Haz

What good does it do? It does about as much good as this thread. It's about as constructive as this thread and the people & arguments within it. You are simply fighting amongst yourself "Oh, I believe this." - "Your belief is wrong." Without anything to support yourselves, you are simply throwing out a bollocks-load of assumption and speculation which is partly due to the nature of the 'debate', I suppose. Making a post to directly insult someone is probably far more effective than coming up with a 500 word post describing why they are so very, very wrong because they'll never listen and they'll never even bother to attempt to understand your point of view. This isn't a debate thread, it's an opinions thread. An opinions thread where no one actually cares for anyone's opinion, only to get across their own and say "This is the right opinion, everyone!" Kudos to Lago and a few others for still trying to engage in actual debate, however.

I once had hope for humanity. Now that I have read this, I no longer have hope. I'm not going to patronize you by asking you if you know what 'Google' and 'research' is, I assume you know. Go onto Google and starting researching. Congratulations, you're conducting secondary research - well done. Now, why don't you use this research to support and further evince the points you are trying to make in your post instead of just talking a load of cobblers. Honestly, you could save yourself and others a lot of time here if you actually did some research. There is no point in arguing here, you're clearly too closed-minded to accept that you're wrong. Just start looking at some existing research into both sides, you will come to see that you are literally talking out your ass. I cannot possibly see what enjoyment you derive from continuously spewing out the same ____ over and over again. What kind of egocentric pathology compels you to do this? If you cannot accept that sometimes you might be wrong then you shouldn't even be in a debate thread, my friend.

It's nice that you tried. But it remains that most people are simply far too appraising of their own ideologies that they couldn't possibly even begin to fathom such an advanced concept. I blame the OP to be quite frank. Such a topic of debate is utterly pointless in all aspects, esp. on the internet.

Are you an elaborate and intricate troll? I was very much almost rused, kudos to you. Your part on morality especially tickled my funny bones. This thread should be locked already, it's a joke.

You realize that simply insulting people because of their beliefs makes you no more than what you accuse them to be yourself. The Theory of Evolution cannot be proven to be something that has happened. Religious beliefs that indicate towards some form of divinity cannot be proven to be true. I hope you come to realize how much a complete plonker you are simply for suggesting that either-which-way can be proven. Why do people have no morals now? Where do you get the idea that 200 years ago people had far better morality? Are you pulling this from your deepest and darkest crevice? You realize that the amount of bloodshed in the last 200 years is far-out exceeded by the bloodshed before. A larger span of time, I admit - but the atrocities that have occurred in the name of religion have been far worse than any that aren't in the name of religion. How can you even remotely suggest religion is a source of morality? The human mind itself and its belief mechanism (excl. religion for a moment) is enough to construct a solid moral compass. I am not religious in any sense of the word. I am genetically predisposed to tendencies akin to that of a sociopath, and not to mention the urges to harm people emotionally, mentally and physically. Does that mean I lack morality? Quite the opposite. Despite these predispositions my morality which is not derivative from my belief of religion has allowed me to maintain a steady life with no killing involved. If anything, religion encourages selfishness. You become religious because you are selfish, because you want something out of it for yourself, not because it is in the benefit of man. For example: "Oh, death... I should behave so I can get to heaven!"

No theory is designed to create or construct morality within man. The Theory of Evolution helps us to understand the function of nature and everything within. Morality is derived from what a man believes, and this is not just limited to his religion, but his entire outlook on life. Click here for more.

That was a little unnecessary. You do realize that most of what you have written here is wasted, a person who could spend the time to write such drivel would not be able to change their view, opinion or way of thinking to conform to something a little more logical. You come to such a thread expecting results? It's 77 pages of getting nowhere because of the nature of the topic and largely because of the people on the server. Most of the people in this community are far too up their own arse and self-obsessed to realize that their opinion is not necessarily correct/true. In the entirety of the 77 pages of this thread I would highly doubt you'd find anyone who has changed their opinion/view because of what someone has said within the thread. People in the community simply blabber on about how their ideology is the best and do not focus on trying to support it with anything empirical. It's rather sad when you think about it.

