The World of Layonara
The Layonara Community => Roleplaying => Topic started by: major6 on November 29, 2007, 09:48:52 AM
-
Ok, this is more for me but I guess it may help others. First I will give my opinion then I am sure I will hear all the fun answers. Basically the way I read into Aeridin(ites) is that they will not take a life unless "absolutely" necessary. This is only one of Aeridin's bios though and the second is that basically of an undead killer. To me the way I look at this is that necessity can be looked at many ways and although should not be "wanton" killing should not be sitting back while others get killed while they can help it. They are there to aid others, so if there is an evil black mage in the area constantly slaughtering citizens and adventurers alike I look at it as one life taken and many lives spared would be something Aeridin would approve. Now I am not saying Trith would not first try to speak to said mage if he could but in his following he also would not just sit by. Secondly, since all life is sacred, if he was with others while out adventuring and was attacked, he would defend himself. The way I play this is that he uses no bladed weapons so since there is not a non-lethal mode in the game if he ends up "killing" something I look at it as he just knocked them out for a long time.
So to sum it all up. All gods have different ideals, most have multiple. Each follower does not always follow everything to the letter but what they feel is right to them unless of course they were corrected by a higher order this is what I feel roleplaying one would be like. Please fell free to rip this to shreds if I am totally off, but I really would like to hear opinions and from DM's the truth on such. Thanks again.
P/O Trith
-
This subject has already been debated extensively. But since it's not always easy to find info on the forums, here you go.
I agree with you, and it was always my point, that an Aeridinite should never sit back and let people get hurt, even if they knew there would be fighting if they were ask to accompany people around. Of course, lex was always a bit to proactive for the church views.
http://forums.layonara.com/roleplaying/114473-aeridin-truth-behind-dogma.html
-
I will opine that there are certainly various ways to play any god's dogma; there are also ways to rationalize any god's dogma to make the character easier to play.
Just make sure that you are doing the first. The only thing that might be sticky with what you've said is the defending yourself while adventuring... you're ok so long as you aren't intentionally placing yourself in positions where you know you will have to defend yourself with force (ask yourself why the character would be adventuring in the first place, if you aren't going to slay undead and such).
-
The only thing that might be sticky with what you've said is the defending yourself while adventuring... you're ok so long as you aren't intentionally placing yourself in positions where you know you will have to defend yourself with force (ask yourself why the character would be adventuring in the first place, if you aren't going to slay undead and such).
I agree wholeheartedly with this.....
As better people than me have said before on the forums...
You can always find an RP EXCUSE.....But you really should be finding an RP REASON.
-
Aid Those In Need.
This is the central dogmatic statement of Aeridin the Lifegiver. (http://forums.layonara.com/684312-post2.html)
Secondary to this is "Preserve and Protect Life."
What this means is that an Aeridinite would do his or her absolute best to keep others alive and well... Cleansing disease and poison, healing even the most grevious of wounds... But once death has taken its toll, respecting the moving on of the Cycle.
To me, that means no Raise Dead or Resurrection, but I'll leave that to the DMs to decide.
As to combat? Well, that's been discussed exhaustively, but the basic consensus is that you shouldn't go looking for a fight, and would typically want to avoid violent conflict. At what costs depends on the character.
But just because an ogre is wandering around, raiding villages, doesn't mean that an Aeridinite would be Johnny-On-The-Spot to kill it. The Aeridinite would likely try to knock it out and send it off to other ogres.
-
Actually it was debated in the post that i linked that raising the dead who was killed by a unnatural way, was alright because the soul had not completely left the body unless under the council of Aeridin the soul mother had taken the last strand of soul. (extrapolation here since Aeridin is the god of life, he would supersede the soul mother.)
I'll also re-iterate the dogma that is found in game
Preserve and protect life, the gift to exist is not one to be taken lightly and thus one must live an exemplary life, devoted to benevolence and care. Tend to those who ail. Offer your gift of healing to make their stay in the mortal realm a wholesome experience, yet once death has taken its toll, respect the passing and enjoy the found memories of their life. Do not dwell or mourn those who past for too long, death is sadness, but without understanding sorrow, one can not understand happiness.
