One of my players wants to play a necromancer. 
I'm not sure it fits the campaign, but I want the player to have fun and play a character they like. What do you think?
In my campaign:
A. Animating undead is generally evil. It requires binding a soul and subjecting it to torment. There may be a little room for grey/neutral activity there, but repeatedly or non-temporarily animating undead seems pretty evil. Having said that...
B. Necromancy and undead are not really central to the main storyline. There or not, they don't have much effect.
C. PC's cannot be evil, at least not without a great story and not permanently.
QUESTIONS:
1. Keeping in mind the campaign/house rules above, the Undead Thrall ability makes the necromancer subclass generally evil by default, doesn't it? (I guess some would say it's supposed to?) Do I have to change A for this character to work?
2. Is it viable (fluff-wise) and balanced (rules-wise) to let the player play a necromancer but just never use Undead Thrall? (I feel like this could be interesting like Dark Sun defiling...an easy option that's always there to tempt you.)
3. Is it un-fun and unfair to the player to have a major ability that can't be used? (I'm especially interested in how necromancer fans feel about this.)
4. Is modifying or replacing Undead Thrall with another ability a viable alternative...rules-wise and fun-wise?
a) Undead Targeting: Modify Undead Thrall as follows...You gain animate dead or disrupt undead (a new hypothetical wizard spell). You can target one additional corpse or pile of bones with the former, or one additional undead creature (i.e. one more than a non-necromancer wizard) with the latter. If you choose animate dead, whenever you create an undead using a necromancy spell, its hp max increases and it does more damage. If you choose disrupt undead, whenever you disrupt an undead creature it's hp max decreases and it does less damage (or something like that).
b) Channel Spirits. Instead of Undead Thrall, you can speak with spirits and channel their traits (think mediums, vestiges, willing possession, etc.).
c) Undead Companion. Instead of Undead Thrall, you gain a ghostly spirit, non-evil flesh golem, or summonable corpse companion.
d) Life Transfer. Instead of Undead Thrall, you can transfer hp from one thing (plant, animal, undead) to a willing ally in order to heal or grant temporary hit points.
I won't push this point, but seeing as necromancy is not a significant plot point, why does it have to be evil? I've never really understood the die-hard absolute conviction the necromancy must be objectively evil, beyond taboos. If you didn't need to trap the souls, or the souls didn't experience any torment, the moral problem is at least greatly mitigated. The vast majority of people might see it as evil (unnatural, desecration, defiling the target's memory, etc), but the necromancer could at least defend their actions on the grounds that other people are just overreacting. To them, it's no different from animating a golem or plant or something, but more efficient, since corpses are already equipped to move around and do stuff without a lot of alteration.
As for mechanics, if you're set on that flavor, my favorite is the ghost companion. It depends on what the player wants to get out of being a necromancer, though. Personally, if I didn't have my primary minion-generating mechanic, that path would lose a lot of shine. The companion changes the "feel" of the class a bit, but it's still a necromancer in essence.
You have to change A. Necromancy doesn't have to be objectively evil. Taboos and social norms may object to using corpses, but that doesn't make it evil.
marius4 wrote:
Before I get into the business of offering advice, can I ask a couple of questions.
1. Why is animate dead considered evil in your campaign
2. Why do you not what evil character in your campaign.
marius4 wrote:
Centauri wrote:
First of all, necromancy and the likes are more evil from a more traditional western point of view. If we look at the bound to the dead the Voodoo shares (practically that no one ever truly cease to exist) or some of the old far east death cults, we see that reanimating a corpse can also be considered as an act of divinity. And of course we don't want to forget Eberron's Aerenal Elves.
But using a corpse is at least macabre. ;)
Asking your player is a great first step, but asking your entire group would be more appropriate, since it would suck, if someone says: "My character would never accept such a thing" after deciding to let the player have his/her necromancer. Some good compromises would be:
1.) Play a good/neutral necromancer. Like the Aerenal Elves use positive energy to make their people to deathless or the voodoo priests (down to the simplest core) try to awake a god in the corpse, the necromancer could be using a less evil way to revive the dead and have a different point of view regarding necromancy.
