Yes, I still think that with a little skill editing (hint:it would involve seriously downsizing the visuals and rewording the skill names) it could still fit.
    And Yes, my perception has been exposed as fallacious and I no longer thinks it fits as it is.

    The thread was more about the validity of magic as a whole than the validity of the Rune Keeper. I have run into people who did not think magic of any kind belonged in Middle Earth, so this thread was meant to combat that. I am one of the people who subscribes to the LM chemistry battle set, so the only one magic really concerned was the RuneKeeper's, so I named it the Validity of the RuneKeeper.
    Lore-Monkey(not a Lore Guardian) and proud of it.

    .

  13. #113
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    5,686
    Quote Originally Posted by Mellonbeleg View Post
    Okay guys, can we just let the matter drop?
    Quite possibly, it depends...

    Yes, I had a misconception of the RK that allowed me to think that it was valid(albeit with a few changes)
    Yes, I still think that with a little skill editing (hint:it would involve seriously downsizing the visuals and rewording the skill names) it could still fit.
    And Yes, my perception has been exposed as fallacious and I no longer thinks it fits as it is.
    Leaving aside the whole 'elemental' thing and the inherent silliness of waving a rock about in battle, what doesn't fit is the core concept of a class that focuses on serious damage-dealing via magic, and needing no weapon other than magic. It doesn't matter how you dress that up, nobody short of powerful Maiar should be up to doing serious direct harm by magic and even then, only in limited ways so that even they still needed physical weaponry in combat. Magic as utility (buff/debuff, status effects, crowd control) in combination with physical force is what's really in harmony with the setting. So, if you think that a bit of tweaking of visuals and rewording of skills could fix the RK then no, I don't agree.

    The thread was more about the validity of magic as a whole than the validity of the Rune Keeper. I have run into people who did not think magic of any kind belonged in Middle Earth, so this thread was meant to combat that. I am one of the people who subscribes to the LM chemistry battle set, so the only one magic really concerned was the RuneKeeper's, so I named it the Validity of the RuneKeeper.
    Yeah, well, anyone who says there's no magic has gone to the opposite extreme and has lost the plot, as that's no more supportable a position than thinking there ought to be mages everywhere just because it's fantasy

  14. #114
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,948
    I just couldn't help myself! I had to give this hornet's nest one more poke with a stick and see what came buzzin' out!

    Heeheehee...
    Today is a good day for Pie.

    Do not meddle in the affairs of Burglars, for they are subtle and quick to shank you.

  15. #115
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    In my TARDIS
    Posts
    123
    Quote Originally Posted by bambubambubambu View Post
    I just couldn't help myself! I had to give this hornet's nest one more poke with a stick and see what came buzzin' out!

    Heeheehee...
    20 slaps with a wet noodle for you /slap /slap /slap /slap /slap /slap /slap /slap /slap /slap /slap /slap /slap /slap /slap /slap /slap /slap /slap /slap

    I know Rad. I am in the nasty habit of drastically understating things I shouldn't. To me, rewording skills and visuals is nearly paramount to scrapping the whole class and starting over. Sorry.
    Lore-Monkey(not a Lore Guardian) and proud of it.

    .

 

 
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

This form's session has expired. You need to reload the page.

Reload