Promote health and the well being of the body and mind before everything else. Any extension, transformation, alteration and corruption to the natural form and shapes of being, is an affront against the sanctity and purity of life and should be confronted at first, with gentle lessons and benevolent teaching, and if such ways do not work, with a stern and firm stance instead. Violence is the last option; use it only on those who defy these teaching.
undeath is the most blatant aberration to the sanctity and purity of life. Put them to rest by any means necessary so that their souls may reach their homes. use the gift of the Caring light, to bring brightness to the darkest of places, never succumb to its temptation for they only bring a taint on the spirit
-
Essentially, as long as you wear robes and bludgeon the mage slowly and painfully over a long course of time with a quarterstaff, then it's ok. Preserving your own life with armor as if your life was sacred, or limiting the suffering of foes by using a quicker, less painful weapon like an axe to the neck is a big no no. You are expected to throw away your life like a candy wrapper, and any death you cause is to be as slow and excrutiating as possible. This is of course not at all supported by the code of Aeriden, but wholley endorsed by his mandatory dress code. If you think you have it bad, druids are expected to protect all animals and trees, and may only wear items made from animals and trees. To wear metal armor that does not cry out in animalspeak for its life to be spared or to use a straight sword is blashphemy... only the curvy swords are found in nature.
My two cents on mandatory dress codes which make no practical sense despite their dogmatic requirements.
-
Actually you misread the Aeridinte dress code.
The paladin and cleric are allowed to wear Full plates and shields even the use of the morningstar. But from the dogma stand point only in the dire circumstances. which protecting your own life or the life of someone else, or fighting undeads (for the morning star), warrant.
but like for any other Monk they are entitled to some light weapons. They can also choose to wear re-enforce clothing which will not deprive them of their mobility. The only difference is that for Aeridin, a monk can not use light slashing weapons.
And yes I know you were being sarcastic, but you were also giving wrong info.
-
Well, a priest of any faith may use any armor or weapon they choose providing they have a good reason written in X many paragraphs in their bio to do so. Like their own god being completely bonkers, for example. I just wish Druids had that luxury. ;)
And of course Paladins are exempt from most laws of their churches regarding dress code and the weapons of their god... They're Lawful Good. You would think that the clerics who didnt have to be lawful would be even more exempt, but it gets all topsy turvy when religious fanatics are involved. Like what happens when a paladin of Lucinda who must protect the weave in all its forms comes across a hoarde of evil liches kept alive by their own goddess' will? Whew... now that's a can of worms right there.
Yet it's a much greater stretch somehow for goodly, protective gods like Beryl, Shindaleria or Folian to have paladins, despite their not being directly responsible for the undead scourge worldwide being sustained. One would think that their loving code of good coupled with their desire to protect their people and the woods around them from the defilement of undead would be enough for paladin orders, but nah. The lichmaker gets them.
-
The devout of Aeridin typically wear white robes with their god's symbol on them, as a sign to the commonfolk that "HERE'S A HEALER!!!" Those in situations of physical danger typically wear fullplate if they can afford it, or other armor if they can't. After all, it's best for protecting you!
Aeridinites use blunt weapons because they can more easily be used to stop someone without killing them. And again, only typically - for undead who are resistant to simple bludgeoning force, a morningstar would be favored.
Weapons, on the other hand, whose main purpose is to maim or kill the living, are frowned upon. A morningstar turned against anything but the undead, for example, would be a big no-no.
As an aside, the Dogma of Aeridin as it stands now is listed in my link above...
In terms of raising the dead, I think Aeridin would frown on it, whatever the case, based on the description in the Dogma. "Tend to those who ail; offer your gift of healing to make their stay in the mortal realm a wholesome experience, yet once death has taken its toll, respect the passing and enjoy the fond memories of their life."
-
Stephen, the word taking its toll in this case is referring to the death strands. Dorg had already posted about that in the link I have provided about raising dead npc which can also be applied to pc.
If you read the link I have provided earlier on, the Ig dogma is the one that should be used by Aeridinites (even copy pasted it here).
On the question of NPCs and whether or not one should be raised by an Aeridinite...
In my personal opinion, this is one question that does not have a single answer. Here's some scenarios...
1) Relatively important and/or innocent NPC is killed before the party by some hostile action, or perhaps a terrible accident that may or may not have been caused by the party. Should this death have happened? Should an Aeridinite cleric just look at the body and shake his head in disappointment, but do nothing even though the body may still be warm?
2) The long-dead (say 100 years) and quite inanimate remains of some prominent historical figure are discovered. This figure may be the key to unlocking some mystery, or may have had some key information, etc.
