In The Lord of the Rings Tolkien writes that they breed slowly, for no more than a third of them are female, and not all marry; also, female Dwarves look and sound (and dress, if journeying—which is rare) so alike to Dwarf-males that other folk cannot distinguish them, and thus others wrongly believe Dwarves grow out of stone. Tolkien names only one female, Dís. In The War of the Jewels Tolkien says both males and females have beards.
So how many have tried making a rare female dwarf in LotRO?
Glicyn, Man CPT; Drigrin, Hobbit BUR; Heli, Dwarf MIN; Eliyvan, Elf LM- Imladris
Soldiers of Gondor - Kin
Unless someone has rolled a Dwarf character devoted to RP and never leaves Thorin's Hall and rarely comes into contact with other players then, from a lore perspective, it's not a female Dwarf.
"'Ai! ai!' wailed Legolas. 'A Rune-Keeper! A Rune-Keeper is come!'
Gimli stared with wide eyes. 'Tolkien's Bane!' he cried, and letting his axe fall he covered his face."
Unless someone has rolled a Dwarf character devoted to RP and never leaves Thorin's Hall and rarely comes into contact with other players then, from a lore perspective, it's not a female Dwarf.
Aye, get that in quickly before we have *that* thread again! *shivers*
Unless someone has rolled a Dwarf character devoted to RP and never leaves Thorin's Hall and rarely comes into contact with other players then, from a lore perspective, it's not a female Dwarf.
So from a lore perspective, all of those really short people running around and involving themselves in the affairs of other races well outside of the Shire aren't really "Hobbits", then. They're just particularly short Men ;-)
As to the OP, I kind of like that when you create a Dwarf, it doesn't list a gender at all. You just create a Dwarf. Only THEY know the difference!
As to the OP, I kind of like that when you create a Dwarf, it doesn't list a gender at all. You just create a Dwarf. Only THEY know the difference!
True. I still don't know for sure whether my Dwarf character is male or female. I've always assumed he's male, but that's probably because of the beard...
So from a lore perspective, all of those really short people running around and involving themselves in the affairs of other races well outside of the Shire aren't really "Hobbits", then. They're just particularly short Men ;-)
Exactly what I was thinking. Everyone likes to throw around the "female dwarves don't leave their homelands". Really? Never? Have there ever been exceptions? If yes, you're one of them. If no, then you'll be the first.
Unless leaving their homelands is physically toxic to them, I can't see any reason why social mores and tradition would prohibit someone from roleplaying a character who might have a reason to be one of these exceptions....like Bilbo and Frodo.
Exactly what I was thinking. Everyone likes to throw around the "female dwarves don't leave their homelands". Really? Never? Have there ever been exceptions? If yes, you're one of them. If no, then you'll be the first.
Unless leaving their homelands is physically toxic to them, I can't see any reason why social mores and tradition would prohibit someone from roleplaying a character who might have a reason to be one of these exceptions....like Bilbo and Frodo.
And so it begins...
What Tolkien actually said was 'They seldom walk abroad except at great need', and when they did then they dressed just like male Dwarves and as they otherwise already looked and sounded just like them then hey, guess what? Nobody apart from other Dwarves could tell who was what. So if you RP that properly in character then what you get is someone who might as well be yet another male Dwarf (and wouldn't own up to being anything else, because the whole point of dressing the same was so they couldn't be singled out).
And the other thing was that female Dwarves didn't go to war. There were plenty of surplus male Dwarves for that.
And the other thing was that female Dwarves didn't go to war. There were plenty of surplus male Dwarves for that.
You could say the same about other races. I don't think there were stories of hobbit lasses in full plate striding off to war and stomping around Moria, but we allow it anyway.
It's understandable why Tolkien would write that, as it is very logical, but the PCs are supposed to be some of the most unique heroes of the age. Maybe a female dwarf initially left Thorin's Hall disguised as a male but was outed on the road, and decided to just go from there. Perhaps a female dwarf was rebellious and decided to violate her society's norms reading about how other races acted, especially during the war of the ring. Point is, there are RP options.
When Bilbo(in the hobbit) and the four hobbits in LotR went off and had adventures, they were treated as queer when they returned, because it was extremely out of character for their race. Why doesn't the same logic apply?
You could say the same about other races. I don't think there were stories of hobbit lasses in full plate striding off to war and stomping around Moria, but we allow it anyway.
From an RP point of view any hobbit in full plate fails hard, male or female.
