Both readings are perfectly valid, but one makes sense and the other is absurd.WAIT! WHAT?
In the sense that one could interpret the wording of the sentence in two ways, but one proves illogical when followed to its conclusion, lacks support elsewhere in the system/rules, and requires inventing new rules to argue the interpretation. So while there are two valid readings of the charisma line, we can deduce through reasoning which is the correct one.
Both readings are perfectly valid, but one makes sense and the other is absurd.
Valid: well-grounded or justifiable : being at once relevant and meaningful.
Contradiction: a proposition, statement, or phrase that asserts or implies both the truth and falsity of something.
Both readings are perfectly valid, but one makes sense and the other is absurd.Valid: well-grounded or justifiable : being at once relevant and meaningful.
Contradiction: a proposition, statement, or phrase that asserts or implies both the truth and falsity of something.
Fair enough. One is completely bonkers, and ours is valid (due to all the aforementioned rule citations, logical reasoning, etc). :P
Like it or not, it's in the RAW.
When you choose to tank a skill, the rules are written for that to have a consequence. If your DM is "nice" and lets you not suffer any penalties for tanking a stat, that is between you and your DM. I find it boring when DM's allow players to push the "win" button by not holding them accountable for giving themselves weaknesses, but if it makes you happy, house rule it.
But RAW it effects "...a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance".
For comparison, Wisdom describes a character's willpower, common sense, awareness, and intuition, and Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons.
Some people are combat based and some people are more role playing based. Everyone is entitled to have there own game they play. But the rules aren't unclear here.
Two questions:
1. How do you role play being good looking? No matter what character I play, they wind up looking, more or less, exactly like me. I can say, "I'm really good looking", but that's not really role playing.
2. What penalties am I dodging by saying my character is good looking?
Befriending people? Nope, diplomacy still has a penalty.
Intimidating? Nope, intimidate still has a penalty.
Wooing? Nope, still diplomacy, still a penalty.
Telling a good story? Nope, perform still has a penalty.
Bartering? Nope. (Why is barter not a skill?).
Performing? Nope, still a penalty.
Why would anyone care what someone else's mental image of who they are playing is? The only problem that I can see is people trying to fudge the score based on their looks. So just keep to the score and tell them that no one seems to care about their good looks. Problem solved and everyone can be happy.
The point is that the example you gave is "unsettling to be around" at Charisma 8. I guess you can be hot as long as you are "unsettling to be around" which would functionally have the same effect on those interacting with you.
Oh... okay. That was the point I was trying to make. Never mind the other post then.
Fair enough. One is completely bonkers, and ours is valid (due to all the aforementioned rule citations, logical reasoning, etc)
That is an opinion. Logical reason does not have opinions.
Descriptions are fluff, Cha mods are RAW. Which was shown with half orcs that receive no modifier to Cha and are described as monsterous but dwarves are described as gruff do have a penalty. Both have a charisma based description but only one is modified. Which means descriptions aren't RAW because RAW effects the game [numbers].
One race is modified and justifed [-2 cha dwarves] and the other [half-orcs] aren't so fluff=raw is false. That is logical reason.
Rule citations: dwarves -2 cha half-orc +2 any stat contradiction
Logical reasoning: Spiteful, double penalties, your arguements [opinions]
Anyone you who disagrees with your view is absurd...that's logical reason?
Mr. Fishy has post more than once play as you will your table your game. Mr. Fishy disagrees with you. Doesn't make Mr. Fishy right or you wrong. It's OK.
Descriptions are fluff, Cha mods are RAW. Which was shown with half orcs that receive no modifier to Cha and are described as monsterous but dwarves are described as gruff do have a penalty. Both have a charisma based description but only one is modified. Which means descriptions aren't RAW because RAW effects the game [numbers].One race is modified and justifed [-2 cha dwarves] and the other [half-orcs] aren't so fluff=raw is false. That is logical reason.
That's really an attempt at logic based upon a supposition that's dubious at best - that RAW does not include descriptions. There are plenty of descriptions of items, spells, and creatures throughout the game that can't be divorced from RAW quite so simply, nor are all rules centered around numbers affecting the game.
Nothing will ever amuse me so much as a dozen nerds (self included) debating the meaning of Charisma on an internet forum. Please, continue!
