Animal Trainnig vs Animal Talk

Discussion on game mastering Earthdawn. May contain spoilers; caution is recommended!
ChrisDDickey
Posts: 531
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2016 10:02 pm

Re: Animal Trainnig vs Animal Talk

Post by ChrisDDickey » Fri May 17, 2019 5:43 am

One more post, because I want to expand and refine one point.
Sharkforce wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 6:50 am
i would also make the argument on the basis that it's pretty lame if the only way for a cavalryman to ever get a griffin is to buy one, with no real chance of taming it themselves, when they can tame basically every other suitable mount in existence for themselves if they can find one, but that isn't a rules-based argument; the quest to find and tame a griffin sounds much more exciting than the quest to get enough money to buy one that somebody else tamed for you.
This is actually a very important point. But even here the "must capture young" rule works very well.

Arguably, the Griffin is the coolest and most prestigious mount available. It is also the most expensive. There are tougher and stronger mounts, mounts that have higher challenge ratings, but everybody gives respect to the griffin rider. If you want to signal that an NPC is a tough and brave hombre, probably a Warden or a Master, have him ride up on a Griffin.

But a Griffin is only a 5th circle challenge. Most any 5th circle party with a BM or a Cav could find and Dominate/Bond a solo Griffin with very little difficulty. I mean yes, it could be a very fun adventure, but lets face it, it is not really that difficult. And if you want a Griffin Animal Companion, that sounds like a great idea, tell your GM your character wants to go Griffin hunting.

But like I said, Griffins are the most prestigious mounts. You don't see a lot of Journeyman BM or Cav riding Griffins. You tend to see Wardens and Masters riding Griffins. Maybe a very few elite military units. Why arn't most Journeyman BM and Cav riding Griffins? I mean the PC journeymen want to do it, why isn't everybody else?

That is where the "must capture young" rule fits in nicely with this observed behavior of not every 5th circle BM riding around on a griffin. Plan ahead. At 5th circle, capture a griffin hatchling or 3. Then spend the next several years ether adventuring with a juvenile Griffin Animal Companion (fun, but it has complications), or make arrangements to stable it while you are having adventures and train it during your downtime. Around the time you make Warden, you will have an adult Griffin Mount to ride. It is not that you can't have a Griffin Mount. It is just that you can't have a Griffin Mount until several years after you capture a young Griffin.

This seems like about the correct progression to me.


I hate to say it, but Sharkforce, you always seem to ether grab hold of the wrong end of every stick, or totally ignore my points while using fallacious arguments to build up strawmen. I am going to waste some time demolishing some of the strawman arguments because it is so fun and easy.

Wrong end of the stick:
Nobody is suggesting that there is immutable biology that a griffin suddenly develops an inability to serve as a mount at adulthood. Nor is anybody suggesting that adult Griffins suddenly develop an absolute hatred of the idea. That is the wrong end of the stick. We are suggesting that almost all animals (including horses) are born with an aversion to serving as a mount. Not wanting to be a mount is not a learned behavior that the other horses are teaching it. It is instinctive. Horses trainers find it fairly easy to overcome this aversion, but even after millennia of domestication, each individual horse must be individually broken of this aversion. It took me a few seconds on google to find an article where the author mentions that some people think that a nine year old horse is to old to be rider trained, but she argues it just takes a different technique.

Have you ever heard the saying "you can't teach an old dog an new trick"? That is totally incorrect of course, but training an old dog is usually different and/or harder than training a young dog. Training a dog is considered an easy task, but some people can't manage to train an old dog new tricks, even if they can teach young dogs tricks. It's harder, even with dogs and horses.

So my point is that all Griffins are born with an extra-ordinarily strong aversion to serving as a mount for namegivers. However trainers can overcome that aversion in a young common Griffin. They can't overcome that aversion in an adult common Griffin, or a Jungle Griffin of any age. Doing so is not theoretically impossible, but it would be a legendary feat of training.