It's understandable why Tolkien would write that, as it is very logical, but the PCs are supposed to be some of the most unique heroes of the age. Maybe a female dwarf initially left Thorin's Hall disguised as a male but was outed on the road, and decided to just go from there. Perhaps a female dwarf was rebellious and decided to violate her society's norms reading about how other races acted, especially during the war of the ring. Point is, there are RP options.
Those are options for RPing a female Dwarf badly.
When Bilbo(in the hobbit) and the four hobbits in LotR went off and had adventures, they were treated as queer when they returned, because it was extremely out of character for their race. Why doesn't the same logic apply?
Because Tolkien himself made exceptions for some hobbits going off on adventures with Gandalf (more than just those four and that had included some hobbit girls, too - like Bilbo's mother, when she was young). He makes no such exceptions for Dwarf-women.
Arguing against players having female Dwarf characters because of lore is just ludicrous. This game has so much lore-bending in order to be playable and diverse that to argue against this one little stretch is arguing just for the sake of arguing.
I have a female Dwarf simply because I wanted a full set of classes, races, genders, and professions, and one of the only ones missing was a female Dwarf. She is created but not started yet because I'm still creating her backstory in my head, but she will be entering Middle Earth shortly and since a good many, if not nearly all, of our characters are lore-breakers in one way or another, I really don't care if someone thinks she is or not.
I designed her with a hairstyle and beard combo that looks somewhat feminine and even mellowed her face and figure as much as possible. Her name is Dwarvish but could be either a male or female name. Standing in comparison to my other Dwarf characters, even in typically male garb, she has a definite female 'look-and-feel' to her, and in a gown or robe outfit, I believe she is gonna be quite the gal, at least to other Dwarves.
Arguing against players having female Dwarf characters because of lore is just ludicrous. This game has so much lore-bending in order to be playable and diverse that to argue against this one little stretch is arguing just for the sake of arguing.
I have a female Dwarf simply because I wanted a full set of classes, races, genders, and professions, and one of the only ones missing was a female Dwarf. She is created but not started yet because I'm still creating her backstory in my head, but she will be entering Middle Earth shortly and since a good many, if not nearly all, of our characters are lore-breakers in one way or another, I really don't care if someone thinks she is or not.
I designed her with a hairstyle and beard combo that looks somewhat feminine and even mellowed her face and figure as much as possible. Her name is Dwarvish but could be either a male or female name. Standing in comparison to my other Dwarf characters, even in typically male garb, she has a definite female 'look-and-feel' to her, and in a gown or robe outfit, I believe she is gonna be quite the gal, at least to other Dwarves.
I agree, you should RP however you want to RP, and I appreciate that the game doesn't expressly make all Dwarves automatically male, just in case someone wants to be a female one.
I appreciate the lore as much as anyone else, but this game is also about having fun, after all. My Elf main has a tendency to be very sarcastic and mischievous and generally un-Elf-like. She wears a Corsair's Tunic all of the time, she hangs out at the Inn League HQ whenever possible, and she makes frequent use of the /crazy and /whippitydo emotes when reflecting upon the state of affairs in the world. She /pats Lobelia on the head, /mocks Harry Goatleaf, and /flirts with Strider. She has a deep, throaty laugh not unlike my own, and indeed finds much to laugh about. She's basically me with pointy ears and crazy archery skillz
Jeepers, once you get to Moria and talk the dwarves there some certainly do have a feminine sounding voice than rest of them. I could be wrong but I bet those are female dwarves
Jeepers, once you get to Moria and talk the dwarves there some certainly do have a feminine sounding voice than rest of them. I could be wrong but I bet those are female dwarves
That same voice is in Star trek online as a Klingon.
I dont think they are meant to be female just like Peter Pans on tv arent meant to be female but played by thin females nonetheless.
I've seen groups of dwarves in dresses in Thorin's Hall. I always hope that it's actually female dwarf RPers... for my own peace of mind.
MY dwarf sports a large long full beard and he most defintely isnt female but he likes the feel of female clothing against his skin. Thats why he wears slender short sleeved dresses.
I hear rumours that truckers like to wear female underwear while driving because it feels better on long haul trips.
(At least thats their excuse).
You could say the same about other races. I don't think there were stories of hobbit lasses in full plate striding off to war and stomping around Moria, but we allow it anyway.