Now, remember that there's an important difference between Raise Dead and Resurrection.
In scenario 1, much like a modern paramedic or doctor might be able to revive a patient who has died in some way, why wouldn't an Aeridinite restore life to someone, through Raise Dead for example, who perhaps shouldn't have died in the first place? To draw the line at NPCs just seems quite the wrong perspective, in my opinion.
In scenario 2, Raise Dead would have zero effect, as the limit for that spell is 1 day/caster level. Resurrection however is something like 10 years per caster level. Clearly such a resurrection would require GM intervention. Now, it is unlikely that an Aeridinte cleric would perform or sanction such an occurrence because the deceased is long, long dead, having passed on from life and into the next part of the cycle. So in such a case, an Aeridinite probably should not perform the resurrection, and he/she would likely (and probably should) protest if such a thing were discussed or done.
-
I wonder if there's a sect of Aeridenites out there who refuse to falsely extend life to the point where they refuse to heal wounds, raise the fallen or disinfect diseases. Surely if somebody is dying from a foot gone gangrene, then it is a natural passing. Who are we to eradicate all the innocent little bacteria in the wound, dont they have a right to life too?
Then if somebody lives on as a revenant and through no spells cast becomes an undead creature of their own, how is that not a natural passing? If the soul is eternal and it so chooses to live on as a ghost ot a shambling corpse, Wouldn't "cleansing" that undead essentially be wanton slaughter of an autonomous life? It seems if anything, the obsession with wiping out undeath is a worship of death rather than life. It must insult Aeriden to see people raising themselves through sheer force of will instead of being unnaturally sustained under his own powers of healing.
So at the center of every god's dogma is not reason, not loving grace, but simply another infallible being's ego-trip, and the near-vampiric hunger for souls to sustain them. If Aeriden were truly as natural as he claims to be, wouldn't he let himself die instead of insisting upon being eternally worshipped? He was born mortal once... how many thousands of more years does he need before a natural death?
All gods contradict themselves if you give them enough rope to work with. I read the old and new testaments and I see two different gods, or the biggest case of bi-polar disorder in history. One seconds he's telling us to slay all Caananite tribes down to the last man, woman, child and cattle... the next he wants us to turn the other cheek and reattach a roman soldier's ear. Between the wanton slaughter of pagan babies and the forgiveness of enemies, nobody knows whats going on up there.... that's theology. We never get absolutes until its theocracy, and then that's only one mortal dictator's opinion.
-
Lonnarin, can I ask you how your comments that you posted helps in anyway clarifying something a new player wants light on to better rp his dogma???? From where I am from this is called spamming. Posting for no reason other than posting, if you prefer.
-
Canadians call that debate, actually.
-
<- read profile *shakes his head* .
-
@lonnarin
Well, yes, certainly some zealot could believe that, but would Aeridin allow his gifts to be used by those who perverted the doctrine like that? This being a fantasy world, to a certain extant there can be a "right" way to interpret the doctrine.
Edit: read the few posts that were written while I was typing and decided that I really didn't need to post part of what I wrote.
-
There might be whatever sect having whatever ackward understanding of the dogma as they wishes to. But in the end, if they wishes the support of the majority of other followers and more importantly, in the case of clerics and paladins, if they have any gift/power at all, it's in Aeridin's hands fully and completely.
The sect followers as lonnarin described would not have the power to raise the dead in first hand, making their "choice" of not to rather moot...
Multiple parts of his dogma is up to oneself to decide in what way one wishes to read it as. Raise the dead following Dorganath's principles? Sure... fine there! Refusing to raise the dead at all, being a strong believer that -all- dead should be dead? Works utterly fine also (although... one gets a dilemma in case oneself is getting raised... or "rebuilt" by the bindstones)!
Wear armor or refusing to wear armor? Either works, as dogma supports both variants! For the first, one should at least wear normal robes from time to time... as that's rather customary and being an elven god, Aeridin is likely to like customs!
-
And....getting this thread back on topic.
Basically the way I read into Aeridin(ites) is that they will not take a life unless "absolutely" necessary.
Correct, and "absolutely" really is "absolutely".
This is only one of Aeridin's bios though and the second is that basically of an undead killer.
Correct, but it's now extended already, see the more recent dogma that's already in game (but not on LORE yet).
To me the way I look at this is that necessity can be looked at many ways and although should not be "wanton" killing should not be sitting back while others get killed while they can help it.
