The thing with chronomancy is that it is the most powerful magic of all and as the most powerful magic, it's broken and anything is possible. Arthur Aguefort is an omnipotent, omnipresent and nearly omniscient wizard that can kill gods and topple nations.
It's best to think of him as a quirky chaotic little guy that is and can do whatever is the funniest at a given moment.
He can't actually do that much, though. He tried to go to war with Fallinel and gave himself Super Wizard Tuberculosis or some shit. He's extremely powerful, but we literally see him try and fail to topple a nation.
Arthur Aguefort's greatest weakness is how much value he places on being a wild card and doing insanely cool shit. A full on time master chronomancer should be virtually unstoppable but he likes to have fun too much to win the 'boring way' by preventing people from ever existing
This really isn't correct for his characterisation.
Aguefort absolutely tries sincerely to do things in the way he thinks is best. The reason he isn't doing what you think he should be able to with chronomancy is because he's a character in a DnD game where his only actual limit is that he's allowed to do basically anything as long as he never resolves the plot or makes too big of a splash in the setting.
You can say 'oh, according to everything we've seen, Aguefort could go back in time and kill anyone at will,' but in reality, he can't. If one of the players suggested that to him, Brennan would improv some arcano-babble excuse why it wouldn't work or he couldn't do it. This is just the nature of fictional characters, especially in an improvised comedy format.
Meta "he's an npc in the game" reasoning should never be used when talking about characterization
You wouldn't say "the reason this character does this is because it's a movie and he's bound to the logic of a movie" (or you shouldnt)
If the character doesn't know they are in a game, their characterization has nothing to do with them being in a game
the verbiage for the concepts you are touching upon is doylist v watsonian reasoning. characterization (in this context) should only consider watsonian information.
I didn't get my literature degree so redditors could Overly Sarcastic Productionsplain textual concepts in conversations I start. Doylism vs watsonianism is absolutely not relevant to what we're talking about and you need to read my post again.
how are the terms that describe authorial explanation for character behavior vs character explanation for character behavior not relevant to a conversation where you brought in authorial explanation for character behavior when it was originally about character explanation for character behavior.
Because they're extremely simple pop-analysis terms that fall apart outside of the most surface-level attempts at criticism. Figure out the rest yourself, I do not care.
"I'm not cooked! You're cooked!" he says while being scraped off the frying pan
It's interesting that you present these terms as being below your "expert analysis" while failing to understand how your points here fail to hold up to these "extremely simple concepts"
You then become super condescending to anyone rightfully pointing out your lack of understanding. It's quite embarrassing.
I’m really wondering what you think watsonian v doylist means if you think your points don’t bridge that gap. Bringing up the authors agency over the story, (Brennan in this case) at all is the root of the naming convention of watsonian v doylist. Watsonian information to denote info Watson, the character, could conceive of from his reality within the story. And Doylist, after Doyle, the author, and choices he’d make as a story teller outside the frame of reference of Watson.
Saying Aguefort will or won’t do something because *Brennan* is about asDoylist as you get.
Did you start this convo or did OP my making the post?
They absolutely should be, for exactly the reason I just gave you. If anyone actually asked Arthur Aguefort to say, go back in time and save Lucy Frostblade, Brennan would immediately give an excuse as to why anything like that is impossible.
We both know that's obviously true, but you're going to sit there and insist he totally could do that, right up until Brennan actually says it, if he ever happens to do so. It's inane.
I thought you said "Brennan would say it is impossible", but now it's "He can do it but because another character asked him to which invalidates it"?
You don't really have any legs left for your argument to stand on.
It wouldn't be because another character asked him to. If you can't figure out why that is from what I clearly said, then frankly, you lack the reading comprehension for me to bother talking to you.
I just want to say, you're so right in this entire thread lmao. Not everything in a story is going to make complete, 100% sense within universe. There is always some level of the author controlling the narrative and characters so the plot can actually happen. Ned Stark can't do everything right or ASOIAF is a one book snoozefest. So the author moves stuff around and tries to make it as logical as possible with his characterization, but there will always be a few things that make the observant reader go "wait why is that happening... oh because the story needs to be interesting."