It's understandable why Tolkien would write that, as it is very logical, but the PCs are supposed to be some of the most unique heroes of the age. Maybe a female dwarf initially left Thorin's Hall disguised as a male but was outed on the road, and decided to just go from there. Perhaps a female dwarf was rebellious and decided to violate her society's norms reading about how other races acted, especially during the war of the ring. Point is, there are RP options.
When Bilbo(in the hobbit) and the four hobbits in LotR went off and had adventures, they were treated as queer when they returned, because it was extremely out of character for their race. Why doesn't the same logic apply?
For the same reason, Elf and Dwarf Captains should be allowed.
I thought the general consensus was that the Dwarves didn't let their girls go off to war since they were so few of them. They needed to ensure the girls stay alive so it made sense for the surplus of men to go off and get killed.
If you want to RP a female Dwarf though I see no reason why you can't. It's not like it's any more lore breaking than a Hobbit Warden, (or any wardens, I don't think the Spartan fighting techniques had permeated Middle Earth) or a RK etc.. For this game to be fun you have to break ties with the lore really, Turbine have struck a pretty good balance none the less.
I agree, you should RP however you want to RP, and I appreciate that the game doesn't expressly make all Dwarves automatically male, just in case someone wants to be a female one.
I'd say that 'role-playing' something which clearly goes directly against the setting you're role-playing in, means it isn't actually role-playing at all. Just playing. Or at the very least role-playing extremely badly.
The idea of role-playing is you create a character, both physically create the character and create a persona to go with it, complete with a background story that is applicable to the setting, and you role-play as faithfully to that setting as you can. People who have Rune-keepers and actually role-play that they can zap and flame stuff aren't role-playing at all. The same with female dwarves, though there is a very limited opportunity to role-play them in places like Thorin's Hall which I mentioned earlier.
Last edited by Beleg-Of-Doriath; Jul 21 2012 at 06:52 AM.
"'Ai! ai!' wailed Legolas. 'A Rune-Keeper! A Rune-Keeper is come!'
Gimli stared with wide eyes. 'Tolkien's Bane!' he cried, and letting his axe fall he covered his face."
From an RP point of view any hobbit in full plate fails hard, male or female.
Those are options for RPing a female Dwarf badly.
Because Tolkien himself made exceptions for some hobbits going off on adventures with Gandalf (more than just those four and that had included some hobbit girls, too - like Bilbo's mother, when she was young). He makes no such exceptions for Dwarf-women.
If I understand your logic correctly, these exceptions about hobbits are allowable because Tolkien specifically wrote a story about them. Therefore, because he didn't specifically write any stories about dwarven females, they never happened or will happen.
Once again, I believe he was just establishing the social mores of the dwarven culture. In LotR, Eowyn herself violated the social norms of the Rohirrim at that time and became another exception to the norm.
As far as the other poster, I also think it's perfectly justifiable to have Captains of other races. But apparently it's there for a gameplay perspective.
I'd say that 'role-playing' something which clearly goes directly against the setting you're role-playing in, means it isn't actually role-playing at all. Just playing. Or at the very least role-playing extremely badly.
The idea of role-playing is you create a character, both physically create the character and create a persona to go with it, complete with a background story that is applicable to the setting, and you role-play as faithfully to that setting as you can. People who have Rune-keepers and actually role-play that they can zap and flame stuff aren't role-playing at all. The same with female dwarves, though there is a very limited opportunity to role-play them in places like Thorin's Hall which I mentioned earlier.
I wasn't aware that there was "good" role-playing or "bad" role-playing. Why can't there just be "role-playing"? Everyone has their own take on what their character's persona should be like. There are some people who are very upset by the concept of stomping shrews druing the festivals, other people aren't bothered by this. I don't think either side is "wrong". This game has a few "guardrails" to keep characters within the demands of the lore (for example, Elves can't harm 1 morale critters, and there's an option to toggle off shoes, important for Hobbit characters), but they are relatively few. Players are given a decent amount of leeway to imagine the characters that they want to play as.
Really, what's the point in playing a *game* when you feel like you have to act according to the standards of another player? Just keep your fellows alive during questing and don't be rude or an idiot towards other players. The rest should be up to you.
Last edited by Susuwatari; Jul 21 2012 at 08:54 AM.
I wasn't aware that there was "good" role-playing or "bad" role-playing. Why can't there just be "role-playing"? Everyone has their own take on what their character's persona should be like.
Of course.