Fair enough.However, it seems like a very closed-minded way of looking at the game. According to that view the designers are idiots who can't even write their own game in accordance to their own rules.
I think it's safe to say that the designers of the game want us to feel free to do things however we wish and damn anyone who tells us that whatever we're doing within our own games is 'wrong'.
Yes. However, the concept of RAW gives those wishing to practice this madness the power to do so.I don't think the problem is RAW. I think the problem is people who cling for dear life to one sentence out of many and claim that only the one sentence they are quoting counts as RAW.
Agreed.
Yes, but they also tried to argue that Charisma governing appearance was not RAW.
I agree. However, it is worth noting that there are no rules for how someone reacts to you simply based on CHA, it is all determined by CHA based Social Skills when they are needed and rolled. From what I got out of Ash's thread and the PBP that she started, they didn't seem to be saying that a low CHA character should be played and treated exactly the same as a high CHA character. Rather, that a low CHA character could, through effort, overcome his natural hang-ups.
I don't think anyone said that. If so, I missed that post.
I agree that the exact nature of 'what is appearance' is subjective but then.. so is, to my limited mind, reality @_@..
Personally, I figure that it doesn't matter what they look like so long as it's detrimental to their social interactions.
However, if a character has Charisma 7 then claiming they are dashing and handsome they are, to my mind, 'pushing it'.
If you agree that appearance is subjective, and it doesn't matter what they look like so long as there is a penalty to social interactions (Which there is, a tangible -2 that doesn't change) then what is the big deal about using the words handsome and dashing? Handsome is an abstract idea to indicate that someone is attractive on some level. It doesn't mean anyone is calling the 7 CHA guy an Adonis, it just means he isn't ugly. Average people can be described as handsome, maybe this guy is average, maybe even a little above average. All of that is still covered by handsome and none of it indicates a powerful presence of beauty. People who are drop dead gorgeous, male and female alike, are generally not described as handsome, they are described much more powerfully. Ash never, that I saw, said the guy was more beautiful than a 20 CHA Bard, nor that he should be on the cover of a romance novel, she said he was "handsome." The word dashing has very little to do with looks at all, if you look at the definition and then look at the synonyms of dashing, some could indicate physical appearance but many do not. In fact, several could relate closely with combat, which is fitting since the character in question is an adventurer and a Fighter at that.
Good night Mr Shadowlord.
Good night to you.
Descriptions are fluff, Cha mods are RAW. Which was shown with half orcs that receive no modifier to Cha and are described as monsterous but dwarves are described as gruff do have a penalty. Both have a charisma based description but only one is modified. Which means descriptions aren't RAW because RAW effects the game [numbers]... That is logical reason.
You have "logically" destroyed your own argument. You are saying that fluff =/= RAW and that fluff is purely description while RAW only affects the game numbers, so...
Half-Orcs:
Potential +2 CHA = RAW
Monstrosity = Fluff
Halflings:
+2 CHA = RAW
Strong-Willed = Fluff
Gnomes:
+2 CHA = RAW
Agreeable personalities = Fluff
Drow:
+2 CHA = RAW
Manipulative and Regal = Fluff
Night Hag:
17 CHA = RAW
Repulsive description = Fluff
Dwarves:
-2 CHA = RAW
Gruff = Fluff
Tiefling:
-2 CHA = RAW
Inherently Strange = Fluff
I see a pattern here in what you are referring to as "logic," and Ash carried that logical pattern into her character creation. You break it by saying this...
Sigfried:
7 CHA = RAW
Handsome and Dashing = Not allowed by RAW.
So, wait... monstrous, strong-willed, agreeable, manipulative, regal, repulsive, gruff, and strange are all just fluff that has no bearing on the RAW numbers and as such are allowable; however handsome and dashing, which also don't affect numbers, can't be allowed as part of the RP fluff that describes Sigfried?
Fair enough. One is completely bonkers, and ours is valid (due to all the aforementioned rule citations, logical reasoning, etc)That is an opinion. Logical reason does not have opinions.
Descriptions are fluff, Cha mods are RAW. Which was shown with half orcs that receive no modifier to Cha and are described as monsterous but dwarves are described as gruff do have a penalty. Both have a charisma based description but only one is modified. Which means descriptions aren't RAW because RAW effects the game [numbers].