Fallacious Arguments and Strawmen:
I can't find anything in the current edition of rules that states that most magic effects end when the Adept dies. I found a section where it mentions that spells that require concentration end when the caster dies (of course), but actual spells, it says, continue until the duration expires or the effect is actively dispelled. I don't see anything that suggests that all effects of Adept Talents end when the Adept dies. In a quick perusal of the Talent list I only found a few that even could meaningfully persist after death. Of those I would say that most (Animal Training, Animal Bond, Battle Shout/Bellow, Forge Blade/Armor) probably ought to persist until their normal expiration times. Others like Dead Fall and Frighten I might rule ether way depending upon circumstances (if the target saw the person who is Frightening them be killed, it would probably make them less frightened. But if they ran away and did not see the death, I would think they would keep running away).
So anyway, unless you can actually point to a ruling that seems to indicate that long term Talent Effects stop working when the adept dies, I would have to say that the whole argument is Fallacious as it is based upon a not proven assumption.

Another Fallacy is that "Adepts = Adventurers". You are correct that the authors did not deem it worth their while to detail out how long-lasting training worked, they merely mentioned that somebody did it. The information was judged not needed for Adventurers. But to leap from "the information is not needed Adventuring" to "Adepts can't be doing the work" to "Thus it must be the training Skill" is making some unfounded leaps. There are non-adventuring Adepts that might be doing the training.

So I agree that the Animal Training Talent rules are Weird. I agree that the Animal Training Skill rules are far Weirder (especially in that they are almost exactly like the Talent rules). And I agree that there are no published official rules for training young animals where the training lasts a lifetime. My own house-rule interpretation of the later is that it is a variant of the former - that there might be more to the Animal Training skill and/or talent than is printed in the rules simply because some aspects of the skill and/or talent are not very useful for adventuring. For no other reason than that it seems like the simplest course to me. But I am fully willing to grant that others might arrive at radically different methods.

Once again, long lasting training exists. It is a thing. The rules for this training don't exist. So each GM is free to ether ignore the topic as a background activity, or , if the players want to make it a foreground activity, make up whatever they want. But this would be a table specific extension. You can't argue that it must be this, and can't be this other, and that certain things could not possibly work. it's a game. And invalidating something that is in the rules because of how you think that something that is not in the rules might be, seems like a stretch.
Last edited by ChrisDDickey on Fri May 17, 2019 8:47 am, edited 1 time in total.

Sharkforce
Posts: 77
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2019 8:39 am

Re: Animal Trainnig vs Animal Talk

Post by Sharkforce » Fri May 17, 2019 8:28 am

not liking the answers i give is not the same thing as me not addressing your points.

but anyways, i'm quite content after this to just not bother having conversations with you in the future. i could do without the ad hominem.

so first off, people have EXPLICITLY compared griffins to animals that are untameable because of their biology. so frankly, you are wrong: somebody IS suggesting that it is a problem. here, allow me to give you the exact text: "One example is a zebra. Seems close enough to a horse to work right? Nope - zebras cannot be domesticated simply because the do not have the character for it. Even if taken young, as they grow up their nature takes over and they become unbearably mean. A lot of wild predators, even if captured young and raised by humans retain a lot of their predatory instincts and are not considered domesticated."

now, go ahead, feel free to explain to me *why* that was brought up in this thread if *not* to compare it to a gryphon and provide an example of a creature that, because of its biology (and if this happens with all zebras then no, it isn't just a specific personality trait any more than fear of not fitting in is merely a specific human personality trait) is incapable of being mount-trained.

that is, of course, all pointless: there are all manner of creatures that cannot be properly domesticated in real life (including a number of great cats, which the person in question specifically called out as being something you can't fully domesticate). that doesn't prevent them from being tameable (sort of, more like still wild but friendly i would presume) and trainable in less than a week for an adept, so there is no particular reason that a griffin should be different. i doubt if you ask any lion tamer that you will find that you can reasonably capture a wild adult lion and teach it how to perform in a circus act, but an adept can do that in a couple of days with some lucky rolls.

secondly, making it a royal pain in the butt to tame a griffin yourself just means people are going to buy them instead. it means that by and large, the people who get griffin mounts are only exceptional in the size of their wallet. and frankly, people who can afford to buy death cheat charms on a semi-regular basis are not going to find it that hard to put together enough money to buy a trained griffin. it cheapens the mount, rather than makes it more precious, because the only reasonable way to obtain one is to simply buy it, which is not terribly impressive of a feat at all and in requires very minimal investment on the part of the player. it is particularly improbable to go any other route for a cavalryman since for a cavalryman raising a griffin would pretty much amount to either having their regular mount planned to be replaced for several years before they just kick it to the curb for something better, or having no mount at all for several years while they wait for the training to be complete and the gryphon to be mature enough to ride. neither of those sound like reasonable options, so i would speculate that not every experienced cavalryman has a gryphon because they don't all kick their bonded mount to the curb the instant they get enough money together to buy a better one, and they probably feel naked going without a proper bonded mount for years on end or giving their loyal bonded mount an eviction notice post-dated for a few years later.