PLEASE read everything. Read all of my other posts too, it is apparent to me you haven't been fully reading what I've been writing. Also, quoting isn't working properly for me, so I'll just quote certain sections. "Explanations of facts, not fact. Example, gravity exists, it's a fact, the gravitational theory explains how." Right - so I never said that a theory was a fact..? I don't know where you got that from. "I placed in red what you should be reading in the quote I before gave. I never said theories were facts, I said they explain facts (at least the best explanation we have so far)." Okay? Again, I never said that you said theories were facts either. I'm not sure where you're getting this whole idea from. REFER: "In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science." This doesn't in any way, shape of form even imply 'fact'. Note that I underlined the key-word 'nature', the sentence I wrote (above) is focused towards you thinking that the explanation of nature is equal to explanation of fact. "This one is accepted after the theory is already done, example: theory of gravity states that all mass attracts itself. So why don't planets fall to the sun? Hypothesis - they are already in motion, and inertia exists, so since the planets are in orbit, what keeps them in orbit is gravity. Alright lets collect data, lets interper them -> the hyposisis is true, and the theory of gravity is now more updated." No... No it's not... Please refer to the below... "Yes, this is how new theories are made." Please do some research into what I have said, I think you'll find that the deductive method is far more widely accepted by scientists across the board as a scientific method. A large portion of scientists consider the deductive method the only 'true' scientific method. "There are various ways to do things. You don't collect data to falsify a theory, you collect it to falsify a hypothesis, and change a theory. And even after not proving a hypothesis wrong, to make a theory, you need to combine many of them to make the theory. The theory explains and predicts. After the theory is done, you use the predicting ability of it to make new hypothesis, and if that hypothesis is proven wrong, you find out why, and change the theory acordanly, until is it as close to reality as posible." Obviously I was not thinking "Oh, he'll probably be pedantic and shout me out regarding how I've worded this sentence ill regard to all other sentences whereby I have refereed to the falsification of hypothesis rather than theories." Further suggests you haven't been properly reading what I've been saying... I didn't refer to the falsification of theory by intention, it was a semantic error - but the message is still there and is clear, I don't see why you felt the need to comment. "Mhh... no... You don't start with the theory. You start with a hypothesis: "ALl swans are white" Then you go around trying to find out if that's true (one of them could very well be trying to find one that wasn't white) and if you find it is, then the hypotheses is true. Yet one true hypotheses is not enough for a theory. A theory explains the nature of the whiteness of the swan, using the many confirmed hypotheses, and so on." Refer to my previous post on scientific method. "You find a swan which is not black, do you destroy the theory because of that? No, you study the anomaly and find out why it exists, then you update and improve the theory. the Hypothesis was wrong, yes, the Theory improved. The theory after finding the hypotheses untrue, could turn into: "All healthy swans, between the age of 1 and 2 years, which reside in these expecific location are white. Those that migrated further south have started to develop a more yellow tone." New hypothesis: "The ones in the south have more yellow tone because of the water they live in" I never said the theory is 'destroyed'. I did not even indicate to such a thing, rather the opposite: refer to scientific theory (circular). "A belief can be wrong. If you want an example again of a wrong belief "I do not believe in gravity". Does it mean there is no such thing as gravity? No, means the one who believes that has wrong information about something, making his belief a wrong one. But maybe this is just scementics." Belief is not a fact. Belief does not make something true. Belief is a self-sufficient thing, used to benefit ourselves as one and as social beings. "I do not believe in gravity." Is not wrong, it's a belief. It doesn't mean: "There is no gravity." Look, please just read what I've said in previous posts and this one. If you are not going to reply to me with anything other than pedantic comments, nitpicking and straw-manning then I'm just going to get frustrated. If you are going to offer an argument, at least provide some evidence to support your point and then explain it. Okay, and your sources/research to back this up? Otherwise, you know, it's just pure speculation. One might as well go into the lore forum and find an appropriate religion thread and simply copy/paste into here.