2.) Actually be evil: As long as you have a good campaign which enforces the idea of joining forces with those who are available (like when running Tyranny of Dragons), having one evil character won't really disturb the party balance, as long the players keep the evil deeds in check. "Murdering someone for the cause? My hands are already dirty, you are not able to do the necessary!"
3.) Having a party of antiheroes: If the heroes aren't as good either, there shouldn't be much disturbance, if necromancy comes into the play.
;)
Kentus wrote:
Kentus wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Kentus wrote:
I'm going to take the opposite view from some of the others:
OP, I think you should ban Necromancers from being PCs in your campaign if you don't like them and they don't fit your ideas of player characters.
Your campaign restrictions seem perfectly reasonable, cohesive and well thought out - and in my opinion, I think your gut instinct is right and a Necromancer player-character doesn't fit within them.
As the DM, it's important for everyone to have fun and enjoy the campaign world - but it's most important that you do so since you are the glue holding everything together. If you don't like something, you don't feel it fits or it makes you uncomfortable - don't use it. Sure, there's a chance that you might not mind the player being a Necromancer, but based on your intuition about it already - there's a greater chance that you won't be happy with it and could lose enthusiasm for the character or even the game, which is no good for anyone.
The idea that "a player is not going to enjoy themselves unless they get to play the pre-conceived character concept that they are initially interested in bringing to the game and should therefore be allowed to play exactly what they want to play" is complete nonsense in my experience. It is usually very easy to help them find another concept that they will enjoy just as much, if not more.
That being said, there is a right and wrong way to go about this, and in my experience the sure-fire way to do it successfully is to spell it out ahead of time, when you are looking for players to join the campaign. That way there are no surprises. If it's too late for that, just have an honest and open conversation with the guy and I'll bet you a million bucks you can find another character concept he would be just as happy with. "Look, I should have mentioned this before I invited you to play, but in my world Necromancy is pure evil and I don't want the PCs to be able to use it. Is there another cool character concept we can figure out for you?" No one with any level of maturity is going to say, "What? I can't be a Necromancer? Screw that - I don't want to play now."
To give you an idea of what I mean, in my new 5E game I'm not allowing Monks, Warlocks, Dragonborn or Tieflings because they don't fit my idea of hero PCs - so they are left to be NPCs. I'm also not fond of short races played as comic-relief (and that also includes bards), so if they player want to play one of those I "challenge" them to make it a cool character concept and they typically love that challenge. I have noticed no reduced interest in finding players - I still have to beat them off with a stick, just like always.
I've been GMing for about 30 years now and I've never had a person express anything more than mild displeasure at my pre-campaign house rules - not being able to be a silly Bard has never been a deal-breaker for anyone. Most players are just looking to have fun game with a good group of guys, and have several character concepts that interest them with a little prodding.
While my post may seem at odds with some of the others in this thread, I can guarantee you there are tons of DMs who ban classes, races and other stuff from their campaign that they don't like - and it's with good reason.
Centauri wrote:
Kentus wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
I'm not trying to change your mind Centauri and I'm not going to get into a thread-hijacking, line-for-line semantics debate - too many of those on the internet already.
Just relating my personal experience and viewpoint, and letting the OP know that it is perfectly acceptable as the DM to dictate what is and isn't allowed in your campaign - it's done sucessfully all the time, and in fact most games encourage it for homegrown worlds. Don't let anyone tell you that your are having wrong-fun if it's not the same way they would do it.