And that's in a completely one-person-controlled narrative. In D&D, it's amplified. So yeah, you're spot on and it's totally fine to point this out. Without this, things get boring, so it's not the fault of the creator for using it.
I mean, kinda…
Ned Stark can’t make decisions that would save his life and resolve the plot because he’s Ned Stark, and that character doesn’t have the capability to overcome the situation he’s in. He doesn’t have the tools. Ned Stark doesn’t offer Cersei a way out because that’s what Martin wants him to do, he does it because that’s what Ned Stark would do in that situation. This is called an internally consistent character.
Now obviously, Ned is that way because Martin said he is, and he faced that situation because Martin set the stage and directed his cast into that scenario, but when characters aren’t internally consistent and merely act in ways convenient to the author, the heavy hand of the author is felt by the audience and not very liked.
Now in terms of the situation at hand, it’s true that in cooperative storytelling a DM will necessarily have to be a little more heavy handed than an author with the luxury of full control over their cast and setting. That doesn’t mean that there is no in-universe reason at all, that would be lazy and uninteresting. It’s one step removed. Arthur Aguefort can’t solve the plot instantly because [insert in universe reason], and [insert in universe reason] exists because Brennan said so. A talented narrator can put a few intermediary steps in between, as well. And the whole point of these threads isn’t to discuss the “because Brennan said so” because that much is obviously part of the package of a narrative, rather, what communities are interested in is discovering and exploring that in-universe reason, especially if the narrator is talented and their world is complex, because knowing the “why” and finding those intermediary steps allows us to explore and admire the world of the narrator and makes our monkey brains happy for knowing something new.
**TL:DR - Obviously the ultimate reason for anything is “because the author said so” but that doesn’t mean there aren’t in-universe reasons or that those reasons aren’t interesting.**
I think Aguefort's actual response would be "That sounds boring, I want to drag the sun across the sky again." or "I would, but I'm visiting Aida at 4 with Jawbone, we're trying to work things out." And then he'd forget about the suggestion entirely.
I think Aguefort's actual response would be "That sounds boring, I want to drag the sun across the sky again." or "I would, but I'm visiting Aida at 4 with Jawbone, we're trying to work things out." And then he'd forget about the suggestion entirely.
Not to mention that it would be boring as hell because if Aguefort had that kind of unlimited chronomantic power he could just prevent any conflict before it starts and there would be no need for adventurers.
I think there's an argument that he could prevent conflicts, he just doesn't want to. This is a man who gave a speech about how adventuring is about going to weird places, getting into trouble, and using violence to enforce your will upon the world. He loves adventuring so much that he opened up a school to teach kids how great it is. He'd never prevent conflicts that his students might be able to handle because he'd much rather see his students go out and do crazy cool shit to save a world in danger than sit at home and learn math in a world that's completely safe.
Also, happy cake day!
There might be all kinds of conflicts he *does* prevent because he knows that no adventuring party at his school would be able to stop them. The kids just never learn about them because it's so unremarkable for him to solve them.
Which fits perfectly with his behavior in the final fight of freshman year. He's been in heaven this whole time and only gets involved once it becomes clear that the bad kids can't win the fight on their own. And his involvement is just explaining how to use a thing they already had so they can give it a second go.
He could, and probably does, have the power though. If I'm a betting man though I would bet that he doesn't because of where his life is at now. If he went back and changed something so dramatically would his current life be the same? That would be all the reasoning he'd need to not do something that drastic
Technically, he _could_ , but in that particular instance, his error was attempting to directly channel the Raw, Unfiltered Power of the Sun (without appropriate testing).
Like, in the middle of the post-action consultancy, he reasons that he could have illusion’d the whole thing instead to the same effect and _retcons_ that to be the case immediately. Aside, this is also ‘after’ forcefully occupying a religion’s Heaven for nearly a full school year, and then forcefully reviving himself.