then you went on to talk about how you can train old animals just fine, but for some reason not griffins. i'm not sure why you brought this up; i would argue that if you can train an animal at any age, and a griffin is an animal, then *logically* we must presume that you can train a griffin at any age.

you say you can't find a place where it says talents run out of duration if the user dies. well, maybe you should try looking in the talents section rather than randomly going off to the spells section for no damn reason. since you've been so kind as to accuse me of being dishonest, stupid, or both, i don't see *why* i'm continuing to have this discussion with you, but here is the relevant text: (player's guide, 121, talent duration:) "The effects of some talents vary in duration. Many talents have a duration determined by multiplying the talent rank by a given time unit (rounds, minutes, hours, days, etc.). [snip]. In most cases, if the adept using the talent is knocked unconscious, the talent’s effect ends."

now, most people would agree that at some point along the way to dying, the adept will have been knocked quite thoroughly unconscious. frankly, i've been generous enough to assume that the talent in question (which does not make any exceptions, and should thus follow the general rule) was probably intended to last through most regular forms of unconsciousness, mostly on the basis that sleeping makes you unconscious and it seems unlikely that a talent with a duration measured in months was intended to end the moment you go to sleep. but in general, the adept sustains the effect of the talent, and when the adept can no longer do that, the effect ends.

next up, non-adventuring adepts. well, first off, you don't exactly get a ton of legend points for sitting on your ass doing nothing. maybe you're not constantly going on adventurers, but i find it pretty improbable that the average adept is just going to give up on doing adept stuff (advancing their disciplines and their personal goals) to just sit around for years on end training griffins for other people, or for that matter i find it unlikely that an adept is even going to develop to the point where they're capable of taming griffins without at least some form of adventuring, but even then, that still leaves the other problems: the talent doesn't last indefinitely, in particular ends when the adept is no longer able to sustain it (officially unconsciousness, of which death is one source), can be dispelled (one would wonder why it isn't standard procedure in combat to just dispel the training of any griffin and cause it to instantly turn on its former master if magical training is the standard) and has no methods available to make any sort of lasting change without constant upkeep. unlike conventional training, it is reasonable to presume that the talent follows the rules in the book, because it is magic and does not need to match up with real life animal training. the skill, on the other hand, can reasonably be expected to follow the same principles as real life animal training, because they don't have any handy magic to spontaneously cause the animal to become highly skilled in stealth today, down strike tomorrow, and acrobatic defense the day after without regard to whether or not the adept has the slightest clue how to do that themselves (let alone how to do it with an animal-shaped body).

so there are, in fact, several reasons to presume that magical training is not the normal method of training for pretty much *any* creature that receives (presumed) permanent training, really. starting with the fact that magical training is not permanent.

Slimcreeper
Posts: 755
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2016 11:44 pm

Re: Animal Trainnig vs Animal Talk

Post by Slimcreeper » Fri May 17, 2019 3:14 pm

Erm, I like to see a spirited discussion, but this seemed to get way to personal for a debate about a (frankly) fuzzy rule system that every table is going to house rule or interpret differently anyway. We have a small community; we have to be kind to each other.

Calamrin
Posts: 127
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2017 7:18 am

Re: Animal Trainnig vs Animal Talk

Post by Calamrin » Sat May 18, 2019 7:55 am

Slimcreeper wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 3:14 pm
Erm, I like to see a spirited discussion, but this seemed to get way to personal for a debate about a (frankly) fuzzy rule system that every table is going to house rule or interpret differently anyway.
Exactly. Everyones going to houserule or interpret them differently... there is no set right or wrong answer. they can be analised, and compared to real life animals etc, but its a very fuzzy grey rabbit hole you soon find yourself in.

Just go with what works for your group.