Yes. What? God no... I'm not sure if it's just me, but you appear to have been offended what I have said, this is not an intentional/desired effect so please do not get snappy with me. Please do not accuse me of being close-minded, I am always willing to listen to someone's opinion and if they are right I am willing to say "Yeah, okay. This is a good ideology and I accept that it bears some truth." That's probably the most insulting thing anyone has ever said to me, it hurts man. I'd accept that I was wrong if I was wrong, however, I am not wrong. No, you are misinterpreting the text that is already there my friend. Regardless of how you use the word 'theory' it will never mean to 'explain fact' - not in any study of the world is a theory considered an explanation of fact, it contradicts the initial definition of a theory for starters. "In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science." This doesn't in any way, shape of form even imply 'fact'. Okay... Basically there is something called the 'scientific process' which is part of the scientific method. There are two main methods of scientific process: The inductive method, which means that the data collection has caused a creation of theory - such as Newton's supposed ability to see patterns in the way things works, he collected data and then came up with a theory. Second is the deductive method, which obviously means that a theory is deduced which might explain the natural world, data collection is done in order to try and disprove the null hypothesis (the opposite of a hypothesis) which will then tick one of the 'Does it support the Theory?' boxes. Also, just a side note: The deductive method is also known as the Darwinian scientific process and looks a little like this: Theory -> Hypothesis -> Data Collection -> Interpretation. On the other hand, the structure of the inductive method is as follows: Hypothesis -> Data Collection -> Interpretation -> Theory Many scientists such as Karl Popper who was a great philosopher of science said that the deductive method is the only scientific process worthwhile. He suggests that this is because the data is collected to try and falsify a theory (you do not collect data to 'prove' a theory). Which brings me onto my next point, nothing is ever regarded as being 'proof' of a theory. You cannot 'prove' a theory, that is not what a theory is for or how the scientific method is supposed to be conducted - you must try to disprove a theory. EXAMPLE: Theory: I have a theory that all swans are white. Hypothesis: All swans are white. You do not go around finding swans that are white, that doesn't many sense. Instead you create a null hypothesis like so: Null Hypothesis: There will be a swan which is not white. This is the only time the word 'proof' should be used; you aim to prove that the null hypothesis is true. When you manage to find a black swan you know that your original hypothesis is therefore falsified. This is called falsifiability which is something Popper delved in quite detail. You use the word proof when there is almost 100% certainty of a fact. If you see a black swan, that is proof that black swans exist, because it cannot be disputed (unless of-course you want to be pedantic and bring in colour blindness). Example of something can be proven: Humans can have blue eyes. (Like me!) Something that cannot be proven: A human's blue eyes are due to evolutionary changes in their ancestral biology. It can be theorised, and evidence can be submitted to support the theory - but it cannot be proven. That's a pretty poor example, but I blame my lack of food. ALSO! There is also a circular process (scientific method): Theory -> Hypothesis -> Data Collection -> Interpretation -> Theory You can start at theory (deductive) or hypothesis (inductive) and go around the circle. CLICK ME FOR A VISUAL REPRESENTATION! (Sorry for the bad hand-writing) Perhaps I already covered this, however... A belief can never be wrong, regardless of what you do to try and disprove it. It's a belief, it is not intended to be dis-proven - it's completely illogical. Do not try and treat a belief as a theory, they are two very different things, I already covered this in my initial post.

I wouldn't say it's an explanation of fact. A theory is generally created before evidence is established. Except in the cases of people like Newton whom gathered factual data, created a hypothesis and then came up with a theory. Evolution was not based on any fact at first, it was simply that - a theory. Normally evidence (i.e. a 'fact') is generated to support a theory. Just a side-note, I prefer to use 'evidence' instead of 'fact'; 'fact' implies that there is a 100% validity, nothing has 100% validity (accuracy). EDIT: I don't think you've properly understood the message I was trying to convey in that post. Reading it with an open-mind will yield the best results and have a more prominent effect.

You realize that there is always the possibility that the theory of evolution is completely inaccurate? You cannot /know/ that evolution occurred, it is a widely accepted thing but that does not make it a fact, a theory can never be a fact and a theory can never be proven. I think you are too quick to discard the beliefs of others, particularly relating to scientific beliefs simply because it is not the 'ideal' theory of evolution that you have come to believe in yourself. My earlier post for those that missed it: CLICK

Are you suggesting that a person's beliefs can be 'wrong'?

