A Critique to a Critique

[Zhulik 3559]

RE: RE: A Fat Monk’s Screams

9th of Malin’s Welcome, 1661

---

“I have taken the pleasure in reading the tabloid of Brother BOB concerning the perspective of the Church on the conflict as it ensues. After all, it is the ONLY argument that seems to justify the Renatian conflict. Albeit the arguments presented to us by the Renatian State and the Church that upholds its very stature as Defender of the Faith is utterly fallacious in nature”

 

It is a pleasure that you have read it as well; however, I believe this retort initially to be an attack at Renatus through my neutral words. My document was intended to be the only argument required for the faithful, because the situation, in my eyes, is so clear cut against heretical attackers. There is a great misconception about myself, and I hope to quell this notion before I begin. I, Prestor Robert, hold no allegiance to any mortal man. As a young monk, I traveled the world and truly believe the best way to spread the faith is through ground work rather than warfare. Albeit I am a Master within the Order of Saint Lucien, the only reason I believed the Order needed to be reformed in Axios was due to the fact that clergymen were regularly being accosted by those in the Red Faith. In fact, as evidence of me serving no mortal man, I refused to bless the Northern Alliance on the basis that I believed the faith should bless no secular alliance. Firstly, I do not believe the church should interfere with any conflict unless the Pontificate, or the Faith, are directly attacked or encountering threat. Truthfully, I would rather have had the church remain neutral in this conflict on the basis that the faith was not harmed nor threatened in any capacity at the beginning of this war. However, circumstances involving attacks conducted by the heretical Norlandics, and I do say heretical on the basis that their former head of the Red Faith acknowledged the creator yet denounced the prophets, have changed my view because the faith had, in fact, been threatened and acted upon with bloodshed.

 

“Firstly, let me clarify that to publish a perspective in the personage of a holy man on the secular toils between conflicting human nations is by no means forbidden. The Church reserves its right to mediate and rebuke the sinful actions of its flock. However, it becomes a dangerous path of precedent that the Church sets when it blindly embellishes the actions of a barbaric nation riddled in its own sinful ways and yet admonishes other kingdoms.”

 

I agree with this concept, yet, you look upon the deeds of Renatus as if they are directly affecting the faith. Wars for titles do not equate to, in any circumstance, conflicts with the faith. Nothing Renatus has done, in the eyes of the Church, and myself, has directly conflicted with the Pontificate or the Holy Scrolls. As a Lucienist, I have made it my business to inquire to heresies and respond appropriately. Do not mistake me for a docile and dormant clergyman who is spoon fed by Renatus, for, as Bishop Yurii may note, I am perhaps the most outspoken of the Synod, attempting to rectify inconsistencies with the faith and address issues of magic. As such, I am no yes-man to the Pontiff as I openly debate with the synod, as members of the synod should. However, Jude IS the elected VICAR OF GOD, which demands a rightfully deserved amount of respect. To accuse the Vicar of God of being puppeteered or misguided, in my humble eyes, is to reject anything the Pontificate stands for in the first place. I do not recall the same level of criticisms, if any, of Clement III by Haense when he denied the requested secular merger of Renatus and Marna, which, in my eyes, was an egregious overstep of Pontifical power as it was interfering with secular politics. I imagine I shall be forced to delve deeper into the the topic of hypocrisy further as I respond to your retort.

 

“The nations of Atlas do not forget that the Kingdom of Renatus destabilized humanity and committed the grave sin of kinslaying in avaricious domination. Brother BOB argues that the sins of Aurelius Canonius were cleansed by the indulgences of the Third Crusade, and rightly so. However, it cannot be understated that we cannot simply efface the memory of this sin, the beheading of a thirteen year old child for the theft of titular honorifics. What example is this to be a Defender of the Faith when at the heart of his status, his gains are a violation of the Scroll of Virtue. Furthermore, what image does the Holy Faith have when its Pontiff cannot address immorality? The indictment that the Kingdom of Haense and that of the United Southern Alliance is a paganistic toxicity to the purity and sanctity of the Church of the Canon is pretentious at best and it appears that the Renatian state cannot look in the mirror. So blinded by the arrogance that precedes their actions lies an inability to see that the root of sin comes from within.”

 

Perhaps the most ill-founded argument in your critique, I find this argument to be a non-argument, bluntly. You acknowledge the fact that Aurelius has been absolved by his sins as a result for his service in the Third Crusade. Yet, you still attempt to enforce the notion that he has not properly been punished for his sin, despite the fact that High Pontiff Everard IV pardoned him of his sins. It would be as if an Emperor offered a murderer a pardon in exchange for serving in the Forlorn Hope, an example from the Third Orenian Empire. Once his tour of service was completed, and the deal was met, the murderer was pardoned. Certainly, in the eyes of the populace, that man still may be a murderer. However, it is unjust to punish that man further if he completed his act of penance. It is even more shocking that one would advocate such a punishment two Emperors down the line, as if this concept changes, and then puts the blame upon the newest Emperor. Thus, how is it the fault of Jude I that Aurelius was pardoned for his sins, when, in fact, it was Everard IV who did? Why should Jude punish a  man who has already completed his quest of penance?

 

Adding to this, with regards to your second point about the Church being pretentious-... If I am not mistaken, this critique, in general, is pretentious as you attempt to disavow the concept of the Church staying out of secular affairs unless it is in benefit of thee. Likewise, you have yet to even acknowledge sins conducted by your side, which is true arrogance. I doubt this critique in any way acknowledges the fact that Haense is actively aiding and embedding Norlandic nun butchers in their society. It perplexes me.

 

“We recall that when the Czena Confederation was formed, it served as a defensive security pact, comprised of CANONIST and HUMAN nations with a common concern: Renatian aggression. Brother BOB even admits that any paganic or non-human ally is a disgusting ploy. Yet, when faced with this truth, the Church has conveniently turned the other way, never once admonishing the kingdom that it supports as a vigilant and godly institution would do.”

 

Once again, you issue non-arguments. I made it clear that I BELIEVED it was disgusting, for it follows along with my own morality, however, if one were to look at the actions of the prophets, nothing is inherently wrong with allying with non-humans or pagans. It is merely a matter of taste, akin to whether one prefers strawberries or cherries, or some other analogy. Firstly, one need not look much further than the Three Brothers whom aided Horen, our first prophet, in the defeat of evil. Secondly, the third exalted, Godfrey, himself had numerous pacts with non-human entities ranging from orcs, dwarves and elves. To state that alliances with non-humans is religiously wrong is to completely ignore the actions of the Exalted Godfrey. Though, in truth, I doubt much of Godfrey’s teachings have been revealed to Haense as the Scroll of Gospel’s section of Godfrey is omitted as of current. Thus, one may infer his teachings through actual research, via the study of his handwritten Imperial writs, laws, etcetera. This is where one may find a greater amount of enlightenment.

 

“We recall that during this period, the Kingdom of Renatus had committed itself to undermining the safety and security of sovereign CANONIST peoples, waging arms against their citizens and even audaciously kidnapping monarchical consorts, nobles, and even the Head of State of the Kingdom of Santegia illicitly as a form of leverage.”

 

If a Canonist harms a Canonist, is it considered sacrilege or crimes against the faith? Ask yourself this. Should the church interfere with every training-yard debacle if Canonists are involved? If the faith is not being harmed nor targeted in any capacity, it is NOT the duty of the Church to act as patrolling sentries for scuffles between Canonists. This is my firm belief, as the Church should be focused on the faith rather than worldly politics. Yet, still, I find the hypocrisy of Haense amusing. Let us not forget that Horens too were kidnapped in this war. The second someone begins to fight you, you scream bloody murder attempting to use the church as a tool, or a weapon, to fight your wars. Yet, still you hold zero reservation denouncing and openly defecating upon the seat of the Pontificate. For CANONIST peoples there is a clear-cut lack of respect for your Vicar of God. Additionally, you still have yet to respond to any criticisms critiquing your alliance with blood-thirsty nun-slayers.

 

“Much to our dismay, the holy man lies to the faithful on the nature and circumstance of this war, further embellishing the impure motive of Renatian aggression by virtue of his holy office. We cannot assert more that out of their desperation, it was the Kingdom of Renatus, our glorious Defender of the Faith, that chartered the Northern Atlas Alliance in 1655, a coalition of NON-HUMAN and NON-CANONIST STATES to subdue the CANONIST NATIONS of the Czena Confederation as a lust for hegemonic status in humanity. If GOD surely sustains his Defender, why must he seek foreign allies to save himself? I remind Brother BOB and all the Renatian apologists that it was not until 1657 that an alliance brokered with the Kingdom of Haense, the Kingdom of Norland, and the Silver State of Haelun’or was made known. Therefore, the argument that Haense allies with pagans is invalid, yet the Church asserts this to be a slight when the Renatian state committed to bringing non-humans into a human conflict. Where was the Church in all of this? They were conveniently looking away. But when the Kingdom of Haense, Santegia, or the Principality of Curon errs in a minute way, they are quick to rebuke!”

 

It is rather misleading, and dishonorable, to claim that I am a liar for stating information that I believed to have been true based on the information presented to me. Thus, it is a lie to say I am a liar. Men are not omnipotent, and men make mistakes. All men are sinners, and all men sin; the Monk’s greatest sin is no longer being thin, as I like to say. Yet, despite this, you present a non-argument once more. The attempted sole complaint you have been presenting thus far is that Renatus utilized paganic and non-human forces, which is not inherently wrong or unholy. Likewise, you also try presenting the fact that the Czenza confederation and the current alliance is not the same- which I know. I never once stated that they were. However, once again, I cite Godfrey, who was friendly to the non-humans, generally, and held alliances with them. If Godfrey was wrong in this regard then surely GOD would have made him undertake quests of penance as he did with Owyn, yet, he never had to. As for Haense allying with pagans, I refer to the Gallic tribe and the Qalasheen migrants who were reported to have settled about Haense by Lucienists. And by ally, I refer to the use of pagans in your military. I never once said the church should not help Haense on the basis of them using pagans. Rather, I stated that the argument was the pot calling the kettle black. On numerous occasions Lucienists reported aggression from the Haensetic guard as well as local pagans. There were also reports of secret paganic meetings being hid by the Haense government and having these same pagans fight their wars.

 

“Why then did the Church not express dismay for Renatus when it first decided to enact such alliances? Surely we cannot ask them to fight for us but His Holiness published no reaction to such a notion. Let us not forget that the Kingdom of Renatus has been on a warpath since its conception, creating said alliance in preparation to subdue its brethren in faith. The Czena Confederation did not once kidnap its citizens, terrorize its roads, mace any victims, or raid foreign capitals, nor did it express any initial intentions to attack the Renatian state preemptively. Is the Church so corrupted so as not to see the objective aggression of the kingdom allies with?"

 

I believe this question can be answered simply. The church did not respond because the war was not one involving faith. None of the members in the Northern Alliance declared war on the South on the basis that they were Canonist. No temples were harmed, no clergy were hunted. This is why I stated that it was rather simple-minded to be making claims of heathens aiding Renatus against Haense, who was Canonist, when Haense itself employed heathens. It was not a war of faith until Norland struck the first blow against the clergy and began slaying them without remorse. It is not the Church’s duty to obligingly aid in the physical defense of any canonist country if wars have been fought under a secular pretense. If the Church lacked the Order of Saint Lucien, would your argument still persist if the Church had no military to dispatch? Surely, you would likely say that the church could still condemn renatus for engaging in warfare with fellow humans, yet, they have done nothing to warrant such a condemnation and, if they are as unholy as you claim they are, what good would condemnation do?

 

“The Kingdom of Renatus and the Church of the Canon argue that Haense has fell astray by espousing pagans and terrorists who murder clergy and repulse the salvation of GOD. We remind our brethren in faith that it is the Kingdom of Haense who has continuously harbored and protected the values of the Canonist faith. For 82 years and ongoing, it has stood with no record of schism, untainted by any treachery against the Church, for it was one of its kings who was bestowed Fidei Defensor in lieu of schism after the rise of the Kingdom of Courland. It touts the accession of eight bishops from its lands to the Immaculate Throne, four saints who have set an example for our holy lives, and stood to reunify humanity with the House of Horen, not divide it.”

Once again, this is a non-argument. Citing numbers from the past does not in any way affect the present. Does this mean that Renatus is more holy than Haense because the Horen line has been around for millennia and houses THREE EXALTEDS to Haense’s none? I do not recall the piety of a nation at the present point in time to be based on the deeds of one’s ancestors. If this is your logic, then you CANNOT claim that Renatus is impious because Renatus formed the First HOLY Empire beneath the Exalted Godfrey. I understand you are one to quote the scrolls, and thus I shall do so in turn: “So I am the Most High, and in pursuit of My Virtue, I bid thee, My faithful, this: Thou shalt not judge the sufficiency of thy Virtue, be it great or small, for all magnitudes fall short of Me” (Scroll of Virtue, Humility). As such, it is improper for you to claim your own piety is greater than an another’s. I in no way say that either side’s piety is greater than the other’s, nor do I say mine is. Rather, I merely present the facts and the arguments the Church has been presented with. The Church has, in no capacity, made any judgement based on the piety of a Canonist state, for it would be immoral. And, additionally, you still have not answered my critique. Instead, you merely say your ancestors stood to reunify humanity, omitting yourself from the issue entirely.

 

“Even in recent times, when His Holiness Jude I was assailed by Harian assassins, it was the Kingdom of Haense and its levies that came to his aid and prevented an untimely death to the head of our Faith. Historically, as per testimony by High Pontiff Emeritus Clement III and eyewitnessed by Chairman Alexandre d’Aryn, the Renatian state has been nothing but hostile to the Pontificate until it was bestowed its own puppet.”

 

Yes, indeed- you refer to recent times, but not present times. As for the hostilities between Renatus and the Faith, I will simply state the fact that this in no way is the fault of Jude’s. You yourself state that it was Clement III who encountered such hostility. If he was truly offended by these egregious hostilities, which consisted of annoyance resulting from Clement III’s refusal to bless the unification of Marna and Renatus, then he would have, and should have made an official Ponitificial response. Instead, Clement III resigned from the Holy Seat. One can understand Renatus’s annoyance with such, for Renatus aided immensely in the defeat of Norland in the Third Crusade. Albeit I do not believe Renatus should have been ‘hostile’, no violence or denunciations actually occurred. Adding to this, Renatus in its annoyance backed down when requested, and never once insulted the Pontiff on the level Haense has. I also do not believe the character testimony of Alexander d’Aryn to be valid as he is an OATH BREAKER and one who seeks power. The sheer fact that you refer to Alexandre d’Aryn as a member of your government is detestable, for he violated the Scroll of Virtue’s concept of Fidelity. If you imply that Aurelius has violated the scroll of virtue, one must also internally reflect. To conclude with this segment, you once more refer to the Pontiff as a puppet, showing a complete disregard of respect akin to Santegia whom Haense fought against in the Third Crusade. A complete circle of hypocrisy.

 

“The Church illustrates and most evidently antagonizes its historically stalwart ally. When the Order of Saint Lucien and Sisterhood of the Order of Saint Catherine were under stress to what they perceived was aggression from the Haensetian Royal Administration, their complaints were not dismissed. His Highness, Palatine Prince Robert Sigismund had swiftly enacted legislation to rectify the conduct of the homeland with Decree of Exile, 1652 and The Decency Act, 1653. If Haense is such an enemy of the Church, why take action on their supposed wrongdoings? It is invalid therefore to attribute Church intervention due to Norlandic allies when in fact formalized Relations with the aforementioned were not finalized until AFTER the Defender of the Faith sought refuge with non-human and non-Canonist nations to protect his evil regime. Prior to this, Haense acted with no aggression toward the servants of GOD and even attempted to make amends with said legal enactments. Let me clarify that I do not discredit those who align themselves with the Renatian State, but simply I illustrate the hypocrisy and the political desperation in his uses for other nations to his convenience."

 

You continue to issue NON-ARGUMENTS. The Church did not take action against Haense under any circumstance up until they openly allied with Norland, a state that was actively butchering nuns and clergymen. The church does not believe that the use of non-humans is damnable. You retain this concept that using the aid of non-humans is inherently unholy in some capacity, and that it violates the faith despite the fact that the third exalted, Godfrey, did so. If the use of non-human entities is wrong, then quite literally every historical human faction has also been wrong. The key with paganic states, should they not be pursuing war with Canonists for being Canonists, is to attempt and convert them as well. Malicious heathens are to be purged, whereas peaceful heathens are to be converted. For such a stalwart ally of the faith as you claim yourself to be, this is a rather hypocritical point for when Haense was in its prime, beneath the Empire, it had vassalized and fought alongside these same non-humans and pagans. Likewise, and to conclude, the argument that the defender of the faith should not seek foreign allies is invalid, for even HOREN, the messenger and first prophet of GOD, alongside his brothers and their tribes, worked to defeat Iblees. To say that a defender of the faith cannot ally with foreigners is not an argument.

 

“Brother BOB asserts the notion that the Church’s neutrality inhibits their action to aid their Canonist brethren. As soon as the tide of war had ensued, the Church did not invoke this precedent as it gravitated toward accommodating the interests of Renatus. Yet, instances can be found that the silence of the Church was institutionalized and invoked conveniently for the sake of favor.”

 

I believe you see malicious intent without there being any. The Church did not side with Renatus because the Church saw them as victors. Nay- it was because at the cusp of the tide’s changing, Haense allied with Norland who had been killing priests and kidnapping nuns. What example of a traditionally good ally is Haense if they are willing to aid and embed those who sought the butcher of the clergy? What favor does the Church have with Renatus, truthfully? What favors, in specific, does the church gain for siding with Renatus? Ask yourself this before you accuse the Church, and his Holiness, of malicious intent.

 

“The Church forgets that when Norlandic forces held Her Majesty, Ingrid Katherina, then Queen-Consort of the Kingdom of Hanseti-Ruska, it was the Kingdom of Renatus who “bought” her custody and threatened to mace her if a ransom was not paid. In the face of Renatian evil, where was the Church? It did not only look the other way but he blatantly used Renatian soldiers to barge into the Cathedral of Saints Otto and Karl in Markev, dragging Duke Kovachev from the sanctuary and proceeded to beat him and executing two citizens in the process. Not only was the Church silent to these ends, it was founded that then Archbishop Yurii of Haense orchestrated this entire debacle, making no attempts to reconciliation or coordination with the liege lord.”

 

Odd that you should bring this point up, my dear critic, for you accuse me of lying for not knowing the full story the same as you do now. Firstly, at this point in time, Norland was a vassal of Renatus and had been quelled in the Third Crusade. As such, the Crusade was no longer issued, and Norland had not been slaying priests akin to a dog on a leash. However, the Church STILL would not involve themselves with this matter. The kidnapping of a queen is NOT the business of the Church. It never has been. Additionally, the Church DID respond to the “Renatian” soldiers (who were actually the Reivers you side with now) barging into the Cathedral of Saint Otto. The Church expressed its immense grievance, and those who perpetrated the deed were actually brought to justice and executed. There was even a holy trial conducted which acquitted Renatus from fowl-play. Twas the REIVERS, those you side and fight alongside now on a regular basis, who conducted this egregious attack, and they were butchered by Renatus when requested by the church. I cannot answer for Yurii, since I know not of any knowledge pertaining to him orchestrating any event, but I assume in your wroth you will accuse me of lying as you had previously.
 

“I fail to understand why the Holy Church of GOD, the conscience of our faith life, has become so blind and ignorant of the sins of a kingdom it has favored while acting in hostility to the other kingdoms of humanity. There has not been any rectification, nor any admonition, nor any condemnation or decree of solace to those victimized and subject to the brutality that the Renatian behaves in.”

 

If one were to critique secular wars of reunification, then one would have to denounce the Third Exalted, Godfrey, who engaged in numerous quests of conquest upon separate human states who rejected unification. Though I am personally against war, unless it is waged against the undead, I see the need to engage in such a conflict if it means defending the faithful from those who sought to kill Canonists because they were Canonists. What other kingdoms do you cite, as well? Santegia was the target of the Third Crusade because it denounced the late Everard IV and further relations were strained with the falling out between King Leo and Clement III. As for Curon, I do not recall Renatus nor the Church actively harming it. In fact, Linette used the Church as a crutch to maintain her power, and permitted the Lucienists to purge undead from her city. I cannot stress the amount of times I have come to Curon’s aid against the undead, even saving multiple of their guards. The only reason the Church acts hostile with Haense, as of now, is simply due to the fact that the state has been disrespecting the Pontiff in addition to aiding those who hunt clergy.

 

“Lastly, I will leave the faithful with this last piece to reflect on the status of our current predicament. ‘Likewise, why does Haense so vehemently reject human unification? I care not for the politics behind the reasoning, but human unity has been a staple of our faith since its conception...  Why WOULD a human seek to actively promote disunity amongst the race, if not out of greed or lust for power?’. Why does the Church not ask this very same question to itself and the Kingdom of Renatus? With this in mind, I offer this verse and pray that the sins of Renatus and the Church be cleansed: ‘For I placed into thy heart a wealth of virtue, and I have created for thee a garden of abundance. And thou shalt give unto the world the physical abundance of fullness and warmth, and the virtuous wealth of the spirit. For the wealth of the spirit is never divided, but multiplied.’”

 

Lastly, I will leave the faithful with this last piece to reflect on the status of our current predicament. Haense does not see the irony in what they say. For a state that desires unification through peace, Haense surely failed to do so themselves by purposefully omitting Renatus from the Czenza confederation. Likewise, there have been no talks conducted by Haense which sought a peaceful resolution to this conflict and the reunification of man. Instead, Haense is far more preoccupied on maintaining their monopoly of power. Truthfully, at the beginning of this conflict I was neutral. As one may know, I love my cousin, Marcus Rovin, greatly, and he was the one who originally took over the collapsing government of Haense. My grievance is not with this war and the use of non-humans, but solely on the fact that Haense aids and embeds clergy killers and those who renounce the divine, openly.

 

I also am saddened at how this entire critique, the ENTIRETY of it, completely, and I do say COMPLETELY ignored any of the Church’s grievances for actually entering the war as an ally to the NAA rather than a member. There has been ZERO defense provided in this critique which justifies siding with Norland. I will even quote the author from above in this final dissertation: “If GOD surely sustains his Defender, why must he seek foreign allies to save himself?” If Haense is true, and perceives themselves to be the real defenders of the Faith, then they too should not seek foreign allies to save themselves by your own argument.

---

Deus Magnus,
Prestor Robert Rovin

 

[Andustar 4143]

29 minutes ago, Zhulik said:

Additionally, the Church DID respond to the “Renatian” soldiers (who were actually the Reivers you side with now) barging into the Cathedral of Saint Otto. The Church expressed its immense grievance, and those who perpetrated the deed were actually brought to justice and executed.

"As I recall, the men who attacked the church were in fact Renatus and Ivanovich men. This was confirmed by multiple witnesses and the Duke Kovachev himself. Also, I recall hearing that Antonious Horen, who was brought to trial for his involvement in the deed, was not executed but allowed free after killing a man in combat. Your manipulation of history is commendable but ultimately pathetic... I see now this is not a legitimate response, but rather the twitches of an Aeldin boot-licker."

States Arthur Othaman, eyes squinting at the poorly formatted response.

[LoLzboi 661]

Just now, GildedDuke said:

"As I recall, the men who attacked the church were in fact Renatus and Ivanovich men. This was confirmed by multiple witnesses and the Duke Kovachev himself. Also, I recall hearing that Antonious Horen, who was brought to trial for his involvement in the deed, was not executed but allowed free after killing a man in combat. Your manipulation of history is commendable but ultimately pathetic... I see now this is not a legitimate response, but rather the twitches of an Aeldin boot-licker."

States Arthur Othaman, eyes squinting at the poorly formatted response.

 

"To speak on matters of which you were not present is truly the lowest your rhetoric has fallen. So too is the incessant lies you tell in order to frame yourselves in a better light. Perhaps you would care to enlighten me on how a dead Duke informed you of anything, as I personally saw what remained of him?" Yurii asks

[Archbishop 1784]

"Brother Bob, you forget that Haense' own King swore a holy oath to speak the truth but then immediately began to lie about his Barbanov heritage when he was captured by Renatus." says Walter.

[NotEvilAtAll 10906]

4 minutes ago, LoLzboi said:

 

"To speak on matters of which you were not present is truly the lowest your rhetoric has fallen. So too is the incessant lies you tell in order to frame yourselves in a better light. Perhaps you would care to enlighten me on how a dead Duke informed you of anything, as I personally saw what remained of him?" Yurii asks

3

Upvote

“People come back frem bein’ dead some’imes. T’is normal” Madeline Applefoot the halfling would respond 

[MunaZaldrizoti 8037]

"These petty feuds are so tiring. Each and every human state is presently in bad shape. Scheming and fighting and killing is spreading from every which way, and yet they debate the words of GOD. The Creator does not compel men to kill and murder. He does not move their hand. That is their choice and it is best to leave GOD out of it.

 

Victoria rubs her brow, going to speak to her courier about making fewer deliveries.

[Gallic 1066]

2 hours ago, Zhulik said:

I refer to the Gallic tribe

Gwion clears his throat and announces again;

 

"We were literally tryin ta convert, I said this the last time this guy said that."

 

2 hours ago, Zhulik said:

I refer to the use of pagans in your military

 

"Also none of us even rallied fer Haense."

 

He then quiets down and eagerly awaits a missive titled 'A critique to a critique to a critique'.

[seannie 7443]

Amandil curiously watches on as more and more Thesis are tacked up against the doors to the Markev Church.

[osumanduas 1442]

Moved to The Great Library. It shall be sorted into the appropriate category shortly.

 

If you feel this is a mistake, please contact myself or any FM and we'll restore it.