ChrisDDickey
Posts: 531
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2016 10:02 pm

Re: Animal Trainnig vs Animal Talk

Post by ChrisDDickey » Sat May 18, 2019 4:13 pm

First off I want to apologize if my attitude has sometimes been snarky. I don't wish you to feel attacked. But I do often feel that your arguments miss the point a lot.
Avanti wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 2:36 pm
Moreover I did a bit of research in our world, and there are animals that do not take to domestication at all (not to mention training for riding). One example is a zebra.
Sharkforce wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 7:42 pm
and if you can train a griffin to gladly take a rider on its back, it seems improbable that it is the result of immutable biology. so how are they suddenly developing this absolute hatred for taking a rider on their back? are the adult griffins training the young to hate it somehow? where do they get this behaviour from? if it was like a zebra (or a jungle griffin), then they wouldn't be trainable whether they are young or not
ChrisDDickey wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 5:43 am
Nobody is suggesting that there is immutable biology that a griffin suddenly develops an inability to serve as a mount at adulthood. Nor is anybody suggesting that adult Griffins suddenly develop an absolute hatred of the idea. That is the wrong end of the stick. We are suggesting that almost all animals (including horses) are born with an aversion to serving as a mount. Not wanting to be a mount is not a learned behavior that the other horses are teaching it. It is instinctive.
Sharkforce wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 8:28 am
so first off, people have EXPLICITLY compared griffins to animals that are untameable because of their biology. so frankly, you are wrong: somebody IS suggesting that it is a problem. here, allow me to give you the exact text: "One example is a zebra. Seems close enough to a horse to work right? Nope - zebras cannot be domesticated simply because the do not have the character for it. Even if taken young, as they grow up their nature takes over and they become unbearably mean. A lot of wild predators, even if captured young and raised by humans retain a lot of their predatory instincts and are not considered domesticated."

now, go ahead, feel free to explain to me *why* that was brought up in this thread if *not* to compare it to a gryphon and provide an example of a creature that, because of its biology (and if this happens with all zebras then no, it isn't just a specific personality trait any more than fear of not fitting in is merely a specific human personality trait) is incapable of being mount-trained.
Wow you really managed to grab the wrong end of the stick with both hands this time. I mean I told you that you had a hold of the wrong end of the stick and was criticizing a position I don't even hold and ignoring the point I was making, then you really doubled down and ran with it.

You are perfectly 100% correct that the Zebra was brought into this thread for the purposes of comparing it to a Griffin and provide an example of a creature that, because of its species temperament is unsuitable as a mount. 100% correct.
And if I had said that it was not, I would have been 100% wrong.
I did not say that. Not even close. You are paying attention to the wrong part of the sentence. You are ignoring the three whole paragraphs (the paragraphs that you said you did not understand why I even bothered to write) that develops the thesis further than the first half of the first sentence does. The first half of the first sentence does not have my complete theme. The first half of the first sentence does not even have the thing that nobody is suggesting. The thing that nobody is suggesting is in the middle of the first and second sentences.

If I had said "Nobody is suggesting that there is immutable biology that a griffin can't be trained as a mount in adulthood", then I would have been wrong. I have suggested that exact thing, so have others. If I had said "Nobody is comparing a Griffin to a Zebra" I would also have been wrong. But I did not say that ether.
What I DID say was "Nobody is suggesting that there is immutable biology that a griffin suddenly develops an inability to serve as a mount at adulthood.". The key word here is "develops". I was trying to communicate that Griffins are not born "gladly willing to take a rider on its back" (as you had stated) and then at adulthood suddenly develop a biological inability or a psychological hatred of the idea. There is no "sudden development". They (like horses and zebras) are born not wanting to be mounts. I spent three whole paragraphs developing this point These are the paragraphs you were not sure why I put in there. The reason I put them in there is because I was not saying that nobody had ever compared Griffins to Zebras. I was talking about animals being born with an antipathy to being a mount.