But consider this: we could call what 10-year old writes on a blog a poetry despite numerous flaws and really, really loose connection to any "standars". We could also call a person who visits this blog only to write harsh criticism rude and obnoxious.
However, the moment 10-year old distributes this sort of poetry around, insists it is treated as "seriously" as "standard stuff" it is more than fair to point out in how many places it strays from any imaginable definition of poetry. At least this is how I understand "good" and bad" from previous post. The same with poetry - can't *really* call it good or bad on the grounds of "it is not profound/touching/aesthetic/etc enough" without falling into the same (boring and overused) "gustibus trap".
It all changes if that poetry is a bunch of prosaic pieces...
Disclaimer: No, this is not a *direct* comparison between both, so "easymode" protests are not exactly applicable
Last edited by Ferthcott; Jul 21 2012 at 09:16 AM.
But consider this: we could call what 10-year old writes on a blog a poetry despite numerous flaws and really, really loose connection to any "standars". We could also call a person who visits this blog only to write harsh criticism rude and obnoxious.
But the moment 10-year old distributes this sort of poetry around, insists it is treated as "seriously" as "standard stuff" it is more than fair to point out in how many places it strays from any imaginable definition of poetry. At least this is how I understand "good" and bad" from previous post. The same with poetry - can't *really* call it good or bad on the grounds of "it is not profound/touching/aesthetic/etc enough" without falling into the same (boring and overused) "gustibus trap".
But if it's a bunch of prosaic pieces instead...
Disclaimer: No, this is not a *direct* comparison between both, so "easymode" protests are not exactly applicable
I could be wrong on this, but I don't think that most people who RP in a *game* are looking for the same type of feedback that a person who writes "serious" (in their mind) stuff is looking for. Because they are playing a *game*. They are playing the way that is the most fun for them. Critiquing their playstyle is well within your rights to do, I just think it's a little pointless and silly to do so.
If I understand your logic correctly, these exceptions about hobbits are allowable because Tolkien specifically wrote a story about them. Therefore, because he didn't specifically write any stories about dwarven females, they never happened or will happen.
Yup. There was only one female Dwarf even so much as named, and she was only mentioned because she was Thorin's sister. Because Dwarven society was so insular and because the women were relatively scarce, they didn't get involved with the outside world and hence there were no stories about them.
To jump from what he says they were like to an openly female Dwarf adventurer is such a leap as to be simply not credible. That's changing everything at once, not having them act like Dwarves at all but like everybody else and that's bad RP because it's simply ignoring the role.
Once again, I believe he was just establishing the social mores of the dwarven culture. In LotR, Eowyn herself violated the social norms of the Rohirrim at that time and became another exception to the norm.
She was a shield-maiden; she'd been trained to bear arms already. There was evidently some tradition of that, or they'd not have any such thing as a shield-maiden in the first place. What she does is to disobey her father (and hence her king, too) but she's only wanting to do what she's been trained to do. That's one exception, not several all at once.
This is such an incredibly inane thing to argue about - its a complete non-issue. If they want to play an adventuring Dwarven female, who really cares? Does it somehow affect me? No. Does it somehow affect the game as a whole? No.
Its their character, their decision. Nobody gets to them how to play. To argue about it and attack people who do choose to play their character in a way you don't agree with is just petty.
Role play is role play, it's not good or bad it just is. Now can it be either within the lore or lore breaking? Sure it can, if you don't like how someone RPs just don't RP with them and each go your own way.
As for hobbits outside the shire, if I remember correctly the hobbits that live in Bree consider Shire hobbits strange and also will tell you they where there before the Shire existed. I do know that Butterburs assistant was a hobbit and that Dwarfs though uncommon were not rare in Bree.
As for all the books being quoted for lore, isn't LOTRO based on the LOTR trilogy? If you want to include other references in your RP go for it, just don't expect others to meet your expectations.
It doesn't matter to me if someones Dwarf is male or female, but even my dwarfs find it odd to see a dwarf standing in line at the vault wearing a dress. But if that's your choice, then play it the way you want.
Man, apparently I don't take this game serious enough. For me it's just a game, I wont let staying in character or stringently following the Tolkien mythos, detract from enjoying playing the game.
I don't have a dwarf character, why? Because there is no apparent females, as in a thinner beard and a bosom.
If you go by "once upon a time" Dwarves are hatched from eggs and nether male, nor female.
In-game criticism like you describe is similar to "visiting a blog of 10-years old and going ballistic".