Sitting back while others get killed shouldn't happen. However, that does not mean that you can just go with a party to kill giants, and then join in in the killing or aid your comrades then, because then you are intentionally aiding the killing of the giants. After all, you went out in search of them.
They are there to aid others, so if there is an evil black mage in the area constantly slaughtering citizens and adventurers alike I look at it as one life taken and many lives spared would be something Aeridin would approve.
But is it then necessary to kill him, that's the question. Only as last resort.
Secondly, since all life is sacred, if he was with others while out adventuring and was attacked, he would defend himself.
When attacked, yes. But when intentionally seeking out, like in my giant example above, that's something else.
The way I play this is that he uses no bladed weapons so since there is not a non-lethal mode in the game if he ends up "killing" something I look at it as he just knocked them out for a long time.
Sorry, but dead is dead there.
So to sum it all up. All gods have different ideals, most have multiple. Each follower does not always follow everything to the letter but what they feel is right to them unless of course they were corrected by a higher order this is what I feel roleplaying one would be like. Correct, however, you cannot twist anything out of proportion, as stated earlier in the thread already, find an RP Reason, not an RP Excuse.
Please fell free to rip this to shreds if I am totally off, but I really would like to hear opinions and from DM's the truth on such. Thanks again.
You're welcome.
Then a short note on raising and resurrecting. Aeridin does allow this. However, you as the caster should think before you use it (and it is okay to not use it). If he didn't we would've disabled it :)
-
The stuff in the quote is incorrect, and now I'm really anxious to get my hands on the new handbook because I'm apparently really confused with lots of stuff in the world right now, heh.
As much as your commentary made me smile and even chuckle, lonnarin, I do have to point out that Layo's cosmology makes defining life and death a very different animal, even from the DnD versions we're accustomed to seeing (not to mention real life scenarios).
As I understand it (and please correct me if I'm wrong, Loremaster Ed), life and death are matters of "resonance." Something like energy, though mass has nothing to do with it. In that sense, if Aeridin supports "life," he is supporting a certain resonance range, or frequency range, local to the Layo prime. Death ushers a significant change of resonance, and by the same token undead function way outside the range referred to as "life" on Layo. So killing undead is not killing "life." For that matter, killing outsiders (like demons) in general is not killing "life" because they do not exist on the same frequency (resonance) Layo sentients do (also why they don't really "die" when you kill them on the Layo prime- they just return to the place that hosts their native resonance).
Maintaining "natural order" on Layo is maintaining the native resonance. That can be done both through healing and letting things "pass on" or die "naturally." such is the case because to maintain Layo's native resonance, there must be a constant motion of life and death, but there is room for variance. The problem for Aeridan would be if the resonance moves too far out of the native range, essentially causing what we might call an "imbalance."
So yes, Aeridan may want you to toss your life away like a candy wrapper if it maintains the "balance" or native resonance, but by the same token, he'd want you to raise back to life the army that was just slaughtered if it kept the native resonance within the preferred range.
As a priest of Aeridan, you are on Layo to support "life," that is, the Layo prime version of it, the Layo resonance.
EDIT: Ha! Yeah, Ed beat me to the punch. Whetever Ed said; he's got the know.
-
As I understand it (and please correct me if I'm wrong, Loremaster Ed), life and death are matters of "resonance." Something like energy, though mass has nothing to do with it. In that sense, if Aeridin supports "life," he is supporting a certain resonance range, or frequency range, local to the Layo prime. Death ushers a significant change of resonance, and by the same token undead function way outside the range referred to as "life" on Layo. So killing undead is not killing "life." For that matter, killing outsiders (like demons) in general is not killing "life" because they do not exist on the same frequency (resonance) Layo sentients do (also why they don't really "die" when you kill them on the Layo prime- they just return to the place that hosts their native resonance).
Sorry, not correct :) The various frequencies in the cosmology have nothing to do with life, death or demons (aka creatures from the Pits).
Once the last Soul Strand is cut/snapped the soul and body are no longer connected and the soul should move on (see Cosmology), preventing that by either putting your soul in a jar (like a lich), should be stopped.
Also, reanimating dead flesh (zombies, skeletons and the like) is just plain wrong (in the eyes of Aeridin) and should be stopped.
And as in the dogma that's now outside the temples, any alteration, transformation or corruption is wrong in the eyes of Aeridin.