One race is modified and justifed [-2 cha dwarves] and the other [half-orcs] aren't so fluff=raw is false. That is logical reason.
Rule citations: dwarves -2 cha half-orc +2 any stat contradiction
Logical reasoning: Spiteful, double penalties, your arguements [opinions]
Anyone you who disagrees with your view is absurd...that's logical reason?
If you have followed the thread, Jess Door provided a very well written post as to the result of Charisma as it was being argued by Lazzo and - I believe - yourself, as an equal measure of every aspect of charisma at the same time. It leads to absurdity and it puts bizarre strait-jackets on characters on a role-playing level. It's illogical and absurd. Lazzo even got mad and tried to call a logical fallacy because he couldn't refute it, but was wrong and was noted wrong by several other posters who said she was not using a logical fallacy and was in fact using the proper reasoning.
Likewise, it is trivially easy to prove that Charisma is not the only measure of appearance, nor is it factored in somewhere other than social interaction checks (IE - Diplomacy). We can see due to items in the game (such as courtier's clothing and parade armor) that the outward appearance can provide a modifier to social based skills, but it doesn't change your charisma modifier or penalty directly, nor does an ugly character putting on a mask or casting disguise self which shows that Charisma and its bonuses and penalties are much deeper than that. Likewise, a spell that provides a +4 charisma modifier specifically buffs 3 of the 4 given examples of what charisma can represent, which proves that all aspects do not have to be equal.
Likewise, the description of the charisma score is no less fluff than the descriptions for the races, or items, or anything else. It functions a particular way in-game, and we can objectively view and see how it functions in game, regardless of the fluff. We can see that the fluff is more-or-less correct from ability score to ability score. Strength has very accurate fluff, Constitution is pretty accurate too, while Dexterity, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma have varying degrees of accuracy in terms of how they actually function in game.
Whereas, either way you're making no argument. By saying that the descriptive text of the half-orc is invalid as a method of arguing that Charisma is not always a measure of physical attractiveness, you have also invalidated your entire argument (I was waiting for this moment, yes yes, muahahahaha), because the description of charisma is entirely fluff and has no impact on the game outside of the mechanics it applies to.
We win.
We win.We win the intarnetz?
Yes, we win the internetz. *gives Jess Door a cookie* ^-^
I don´t see anyone winning :)
I see myself enjoying from the corner, while drinking beer and eating popcorns... you know, I am thinking to have marshmallows and baking over this "fire"
PS. Go team Fish!
PPS. I found Night-Hag *mugly*
PPPS. Imrijika is hot! Half-Orc Girl = HOT (we got fanclub!)
Nothing will ever amuse me so much as a dozen nerds (self included) debating the meaning of Charisma on an internet forum. Please, continue!
LOL!!! This would be even funnier if it didn't hit so close to home!
!! What! Seriously?!
*Turns around*! GUYS! MOnk with 7 Charisma got TEH internezz! UGLIES WON! Wohoo
Holds out his laptop in simba-style!
I think the best arguments for putting the Comeliness score back into the game would be adjudicating a couple spells: Clone and Magic Jar.
Clone makes a copy of a person, head to toe, but that copy is mindless and soulless, an empty shell. It has zero Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma. Zero Charisma equals zero appearance, by the RAW. Now, reasonably, can you tell the corpse of a pretty person from that of a plain person, and a plain corpse from an ugly one? While aesthetics can vary from person to person, you should be able to get nine people out of ten to agree "That's the hot one" and whoever's voting differently has weird taste.
If you don't do this, and instead decree that by RAW all corpses are equally plain or even hideously ugly because they have zero appearance, that means that Doc from the Seven Dwarves botched his heal check even more seriously when Snow White, the Fairest of the All, choked on a piece of poisoned apple and fell into a coma. I mean, how can you mistake that for death? She's still hot!
Similarly, you've got Magic Jar which swaps souls and with that Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma. Swapping souls suddenly improves appearance? Is it like that scene in Interview with a Vampire where becoming an undead suddenly gives you a full makeover, including a perm? If the evil sorceress has Magic Jarred the ugly chambermaid, can you immediately pick her out because she's suddenly and inexplicably hot?
If you've got a Comeliness stat, you don't need to deal with this. Yes, Charisma might improve Comeliness further by lending grace, poise, and bearing, but it won't suddenly give you a nosejob or cap your teeth.