There is this little problem though - we are not in-game.
I'm saying I don't see much point in criticizing someone's RP style in OR out of the game. To what end? If someone is role-playng badly, in your opinion, then isn't the best way to counter that to create a character and RP the way that YOU feel is most appropriate?
It seems to me as if people RP primarily for one of two reasons:
1) to socially interact with other players
2) to provide some background and motivation for the act of pressing certain keys in such a way that a set of pixels is manipulated in a favorable manner
With the former, most of the people I know who do that do so as part of an RP group or an RP kinship, with like-minded players. With the latter, the choice to RP is directly tied to an individual's enjoyment of the game. in either case, I think the most appropriate litmus is whether doing certain things in-game is "fun" or "not fun", not "bad" or "good". If pretending to be a female Dwarf is fun for someone, then they should go ahead and do it. If doing so would be immersion-breaking for another player, then that player can just play as a male Dwarf instead. I don't think either point of view is right or wrong, or good or bad, they're just different approaches to making the game enjoyable for one's self.
I know at least 2 dwarves that have female players behind their computer. 1 wears dresses, the other just combat gear. I prefer the combat gear tbh Dwarves in dresses are ewwww... (all female dwarves actually )
I'm saying I don't see much point in criticizing someone's RP style in OR out of the game. To what end?
Probably to the same end this thread was created in the first place. Not to mention this stance suggests not much of a point in praising, analysing, sharing experiences or explaining either - but yet here we are. I wasn't aware only positive feedback was deemed productive or appropriate by some recent edict.
Originally Posted by Susuwatari
It seems to me as if people RP primarily for one of two reasons:
I don't really know what reasons have to do with anything. Poetry example applies - it doesn't matter whether that child is wirting to impress others, practice or to troll. Duck is still a duck - or a chicken pretending to be one - doesn't matter whether someone finds one or both tasty.
Originally Posted by Susuwatari
I don't think either point of view is right or wrong, or good or bad, they're just different approaches to making the game enjoyable for one's self.
It's not about point of view either. Duck. Or chicken. I haven't noticed anything in this thread that implies only ducks should be allowed. Only that chickens are not exactly ducks.
Although you do run into "chickens not allowed" in Suggestions section whenever someone advocates adding this or that to the game ^^
Last edited by Ferthcott; Jul 21 2012 at 10:45 AM.
Aye, get that in quickly before we have *that* thread again! *shivers*
I just skimmed this thread, and it's nowhere near as asinine as that other thread where someone demanded that Turbine create a 'female Dwarf' avatar for the character selection screen. And then screamed at the Tolkien lore geeks that they were wrong (about Dwarves looking the same to outsiders, females having beards, etc.).
From the roleplay perspective, I agree with others that there has to be (quite a bit) of flexibility given game mechanics and whatnot, besides which I'd rather see a Dwarf in a dress out in Angmar than the stupid apparel dummies. Sorry--mannequins.
Also, I suspect that 'female' Dwarf toons are rare in the game because most would simply want to dress their Dwarves in whatever they feel is 'appropriate' for a stocky bearded character, both culturally and aesthetically speaking; going against the grain in this case feels more like something that is done for shock value and kicks, not necessarily serious RP. /shrug
Probably to the same end this thread was created in the first place. Not to mention this stance suggests not much of a point in praising, analysing, sharing experiences or explaining either - but yet here we are. I wasn't aware only positive feedback was deemed productive or appropriate by some recent edict.
Huh? There's no "edict", I never said there was one. I merely tried to say that it's strange to me how some people feel the need to criticize someone's playstyle. Again, what's the point? They're playing the way they want within the bounds of what the game will allow. Some people seem to be saying that straying beyond the bounds of the lore while RP'ing is somehow "bad", I would argue that RP'ing only becomes "bad" if the person doing it ceases to enjoy what they are doing or if they are directly interfering with someone else. Role-playing as a node ninja will probably not earn you many friends, for example.
Ducks, chickens, etc.
Okay, I think I see two different arguments happening here. First, do certain player-created characterizations fall outside of the bounds of the lore? Sure they do, no argument from me on that. The ways in which player behaviors stray from the lore are many, and several have already been brought up. Second, is straying from the lore while role-playing "good" or "bad" or "right" or "wrong" or whatnot? I don't think so. It just is what it is. Does there need to be critique and analysis of how others have fun in-game? Why not just play the game the way you want to play it?
