log in or register to remove this ad

 

General Two underlying truths: D&D heritage and inclusivity


log in or register to remove this ad

TaranTheWanderer

Adventurer
You seem to be missing the point (though I still have no idea what @Mercurius 's point was exactly). The argument seemed to be that in a fantasy world you can't apply real-world morality. So, if I'm understanding this correctly, your "solution" would be seen as good and the suffering of the goblins dying to disease in a slow and painful fashion would be deserved.
I probably missed the point since this thread seems to weave and dodge. My solution was never about good or bad. I was playing a pure Neutral druid so he really didn't have any sympathy either way. The goblins were in the way of his goals and nature would sort them out one way or another.

I was just pointing out that no published adventure would point that method out as a solution to a problem, nor would it write an adventure that made that the logical conclusion. It doesn't mean a table won't do it, though.


I addressed this example in the other thread
this isn't really answer because there's too many thread and I'm having troubles keeping up. Care to provide a link?
 

TaranTheWanderer

Adventurer
Okay, to start: that is not even kind of similar to anything I said - and I'm pretty sure no one else said that either.

But to go ahead and try and have a conversation instead of just point out that you're wildly off-target from what was being said:

There is a difference between a story about victim blaming, and a story that is and excuses victim blaming. If the story of the duergar and the dwarves were telling us readers that it's not correct or acceptable behavior that the dwarves have completely disregarded that what they are declaring the duergar as 'the enemy' for is a thing which was inflicted upon the duergar, not a thing they deliberately did, it wouldn't be a problem - it would just be "a story, which includes victim blaming."

That's not the case, though - the actions of the dwarves are not even kind of brought into question, they are treated as normal reasonable things to do, and that is the problem - it's a story that presents victim blaming as "good guy" behavior, and the anger at being cast out for something outside your control as "evil guy" behavior.
I might have taken your argument out of context because, as I said in a previous post, things are moving quick in these threads. There have been lots of posts but that one post, by itself(IE: probably out of context), seemed to stand out so I commented on it.

I get what you are saying. I think it would be an even better story if the dwarves were portrayed as being in the right but then the adventure slowly reveals that what they believe is only a product of their own upbringing and eons of propaganda. Then the PCs can make the moral choice to defend the Dwarven perspective or to act against it.

I have no problem with a publisher saying,

"Hey, here's this group that righteously thinks they are superior to another group even though they are totally wrong. The common worldview/belief is they are actually morally superior (but they aren't). Add this to your game if you want to let your players explore this."

No need to change the story. Just frame it first.
 


Rather than go through your longer post, I'll just thank you here for the work you put into it.

The only change that needs to be made to IMO make it all work just fine is that instead of the Duergar coming back to the Dwarves seeking peaceful re-entry and being rejected, have them come back as aggressive invaders and get rejected. That gives each group ongoing reason to be torqued off with the other, and on we go.
That works too


So maybe the dwarves are victim blaming. So what? It adds texture to them, a kind of prideful blindness.

But is it victim-blaming of WotC to create such a story? Of course not.
If it was presented as prideful blindness, sure, but at that isn't how it is presented in the story. The dwarves are never questioned or confronted by their choices. They are still the good guys.

Good thing you don’t have to. Just don’t ask WotC to change every fantasy idea to fit your real-world ethics.
I never asked WoTC to change anything, I was simply elaborating on my disgust at the story since Lanefan asked.

I will point out though, if you want good and evil to mean something in the world, maybe having the good guys doing evil and hateful things, but that being okay because they are the good guys... that might not be the best way to go about it.

And if you want moral grey, don't paint the bad guys with Vantablack

I probably missed the point since this thread seems to weave and dodge. My solution was never about good or bad. I was playing a pure Neutral druid so he really didn't have any sympathy either way. The goblins were in the way of his goals and nature would sort them out one way or another.

I was just pointing out that no published adventure would point that method out as a solution to a problem, nor would it write an adventure that made that the logical conclusion. It doesn't mean a table won't do it, though.
Well, since no one is talking about table solutions at all, I'd say you missed the point.



this isn't really answer because there's too many thread and I'm having troubles keeping up. Care to provide a link?




I might have taken your argument out of context because, as I said in a previous post, things are moving quick in these threads. There have been lots of posts but that one post, by itself(IE: probably out of context), seemed to stand out so I commented on it.

I get what you are saying. I think it would be an even better story if the dwarves were portrayed as being in the right but then the adventure slowly reveals that what they believe is only a product of their own upbringing and eons of propaganda. Then the PCs can make the moral choice to defend the Dwarven perspective or to act against it.

I have no problem with a publisher saying,

"Hey, here's this group that righteously thinks they are superior to another group even though they are totally wrong. The common worldview/belief is they are actually morally superior (but they aren't). Add this to your game if you want to let your players explore this."

No need to change the story. Just frame it first.

Right, that would be fine, but that isn't how it is presented.

Again, the Dwarves blaming the Duergar for their own misfortune is not the problem (though it is icky) the problem is that the Dwarves blame the Duergar for their own misfortune, they are framed as correct in that assumption, and they are the heroes of the story. All of that bound together is the problem
 

TaranTheWanderer

Adventurer
Well, since no one is talking about table solutions at all, I'd say you missed the point.
Thanks for tactfully pointing that out.

Gotcha. I shouldn't have posted the same comment in two threads. Here's how I answered that specific post:

So, YOU don't see any issue with it. The Idea of invading a nation and taking those who don't agree with a specific ideology (that undead is a better state of being than alive - hence the lich) and taking those who fight against it and putting them into work camps until they die is, pretty much, most people's idea of evil. The fact that someone can make a parallel to work camps in WWII and that killing people who don't believe in your ideas for a 'better world' isn't an impossible idea.

It's there even if you have to dig for it. Some people might see that parallel because they've experienced it or have family who have. I could see it as a sincere complaint and you wouldn't be able to just write it off as 'overly sensitive complaining'. People on this board have legitimate complaints about specific content and others have dismissed their complaints. It's a thing, even when it doesn't fit your view of what warrants a complaint.

So, the question is, how do you publish anything when you risk having to pull your books off the shelf? Why pull the books off the shelf at all? This has been raised before about books outside of D&D: Tom Sawyer, To Kill a Mockingbird, Of Mice & Men. People asked that those books be pulled from libraries and schools. Is it right to do that? Is that how people want their society to function? Or maybe there should be a forward added to new prints of those books to put them into context? Chances are, the rules for what is PC today won't be PC tomorrow, so do we just get rid of all the content from the past or do we educate people about it and continue to release new, up to date material?

It would not be hard to edit a copy of the PDF of Oriental Adventures and add a forward and to add addendum in the book. They release erratas all the time to PDFs that do exactly that.

I agree, release better material but you can't crucify every artist for their material or prevent people from reading it if it eventually suddenly becomes outdated.
I think, ethically, we are, roughly, on the same page. I will have to bow out of these conversations, though, because there are too many of them happening at once and they all, really, touch on the same thing. I'm getting all my conversations mixed.

If you'd like to respond to my specific comment, feel free to PM me because it really doesn't belong in this thread. Not really because it's not applicable but because it should probably stay in the Oriental Adventures thread.

To Summarize my stance: Don't remove old material. Release better and new material. Add a forward and comments to new prints/PDFs of published books pointing out the outdated views.
 
Last edited:


AaronOfBarbaria

Adventurer
I'm not moving the goal post anywhere, just pointing out that we don't need apply real world ethics and morality to fantasy scenarios.
The post when you seemed to say "it's not victim blaming" to which I responded asking "then what do you call it?" certainly made it seem as though your response of "So maybe the dwarves are victim blaming. So what?" and then moving from that topic to a different topic - that dwarves in a story blaming victims isn't WotC blaming victims - certainly looks like moving a goal post.

Like, could be the image used to illustrate the concept if someone went to look up "what is 'moving the goal post'?"

As for application of real world ethics and morality to fantasy scenarios: that's not what was being done. Not exactly, at least. The ethics and morality written into the game by way of alignment being part of the game is what was being applied to illustrate that the actions of good-aligned entities in the story did not fit the way that the good alignment is presented as thinking/acting - lawful good is presented as "can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society." and that is directly at odds with writing off an entire segment of your society for erroneous reasons and making no steps towards reconciliation once those errors are brought to light. There is no way to demonstrate "let's just be at war with the Duergar instead of accepting their claims of literal enslavement and working to re-integrate them to our society as allies" as "the right thing as expected by society."
 

Mercurius

Legend
The post when you seemed to say "it's not victim blaming" to which I responded asking "then what do you call it?" certainly made it seem as though your response of "So maybe the dwarves are victim blaming. So what?" and then moving from that topic to a different topic - that dwarves in a story blaming victims isn't WotC blaming victims - certainly looks like moving a goal post.

Like, could be the image used to illustrate the concept if someone went to look up "what is 'moving the goal post'?"

As for application of real world ethics and morality to fantasy scenarios: that's not what was being done. Not exactly, at least. The ethics and morality written into the game by way of alignment being part of the game is what was being applied to illustrate that the actions of good-aligned entities in the story did not fit the way that the good alignment is presented as thinking/acting - lawful good is presented as "can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society." and that is directly at odds with writing off an entire segment of your society for erroneous reasons and making no steps towards reconciliation once those errors are brought to light. There is no way to demonstrate "let's just be at war with the Duergar instead of accepting their claims of literal enslavement and working to re-integrate them to our society as allies" as "the right thing as expected by society."
It sounds like you're trying to play Gotcha with me? Part of what you perceive is me trying to pin-point what exact Chaosmancer calls "victim-blaming" with regards to the duergar: is it the good dwarves or WotC?

Anyhow, I hear your point about alignment. Your definition of LG sort of supports my view: it makes sense that LG dwarven society might be fallible or rigid. Or maybe dwarven society is LG-LN. Either way, it seems a picked nit.
 

Hussar

Legend
I had a druid in 3rd ed who cast contagion on a goblin and released him in order to wipe out their entire nest. Of course, we never claimed to be 'good aligned'. I'm fairly certain that this 'solution' to a goblin issue wouldn't be mentioned, or suggested in any module.

Once again, it's all very tricky. A lich necromancer King is pushing his territory into the neighboring countries. He's committing atrocities and taking slaves, forcing all who oppose him into work camps until they die just so he can raise them from the dead and add them to his army.

I'm sure you can see the issue with this, pretty typical, fantasy trope. It's a little too close to images of the Holocaust. No publisher would touch that with a 10-foot pole. So, how do you play the Necromancer King without insulting anyone? Remove the work camps? Make it so the Necromancer isn't interested in expansion? Or is it fair to release an adventure with a foreword that communicates the nature of the adventure, the actual intentions of the adventure and a warning of what it could depict if your table isn't careful? I don't know the answer but it certainly limits what publishers can release for fear of backlash.
This is very much missing the point. No one is saying that NPC's can't do bad things or you can't have evil NPC's. So, a Hitler Lich is perfectly fine, complete with Holocaust.

What would be bad would be presenting Hitler Lich as a GOOD THING. Or, frankly, as anything other than a bad thing. Or in some way implies that the slaves he's taking somehow deserve their treatment. Or that in some way the Hitler Lich is justified in what he's doing.

All these "whataboutits" really, really miss the point of what people are complaining about.
 

Hussar

Legend
Rather than go through your longer post, I'll just thank you here for the work you put into it.

The only change that needs to be made to IMO make it all work just fine is that instead of the Duergar coming back to the Dwarves seeking peaceful re-entry and being rejected, have them come back as aggressive invaders and get rejected. That gives each group ongoing reason to be torqued off with the other, and on we go.
Alternatively, you could present a segment of Dwarven society that realizes they made a mistake and are working to find some sort of rapprochement between the two groups. It adds depth to both sides.

It's certainly resolvable without too much effort.
 

Scott Christian

Adventurer
Right, so abandon morality and ethics, they will not serve you here.

The logic was if you get caught by slavers and don't get to worship properly, you are a bad person. And I don't want that in my fantasy stories, sorry
In the lore, it doesn't really spell out "bad person." It implies weakness. Kind of like Denethor made Faramir feel for ceding Osgiliath. I mean he made him charge into a battle that would certainly be his death. Or a Klingon being excised because they lose a fight. So instead of "bad person" we could come from the vantage point of weak; ie, the dwarves thinking: We managed to stave off these creatures. You should have too.

And since we are looking at these things from all sorts of perspectives, that one seems valid. At least that's my remembrance of the lore.
 

In the lore, it doesn't really spell out "bad person." It implies weakness. Kind of like Denethor made Faramir feel for ceding Osgiliath. I mean he made him charge into a battle that would certainly be his death. Or a Klingon being excised because they lose a fight. So instead of "bad person" we could come from the vantage point of weak; ie, the dwarves thinking: We managed to stave off these creatures. You should have too.

And since we are looking at these things from all sorts of perspectives, that one seems valid. At least that's my remembrance of the lore.
I'm going to agree that it is a valid interpretation of the mythos. And I am going to assume that is as far as you intended that to go.


Now I'm going to step beyond that.

That is a big problem, if that is the intended message. Because that is victim-blaming. Whole-Hog.

"You should have been strong enough not to be mentally compelled into slavery, everything that happened is because you were too weak"

And again, having a character say this to another character isn't wrong, but having it presented from a good character, one meant to embody the concepts of goodness, and it be a proper chastisement, not them being cruel or extreme but being reasonable, that is ugly and a problem with your story.

I mean, imagine Mother Theresa for a second, someone who is referred to as a near saint, and imagine her telling someone "you got sick because you were too weak. This illness is your fault." It just doesn't jive, it feels dissonant and wrong. And that's the issue I've got with the Duergar situation. The actions of the dwarves are not justified, but are presented as though they were justified.
 

TaranTheWanderer

Adventurer
All these "whataboutits" really, really miss the point of what people are complaining about.
I'm not ignoring or missing what people are complaining about. I think I mentioned a few hundred posts ago that I understood why people would be both, upset about the issue with races AND with the changes. A 'whataboutit' (as you call it) is trying to delve deeper into the issue than what is presently going on. It's saying, "ok, here is how they are dealing with the issue. Has the solution been well thought out? What will be the consequences of those decisions? If so, how can issues arising from the solution be mitigated? How might it affect the game in the future?"

These are actual concerns and questions people have. Why not talk about them?

I mean, it's fine if people don't want to get into the meat of an issue and just want to have cyclic arguments about who's right and who's wrong. I'm not interested in that and I didn't really think that was the point of this thread. It's also why I'm done discussing it.
 

Scott Christian

Adventurer
I'm going to agree that it is a valid interpretation of the mythos. And I am going to assume that is as far as you intended that to go.


Now I'm going to step beyond that.

That is a big problem, if that is the intended message. Because that is victim-blaming. Whole-Hog.

"You should have been strong enough not to be mentally compelled into slavery, everything that happened is because you were too weak"

And again, having a character say this to another character isn't wrong, but having it presented from a good character, one meant to embody the concepts of goodness, and it be a proper chastisement, not them being cruel or extreme but being reasonable, that is ugly and a problem with your story.

I mean, imagine Mother Theresa for a second, someone who is referred to as a near saint, and imagine her telling someone "you got sick because you were too weak. This illness is your fault." It just doesn't jive, it feels dissonant and wrong. And that's the issue I've got with the Duergar situation. The actions of the dwarves are not justified, but are presented as though they were justified.
I agree with everything you say except that it is a problem.

First, it is not my story. It is lore. It is a make believe story in a make believe world, with make believe characters, and make believe magic, and make believe cultures, that worship make believe gods. It is not mine.

Second, it is a fantasy trope; a characteristic of dwarves, among many fantasy races: elves being haughty and egotistical might have come to the same conclusion; githyanki being a caste society and with the "stronger pillage the weak" mentality would certainly come to the same conclusion; even a modron might view it as a parasite and thus resort to exile. I realize that only one of those are "good." But threw in the evil and neutral to stop the debate from veering down that road.

Here is what you wrote: "And again, having a character say this to another character isn't wrong, but having it presented from a good character, one meant to embody the concepts of goodness, and it be a proper chastisement, not them being cruel or extreme but being reasonable, that is ugly and a problem with your story."

I italicized the part I agree with. There should be two sides represented. Sounds like a good idea for a novel to tell you the truth. A Dwarven sect that wants to defend their pre-duergar brothers from being outcasts, and thus come to be rebels against the other dwarves. It should be there. And you are right, it is ugly. But it's not a problem (and again, not my story). It is called conflict. Many conflicts in fantasy are ugly. That is what makes them a conflict. I mean the definition of conflict in a story is the struggle between opposing forces. Some of those forces might be good, but doing the wrong thing. Some might be bad but doing the wrong thing. The devils are keeping the demons at bay and from destroying the world. It doesn't make them good.

So again, I agree. But, maybe if you can explain to me why it's a problem I promise I will listen, keep an open mind, and try to understand.

And please, I am asking nicely (and not just you), please stop using real life analogies. It doesn't fit. I would probably worship Mother Theresa if I saw her cast raise dead or cure critical wounds. But she can't. So she is a person in real life meant to be an inspiration to millions. That's it. There is no D&D cross-reference for her. In my humble opinion.
 

You missed a lot of points here, and some of them I'm honestly scratching my head about.

I agree with everything you say except that it is a problem.

First, it is not my story. It is lore. It is a make believe story in a make believe world, with make believe characters, and make believe magic, and make believe cultures, that worship make believe gods. It is not mine.
Perhaps this is an English thing. But, I never implied or thought that you were the writer for Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes. I was using "you" in the generic referring to an audience sense. If someone is writing a story, and this is what happens, it is a problem with that story they wrote.

Secondly, being make believe has nothing to do with anything. A story is a story, whether make believe or not, and in fact, make believe stories must be even more careful about making sense, because you do not have the defense of "look, I know it doesn't make sense, but that is what really happened." Full Authorial Control has that drawback.


And please, I am asking nicely (and not just you), please stop using real life analogies. It doesn't fit. I would probably worship Mother Theresa if I saw her cast raise dead or cure critical wounds. But she can't. So she is a person in real life meant to be an inspiration to millions. That's it. There is no D&D cross-reference for her. In my humble opinion.
What? Honestly, what does having her be worshiped, raising the dead or anything like that have to do with her personality?

I used her as an example because she is an inspiration to millions for her kindness, compassion and good work. She is a near universal benchmark to point to and say "that is a good person". That is why if you heard a story about her acting cruel or malicious, it would be dissonant and wrong. Because she is a good person, that doesn't make sense for her to act that way.

Second, it is a fantasy trope; a characteristic of dwarves, among many fantasy races: elves being haughty and egotistical might have come to the same conclusion; githyanki being a caste society and with the "stronger pillage the weak" mentality would certainly come to the same conclusion; even a modron might view it as a parasite and thus resort to exile. I realize that only one of those are "good." But threw in the evil and neutral to stop the debate from veering down that road.

Here is what you wrote: "And again, having a character say this to another character isn't wrong, but having it presented from a good character, one meant to embody the concepts of goodness, and it be a proper chastisement, not them being cruel or extreme but being reasonable, that is ugly and a problem with your story."

I italicized the part I agree with. There should be two sides represented. Sounds like a good idea for a novel to tell you the truth. A Dwarven sect that wants to defend their pre-duergar brothers from being outcasts, and thus come to be rebels against the other dwarves. It should be there. And you are right, it is ugly. But it's not a problem (and again, not my story). It is called conflict. Many conflicts in fantasy are ugly. That is what makes them a conflict. I mean the definition of conflict in a story is the struggle between opposing forces. Some of those forces might be good, but doing the wrong thing. Some might be bad but doing the wrong thing. The devils are keeping the demons at bay and from destroying the world. It doesn't make them good.

So again, I agree. But, maybe if you can explain to me why it's a problem I promise I will listen, keep an open mind, and try to understand.

The conclusion itself isn't the problem. It is the framing around the conclusion.

Yes, good people can act terribly. That happens. Yes, bad things can happen to good, innocent people. That happens.

But, how we frame those events adds another layer, and the framing in Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes is not just that the Dwarves blamed the Duergar for their plight, but that the Dwarves were not wrong to do so.

We both agree that this course of action was ugly and wrong, but the book presents the story as though the dwarves did the right thing. That what they did was not ugly and wrong, after all, the Duergar are the bad guys and the Dwarves are the good guys. The Duergar are greedy now, they do hate Moradin now, so they must have been greedy and hateful back then, and that is why they were enslaved and tortured.

We are not meant to see the Dwarves choice to cast them out as morally wrong, but morally right.

And that is the problem. You have an event that was ugly, cruel and needless, and it is being framed as the correct course of action for the good dwarves to have taken.

And remember, this is not presented to us as "the dwarven side of the story" this is presented to us from an impartial third party point of view.
 

Bagpuss

Adventurer
No they couldn't. The whole current debate was sparked by the fact that up until recently you couldn't play an orc who wasn't evil and stupid, and now you can.
How recently? You could in 3rd Ed it even had rules for orc PCs.

Even in 3rd Ed orcs are only usually Chaotic Evil, and have a -2 Int modifier, 16 Int isn’t exactly stupid you could even be a reasonable Wizard.

Now if you had said Gully Dwarfs in 2nd Ed fair enough they couldn’t have a Int above 9.
 
Last edited:

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
How recently? You could in 3rd Ed it even had rules for orc PCs.

Even in 3rd Ed orcs are only usually Chaotic Evil, and have a -2 Int modifier, 16 Int isn’t exactly stupid you could even be a reasonable Wizard.

Now if you had said Gully Dwarfs in 2nd Ed fair enough they couldn’t have a Int above 9.
The main difference is that most races had a negative modifier in 3E. I had a dwarf in Living Greyhawk that had a 5 charisma after being hit with an ugly stick.

In 5E orcs are the only ones, or one of the few.
 

Hussar

Legend
I'm not ignoring or missing what people are complaining about. I think I mentioned a few hundred posts ago that I understood why people would be both, upset about the issue with races AND with the changes. A 'whataboutit' (as you call it) is trying to delve deeper into the issue than what is presently going on. It's saying, "ok, here is how they are dealing with the issue. Has the solution been well thought out? What will be the consequences of those decisions? If so, how can issues arising from the solution be mitigated? How might it affect the game in the future?"

These are actual concerns and questions people have. Why not talk about them?

I mean, it's fine if people don't want to get into the meat of an issue and just want to have cyclic arguments about who's right and who's wrong. I'm not interested in that and I didn't really think that was the point of this thread. It's also why I'm done discussing it.
But, that's not the "meat" of the issue, nor is it delving deeper. The meat of the issue isn't "what about evil bad guys" because "evil bad guys" is not an issue. No one has a problem with evil bad guys, because, well, bad guys are supposed to be evil. So, your Hitler Lich would be perfectly fine. He's a BAD GUY. It would only be problematic if the victims were presented as deserving to die and be turned into mindless undead, or if Hitler Lich were somehow justified in his actions.

So, why not talk about them? Because these issues are non-sequiturs that only serve to confuse the issue. Why are you talking about "evil bad guys" when no one has an issue with evil bad guys?

It's why this topic is so frustrating.

A: We want to change the language used in some monsters so that it no longer parallels real world descriptions that were used to denigrate and dehumanize people.
B: I don't see the problem with this language, so, you must have some other problem. What about being evil?
A: No, no, we want to change the language used in some monsters so that it no longer parallels real world descriptions that were used to denigrate and dehumanize people.
B; I don't see the problem with this language, so, you must have some other problem. What about this other monster that's completely unrelated to what you brought up?
A: No, no, we want to change the language used in some monsters so that it no longer parallels real world descriptions that were used to denigrate and dehumanize people.
B: I don't see the problem with this language, so, you must have some other problem. What about these monsters over here that are completely unrelated to what you are saying?
A: No, no, we want to change the language used in some monsters so that it no longer parallels real world descriptions that were used to denigrate and dehumanize people.
B: I don't see the problem with this language, so, you must have some other problem. Why won't you talk about these other issues. They are important aren't they? Why aren't they problems for you?
A: No, no, we want to change the language used in some monsters so that it no longer parallels real world descriptions that were used to denigrate and dehumanize people.

Wash, rinse, repeat for page after page after page.

Even if you don't agree with the interpretation, that doesn't meant that there is some other problem. Your (and I'm using you here in the general sense of anyone reading this) inability to empathize with other people's issues is the key issue here. Even if you don't have a problem with the language, how is it in anyone's interest to keep insisting on other justifications? Why not actually take a look at what is needed to resolve the issue - minor editing of a couple of monsters in such a way that the core of the monster is largely unchanged, as has been REPEATEDLY shown in this thread - instead of continuously searching for some sort of other reason?
 

Sadras

Hero
I REALLY need to read my MToF, didn't realise there was an issue with the dwarvern history.
The only thing I have used of that book so far is the Githyanki Lore and some of the stat blocks.
 

NOW LIVE! 5 Plug-In Settlements for your 5E Game

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top