I think the best arguments for putting the Comeliness score back into the game would be adjudicating a couple spells: Clone and Magic Jar.
Clone makes a copy of a person, head to toe, but that copy is mindless and soulless, an empty shell. It has zero Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma. Zero Charisma equals zero appearance, by the RAW. Now, reasonably, can you tell the corpse of a pretty person from that of a plain person, and a plain corpse from an ugly one? While aesthetics can vary from person to person, you should be able to get nine people out of ten to agree "That's the hot one" and whoever's voting differently has weird taste.
If you don't do this, and instead decree that by RAW all corpses are equally plain or even hideously ugly because they have zero appearance, that means that Doc from the Seven Dwarves botched his heal check even more seriously when Snow White, the Fairest of the All, choked on a piece of poisoned apple and fell into a coma. I mean, how can you mistake that for death? She's still hot!
Similarly, you've got Magic Jar which swaps souls and with that Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma. Swapping souls suddenly improves appearance? Is it like that scene in Interview with a Vampire where becoming an undead suddenly gives you a full makeover, including a perm? If the evil sorceress has Magic Jarred the ugly chambermaid, can you immediately pick her out because she's suddenly and inexplicably hot?
If you've got a Comeliness stat, you don't need to deal with this. Yes, Charisma might improve Comeliness further by lending grace, poise, and bearing, but it won't suddenly give you a nosejob or cap your teeth.
Or you could just let people describe their characters as they want. There's a reason comeliness hasn't been around since a 1E splatbook.
Or you could just let people describe their characters as they want. There's a reason comeliness hasn't been around since a 1E splatbook.I think the best arguments for putting the Comeliness score back into the game would be adjudicating a couple spells: Clone and Magic Jar.
Clone makes a copy of a person, head to toe, but that copy is mindless and soulless, an empty shell. It has zero Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma. Zero Charisma equals zero appearance, by the RAW. Now, reasonably, can you tell the corpse of a pretty person from that of a plain person, and a plain corpse from an ugly one? While aesthetics can vary from person to person, you should be able to get nine people out of ten to agree "That's the hot one" and whoever's voting differently has weird taste.
If you don't do this, and instead decree that by RAW all corpses are equally plain or even hideously ugly because they have zero appearance, that means that Doc from the Seven Dwarves botched his heal check even more seriously when Snow White, the Fairest of the All, choked on a piece of poisoned apple and fell into a coma. I mean, how can you mistake that for death? She's still hot!
Similarly, you've got Magic Jar which swaps souls and with that Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma. Swapping souls suddenly improves appearance? Is it like that scene in Interview with a Vampire where becoming an undead suddenly gives you a full makeover, including a perm? If the evil sorceress has Magic Jarred the ugly chambermaid, can you immediately pick her out because she's suddenly and inexplicably hot?
If you've got a Comeliness stat, you don't need to deal with this. Yes, Charisma might improve Comeliness further by lending grace, poise, and bearing, but it won't suddenly give you a nosejob or cap your teeth.
I think the reason has more to do with compaction than logic. The Storyteller system splits it out into Charisma, Manipulation and Appearance and that certainly works. GURPS has Advantages that do much the same thing, Handsome and Very Handsome. Similar system with Champions.
Also, point of order, but the 1E UA wasn't a splatbook. It was one of the main rulebooks.
Describing your character as you want is fine so long as it has no benefit in play. Since appearance arguably has some mechanical benefit in play, it should be defined by a stat or trait. Keeping it rolled in with Charisma can be problematic as I described above, so the old solution of splitting it out as Comeliness doesn't seem that bad.
Comeliness has a horrible name (poor branding there) but it wasn't completely without utility especially if you could get an awe effect.
It definitely has other problems such as does the game really need another stat and is it good to have a stat that is modified by another stat (high charisma provides a boost to comeliness). It also has the misfortune of being in one of the less warmly received 1e books (Kevin is right Gary at least regarded it as a core rulebook).
I personally wouldn't want to include the another stat in the game because the current stats are already not very well balanced. I think a trait is generally a better design solution but I'm actually interested to hear what impact Comeliness has on Kevin's game (even though I'd be reluctant to follow him down that rabbit hole).
Also, point of order, but the 1E UA wasn't a splatbook. It was one of the main rulebooks.