Such a topic of debate is rather pointless, you cannot 'prove' anything - you can only hope to submit 'evidence' (i.e. pseudo-evidence) which supports these ideologies. It is completely illogical to even begin arguing as one is a belief and another is a theory, they are completely different things; you cannot argue against a belief, it's a belief! Does such a debate benefit anyone in anyway? Not really. People already accept that evolution was something that happened, not because there is 'proof' but because it can be used to explain various types of phenomenon that occur in modern society. Can faith do this? No. It serves no benefit other than for one's self, whereas the idea of evolution allows us to begin to understand animal (inc. human) behaviour and can help explain certain characteristics of practically everything that is a living organism. In the end, it is better if we think that evolution happened. Why? Because it's essential for our understanding of life. Is faith? Beliefs? Is it crucial? No. It is important for understanding of self (and also to form a para-social relationship with an invisible giant grey-beardy man in the sky who likes to sit on a cloud and sing 'Singing in the Rain'). I am not saying there is no greater being. Just that it serves no purpose to believe in a greater being or to focus upon "Does a divine creator tower above us and watch over us?" It serves no benefit to us in our modern day and age unless priests were suddenly granted divine powers to cure mass disease and prevent famine. Is that likely? ...I don't think so. Basically: Neither the belief nor theory can be proven, regardless of whatever 'evidence' you propose, a theory is never considered 'proven' and beliefs are not meant to be 'proven' anyway. Again... They are two very different things. I believe that most people on this planet are probably born without a brain - does this serve a function to me? No, but it's an important ideology to me, it helps me to dictate how I should associate myself with other people and how I conduct myself in social relationships. It does not help me to understand, however. I do however think of many different theories such as evolution, behaviorism and cognitive-psychology to be partially true as it serves a function to do so. They help me to understand why a person might conduct themselves as they do and what could've led them to make a certain decision. Does it help my own self? No. It doesn't dictate how I look at the world, they do not dictate my moral or ethical code. To summarize: Belief is important for one's self. It helps a person to discover their identity and belonging in the world, belief is not simply limited to religion. It helps a man construct his morals, his 'code'. It allows us to build strong social connections with others with whom we think share a similar belief to our own, it is important for society to have beliefs and morality. Theory serves to help us understand the mechanics of the world and the creatures within it. It allows us to create new medicines and diversify technology; it is important for advancing as a collective being and allows us to move forward technologically and economically. They are both important things and very different things, they should not be compared to each other as they serve different functions. There is no 'Creation or Evolution'. There are always multiple ways to approach, to understand and look at things - to simplify something to the extent of 'Creation of Evolution' is simply medieval, quite literally. Our modern way of thinking is not that primitive, is it? No - we are beyond that, or at least should be. You should be thinking 'What has contributed to the creation of our world and the creation of us as a species?' The answer is many things my friend, there is no singular answer, there is no 'Creation of Evolution'. That is all.

Very good, I am impressed. Although you could add some more emotes though, but you've covered the main ones so that's fine (since there's an ever-infinite number of actions one can do). Perhaps add a little paragraph about the understanding of emoting and using the body language you have helped to detail here. Understanding how to use body language is just as important, learning to adapt these emotes to a variety of different situations or even combining them.

I never said his lore was 'wrong', just that there is nothing to suggest the Creator would create even more life, rather let the already inhabited world takes its course, this is supported by the whole Horen, Krug, Urguan and Malinor thing. I'm not saying it's impossible, just that it seems like the last resort or a little laziness (?) perhaps, it's something that has been tried a lot. Basically, you'll have everyone creating lore with the explanation of the Creator (i.e. "The Creator did it."), perhaps this is a little exaggerated, but it was and is the point being made here, you cannot blame everything on divine intervention.

No, the first man and woman birthed four children (Horen, Krug, Urguan and Malin) in different corners of Aegis, it even says it on that page. Their physical characteristics were due to chance/environment, some of the races were also influenced in their physical attributes by their curse from Iblees. All things inhabit the world and these things are also creatures, I'm not entirely sure where you're going with this. I got the 'sub-race' thing from the fact you've compared Orcs to Trolls throughout the lore, perhaps I jumped to a conclusion slightly, though. It makes perfect sense to me and thus motivated this conclusion. That reasoning seems fine. ^^

Not everything needs an explanation, no. But the origin of a race? That's a pretty important thing and seems very silly to throw away an important detail based upon the premise that you think "Not everything needs to be explained!" All lore regards races have lore to their origin, and a pretty solid that at that, look at the lore for the Mori'Quessir for example. The Creator did not create Humans, Orcs, Elves and Dwarves. Why would they turn to stone though? What reasoning is there behind this? Again, take the Mori'Quessir, they did not turn to stone but they could not live in the light - why? It was excruciatingly painful and severely limited their sight. The Creator wouldn't just 'forget'. The point is that Trolls are supposedly a sub-race of Orcs, right? Because of which, it should have an origin which relates to Orcs. That's how I see it, anyway.