Role play is role play, it's not good or bad it just is.
That's like saying acting can't be good or bad, when we all know it can be.
In context, 'role' here means something relevant to this setting, this story as the game has it. Not just any old thing or worse, some random nonsense to do with vampires, flirtatious Elves or Dwarves in dresses.
I merely tried to say that it's strange to me how some people feel the need to criticize someone's playstyle. Again, what's the point?
Feel free to answer in the same spirit: then what's the point in discussing this at all? "Need" does not cover all spectrum. I am certainly not here or there because I feel a "need" to.
Originally Posted by Susuwatari
I would argue that RP'ing only becomes "bad" if the person doing it ceases to enjoy what they are doing or if they are
directly interfering with someone else. Role-playing as a node ninja will probably not earn you many friends, for example.
Yes, well, there you go - it is indeed about definitions. And some are factual while yours - more like functional (probably butchering English here, but I think meaning is clear enough). First one is less vulnerable to personal bias, however - while second one looks, respectfully, too ad hoc.
Originally Posted by Susuwatari
Second, is straying from the lore while role-playing "good" or "bad" or "right" or "wrong" or whatnot? I don't think so. It just is what it is.
Again, certainly not "bad" or "wrong" in ethical sense. I can't see THAT suggestion anywhere.
Originally Posted by Susuwatari
Why not just play the game the way you want to play it?
I think you are arguing with your own creation now. Unless someone suggested otherwise.
Man, apparently I don't take this game serious enough.
Heh, me either apparently. FUN IS SO HARD :P
Look, the point is, everyone plays this game looking for something different. If your idea of appropriate play is to adhere to the lore whenever possible, that's fine. That doesn't make everyone else wrong.
Last night in kin chat we had an interesting episode which sort of touches on this. Someone was playing through the Book 1 epics, and wanted to know if we ever get to fight the Witch-King and if not, what eventually happens to him. It was apparent that this person had not read the books, and had probably not seen the movies, either. We didn't come down on this person for not appreciating the lore, etc., we just explained what happened to the Witch-King and eventually had a good-natured debate about who "really did all the work" in killing him (some people were arguing that Merry "did the dirty work", others pointed out that it was Eowyn who decapitated his fell-beast in the first place, etc.). It was a good time, and made me recognize that not everyone is coming to this game as an adoring fan of the books and stickler for the lore - there are many different approaches to play.
I personally love the books and the story, but like to play a little irreverently to shake things up. My last character was a Woman whom I ran through all of the Shire starter quests. She had heard about that whole deal with Dwaling and those ill-mannered ruffians, you see, and was really upset and wanted to help the Hobbits out. She was so proud whe she got her "Honorary Shirriff" title! I don't particular care that this was an "incorrect" way to play by lore standards, it was fun for me, and to me that's the main point of playing a game. To have fun.
That's like saying acting can't be good or bad, when we all know it can be.
In context, 'role' here means something relevant to this setting, this story as the game has it. Not just any old thing or worse, some random nonsense to do with vampires, flirtatious Elves or Dwarves in dresses.
I thought role playing meant playing your character the way you feel he/she should be played. Do I think Rping a vampire in LOTRO makes sense? No I don't, but if they enjoy it and don't try to make me follow along with it doesn't bother me either.
Acting could be thought of as RPing professionally, I suppose, but to compare someone playing a game for enjoyment with a person making a living at it seem a bit of a stretch to me. Again just my opinion.
I've already stated that I find Dwarfs in dress odd, but that is their choice. I just don't react to the dress and go on with my game.
*shrug* Amateur acting can be good and bad as well - not just professional type, so analogy is not exactly working. Same with "professional" writers.
There is a big and ugly strawman slowly, but patiently being constructed to the point that in few more posts it might be "so obvious" that freedom to RP is being threatened or personal philosophy is being opressed, no matter how relevant anyway...
Senior Member Online status:
Reputation:
Poster of Note Online status:
Originally Posted by Glicyn
Grand Member Online status:
Grand Member Online status:
Poster of Note Online status:
Member Online status:
Senior Member Online status:
Senior Member Online status:
Senior Member Online status:
Senior Member Online status:
Senior Member Online status:
Poster of Note Online status:
Reputation:
Grand Member Online status:
Grand Member Online status:
Poster of Note Online status:
Dwarves in dresses are ewwww... (all female dwarves actually 
Grand Member Online status:
Reply With Quote
Posting Permissions