-
Huh, well it was a nice thought. At least to make Aeridan worship simpler, but alas, I was wrong.
Though I do have to ask, does that make transmutation magic bad in Aeridan's eyes? And for that matter, magic in general? What sort of alteration counts as "alteration," and what alteration (like bleaching cotton fibers to make white robes) is acceptable?
-
The way I had it explained to me by Pankoki was that one should not have the big modifications to one's Astral Keys.
In other words... turning yourself into a rabbit is "wrong" (shapeshifters, druids turning themselves into animal form... etc...). Tweeking oneself temporary with a Bull's Strength spell is fine (there are of course zealots in this topic too... banising the whole school of transmuation... but that's not required). Tweeking oneself permanently is "wrong" (no potion of eternal strength!). :)
-
The way I had it explained to me by Pankoki was that one should not have the big modifications to one's Astral Keys.
In other words... turning yourself into a rabbit is "wrong" (shapeshifters, druids turning themselves into animal form... etc...). Tweeking oneself temporary with a Bull's Strength spell is fine (there are of course zealots in this topic too... banising the whole school of transmuation... but that's not required). Tweeking oneself permanently is "wrong" (no potion of eternal strength!). :)
Correct. (And actually it's Astral Locks :)
And yes, there would be Bull's Strength is no-no zealots!
-
.... I was actually thinking Locks but typed Keys... :p
-
Well thanks everyone, I was expecting a reply or two but did not know it would get this response. I think through all this I actually may have gotten one or two answers anyways. Thanks again and may the force be with you.
-
Pseudonym's take on Aeridinism - I think I just invented a word ... but I like it! :)
Darkness falls. The pockets of light grow fewer and dimmer.
Conflicts of faith interpretation - ever fun!
Q. Why would a Priest of Aeridin possibly want to take take a life?
A. As a last resort. Pretty simple really .. though not so simple in a game where one 'advances' through taking lives.
One of my favourite quotes that I always had in mind when I tried to reconcile the actions of my Aeridinite Priest was from David Gemmell: "To protect the weak against the evil strong" .. to him, -that- was the last resort point. What is the answer for a priest of Aeridin who feels as if he is not doing enough in these dark times?
Protect the innocent.
Preserve the sanctity of life.
Do not judge.
Which of these edicts takes priority when they are in conflict?
To me, it is a question of the morality of righteous defence.
To me, it is a question of not taking the 'easy way out' of the stereotypical pacifist. Healing others so they can fight versus taking the fight to the evil-doers himself ... I ask, what is the difference? Buffing a fighter so that they are a more effective killer and the priest does not have to swing the killing blow himself ... how does this end up with the opponent being any less dead? Aeridin looks more favourably on this? Wouldn't have thought so. To me, to be a Priest of Aeridin on must continually strive to confront difficult questions of faith interpretation.
Can one combine the two roles - that of armed protector and that of healer - whilst adhering to the principles of the Aeridinite faith?
There is no right or wrong (to me anyway) with one's answers to these questions. I think a decision to accompany a 'typical' party on an adventure across the landscape of Layonara - in order to advance ... in order to better protect the innocent - is something that he should NEVER be able to reconcile. He should NEVER cease to question the rights and wrongs of his actions. The day that one becomes comfortable with possessing and using skill at arms or greater ability through his Divine gifts against a living foe is a day that one ceases to be a priest of Aeridin.
Always ask yourself, is this the 'right action in the 'right way' for the Lightbringer? Look at the paladin order of the Light Bringers. They believe that the Light of Aeridin must be taken to the Dark places, rather than just playing a supportive role ... is this right? Nah, many Aeridinites would frown on this yet Aeridin abides this order to exist. Interesting, huh? Using violence should bring no joy to be the instrument of Aeridin's will in such a manner. Such deeds should bring about a profound sadness whenever this necessity is upon you.
Interesting, huh? Should we make a distinction between those who commit evil and those who stand by and do nothing?
Hey, i'm a GM but I sure don't have the answers. I cannot make any grand claims to wisdom or great knowledge of the Lifegiver over and above what you more than likely already possess by reading the various sources available to us all. I can only offer you my humble opinion on your concerns, whether my opinion comes from a vantage of experience and wisdom or ignorance and lack of enlightenment - who can say?