Describing your character as you want is fine so long as it has no benefit in play. Since appearance arguably has some mechanical benefit in play, it should be defined by a stat or trait. Keeping it rolled in with Charisma can be problematic as I described above, so the old solution of splitting it out as Comeliness doesn't seem that bad.
True, sorry, I was going from memory with the 1E UA, so my apologies.
However, I disagree that there's arguably some benefit in play for being handsome/pretty. There's benefit for having a high charisma, which could be used to represent beauty, but beauty in and of itself has no mechanical benefit at all. Mr. Fishy showed us that fluff doesn't equate to game mechanics, and a character's base appearance is entirely fluff (until you begin stacking on items that give bonuses to social skills, like parade armor and courtier's outfits). How kind Mr. Fishy was. ^-^
Likewise, adding in a comeliness stat would require more work for what amounts to no real benefit. I mean, you're still just going to be using modifiers to social checks, right? But now you have an entirely new stat to add in to creatures for what amounts to an opinion of how pretty they are, which then requires a general consensus as to "what is pretty". Medusas could be seen as amazingly hot and attractive, or amazingly scary and repulsive, depending on the viewer. Does a character's weight factor into their comeliness? What's considered grossly obese to one culture is considered a sign of beauty and vitality in another.
I'm just saying I can't see it really benefiting anything, other than giving gamers something for gamers and their GMs to argue over, or groan because now they have to sacrifice their survival-scores to avoid looking like they were born and raised in a dumpster full of sharp glass and flesh-eating maggots. :P
Don't know if this was already covered, but isn't there an "Attractive" trait in the social traits in the APG?
Don't know if this was already covered, but isn't there an "Attractive" trait in the social traits in the APG?
Yep it's called Charming.
It's not bad slight buff to bluff or diplomacy vs some targets and DC boost for language dependent spells vs some targets. It has an element of DM fiat involved but honestly I think trait/feat bonuses are the best method of handling this. You have the trait you are stunningly beautiful, you don't you are bland and unremarkable at least until you start spamming bluff, diplomacy or intimidate checks.
Don't know if this was already covered, but isn't there an "Attractive" trait in the social traits in the APG?
Not in the APG. All I'm finding there is the Charming trait, which basically makes you a little sexier, but not much.
Well, sometimes we don't want it to always be a case of "Good heavens, Miss Nakamoto, you're beautiful!" where there's no real ugliness, only Hollywood ugliness, where the only thing the ugly character needs to be beautiful is a makeover and possession by a character with tact.
Having a negative ability score is generally a bad thing. Sure, you can roleplay it to the hilt and take full advantage of it, but as I see it, it is supposed to represent a weakness. Therefore I am sceptical to presenting a character as handsome and dashing without making some effort into actually making him handsome and dashing using the tools given to me by the game's mechanics, e.g. stat allocation.
And a weakness it does present. It's a -2 to all charisma based skill checks, and leadership (if you decide to take it), and it also means you'll suck as a Paladin, Sorcerer, Bard, and it has a drawback for Clerics.
In the example NPC, Sigfried the 7 Charisma fighter who doesn't suck at social interaction, is so because of the tools given to him by the game's mechanics, e.g. spending skill points.
Sigfried will never on his own be capable of using Use Magic Device, and he has to use skill points to make up some of his differences with social skills, and he's not going to rival a bard, paladin, sorcerer, or even a cleric at those sorts of things. He will get good at social skills so he can be dashing and suave. Using the tools given by the game mechanics.
So, wait... monstrous, strong-willed, agreeable, manipulative, regal, repulsive, gruff, and strange are all just fluff that has no bearing on the RAW numbers and as such are allowable; however handsome and dashing, which also don't affect numbers, can't be allowed as part of the RP fluff that describes Sigfried?
By that logic way can a wizard with a 7 strength have a strong hand? Or a 7 wisdom Thief insightful? Charisma is a weak stat so lets invent a house rule that says your character is as charming as you want because the RAW doesn't say you can't.
He will get good at social skills so he can be dashing and suave. Using the tools given by the game mechanics.
Meta-what? You dumped charisma because you could spend skill ranks to "be dashing and suave" what about his appearance is that covered by dashing or suave.
Mr. Fishy
Thanks for the name drop.