Ansbach wrote:
Kentus wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
marius4 wrote:
While it is true that undead are generally cast as villians, the recent rash of sparkly vampire movies should show that it is not always the case. Animate dead might not actually enslave a soul, it just might use a former body as raw materials, infusing it with arcane engery, or energy from an outer plane. Or you could re-skin the spell to create a construct, small golem, or soemthing similar. In Jewish folklore a golem was seen as a protective spirit who watched out for the community. It might be more of a "life from lifelessness' thing than a "arise servant of the bones" kind of thing. Just as warlocks are not necessarily evil or connected to demonic/devilish powers, a necromancer could be of any alignment. In fact, good "necromancers" might be something like a master of kaballah, one who delves into the mysteries of creation and existance, and as a biproduct has magical powers.
marius4 wrote:
What if the undead are just rising all the time? Clerics deal with a lot of this issue, but necromancers serve a valuable social service by putting this menace to work.
Does the player want to be an undead raising person or just have the powers of a necromancer? If the latter you can refluff it totally. E.g. his raising the dead spells simply cause the dead person to come back as a good angel type being. If not commanded and had been mudered or slain by evil in some manner they might have some self automation until the deed was avenged.
It can depend a lot on the campaign that the DM is running.
For example for a campaign that I was going to be running was set in Thrane, as a group who came together when a village was under threat and who are seeking out the source, it was tricky.
Being a Necromancer wizard type casting necromantic spells? No problem. Raising lots of undead? Big problem. Doing so would bring the the character into direct conflict with the people, the authorities and the national religion.
For a different campaign set in Karrnath for example? That character concept would be fine.
There may be ways to fit the character in without disrupting the existing party or the campaign. If you can't find one though, it may be best to tell them that the concept is unsuitable rather than them playing a crippled version of their concept or losing the character early.
Did the player know about A and C when he came up with the necromancer idea?
If he did know, why'd he still come up with the idea? Charitably assuming he has more reasoning to it than 'I just want to ignore what the DM said'?
Is he even listening to you, if you told him about A and C?
iserith wrote:
Tweek the spell and the ability for the player so that he is summmoning willing spirits to animate the body. perhaps former members of and oder of necro and familiy who have die coming to his aid. If your set on animated dead as evil make him the one exception and use it as a plot. other necro are out for those souls and he is there keeper and gaurds them and for this they willing come to his aid.
Atheosis wrote:
There is nothing weird about taking full control of your character and roleplaying him in such a way so as to not negatively impact the game experience for another player.
Noon wrote:
iserith wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
iserith wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
That's fine Centauri. What I was referring to was each player creating their respective character in isolation, and then meeting in game. That was what I was warning against. Iserith's take is that you can just have your Paladin accept this strange Necromancer, just because, and I find that ridiculous. If the players work out a way to make it work beforehand that pretty much equates to what I suggested in terms of players figuring out how to make their characters so their isn't any fundamental incompatability in the party. I do not and will never subscribe to the notion that players should just cast their characters' motivations aside whenever they might get in the way. That is not roleplaying to me. And it's not about method acting. I certainly do not engage in method acting and neither do my players. Of course that's the key. Me and my group play characters to the hilt as their overall motivations and personality dictate, and we do not take it personally because, as iserith said, we are not our characters. Some of the most fun I've ever had is PC conflict in a party (as a player mind you). Just hand-waiving things away that might give rise to conflict is weak in my eyes, but I'm really starting to think there is a whole breed of entitled gamer with very thin skin that you guys play with, and, fortunately, I don't.
Atheosis wrote:
Just being a Necromancer isn't a thing that most Paladins will have issues with. Neither is casting most necromancy spells. Its quite possible for a Necromancer and Paladin to work together.
Of course if the Necromancer, or any other character does something that the Paladin is required to prevent, that can lead to conflict. In the rules though, its quite easy to render someone unconscious rather than kill them.
To be fair though, the Paladin is probably more at risk than the Necromancer or other evil character. She is more likely to give the benefit of the doubt, allow for redemption, or accept a promise that it won't happen again. The evil character may have very few compunctions about killing her in her sleep.
Thats one reason that unless I'm running an evil campaign, if someone wants to play an evil character, I put the onus on them to avoid conflict. As Iserith says, it should be possible to come up with a reasoning as to why your character doesn't take the obvious course.