I thought there already was troll lore? It was actually very well written, I can't seem to find it though. It was more directed to an evolutionary approach, whereby they were orcs whom lived within harsh weathers - growing very large and storing plenty of body fat to ensure that they keep warm, their strength derivative from their need to kill large snow-creatures. They had an inability to speak the native tongue due to their solitude, language was lost and they developed their own way of communication (grunts and other noises). I'm not saying everything must be explained, but it's nice to see something other than "creator did it" for once. These trolls just sounds like someone taken out of Tolkien's books without much amendment. Sure, LotC is meant to be loosely based upon them, but this is practically identical. You haven't much explained why an Orc turns to stone, the Creator 'forgot' to make them able to live in the light? Sounds like something a devout religious man may ramble. This seems like a character profile of a generic troll more-so than anything (physical characteristics, habits & behaviours). It's an alright idea - people want something similar to a Troll to roleplay and have for quite some time. However, I do not believe you have explained their origin with enough detail, it seems to me that you got a little lazy during this part and just resorted to the Creator explanation. Most race proposals have an in-depth reason for how they have come to be and why they are in the world. It doesn't seem to make much sense for the Creator to be suddenly creating new creature, especially since their only purpose is to ransack and pillage.For what reason would the Creator have to do this, he already created plenty of life in the beginning of which have prospered - then just to create a Troll to cause misery? Evil Creator.

To my current understanding of the future system, the specifics and functionality of the system is still being discussed amongst the MT. But yes, they plan to introduce a system whereby players can have their characters learn magic without an application on the forum, this will enable a higher quality of testing and measurement of roleplay ability and additionally will give players a chance to build up reasoning behind their character's usage and development in using said magic. I assume that some form of application will still be acceptable for players who are self-taught, however there is still a possibility of monitoring the roleplay of these players and thus still having the above applied. Please note that this is not official, simply what I have been told and what I have gathered and from educated guesses. I know that there are a few threads in the magic application section (such as the Q&A thread) which may contain further detailed answers than mine. It would be wise to wait until the system is fully complete in 3.0, I don't think the MT will want to release specific details about the process just yet, so sit tight and be patient.

Thank you for the re-formatting, much appreciated. After reading your lore thoroughly I can safely say that I have not picked out any major points for improvement. which is not something I say or even see very often on this forum, so I congratulate you. However, something which has constantly spun around in my head whilst reading this is... How exactly do you decide whether the Daemon Metzili decides the fate of a Kharajyr? If your power is entirely divine, and Metzili wishes to choose whether her people live or die then to what extent can your priests invoke this decision? It may be considered powergaming by some that such a decision can be made and is mandatory. Does she entrust her people (i.e. priests) to make the right decisions about who lives and dies? Some clarification on this matter may be needed. Overall, your post is very thorough and highly detailed, its not often I get to read something so defined and in-depth as this, it really does show that you've thought about almost everything.

It would be nice to be able to read this piece of lore and offer some form of feedback, however because of the size and colour of the text I am unable to withstand even 10 seconds of reading it. For the meanwhile I'll extract the text and read it a little laterlater, but it would be nice to not have to manually extract a piece of text from the forum in order to read it. Thanks!