It might very well be that I did not make myself adequately clear, I don't consider myself a very good writer. My point seems fairly clear to me and others seem to be following it, but I apologize if my phrasing lead to confusion. But in my own defense I did clearly say that the point you were attacking was not my actual point.
If you re-read the whole three paragraphs, you will see that it is stating that there is no sudden development (change) of biology or attitude, which you had asserted was there.
ChrisDDickey wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 5:43 am
Nobody is suggesting that there is immutable biology that a griffin suddenly develops an inability to serve as a mount at adulthood. Nor is anybody suggesting that adult Griffins suddenly develop an absolute hatred of the idea. That is the wrong end of the stick. We are suggesting that almost all animals (including horses) are born with an aversion to serving as a mount. Not wanting to be a mount is not a learned behavior that the other horses are teaching it. It is instinctive. Horses trainers find it fairly easy to overcome this aversion, but even after millennia of domestication, each individual horse must be individually broken of this aversion. It took me a few seconds on google to find an article where the author mentions that some people think that a nine year old horse is to old to be rider trained, but she argues it just takes a different technique.

Have you ever heard the saying "you can't teach an old dog an new trick"? That is totally incorrect of course, but training an old dog is usually different and/or harder than training a young dog. Training a dog is considered an easy task, but some people can't manage to train an old dog new tricks, even if they can teach young dogs tricks. It's harder, even with dogs and horses.

So my point is that all Griffins are born with an extra-ordinarily strong aversion to serving as a mount for namegivers. However trainers can overcome that aversion in a young common Griffin. They can't overcome that aversion in an adult common Griffin, or a Jungle Griffin of any age. Doing so is not theoretically impossible, but it would be a legendary feat of training.
Again, you had argued against the position that griffins are born "glad to take a rider on its back", and that it does not make sense for them to suddenly develop an "inability to serve as a mount". I was pointing out that nobody was actually suggesting that they have such a progression of attitude. Rather the attitude starts off as "I don't want to be a mount", and unless changed, stays that way. It is harder to train older animals, and there is no reason why a griffin can't be right on the line, and the increased difficulty of training older animals changes the difficulty from "very hard" to "nearly impossible".

The statement "Nobody is suggesting that there is immutable biology that a griffin suddenly develops an inability to serve as a mount at adulthood. Nor is anybody suggesting that adult Griffins suddenly develop an absolute hatred of the idea. That is the wrong end of the stick." is true because nobody is suggesting a change (or development) of biology or attitude (except for you). Note that just because a poster said of Zebras "as they grow up their nature takes over and they become unbearably mean", does not, in and of itself, mean that Griffins also grow meaner as they grow older. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. I don't recall anybody suggesting they do. I posit that the Griffins attitude "hardens" so that it is almost impossible to change, but I do not posit that this hardening is itself a change. It was born not liking people trying to ride it, and unless it is trained out of that attitude young, they keep it forever.

To add Zebras to my argument, Zebras are born not wanting to be mounts. It is instinctive. They keep that antipathy. They can't be broken to the saddle. They are not suitable as mounts for any race.
Horses are born not wanting to be mounts. It is instinctive. They don't like people climbing on their backs. They can and routinely are trained to overcome this antipathy and get used to having people on their backs.
Griffins are born not wanting to be mounts. It is instinctive. If you train them young, when their minds are most pliable, you can, with great difficulty, break them to the saddle. If you do't train them when their minds are young and pliable, it is almost impossible to break them to the saddle later.

Nobody is suggesting that an adult griffin can't be trained as an Animal Companion. We all agree that an adult griffin can be trained. The book says it is suitable as an AC. The book also says an adult Griffin can't be trained as a mount, which is very different. They can be trained to do some things. There are some adjustments they just can't make past a certain age.


Thanks for pointing out where the rule about Talent Effects ending on death rule is. I searched the PDF for Death, Dead and Dies, but did not search if for Unconscious. I should have remembered you saying a few times that you did not think going to "sleep" would end Animal Training. I did not understand those comments at the time, now I do. With that rule pointed out, I do see that Talents like Dead Fall, Frighten, and Battle Bellow would all end as soon as a character dies or goes unconscious. I do note that it says "In most cases, if the adept using the talent is knocked unconscious, the talent’s effect ends." Off the top of my head, the Talents I would think most likely to qualify for an exception to "in most cases" would be "Forge Armor / Weapon", and "Animal Training". I don't think the rules specifically list any talents as being the exception, but Forging and Training seem like they ought to be candidates to me, for the reasons that you have already mentioned. I understand your saying that in the absence of a specific listing you don't consider them an exception, but ... No I don't consider that when a Weaponsmith dies, all the blades he forged in the last year all lose all their forgings. Nor do I think that all Animal Training tricks probably are instantly lost when a trainer dies. I would say those are probably among the exceptions to the general rule that was mentioned exist.