Atheosis wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
Proabably a bit late to the party on this one, but I thought I'd stick my oar in.
marius4 wrote:
A player who wishes to play a paladin can choose from one of the 1000s of potential paladin concepts that can work with the necromancer, or he can choose from one of the 100s of potential paladin concepts that can't.
If the paladin player chooses one of the paladin character concepts that disrupts the game - instead of one of the paladin character concepts that doesn't - then the necromancer character and player are not the problem.
Beldak_Serpenthelm wrote:
iserith wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
Beldak_Serpenthelm wrote:
If it were really turning into an issue - which I doubt it would with mature players in the first place - I'd be inclined to have the players figure it out themselves. Tell them they need to work together to determine a reason that each other's characters are an exception to the rule, or roll new characters.
I'd also explain to both of them that a little bit of character conflict can be great and add to the group dynamic, but if they aren't careful it can be disruptive - so the players need to stay socially aware and keep their characters in check.
All that being said, it's a lot easier (and perfectly acceptable) to head the problems off at the pass and just not allow evil classes/races in your campaign, if that is your preference.
Captain_Kobold wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
My two cents for the OP
Easiest way to do this is to say the character studied or developed a new method for Necromancy. You don't need to change anything in your world, and you can even have the player (if he wants) confronting other necromancers on their improper usage of the souls of the dead
It'd actually be a bit cool, having a necromancer being the guy who hates people creating undead because they see the bodies of the dead as a precious resource to be utilized and the other necromancers see them as tools or opportunities to torture people's souls after death.
Atheosis wrote:
Chaosmancer wrote:
Anyone who gives another player a hard time and hides behind "It's what my character would do" or "My character wouldn't do that," isn't roleplaying in good faith. They're holding the game hostage, violating the metagame (and too often unspoken) agreement that the party will work together to accomplish their goals. This is jerk behavior and they should be called out for it as well as anyone advocating this as a good practice.
iserith wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
iserith wrote:
Beldak_Serpenthelm wrote:
Centauri wrote:
As a variant to the usual type of necromancy, I'd like to see magic that calls on the aid of dead heroes or warriors to take a temporary physical form to fight against your enemies.
The summoned warrior or warriors probably would use a different stat block than the zombie or skeleton, maybe something like the Guard statblock from the DM Basic rules.
Of course these would be temporary summons.
Ansbach wrote:
Raez_Daevan wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
Captain_Kobold wrote:
Noon wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
Captain_Kobold wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
iserith wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
I have to disagree with a variety of posters on the animate dead issue. That is by far evil. How would you feel if some necromancer animated a corpse of a loved or pet and it was shambling about town with its new master? What if some unscrupulous family member sold the corpse to said necromancer? Would a family member have any claim to prevent said abuse? What regulations would a town or city have in place to prevent wandering dead roaming the town, spreading disease and pestilence in their wake? The other necromancy powers except clone & magic jar really don't seem too bad. I could see playing a "white" necromancer that did not use animate dead but made use of other powers. Kind of like playing with fire. I would suggest giving the player an alternative power such as speak with dead or allowing the necromancer to detect memories of a dead person such as the last events in its life. That way you could play a detective and use your powers of death to uncover murder mysteries and help others. That was the original intent of necromancy after all, to summon shades of the dead for prophecy and insight. The mad necromancer animating dead is very much a voodoo doctor aspect and is not very indicitive of western concepts of necromancy.
Atheosis wrote:
iserith wrote:
DLfan wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Captain_Kobold wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
DLfan wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
DLfan wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
DLfan wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
How about Fungomancer. He takes the bodies and makes giant fungus monsters out of them. He isn't touching their souls they already left for whatever after life they have in the game. Are we saying its evil to use bodies or its evil to trap souls in them. Does it matter if the animated thing looks like an undead or a giant fungus monster?