What is that five? >bubble<Fan Club>bubble<
Appearance is just how they look.
Did you just use the "It's whats on the inside that counts" arguement...That's not true, you know that right? That's what you tell ugly children so they don't cry themselves to sleep every night.
The Ugly Duckling is a bad story. MR. FISHY IS NOT A SWAN!!! SCREW YOU SWAN!!!
You yourself said descriptions are fluff and fluff may or may not match up to mechanics. Strength's fluff coincides pretty well with the effects the mechanics produce in game in relation to logic and reason, whereas charisma doesn't - at least as far as you and Lazzo have argued.
Physical appearance is up to the player. The word appearance doesn't even mean physical beauty and is highly subjective. You're not making any real argument, you just seem to be attempting to bait and troll at this point.
For those reading our posts, the game mechanics are tools in which to describe and emulate the concept and functions of our imaginary characters using a series of rules and "game physics" that can help us map out our fantasy worlds. In this case, we wanted a fighter who was handsome (our choice), who very early into his career grows into something besides "boring fighter guy" while also being capable of being "fighter guy". The mechanics of the game have served their purpose by allowing us to create the fighter in our idealized image without him having to be the best at everything ("Mary Sue").
Likewise, Mr. Fishy's definition of meta-gaming seem inconsistent with the definition detailed in the core 3.x books, and the definition on wikipedia, in that meta-gaming is using player knowledge in-game. If what Mr. Fishy accuses me of is meta-gaming, then building a character in and of itself is meta-gaming, since you are choosing how the character will ultimately interact with the world that he is within - nothing more, nothing less. It is not that Sigfried the 7 Charisma fighter knows he has a 7 Charisma and a -2 to skills, nor does he know the reason he can't get that wand to work - even with a hundred tries - that the rogue seems to make do every day without fail.
Also, I think Mr. Fishy is confused. In addition to not understanding metagaming, he also doesn't understand what it means to be referred to when describing your actions, since he seems confused about this fan club business. Poor Mr. Fishy.
Mr. Fishy four times in a single post
That's 7? Congrat Ashiel you are offically Mr. Fishy biggest fan.
Mr. Fishy has posted more than once play as you will. Ashiel why continue to defend a point that you feels is untouchable. If not arguement can topple you conviction then it does matter what any one says.
Mr. Fishy disagrees it's OK. Your an air breather it's not your fault.
I can see you and I are never going to get along on this one Chunkylover. In my games, there are people with sky high charisma (sometimes as high as 30) who are flat out ugly and disgusting (and the rules somewhat support this. Look at the demons, with the exception of the succubus) and people who are drop dead gorgeous and beautiful, who may have charisma as low as 5 (and are not of a charisma penalty race)
The fact is. I completely, and totally disassociate charisma and appearance. Always have, always will. Look up the word 'charisma' and you will typically find things about their ability to sway people, or draw friends, or change people's minds on issues.
To me and my games, charisma is force of personality, magnetism, and various other mental aspects. It has nothing, not one whit to do with appearance. If a character should be ugly? They are ugly. If a character should look average and ordinary? then that is indeed how they look. If a character should look beautiful or handsome or stunning? To me, these things are character points, just like backstory. It's got nothing at all to do with stats.
if only i can convince my saturday group of this truth. they all assume that low CHA=ugly and high CHA=smoking hot. even with all the exceptions within the rules i have tried to point out to them. i guess that mentioning hags and most undead/abberations will help get that point across. i beleive what a character looks like should be up to that character's player, not forced by a number on a piece of paper.
|
Thanks guys. That explains to a T why we've been arguing so much. I have a lizardfolk and a catfolk PC in my current SCAP game, and other than a brief period of 'you gonna cause trouble?' and warning to the others 'you're responsible for their behavior' hardly any of the citizens treat them any different. I should ask the lizardfolk if he wants me to play it up, he might have wanted to deal with a bit of racism.
i would love to try a battle scarred norse flavored paladin, but my saturday dungeon master explicitly prohibits me from playing paladins. he believes that i cannot hold up to his opionion of what constitutes as lawful good. but he has at moments positively commented on my talents with the lawful neutral alignment.
i still have the same msn. i just haven't bothered based on the assumption that your online presence died, a few of your still stagnant Ucoz sites reinforced this misguided assumption. i just logged in to msn right now.