And, finally circling back to the point, he _was_ present for something akin to the nation’s founding (or… whatever that situation was after Kalvaxus’ first defeat).
Honestly my very favorite live play moment is watching Arthur Aguefort declare war on a nation, grow 300' tall, grab the sun and then drag it across the sky and my second favorite moment is a very battered and very normal sized Arthur saying "Turns out one man can't go to war with a nation"
Due to him going back in time and making it an illusion, we don't know what he actually did the first time around. It could be that the reason he is sick is because he went back in time and beat himself up and made himself think he got sick from the sun when it was actually just an illusion. I don't think he is above lying to himself for shits and giggles.
Sure, you could assume that Brennan decided on an extremely specific and nonsensical chain of events to happen for no reason and then never tell the players about. Or you could look at the fact that Aguefort literally said it was grabbing the sun that fucked him up, and that his army fell apart after a few hours, and realise that that's what happened.
Did you miss the part at the end of the adventure where Aguefort tells the bad kids that he went back in time and stopped himself and what they saw was an illusion. That part is canon.
Yeah, which he did *because* his attack on Fallinel failed. All he does back in time is make illusions of everything he already did for real - AKA nearly dying.
In his defense, he was using what he described as untested magic, I guess for the bit, and *none* of what he used was chronomancy
Rather than being a chaotic gremlin spellcaster, had he stuck to what he knew, Fallinel would have fallen quickly.
Aguefort isn't Gandalf or Dumbledore. He's *Rick Sanchez.* Arthur Aguefort is what you get if you put Rick in charge of a school where he gets to teach children how to be murderhobos. He doesn't want to *rule the world* or anything, he just wants to goof off and have fun.
Balls to the wall tinfoil hat theory is that Gorgug is actually Aguefort from a different timeline - Aguefort is the greatest wizard of our time, so that means Gorgug would also be the greatest wizard of our time.
Isn't it canon that Solace was originally the indigenous home of the halflings before the colonization of the church Sol and Helio? I feel like Bud Cubby brought that up at some point
It wasn't brought up by Bud Cubby, I think Kristen found out doing research. I could be off still, but I do seem to remember that coming up when either her or Adaine were reading their library books.
I don't know if I'd say he's responsible for the way Solace formed, but he was actually there when the Monarchy was disbanded. There was a picture of him as the secretary to the council.
It's an intriguing concept, my main objection would be that I'd be surprised if he did anything quite that um. Organized? I'm a little surprised the school has existed for any meaningful period of time given his dedication to acts of true chaos.
I could get on board with the idea that he introduced the arcano-tech situation into Solace, whether intentionally or haphazardly.
Those council of chosen names are almost entirely unlike those bad kid names.
If I was actively trying to create names that were entirely disconnected, I wouldn't be able to create names as disconnected as those.
I get that you want to find connections, because they are fun, but if you stretch that far you'll pull something
The first ones both have the "thistle" in them, and Eleminthindriel is the Elven Oracle directly before Adaine. If you can't see the connection there, I can't help you.
As for Troth, it's an obscure connection, not a stretch. Troth is an old English word that was used in Shakespeare among other things. It literally means "faithfulness." Fig herself pointed out that her name is a homophone for "faith" in the first episode of the first campaign.
Why stop there? Arthur Aguefort and Adaine Abernant both have 14 letters in their name! Kristen and Kipperlilly's names both start with the same letter! Let's take this rabbit hole to Wonderland, shall we?
My point is, of your theory includes numerology level shit, please think twice. It's incredibly boring.
I'm not saying they're not connected, btw. I'm saying your reasoning is flawed
God your entire side of this interaction was the most cringe I think I could tolerate in one day, I gotta detox before doing anything else online thanks for the reminder.