All I can say, after battling with similar issues of this faith myself, is that, to my mind, there are very few absolutes of right and wrong. Wrestling with questions such as you have posed, and questions others will throw at you, might make you lose sight of why you were chosen by Aeridin to be his instrument in the first place. Maybe we should make use of the bindstones and maybe we should not? Raise dead good or bad? Disinfecting lonn's bacteria in the wounds - an abomination? :) Who knows? I would like to think that Aeridin is more than capable of seeing your motivations for choosing either course and He would then approve our choice with His blessing, or, forgive our choice, again with His blessing.
I believe you asking such questions means that your intention to do the will of Aeridin is pure and, in my opinion, it is THAT intention which is by far the more important thing. To question one's self ensures that your character does not grow proud and always strive to better himself and further the message of the Light Bringer.
When the moral sense of people has, in effect, been blunted or sapped by the Godless masses and by rebels against Aeridinite doctrinal and moral teachings *points at lonnarin* :), the result is moral intimidation leading to the silencing of all too many Aeridinites. There is silence with respect to the most outrageous sacrilege, blasphemy, violence and perversion which no longer receive public censure from too many within this church. There is no longer moral outrage that is proper to offenses committed against Aeridin and Aeridin's law. The sayings of this God are even twisted and perverted in the interests of such moral intimidation.
The fear of rendering any more judgment regarding a sinful act (clearly condemned by Aeridin's saving teachings) can be truly inhibiting and paralyzing. It really means, of course, an abandonment of the intellect Aeridin gave your character. It means sin does not matter. Either it does not exist or exists only to be excused by that oozing love and compassion typifying a "feel-good" religiosity.
Continually grieve over other's sins and how they mislead others to similarly break the Commandments of Aeridin. Do NOT not lack sorrow and compassion toward sinners, you must must be even willing to die for them, but it would not explain away the awfulness of sin or deny the connection between sin and punishment, in this world and in the next (Read Ed's wonderful Cosmology stuff - an amazing concept and thought provoking read). The hard stance concerning sin, judgment is more relevant to an Aeridinite than other supposedly more easily RP'ed priesthoods. The inane "I'm okay, you're okay, Aeridin's okay" philosophy dear to some is not that of the intent of Aeridin IMO. It obliterates the essential difference between good and evil. Again, IMO the judgment Aeridinites are to refrain from is judgment concerning the eternal fate of anyone. Leave intentions, motives, and final worth to Aeridin. Don't confuse the judgment of the actions of people with sitting in judgment over them as to their eternal fate. But reluctance to make judgments concerning sinful acts is to produce that type of paralysis and inactivity that has brought many Aeridinites to their present plight.
Violence stems from that place beyond logic, the realm of the emotion. By it, we are simultaneously repelled and attracted, frightened and excited. To me, this question of how best to deal with it, has been wrought with complexity. As cultural violence in society increases, we are prevented by paranoia, censorship and ethical demands from asking, and sometimes even posing, some of the most important questions. How is violence best dealt with? What or how much of it do we need to resist the cultivation of fear and the encouragement of dependency? Is violence a tool, a process or a result? Is violence of any description justifiable? As intellectual exercise, ritual, or spiritual enhancement? Is violence an action, reaction, or reflection?
Aeridin ain't easy. You WILL make mistakes. You WILL NOT be the perfect Aeridinite. It is inevitable that you WILL fall short of the example set to the community by Aeridin and his stated dogma.
I personally believe Aeridinite violence is about fighting 'back'. You go as far as it takes to stop the aggression but you do not go beyond that. You go as far as required to get someone out of your home - but you don't attack him after he has left. You don't keep going on with it - only if you are attacked, only if there is an oppression applied to you. The idea is that justice prevails. You don't fight because you enjoy fighting, but because there is an oppression.
By embracing the life of a Priest of Aeridin and making a commitment to making this world a safer place you have undertaken a lifelong mission in which some level of violence is inevitable.
JUST KEEP QUESTIONING. ALWAYS.
I hope my answer, in some way, helped with the question.
Pseudo
-
One of the best and most thought out views I have seen about the Aeridin dogma and self questioning.
-
I must truly say YOU ROCK. That really is a true answer and one I am truly thankful for. need to say it again YOU ROCK!
-
heheh, thanks.
Had to post this PM publicly, made me laugh.
I gave you a thanks for your post.
The topic bores me and the length of your reply is daunting. I have given you a thanks just for successfully preventing me from reaching the end of your post, despite my best intentions when I started reading.
Cheers,
heheh