I am actually about to start a character who is a wizard but he was taught entirely by reading from an old possibly dodgy bunch of books in an old abandoned temple. He might yet turn to necromancy I am not quite sure yet how tainted the source of his magic is going to have been. I think one of the other players is thinking of being some sort of paladin. But fortunately I will have a few levels to find out exactly how the other players behave so I can decide what happens then.
I am often suprised how much people plan their characters from level one to infinity. I much prefer to play the game level up and decide what to do then. This was admitedly almost impossible in DDO online without gimping the character but 5th seems to have much less massively dependant branches that this approach will be fine. I like my characters to react to the world they find themselves in.
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
it seems that religon probably has a lot to do with how corpses are treated. It would be possible today to set up a utopian atheistic society where corpses could be treated simply as the resource they are, but because of how societies evolve and the fact that in most d&d games gods and souls actually exist animating dead is much more likely to be considered evil.
DLfan wrote:
marius4 wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
Captain_Kobold wrote:
iserith wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
iserith wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
iserith wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
iserith wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
iserith wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
iserith wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
iserith wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
iserith wrote:
Iserith, I respect your right to have your own opinion, even if I think it's wrong. :P
I just don't think we have much more to discuss, because we keep coming back to this:
Ansbach wrote:
iserith wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
Captain_Kobold wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
iserith wrote:
Captain_Kobold wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
The "breaking character" discussion is an interesting one. Whatever the terminology, I believe what's being discussed is someone saying "My character is this way," and then not playing the character that way. If someone says "My character will immediately kill any undead he sees," and then he sees undead and doesn't kill it, that player is doing something that a lot of people would take issue with. I think this is because groups like to see players drawn into dilemmas or at least into trouble because of what they declared about their character, and when the player makes the unexpected choice to avoid the trouble the other players feel ripped off. It's very much akin to cheating, when looked at like that.
I don't think anyone really wants anyone's game to be boring as a result of the trouble caused by their lets just call them aspects. I think they just want to see something cool arise. Either there will be trouble, or the player will figure out a way out of it, while being consistent with the character. Just sidestepping it robs them of that.
To drive this point home with one of those gunpowder driven bolts, think of a time when a character in a story did something you didn't expect them to do. Gave up. Got scared. Turned traitor. What do people say when this happens? "They'd never do that! There must be some reason!" In fictional stories, there usually is. It was a ruse. There's a secret in his past. The enemy's got something on him.
D&D players don't generally allow those kinds of reasons, unless the GM is involved and usually not unless they've been worked out in advance. Doing something other than what's expected can and does throw wrenches into plans, so not only does the player come off as cheating, they come off as disruptive.
I'd be interested to know if the "you must always act this way" crowd is the same as "the rules are the physics of the world" crowd. Both crave predictability and want any abnormalities to have fascinating explanations that leave the predictability intact.
iserith wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
DLfan wrote:
iserith wrote:
Noon wrote:
DLfan wrote:
Is the OP still here?
If so, here are my two cents. I don't think there's anything wrong or unusual about your A, B and C re: the moral nature of animating the dead, the (non-)centrality of necromancy and undead, and having no evil PCs. After all, in 5th edition, skeletons and zombies are in fact evil, so animating the corpses of the dead with evil spirits does seem at least problematic and worrisome.
However, that's precisely your way to invite the player to help you out. That is, explain to the player that animating dead is morally problematic, even if it *might* be justified. Then, let him come up with an interesting idea for a PC that will account for his being a good or neutral necromancer. In the old Ravenloft setting, there was a variant (a "kit") for spellcasters called an "arcanist", who was a dabbler in forbidden lore (necromancy and summoninig magic), but there were "white" arcanists, as well as grey and black ones. The good (white) ones were studying the forbidden lore so as not merely to understand it, but also to oppose it. Maybe the PC is something like that. Or, maybe he's like a paladin who swore and oath of vengeance, and is willing to do what needs to be done, to do what others can't and shouldn't have to do (i.e. this necromancer might practice dark magic to oppose greater evils and risks his own soul so that others don't have to). You can even have a good person who is a warlock with a fiendish pact. In all of these cases, there's something morally/spiritually problematic, and it might make the PC something of an oddity in your world. Still, if the player knows this, and can come up with some ideas that don't violate the basic set-up you have, then why not let him give it a go?