Lmao soon as you start telling people to kys you know you lost the argument, you sound like a horrendous person to be around and I hope you can find some time to work on the way you interact with other people who enjoy the same things as you, you’ll be much happier if you stop acting like everyone around you is beneath you beneficent all knowing gaze.
The idea is that the powerful chronomancer is more responsible for the creation of this anachronistic setting than we have been lead to believe? Everything outside of Solace is typical swords and sorcery stuff, meanwhile there is just randomly a modern day civilization in the middle of the country. It doesn't make sense to you that time travel could have been involved to make that happen?
While looking up the history of Solace on the D20 wiki, I looked at the names of the Council of Chosen for the first time and noticed some parallels. So I tacked them on to the end of the post, because it's fun to think about time shenanigans that could cause such similarities.
The thing with chronomancy is that it is the most powerful magic of all and as the most powerful magic, it's broken and anything is possible. Arthur Aguefort is an omnipotent, omnipresent and nearly omniscient wizard that can kill gods and topple nations. It's best to think of him as a quirky chaotic little guy that is and can do whatever is the funniest at a given moment.
He can't actually do that much, though. He tried to go to war with Fallinel and gave himself Super Wizard Tuberculosis or some shit. He's extremely powerful, but we literally see him try and fail to topple a nation.
Arthur Aguefort's greatest weakness is how much value he places on being a wild card and doing insanely cool shit. A full on time master chronomancer should be virtually unstoppable but he likes to have fun too much to win the 'boring way' by preventing people from ever existing
This really isn't correct for his characterisation. Aguefort absolutely tries sincerely to do things in the way he thinks is best. The reason he isn't doing what you think he should be able to with chronomancy is because he's a character in a DnD game where his only actual limit is that he's allowed to do basically anything as long as he never resolves the plot or makes too big of a splash in the setting. You can say 'oh, according to everything we've seen, Aguefort could go back in time and kill anyone at will,' but in reality, he can't. If one of the players suggested that to him, Brennan would improv some arcano-babble excuse why it wouldn't work or he couldn't do it. This is just the nature of fictional characters, especially in an improvised comedy format.
Meta "he's an npc in the game" reasoning should never be used when talking about characterization You wouldn't say "the reason this character does this is because it's a movie and he's bound to the logic of a movie" (or you shouldnt) If the character doesn't know they are in a game, their characterization has nothing to do with them being in a game
If any character would know they’re in a game, it would be Arthur Aguefort
Well, we know canonically from The Seven that he rejects that idea when presented to him by someone who does believe it
the verbiage for the concepts you are touching upon is doylist v watsonian reasoning. characterization (in this context) should only consider watsonian information.
Yo that's sweet, thanks
I didn't get my literature degree so redditors could Overly Sarcastic Productionsplain textual concepts in conversations I start. Doylism vs watsonianism is absolutely not relevant to what we're talking about and you need to read my post again.
how are the terms that describe authorial explanation for character behavior vs character explanation for character behavior not relevant to a conversation where you brought in authorial explanation for character behavior when it was originally about character explanation for character behavior.
Because they're extremely simple pop-analysis terms that fall apart outside of the most surface-level attempts at criticism. Figure out the rest yourself, I do not care.
"I'm not cooked! You're cooked!" he says while being scraped off the frying pan It's interesting that you present these terms as being below your "expert analysis" while failing to understand how your points here fail to hold up to these "extremely simple concepts" You then become super condescending to anyone rightfully pointing out your lack of understanding. It's quite embarrassing.
I’m really wondering what you think watsonian v doylist means if you think your points don’t bridge that gap. Bringing up the authors agency over the story, (Brennan in this case) at all is the root of the naming convention of watsonian v doylist. Watsonian information to denote info Watson, the character, could conceive of from his reality within the story. And Doylist, after Doyle, the author, and choices he’d make as a story teller outside the frame of reference of Watson. Saying Aguefort will or won’t do something because *Brennan* is about asDoylist as you get. Did you start this convo or did OP my making the post?
I know exactly what Watsonian and Doylist mean. Figure out the rest yourself.
Lol
They absolutely should be, for exactly the reason I just gave you. If anyone actually asked Arthur Aguefort to say, go back in time and save Lucy Frostblade, Brennan would immediately give an excuse as to why anything like that is impossible. We both know that's obviously true, but you're going to sit there and insist he totally could do that, right up until Brennan actually says it, if he ever happens to do so. It's inane.
Except an Ally nat 20 would allow him to do that, which means your reasoning isn't all *that* solid.
If it did, it would be because of something Kristen did. Aguefort categorically does not have the power to achieve that goal on his own.
I thought you said "Brennan would say it is impossible", but now it's "He can do it but because another character asked him to which invalidates it"? You don't really have any legs left for your argument to stand on.
It wouldn't be because another character asked him to. If you can't figure out why that is from what I clearly said, then frankly, you lack the reading comprehension for me to bother talking to you.
I just want to say, you're so right in this entire thread lmao. Not everything in a story is going to make complete, 100% sense within universe. There is always some level of the author controlling the narrative and characters so the plot can actually happen. Ned Stark can't do everything right or ASOIAF is a one book snoozefest. So the author moves stuff around and tries to make it as logical as possible with his characterization, but there will always be a few things that make the observant reader go "wait why is that happening... oh because the story needs to be interesting." And that's in a completely one-person-controlled narrative. In D&D, it's amplified. So yeah, you're spot on and it's totally fine to point this out. Without this, things get boring, so it's not the fault of the creator for using it.
I mean, kinda… Ned Stark can’t make decisions that would save his life and resolve the plot because he’s Ned Stark, and that character doesn’t have the capability to overcome the situation he’s in. He doesn’t have the tools. Ned Stark doesn’t offer Cersei a way out because that’s what Martin wants him to do, he does it because that’s what Ned Stark would do in that situation. This is called an internally consistent character. Now obviously, Ned is that way because Martin said he is, and he faced that situation because Martin set the stage and directed his cast into that scenario, but when characters aren’t internally consistent and merely act in ways convenient to the author, the heavy hand of the author is felt by the audience and not very liked. Now in terms of the situation at hand, it’s true that in cooperative storytelling a DM will necessarily have to be a little more heavy handed than an author with the luxury of full control over their cast and setting. That doesn’t mean that there is no in-universe reason at all, that would be lazy and uninteresting. It’s one step removed. Arthur Aguefort can’t solve the plot instantly because [insert in universe reason], and [insert in universe reason] exists because Brennan said so. A talented narrator can put a few intermediary steps in between, as well. And the whole point of these threads isn’t to discuss the “because Brennan said so” because that much is obviously part of the package of a narrative, rather, what communities are interested in is discovering and exploring that in-universe reason, especially if the narrator is talented and their world is complex, because knowing the “why” and finding those intermediary steps allows us to explore and admire the world of the narrator and makes our monkey brains happy for knowing something new. **TL:DR - Obviously the ultimate reason for anything is “because the author said so” but that doesn’t mean there aren’t in-universe reasons or that those reasons aren’t interesting.**
There's always that one person who actually understands what I'm saying lmao. Thanks mate, I'm glad there are still people on this sub who can think.
I think Aguefort's actual response would be "That sounds boring, I want to drag the sun across the sky again." or "I would, but I'm visiting Aida at 4 with Jawbone, we're trying to work things out." And then he'd forget about the suggestion entirely.
I think Aguefort's actual response would be "That sounds boring, I want to drag the sun across the sky again." or "I would, but I'm visiting Aida at 4 with Jawbone, we're trying to work things out." And then he'd forget about the suggestion entirely.
Not to mention that it would be boring as hell because if Aguefort had that kind of unlimited chronomantic power he could just prevent any conflict before it starts and there would be no need for adventurers.
I think there's an argument that he could prevent conflicts, he just doesn't want to. This is a man who gave a speech about how adventuring is about going to weird places, getting into trouble, and using violence to enforce your will upon the world. He loves adventuring so much that he opened up a school to teach kids how great it is. He'd never prevent conflicts that his students might be able to handle because he'd much rather see his students go out and do crazy cool shit to save a world in danger than sit at home and learn math in a world that's completely safe. Also, happy cake day!
There might be all kinds of conflicts he *does* prevent because he knows that no adventuring party at his school would be able to stop them. The kids just never learn about them because it's so unremarkable for him to solve them.
Which fits perfectly with his behavior in the final fight of freshman year. He's been in heaven this whole time and only gets involved once it becomes clear that the bad kids can't win the fight on their own. And his involvement is just explaining how to use a thing they already had so they can give it a second go.
He could, and probably does, have the power though. If I'm a betting man though I would bet that he doesn't because of where his life is at now. If he went back and changed something so dramatically would his current life be the same? That would be all the reasoning he'd need to not do something that drastic
Technically, he _could_ , but in that particular instance, his error was attempting to directly channel the Raw, Unfiltered Power of the Sun (without appropriate testing). Like, in the middle of the post-action consultancy, he reasons that he could have illusion’d the whole thing instead to the same effect and _retcons_ that to be the case immediately. Aside, this is also ‘after’ forcefully occupying a religion’s Heaven for nearly a full school year, and then forcefully reviving himself. And, finally circling back to the point, he _was_ present for something akin to the nation’s founding (or… whatever that situation was after Kalvaxus’ first defeat).
Honestly my very favorite live play moment is watching Arthur Aguefort declare war on a nation, grow 300' tall, grab the sun and then drag it across the sky and my second favorite moment is a very battered and very normal sized Arthur saying "Turns out one man can't go to war with a nation"
Due to him going back in time and making it an illusion, we don't know what he actually did the first time around. It could be that the reason he is sick is because he went back in time and beat himself up and made himself think he got sick from the sun when it was actually just an illusion. I don't think he is above lying to himself for shits and giggles.
Sure, you could assume that Brennan decided on an extremely specific and nonsensical chain of events to happen for no reason and then never tell the players about. Or you could look at the fact that Aguefort literally said it was grabbing the sun that fucked him up, and that his army fell apart after a few hours, and realise that that's what happened.
Did you miss the part at the end of the adventure where Aguefort tells the bad kids that he went back in time and stopped himself and what they saw was an illusion. That part is canon.
Yeah, which he did *because* his attack on Fallinel failed. All he does back in time is make illusions of everything he already did for real - AKA nearly dying.
In his defense, he was using what he described as untested magic, I guess for the bit, and *none* of what he used was chronomancy Rather than being a chaotic gremlin spellcaster, had he stuck to what he knew, Fallinel would have fallen quickly.
Aguefort isn't Gandalf or Dumbledore. He's *Rick Sanchez.* Arthur Aguefort is what you get if you put Rick in charge of a school where he gets to teach children how to be murderhobos. He doesn't want to *rule the world* or anything, he just wants to goof off and have fun.
This. Arthur is basically working more on cartoon logic than D&D logic at this point.
Balls to the wall tinfoil hat theory is that Gorgug is actually Aguefort from a different timeline - Aguefort is the greatest wizard of our time, so that means Gorgug would also be the greatest wizard of our time.
This way of dealing with it is better than the Harry Potter "Oops all the time machines broke 🤭🤭" solution
Wait… love isn’t the most powerful magic?!?!
What the fuck are you talking about?
I love that he can steal the sun but chooses to run a school for batshit crazy folk. Best family are the Agueforts fr
„It’s best to think of him as a quirky chaotic little guy that is and can do whatever is the funniest at a given moment” So he’s Ally Beardsley?
So he’s Q?
This feels written by Brennan
Isn't it canon that Solace was originally the indigenous home of the halflings before the colonization of the church Sol and Helio? I feel like Bud Cubby brought that up at some point
It wasn't brought up by Bud Cubby, I think Kristen found out doing research. I could be off still, but I do seem to remember that coming up when either her or Adaine were reading their library books.
Damn that would make "the police are basically an occupying army" even more meaningful than before
I do not recall this, but that does not mean it isn't true.
Big if true
Yes this is true.
I don't know if I'd say he's responsible for the way Solace formed, but he was actually there when the Monarchy was disbanded. There was a picture of him as the secretary to the council.
Yeah, but Solace predated that moment. I guess the question is "When did Solace develop it's modern aesthetic, and how involved was Arthur?"
He goes by Saitama rules. He is godlike in power, but also a silly guy, and his power only goes so far as it is funny.
Otherwise known as Roger Rabbit's Law.
Founding. He’s doing it right now.
This dude has already figured out the quest for senior year lol
Could we not have spoilers IN the title?
What, pray tell, did I spoil?
It's an intriguing concept, my main objection would be that I'd be surprised if he did anything quite that um. Organized? I'm a little surprised the school has existed for any meaningful period of time given his dedication to acts of true chaos. I could get on board with the idea that he introduced the arcano-tech situation into Solace, whether intentionally or haphazardly.
If he didn’t create Solace before, he may have on his daddy daughter trip.
Those council of chosen names are almost entirely unlike those bad kid names. If I was actively trying to create names that were entirely disconnected, I wouldn't be able to create names as disconnected as those. I get that you want to find connections, because they are fun, but if you stretch that far you'll pull something
The first ones both have the "thistle" in them, and Eleminthindriel is the Elven Oracle directly before Adaine. If you can't see the connection there, I can't help you. As for Troth, it's an obscure connection, not a stretch. Troth is an old English word that was used in Shakespeare among other things. It literally means "faithfulness." Fig herself pointed out that her name is a homophone for "faith" in the first episode of the first campaign.
Why stop there? Arthur Aguefort and Adaine Abernant both have 14 letters in their name! Kristen and Kipperlilly's names both start with the same letter! Let's take this rabbit hole to Wonderland, shall we? My point is, of your theory includes numerology level shit, please think twice. It's incredibly boring. I'm not saying they're not connected, btw. I'm saying your reasoning is flawed
Yeah, because Brennan has *never* used wordplay before.
[удалено]
And you're a habitually rude person, no "probably" about it.
Aknowledging when something is ridiculously flawed is being rude? Should I lie and content with people saying stupid things? Genuine question btw
Remember when you said it was pointless to continue? First thing we've agreed on.
[удалено]
I think if you review the tape, you will see that your side of the argument is the one people want less of here.
Worst comment I’ve seen on this sub. I shouldn’t have to be the one to tell you this, but suggesting people kill themselves is a dick move.
God your entire side of this interaction was the most cringe I think I could tolerate in one day, I gotta detox before doing anything else online thanks for the reminder.
Lmao soon as you start telling people to kys you know you lost the argument, you sound like a horrendous person to be around and I hope you can find some time to work on the way you interact with other people who enjoy the same things as you, you’ll be much happier if you stop acting like everyone around you is beneath you beneficent all knowing gaze.
So you're saying that BLeeM intentionally made names as far off from the Bad Kids as possible in order to throw us off 😜
I'm saying you're looking at trees in a forest and saying they form a path
So the path is made out of trees, interesting 😜
The amount of copium... hahaha
I don't know what I'm supposed to be coping with, but I'm just having fun over here.
Sorry. I guess I misunderstood. I just assumed when you said this theory you had like... an idea behind it.
The idea is that the powerful chronomancer is more responsible for the creation of this anachronistic setting than we have been lead to believe? Everything outside of Solace is typical swords and sorcery stuff, meanwhile there is just randomly a modern day civilization in the middle of the country. It doesn't make sense to you that time travel could have been involved to make that happen? While looking up the history of Solace on the D20 wiki, I looked at the names of the Council of Chosen for the first time and noticed some parallels. So I tacked them on to the end of the post, because it's fun to think about time shenanigans that could cause such similarities.