I solemnly believe that it would be in the best interest of the server (and thus the enjoyment of players) for most of this to be up to interpretation and freedom of the player-base. I am largely with blindmind on this issue. Most of everything on the server which actually claims to 'incorporate player' feedback most certainly does not - a lot of the lore seems to be written in stone - unopen to intepretation by players. Perhaps this is to reduce misconceptions and misunderstanding, and also to control the flow of knowledge and understanding of certain things. Whilst this is something great for management don't get me wrong, it doesn't really enable players to have the maximum amount of freedom possible (whilst still making it manageable). There are multiple different theories in the real world, which are constantly being disproved - this helps to generate newer ideas and theories which are then in turn far more reasonable and logical. This is generally not something which is done on the server and I think it is something which should be encouraged as much as possible. Some beliefs, faiths or theories are harder to disprove and argue against - a simple theory or belief of an opposite perspective of view may not provide enough evidence to discredit, disprove or completely contradict certain concepts, beliefs or theories. This is how I like to think of the religion within the server, whilst it should not be like in real life - because simply we do not know. Instead, we should know one or two - they are then open to intepretation and the existence of other gods is also open to intepretation, such a decision it to be made by the players and their characters - it should not be forced upon. This is why I have selected option 1, rather than option 3. Whilst the lore created by Availer is old and outdated, it still allowed players to intepret and decide for themselves certain things about the lore - it was designed like this specifically, so that the gods were not something that were written in stone; players can use their own imagination and creativity to decide certain concepts about the Creator and 'lesser' gods, if you will. To summarise and conclude: Please note, this is simply what I have come to find from the thread and previous experiences, please feel free to argue against these points or what I have said above and I will respond in kind. Option 1/3 both encourage more player creativitiy, imagination and allows them to decide for themselves what their character should believe. Option 2 is reductionist in nature, it limits the amount of creativity and concepts that a player (or their character) may create about the gods (i.e. how many there are, who are the gods, what do they do? etc.) You may say that this option creates the setup of the gods and who they are, not that it limits players conceptions. However, by already setting the gods and writing them in stone - you are limiting the potential for people making their own creative decisions. For example, if a player wanted to believe a certain thing and share that with other people, the lore would simply disregard and state their beliefs as 'wrong'. The point of this is that players' creativity and imagination would be dulled severely, whilst the other options allow freedom of expression. The Pantheon enables the ability to add 'more gods' supposedly, whilst this is a 'nice' idea to somewhat counter the limitations placed on player creativity it has some implications. Namely, there are a potentially unlimited amount of gods that can be added to such a pantheon. Now, I ask, what dictates or decides whether a god exists? A player might choose to start up a religion based upon a piece of lore as they have openly interpreted it, but what dictates whether or not their god should exist? Why should the existing religions be granted the 'privilege' of having a god created specifically for them? Encouraging favouritism, popularity contests, all that 'jazz'. Your description of these three options is obviously favouring the second, whilst you appear to be trying to give players an option about how their religions should be managed (by their own - or by the MT) you clearly have already decided which it should be. I feel that your post is biased and also does not represent each of the options fairly or equally as they should be to keep players who are making this decision informed (e.g. your post is biased; refer to option 3). Not to mention the unprofessionalistic and other implications of this. Lack of player feedback incorporation for option 2 - does not give players nearly as much opportunity to create or develop their own beliefs and faith systems. Again, is restrictive, limiting and highly deterministic. Those are just a few of the main points which I have come across, there are a few more - but most of these you can gather from the post overall. Some of these points are not as significant as others, and there maybe ones which I have not discussed; and just as ever please feel free to argue against these points, or post further suggestions, improvements or even queries if you have any!

*Daedren chuckles to himself wildly as he hooks his wooden staff over his right shoulder.* *Daedren thinks to himself for a moment as he evaluates and analyses the spoken work of the man on the pedestial.* *Daedren claps his hands together as he straightens his back.* *Daedren stops clapping and prepares to speak out as he scuttles forward to be seen.* "I do not digress from the wisdom of your mind, instead I question the sources of which you base the words you speak. What makes you think that their throne can be claimed by anyone? How do you hope to obtain the power necessary to be able to usurp such power? Your words are true, I agree. But you can, like us - and like the gods, be willed by the temptations of sin yourself. What makes your intentions true, what makes your objectives set in stone? You speak of the gods in such a way, yet you too are vulnerable to corruption. With a mass of men, it would not be hard to gain the power that you seek. Much like the gods however you can will and command the foolish, those whom follow your transparent aims; whom or what is to say you cannot will them to claim the power for yourself and no other? Whom or what is to say that history does not repeat itself? And as I said before... What you speak is true, your wisdom and knowledge I do not question. The only thing that I may question here, today - is your intentions." *Daedren unhooks his staff from his shoulder, grasping the tip with his right hand and leaning on it as he takes out a half-eaten day-old apple from his inner-robes, taking a bite from it then slowly conealing the apple within his robes once more.* (( An interesting read if I say so myself, I hope to see more interesting and quirky posts in the near-future. ))

/signed (Daedren)