[quote="Thoughts_My_Aim"]Everything[/quote]
Just wanted to say,as someone who is currently playing a Necromancer (Level 3 at the moment) in HotDQ, your comments have been amazing to read and very helpful in helping me flesh out my character (essentially a Dorf clan historian who's been studying necromantic energy as a way to help improve quality-of-life, and after producing a paper about the potential benefits of Undead labour left his clan to prove his point to stick-in-the-mud traditionalists; especially since a key part of their beliefs involves invoking ancestor spirits for divinatory purposes!)
So thank you Thoughts_My_Aim, you are very much appreciated 
[quote="Kallas"]
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
My advice is to make him come up with an interesting reason he has necromancy, but isn't evil. When I run characters like this, usually they were evil at one point, but have since changed, and are now simpley using the weapon of the enemy against them.
"A. Animating undead is generally evil. It requires binding a soul and subjecting it to torment. There may be a little room for grey/neutral activity there, but repeatedly or non-temporarily animating undead seems pretty evil. Having said that..."
Lets break that down:
- "Animating undead is generally evil." That is fine, you're not saying it's always evil, just most of the time.
- "It requires binding a soul and subjecting it to torment." Does the soul have to be one that belonged to the corpse? If so, then maybe the character discovered a way of using the souls of murderers ect. to inhabit the corpses instead of the original ones. Maybe he has some kind of soul orb he fills up when there are executions or when killing monsters, that he uses to animate his undead. Using this method he woudn't need to keep track of these things, it's simpley adding an extra material component to the spell, that he's concidered to have on hand.
- "There may be a little room for grey/neutral activity there, but repeatedly or non-temporarily animating undead seems pretty evil." It definitly isn't a Good act, but it's not really evil either. What he's doing with the corpses is really what drives the morality.
MasterVelles wrote:
iserith wrote:
Much like Thoughts_My_Aim, I've created a non-evil necromancer for my game. He's a gnome barbarian/wizard, a member of the noble class in his society who maintain their position by fighting for that society. But, because gnomes aren't big, strong people, for centuries they've buried their dead in two separate graves. One contains the sanctified flesh etc, the other contains the sanctified skeleton and any weapons and armour. When threats come to the town the nobles gather their weapons, raise some dead, and head off to defend it.
In this society raising the dead isn't just acceptable, it's something that's celebrated. People go to the grave with a small measure of consolation that they'll continue to benefit their society long after they're gone (up to ten years after, to be precise: remains are permanently interred after that period).
In our world, this gnome might be taken into custody of he walks into town with undead in tow. But it's the kind of world that isn't black and white. Goblin and orcs and ogres aren't automatically evil, and neither are undead. Of course I imagine my gnome will have some pointed questions to answer from suspicious watchmen, and he may even have to have his undead locked away (depending on how the town feels), but the conversation will be there so the characters can work it out to mutual satisfaction. And that's great.
Getting on to the feelings of families whose dead are raised... well, that's another in-game conversation to have. I imagine my gnome would try to explain the rites he'd performed to raise the dead, explain his cultural celebration of such a raising, and perhaps offer some compensation (even if it's just to bless the dead against further raisings). If nothing could console the family then at least we'd have some conflict and possibly character growth to look forward to.
Noon wrote:
Wow, isn't this horse at the glue factory by now? 
MasterVelles wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
DLfan wrote:
DLfan wrote:
DLfan wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
[quote="DLfan"]
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
DLfan wrote:
DLfan wrote:
DLfan wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
Don't forget the wergild. Some societies don't consider killing a person an objectionable thing.
Ansbach wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote: