18th Century Dungeons & Dragons

[Tom Kalbfus]

The center of action is in the New World, because that is where the monsters, treasure and fallen empires are. This is not North America, this is not our Earth. But there is a setting resembling a fantasy Europe on the other side of the Ocean to the east. Once upon a time there were castles and dragons in that fantasy Europe, but the dragons and monsters were killed off, nation states were established, and things have settled down under national governments. You have kingdoms that are dominated by absolute monarchs and a semi constitutional parliamentary monarchy in one particular county that has established a number of colonies on the eastern seaboard of this new continent. The climate is similar to North America, and there are a bunch of fantasy races, ancient castles over one thousand years old and an underdark. What the fantasy Europe lacked was nonhuman humanoids, it had beasts, monsters and few giants and trolls, but no orcs, elves, dwarves, gnomes or halflings. There were evil wizards, varoious forms of undead, all human based, some people gated in demons, but in this fantasy area is was humans that populated the continent. In their forays in the New World, they are encountering dwarves, elves, halflings, gnomes, and orcs for the first time. They come across the ocean armed with muskets and cannon, while the natives of the new world have more standard medieval fare, although elves live in forests, dwarves live underground, halflings live in villages, none are adapted to city life. There were ancient cities and ruins, but they are all in ruins now. What are the main aspects of this setting compared to standard D&D? Armor is obsolete for the newcomers across the ocean, they fight in ranks firing muskets. Some hunters have developed rifles that are more accurate. Cannons are used by armies and so forth What would the typical adventuring party look like in this setting? What would a wizard be like, a rogue, a fighter, and a cleric. Assume the standard pantheon of deities instead of monotheism, they just have to adapt to 18th century technology and weaponry, What would that be like you think?

[Yanagi]

They immediately get pushed off the continent.

Colonization only worked because of the pandemics that preceded and accompanied it, and a series of flukes in which the Spanish landed in the middle of local conflicts and exploited the disruption. Anything except mass death and chaos, the locals could concentrate forces and quash any land claims.

And that's literally the only advice I'm going to give, because I really do not like the idea of a palette-swapping humanoids for non-European natives and running yet another magical-version-of-actual-colonialism scenario.

[Mechalich]

The thing is, removing 'medieval stasis' from D&D doesn't result in gradual technological advancement. That just isn't what happens. Instead, you get some form of industrialized magic, whether that's magitech, necropunk, monsterpunk, or just straight up 'the universe is mine to command' high-power magic used to landscape the world.

If you want to produce an alternative history or fantastical creatures colonization scenario you can't do it with D&D - there's too much magic in the system. Which is also why, when D&D did this with Maztica it was really, really stupid.

A scenario where a civilization with 18th century technology - which is considerably more advanced than the 16th century technology used in most of the 'Age of Sail' colonization of the Americas - encounters a continent populated by non-human species living in non-urbanized lifestyles is one you could do, in a relatively low magic setting. However, I'm not sure what advantage you really have in using fantasy species over just human cultures. Also, such a setting would be morally ambiguous at best and, if presented seriously, probably heavy on the grimdark. If anything, colonizers faced with native claimants who were not human at all would likely face far greater discrimination compared to the merely human native cultures encountered by historical colonizers, with outright genocide likely being presented as a common policy premise.

Traditionally, in heroic fantasy literature, if you have colonization the heroes are generally on the side of the native resistance. 'We're going to conquer them for their own good' is a hard sell, and really only works at all when it represents the unification of a single culture that is politically fragmented (for example, there are heroic stories about the unification of China and Japan).

[Tom Kalbfus]

They immediately get pushed off the continent.

Colonization only worked because of the pandemics that preceded and accompanied it, and a series of flukes in which the Spanish landed in the middle of local conflicts and exploited the disruption. Anything except mass death and chaos, the locals could concentrate forces and quash any land claims.

And that's literally the only advice I'm going to give, because I really do not like the idea of a palette-swapping humanoids for non-European natives and running yet another magical-version-of-actual-colonialism scenario.

Except that most dungeons & dragons worlds feature a past civilization whi h fell creating most of the dungeons that ad enturers adveture in, here we are just moving all that to the new world. Now this is not the Americas, but a fantasy version of the New World, where a large ocean seperates it from the old world and it is isolated. The Old Worlders don't cause the catastrophe, but it is caused by warfare between the new worlders, and by fell magic.. The New Worlders are thin on the ground because of a downfall of their civilization. Because of the way they fell, they no longer live in cities, but their ancestors once did.

[Tvtyrant]

The center of action is in the New World, because that is where the monsters, treasure and fallen empires are. This is not North America, this is not our Earth. But there is a setting resembling a fantasy Europe on the other side of the Ocean to the east. Once upon a time there were castles and dragons in that fantasy Europe, but the dragons and monsters were killed off, nation states were established, and things have settled down under national governments. You have kingdoms that are dominated by absolute monarchs and a semi constitutional parliamentary monarchy in one particular county that has established a number of colonies on the eastern seaboard of this new continent. The climate is similar to North America, and there are a bunch of fantasy races, ancient castles over one thousand years old and an underdark. What the fantasy Europe lacked was nonhuman humanoids, it had beasts, monsters and few giants and trolls, but no orcs, elves, dwarves, gnomes or halflings. There were evil wizards, varoious forms of undead, all human based, some people gated in demons, but in this fantasy area is was humans that populated the continent. In their forays in the New World, they are encountering dwarves, elves, halflings, gnomes, and orcs for the first time. They come across the ocean armed with muskets and cannon, while the natives of the new world have more standard medieval fare, although elves live in forests, dwarves live underground, halflings live in villages, none are adapted to city life. There were ancient cities and ruins, but they are all in ruins now. What are the main aspects of this setting compared to standard D&D? Armor is obsolete for the newcomers across the ocean, they fight in ranks firing muskets. Some hunters have developed rifles that are more accurate. Cannons are used by armies and so forth What would the typical adventuring party look like in this setting? What would a wizard be like, a rogue, a fighter, and a cleric. Assume the standard pantheon of deities instead of monotheism, they just have to adapt to 18th century technology and weaponry, What would that be like you think?

Depends entirely on how guns work mechanically in the game and if they can be copied easily. If guns are good then Wizards with fabricate can make them really easily in D&D, so you get natives who are better at making guns then the people they copy them from. This would cause a massive collapse of local cultures anyways as some would adapt rapidly and others get destroyed, but eventually the wizards out-magic the tech people and colonize not! Europe.

If guns are terrible and magic can copy them they might win just on summons and fireballs alone. A level 3 wizard is better then a cannon by a fair bit until rifled cannons come out in the Nineteenth Century at killing infantry.

If magic is really weak (like first level spells only) then guns are better and you can have the slow collapse of traditional forces against superior weapons wielded by small armies. The cost of launching those forces from across an ocean is pretty prohibitive, so it tends to be 10/1 in the seventeenth century.

[Tom Kalbfus]

The thing is, removing 'medieval stasis' from D&D doesn't result in gradual technological advancement. That just isn't what happens. Instead, you get some form of industrialized magic, whether that's magitech, necropunk, monsterpunk, or just straight up 'the universe is mine to command' high-power magic used to landscape the world.

If you want to produce an alternative history or fantastical creatures colonization scenario you can't do it with D&D - there's too much magic in the system. Which is also why, when D&D did this with Maztica it was really, really stupid.

A scenario where a civilization with 18th century technology - which is considerably more advanced than the 16th century technology used in most of the 'Age of Sail' colonization of the Americas - encounters a continent populated by non-human species living in non-urbanized lifestyles is one you could do, in a relatively low magic setting. However, I'm not sure what advantage you really have in using fantasy species over just human cultures. Also, such a setting would be morally ambiguous at best and, if presented seriously, probably heavy on the grimdark. If anything, colonizers faced with native claimants who were not human at all would likely face far greater discrimination compared to the merely human native cultures encountered by historical colonizers, with outright genocide likely being presented as a common policy premise.

Traditionally, in heroic fantasy literature, if you have colonization the heroes are generally on the side of the native resistance. 'We're going to conquer them for their own good' is a hard sell, and really only works at all when it represents the unification of a single culture that is politically fragmented (for example, there are heroic stories about the unification of China and Japan).

I'm talking about the 18th century, which means the 1700s, not the 1800s. Most things were not made in factories in the 1700s, there was very little steam power as well. So there is not enough steam for steampunk, instead we have animal power, water wheels, and windmills. Ships are more sophisticated than their medeaval counterparts, but they are still propelled by sails.

As for colonization, most of the land is already wilderness, there are tribes of different races, but it is mostly wilderness, there aren't towns and cities. You could also balance out the cannons and gunpowder by giving the natives more wizards of higher level.. historical analogies are yours, not mine. Much of fantasy is about establishing civilization and pushing back the darkness anyway. Whether its in the New World or the old. What do you think orcs are for anyway?

[Bohandas]

Its worth noting that the Greyhawk setting already has a canon deity of old west gunslingers. The quasi-deity Murlynd is the god of firearms, steampunk contraptions, and paladins that are the character from "Have Gun Will Travel"

[Wizard_Lizard]

but why use guns and cannons when you can just use a fireball?

[Tom Kalbfus]

but why use guns and cannons when you can just use a fireball?

You can ask the opposite question, why have fireballs when you can have cannons, and grenades?
Wizards can memorize other spells besides fireball and do things cannons can't do.

It is amazing the connections people make when I move orcs to another continent and I don't change their behavior at all.
Orcs are still orcs and behave as orcs, elves are still elves, so are dwarves, gnomes, and halflings, the only difference here is they are encountered on a different continent from the humans. The humans arrive, and it is assumed that everyone attacks them on sight, or they attack everyone they see on sight. Why can't one just have a normal fantasy, except with gunpowder weapons instead of swords and crossbows. Why does adding guns and cannons suddenly add a moral dimension that wasn't there before?

[Tom Kalbfus]

Its worth noting that the Greyhawk setting already has a canon deity of old west gunslingers. The quasi-deity Murlynd is the god of firearms, steampunk contraptions, and paladins that are the character from "Have Gun Will Travel"

Except in this case guns are common weapons, you don't need magic to use them, they have made most armor obsolete, magical enhancements to armor class still work. A ring of protection will deflect bullets, so will bracers of defense. Magic armor will still give their magic armor bonuses. Armor is heavy and the disadvantage of wearing it is no longer justified by the protection it affords, so soldiers have gotten out of the habit of wearing armor. The hunter and the soldier fight on equal terms, other than the soldier specializes in massed volleys with their inaccurate weapons, while hunters use rifles, which are more accurate, but take longer to load. Soldiers are also more likely to use bayonets and swords.

[Xuc Xac]

I would turn it around and make it more "exploration" and less "colonization". Have all the humanoid races come from the Old World. Humans, elves, dwarves, gnomes, orcs, etc. all have kingdoms or republics in the Old World. The New World has been discovered and they are all racing to explore, claim territory, and gather resources.

The New World doesn't have any sentient natives, but it does have a lot of hostile megafauna. You get all the fun of establishing new colonies and fighting monsters in a new world and none of the morally questionable subjugation of the previous owners. You could still include ancient ruins of various types. The people that built them just aren't around anymore.

[Sparky McDibben]

It is amazing the connections people make when I move orcs to another continent and I don't change their behavior at all. Why does adding guns and cannons suddenly add a moral dimension that wasn't there before?

Couple points here: one, the moral dimension was there the whole time, it's just that mapping it onto a readily identifiable group clarifies it. You can claim the "indigenous natives TOTALLY aren't Native Americans, guys," but if you say the area to be colonized is a New World analogue, it's only natural your players will think the people who live there are analogues to Native Americans. See "Bright" for an example of how this hurts worldbuilding.

Two, it's not the tech that changes anything. It's the power dynamic which wasn't there before. If you said, "Well, the colonists will conquer with magic instead of guns," you'd still the same problem, which is that the colonists = Europeans and the indigenous peoples = everyone else. That can really mess with people at your table.

Finally, how is this interesting storytelling? On one side, you have a group of people with medieval technology that survived an apocalyptic event. On the other, a smaller group that has every conceivable advantage. I don't mean to sound rude, but where is the tension in that story? We know how that's going to play out.

[Tom Kalbfus]

Couple points here: one, the moral dimension was there the whole time, it's just that mapping it onto a readily identifiable group clarifies it. You can claim the "indigenous natives TOTALLY aren't Native Americans, guys," but if you say the area to be colonized is a New World analogue, it's only natural your players will think the people who live there are analogues to Native Americans. See "Bright" for an example of how this hurts worldbuilding.

Two, it's not the tech that changes anything. It's the power dynamic which wasn't there before. If you said, "Well, the colonists will conquer with magic instead of guns," you'd still the same problem, which is that the colonists = Europeans and the indigenous peoples = everyone else. That can really mess with people at your table.

Finally, how is this interesting storytelling? On one side, you have a group of people with medieval technology that survived an apocalyptic event. On the other, a smaller group that has every conceivable advantage. I don't mean to sound rude, but where is the tension in that story? We know how that's going to play out.

Do we? You think the gnomes couldn't reverse engineer a gunpowder musket? If a bunch of orcs terrorize a family of human settlers, you think the humans are going to go after the orcs, or are they going to burn down an elf village claiming that they all look the same? Not the same dynamic! Elves don't look like dwarves, don't look like halflings, don't look like gnomes. I don't think a bunch of different races can collectively fill the shoes of native americans, this is not a historical reenactment.. The elves would probably look favorably on a human reprisal on orcs. American indians picked up muskets and used them, dwarves can work metal and do some gunsmithing of their own. Seems to me the two sides will quickly equalize in technology as medeaval technology is only a little behind the 18th century, this is not the same situation.

[Tom Kalbfus]

I would turn it around and make it more "exploration" and less "colonization". Have all the humanoid races come from the Old World. Humans, elves, dwarves, gnomes, orcs, etc. all have kingdoms or republics in the Old World. The New World has been discovered and they are all racing to explore, claim territory, and gather resources.

The New World doesn't have any sentient natives, but it does have a lot of hostile megafauna. You get all the fun of establishing new colonies and fighting monsters in a new world and none of the morally questionable subjugation of the previous owners. You could still include ancient ruins of various types. The people that built them just aren't around anymore.

Problem then becomes a lack of treasure, beasts don't mint coins, make art objects or produce magic items, so there would be no treasure to collect after you killed a beast. Also if there are ruins, thenwhoever made them would have to have gone extinct in order to have no survivors. Also orcs fill alot of the same roles as hostile indian attacks, except they are not indians. Orcs attack settlers, orcs get blamed, not elves! Pretty much because of the way orcs behave, they will take the brunt of human reprisals. Feeling sorry for the orcs?

[Xuc Xac]

Problem then becomes a lack of treasure, beasts don't mint coins, make art objects or produce magic items, so there would be no treasure to collect after you killed a beast.

You don't go to the New World to get coins and art. You go to lay claim to a silver mine or a forest of cinnamon trees or other valuable raw materials. You don't kill a dragon to get the pile of gold coins it's sitting on, but because it dug its nest in a rich vein of gold and its lair is a ready made gold mine.

Also if there are ruins, thenwhoever made them would have to have gone extinct in order to have no survivors.

So, do that then. They could be an elder race (snake people are popular for this) that died out before the young races of the Old World got out of the stone age, or aliens/demons from another world that returned to their home world/dimension, or even the proto-humanoid ancestors that fled a disaster and went to the Old World where they gradually diverged into the modern humanoid races (who have forgotten where they came from). It could even be more than one of these.

Also orcs fill alot of the same roles as hostile indian attacks, except they are not indians.

Isn't that terribly convenient?

Orcs attack settlers, orcs get blamed, not elves! Pretty much because of the way orcs behave, they will take the brunt of human reprisals. Feeling sorry for the orcs?

If the Blacktooth orc tribe attacks some settlers and the Redfang tribe suffers the retaliation for it, then I do feel sorry for them because they're the victims. If the Blacktooth tribe owns the land that the settlers refused to leave, their "attack" could have been a legitimate defense against belligerent trespassers and usurper on their sovereign territory.

How would you like it if your neighbor shot a burglar in his living room and the burglar's friends came after you for "revenge"?

[Wizard_Lizard]

Do we? You think the gnomes couldn't reverse engineer a gunpowder musket? If a bunch of orcs terrorize a family of human settlers, you think the humans are going to go after the orcs, or are they going to burn down an elf village claiming that they all look the same? Not the same dynamic! Elves don't look like dwarves, don't look like halflings, don't look like gnomes. I don't think a bunch of different races can collectively fill the shoes of native americans, this is not a historical reenactment.. The elves would probably look favorably on a human reprisal on orcs. American indians picked up muskets and used them, dwarves can work metal and do some gunsmithing of their own. Seems to me the two sides will quickly equalize in technology as medeaval technology is only a little behind the 18th century, this is not the same situation.

but it is reasonable to assume that if some orcs terrorize a group of settlers, that the settlers may go and attack a different orcish village?

[Tom Kalbfus]

but it is reasonable to assume that if some orcs terrorize a group of settlers, that the settlers may go and attack a different orcish village?

How did orcs get that territory in the first place? Maybe they took it from elves. Lets suppose there is a war between orcs and elves in the New World, and then the humans show up and killing a bunch of orcs and take their land, how are the elves going to react, if they aren't trying to play the role of Indians? I would say the elves would likely let the humans keep the land they took from the orcs, as the elves were having trouble with orc raiding parties in their land, and then the humans took care of it. The elves would be glad to get rid of the orcs and might even help the humans take other orc held lands and divide the spoils between them and the humans. After all the elves lost that land in the first place and couldn't take it back by themselves, and if the humans took it, the elves aren't going to argue, they are just happy that the orc attacks stopped because of the humans. You see when you have multiple races instead of just one group identified as "Indians", then you can't just substitute one for another. The monster manual entry for orcs gives an alignment of evil to them, so they would tend to be very difficult neighbors to live with in the first place. Orcs would see an opportunity to loot and raid and would attack human settlements out of greed, they would take slaves and eat a few humans for supper, they also attack dwarves, elves, gnomes, and halflings so that kind of prevents the orcs from making common cause with those races against the humans. Your assumption that all those races would band together and attack the humans is not realistic unless you are trying to make them into "Indians" which they are not. Elves don't identify with orcs, and they do not perceive an attack on an orc village as an attack on them, they perceive instead humans attacking one of their enemies, which they don't mind so much.

From the humans perspective, they've got enough trouble from the orcs to satisfy their bloodlust and desires to collect treasure, they don't need to make enemies out of elves, dwarves, halflings, or gnomes, as orcs already are giving them enough trouble all by themselves.

Also the muskets the humans bring would eliminate some of the advantages orcs have with their superior strength. Medieval weapons require superior strength to use more effectively. Bows require draw strength for example, and the stronger you are at drawing the bow, the more damage you will affect with the arrows you let loose. Now muskets just make the orcs into bigger targets, so the onslaught of humans would likely knock the orcs back on their heels, at least until such time as the orcs can acquire their own muskets to shoot back with. Muskets are one shot weapons anyway, they take time to reload, involving several steps, and in that time orcs can run in and hack and slash with their melee weapons. So muskets don't entirely eliminate their strength advantage.

[Sparky McDibben]

Do we? You think the gnomes couldn't reverse engineer a gunpowder musket? If a bunch of orcs terrorize a family of human settlers, you think the humans are going to go after the orcs, or are they going to burn down an elf village claiming that they all look the same? Not the same dynamic! Elves don't look like dwarves, don't look like halflings, don't look like gnomes. I don't think a bunch of different races can collectively fill the shoes of native americans, this is not a historical reenactment.. The elves would probably look favorably on a human reprisal on orcs. American indians picked up muskets and used them, dwarves can work metal and do some gunsmithing of their own. Seems to me the two sides will quickly equalize in technology as medeaval technology is only a little behind the 18th century, this is not the same situation.

Problem then becomes a lack of treasure, beasts don't mint coins, make art objects or produce magic items, so there would be no treasure to collect after you killed a beast. Also if there are ruins, thenwhoever made them would have to have gone extinct in order to have no survivors. Also orcs fill alot of the same roles as hostile indian attacks, except they are not indians. Orcs attack settlers, orcs get blamed, not elves! Pretty much because of the way orcs behave, they will take the brunt of human reprisals. Feeling sorry for the orcs?

How did orcs get that territory in the first place? Maybe they took it from elves. Lets suppose there is a war between orcs and elves in the New World, and then the humans show up and killing a bunch of orcs and take their land, how are the elves going to react, if they aren't trying to play the role of Indians? I would say the elves would likely let the humans keep the land they took from the orcs, as the elves were having trouble with orc raiding parties in their land, and then the humans took care of it. The elves would be glad to get rid of the orcs and might even help the humans take other orc held lands and divide the spoils between them and the humans. After all the elves lost that land in the first place and couldn't take it back by themselves, and if the humans took it, the elves aren't going to argue, they are just happy that the orc attacks stopped because of the humans. You see when you have multiple races instead of just one group identified as "Indians", then you can't just substitute one for another. The monster manual entry for orcs gives an alignment of evil to them, so they would tend to be very difficult neighbors to live with in the first place. Orcs would see an opportunity to loot and raid and would attack human settlements out of greed, they would take slaves and eat a few humans for supper, they also attack dwarves, elves, gnomes, and halflings so that kind of prevents the orcs from making common cause with those races against the humans. Your assumption that all those races would band together and attack the humans is not realistic unless you are trying to make them into "Indians" which they are not. Elves don't identify with orcs, and they do not perceive an attack on an orc village as an attack on them, they perceive instead humans attacking one of their enemies, which they don't mind so much.

From the humans perspective, they've got enough trouble from the orcs to satisfy their bloodlust and desires to collect treasure, they don't need to make enemies out of elves, dwarves, halflings, or gnomes, as orcs already are giving them enough trouble all by themselves.

Also the muskets the humans bring would eliminate some of the advantages orcs have with their superior strength. Medieval weapons require superior strength to use more effectively. Bows require draw strength for example, and the stronger you are at drawing the bow, the more damage you will affect with the arrows you let loose. Now muskets just make the orcs into bigger targets, so the onslaught of humans would likely knock the orcs back on their heels, at least until such time as the orcs can acquire their own muskets to shoot back with. Muskets are one shot weapons anyway, they take time to reload, involving several steps, and in that time orcs can run in and hack and slash with their melee weapons. So muskets don't entirely eliminate their strength advantage.

Look man, if you want to go recreate the Age of Empires in your D&D game, go do that. You don't need anyone's permission. You seem to be trying to lure people into debating a morally fraught premise with the idea that it fixes everything if the oppressed natives are just replaced with savage orcs. It doesn't, and you're wrong. You haven't actually countered any of the arguments against using this setting, you've just set up straw men to justify using the setting. If you want to play that way, go play that way. Just don't be surprised if you catch some flak for it from your players.

[Tom Kalbfus]

Look man, if you want to go recreate the Age of Empires in your D&D game, go do that. You don't need anyone's permission. You seem to be trying to lure people into debating a morally fraught premise with the idea that it fixes everything if the oppressed natives are just replaced with savage orcs. It doesn't, and you're wrong. You haven't actually countered any of the arguments against using this setting, you've just set up straw men to justify using the setting. If you want to play that way, go play that way. Just don't be surprised if you catch some flak for it from your players.

I just brought the New World idea, I didn't bring the Indians, i actively tried to avoid bringing up the Indians, but you guys insisted on bringing up the subject. You know the colonial era of America wasn't just about killing indians and taking their land, you seem to focus on just the negative stuff. What attracted me to it is that it resembles the beginning of my country, the United States of America, so i just like that setting, but without the indians or the slavery, and for the record I actively insisted on avoiding those subject, but you i sistrd on bringing it along, i don't know why you are so negative about my country and its beginnings, but there was a lot of good stuff too.

This isn't about the USA, its about a frontier setting on a fantasy world, some aspects are similar, but i'm not including any references to native americans or to slavery, this is not, i repeat not a historical setting.

[Tom Kalbfus]

but it is reasonable to assume that if some orcs terrorize a group of settlers, that the settlers may go and attack a different orcish village?

The are only human, and its reasonable to expect they would. Do you have something against. Complex moral questions in a RPG? So long as they don't involve real world stuff so no one gets offended, unless they want to be, then its fair game. Do you disagree?

[redwizard007]

I just brought the New World idea, I didn't bring the Indians, i actively tried to avoid bringing up the Indians, but you guys insisted on bringing up the subject. You know the colonial era of America wasn't just about killing indians and taking their land, you seem to focus on just the negative stuff. What attracted me to it is that it resembles the beginning of my country, the United States of America, so i just like that setting, but without the indians or the slavery, and for the record I actively insisted on avoiding those subject, but you i sistrd on bringing it along, i don't know why you are so negative about my country and its beginnings, but there was a lot of good stuff too.

This isn't about the USA, its about a frontier setting on a fantasy world, some aspects are similar, but i'm not including any references to native americans or to slavery, this is not, i repeat not a historical setting.

Are you for real?

[Peelee]

The Mod on the Silver Mountain: I'm stopping this before it gets really off the rails.