You have mentioned Dispelling Animal Training several times. Yes, I believe that that Animal Training of a magical and non-permanent nature can be dispelled. I have heard somebody make a fairly good argument as to why it should not be, but I personally think the argument falls out that it can be dispelled. Once again, we don't have any official information on permanent training other than that exists. We have no idea if it is magic Talent or Skill based and any speculation is nothing but speculation, so I will not speculate upon whether it can be dispelled other than to note that generally, permanent effects can not be dispelled.

But as far as the known rules go, we have everything we need to examine the case where an adventuring adept uses the Talent to Bond a potential mount, and then then uses the Talent to Animal Train the creature to be a war mount. Per the 4th edition Companion, it takes 3 Animal Training "tricks" to teach a Journeyman Challenge creature with Willful 1 to be a war mount. If somebody trains such a mount themselves using the talent, it will be a magic effect with a duration of Rank Months, and thus I see no reason why it could not be dispelled.

If some or all of the Animal Training tricks were dispelled, I do not think a mount would turn on its former master if the Animal Bond is still at Loyal. It would just become less controllable. And if the right trick was dispelled it would forget how to behave as a war mount and revert to it's natural fighting style rather than a war mounts cooperative style.

Note also that I don't think that Animal Bond can be dispelled. The Dispelling Magic section on page 265 says that " Dispel Magic can also be used to dispel magical effects produced by talents and Discipline abilities. Only magical effects with an extended duration—measured in rounds, minutes, hours, days, and so on—can be dispelled. Permanent effects cannot normally be dispelled". Animal Bond does not have a specific listed duration. It just changes the attitude and the attitude stays at the new value until something changes it to a new attitude. This might be considered an instantaneous effect, or it might be considered a (semi) permanent effect - but ether of these cases can't normally be dispelled.


You mentioned the not quite domesticated but sort of friendly animals.
The book says that some creatures are suitable as mounts. Trojin can be trained as mounts. Some creatures are not suitable as mounts. Bears, easily big and strong enough to bare the weight, are not listed in the book as being suitable as mounts. The deficiency is probably not physical, it is probably mental or temperamental. Some can only be trained while young. The difference is not physical, it is mental or temperamental.

For example the GM guide says that the following are suitable as animal companions, but not mounts: Storm Wolves, Ethandrille, Wolves,, Volus, Thunder Birds, Skeorx, Sand lobsters, Molgrim, Gate Hound, Espagra, Behemoth, Bear, plus about 8 variety of great cats (there are two varieties of cats that are listed as suitable as mounts)

The GM guide says that all of these are capable of being Loyal Animal Companions, but none are listed as being suitable as mounts for any race. I would presume that many of these were excluded as mounts solely for reasons of temperament. I mean I can think of little physical reason you could not strap a saddle to a bear or Behemoth, I would think that the main impediment would be that such creatures will not put up with it. They would get lethally irritated about the situation, even if they felt very friendly (loyal even) towards the person trying to climb on their back.

It seems to me that most of the reasons you give that the magic of Talents is strong enough to tame a savage Griffin would apply to these creatures as well. My own opinion is that the magic of Animal Bond and Animal Training is not sufficient to overcome a disagreeable temperament and an antipathy towards somebody climbing on your back. Espagra are willing to follow you around and be Animal Companions. Why, in your opinion would they or would they not be usable as mounts? How would reasons why bears or esperaga would or would not be suitable as mounts compare with the adult Griffin? I mean if magic can cause an adult griffin to agree to be trained as a mount, why not a behemoth?


Anyway, as other people have pointed out, it is probably time and past time to just agree to disagree.

User avatar
Mataxes
Posts: 669
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2016 10:39 pm
Location: The Great Library
Contact:

Re: Animal Trainnig vs Animal Talk

Post by Mataxes » Sat May 18, 2019 4:14 pm

Drop it guys.
Josh Harrison - josh@fasagames.com
Earthdawn Line Developer, Forum Admin

Personal Website: www.loremerchant.com

Locked