Qwinn´s Ultimate DAO Fixpack v3 (no longer beta!)

[theskymoves]

"Also, since I am playing a female rogue and intend to romance Alistair, I'm going to install some of those Alistair mods that adds extra scenes, just to see if they work with your mod. Will let you know if anything goes awry."

Â

Not sure which mods you're talking about, but odds are It will all go awry. It will almost certainly end in tears. Sorry.

Â

Well wait. Maybe not. Where does the dialogue in these "new scenes" come from?

 

If they somehow avoid changing alistair_main.dlg, it may work. But if they touch that file, kaboom.

 

Both of the Alistair romance overhauls I'm familiar with (cmessez's Improved Romance Scenes - Alistair, (AKA 'IRS-A') and Kajana's Alistair's Revised Romance (or 'ARR') edit alistair_main; the latter mod also mucks around with the Landsmeet in a big way. Smaller, standalone romance scene mods (like DahliaLynn's Royal Wedding and First Night, or the newer ones that add little cutscenes to camp) don't use alistair_main, though.

 

And I'm embarrassed to say I'm not 100% certain any longer how DahliaLynn's Alistair Kiss mod works - the ol' brain ain't what it used to be :sad: - though I seem to recall that being a replacer for vanilla scenes rather than 'added content'.

Edited June 14, 2017 by theskymoves

[Qwinn]

I don't change *that* many cutscenes. I do fix the bug in the alistair kisses when he declares love, but replacing those shouldn't break anything else.

 

For the record, I did once again set the priority such that if there are any file conflicts, my files get "overwritten" by default. Worked for the much smaller v2.0. Less sure that was a good idea for the larger-by-an-order-of-magnitude v3.0, but figured changing that was sure to cause angst, whereas leaving it has a chance of not.

Edited June 14, 2017 by Qwinn

[AdenYeshua]

I really have no more counter arguments to make as there is no new evidence, and won't likely ever be one.

 

I'm actually ignoring the "Ser" title it was meant as a small counter argument. A point on your and her end that is very understood. Still no awnser on the counter oaths/duties. I have nothing else to offer other then he is a knight of Redcliffe. It says it. It does not read a Templar working for Isolade. It is a larger leap (though not completely implausable) it seems like the backbone of both your arguments is to argue the possibility of such a thing, and yes sure it's never explicitly mentioned (same with Sten moonlighting as a prostitute) then yes I cannot argue with imagination. Glad to hear the mod still fully works.

[Qwinn]

"Still no awnser on the counter oaths/duties."

 

I thought I addressed that very directly. Explicitly. How does "no oath is necessary for chantry knights to cooperate with secular knights" not answer that?

 

 

 

If you missed that, then I will just have to ask you this question point blank:

 

Ser Donall says: "Every knight of Redcliffe has gone in search of the Urn of Sacred Ashes."

 

Can this statement be true, when there is a chantry full of knights who live, work, and perform their assigned duties in Redcliffe that are not searching for the Urn?

 

You are acting as if Knight Commander Harrith, *who cooperates with apostates!*, would never cooperate with the Arl's knights.

 

The knights assigned to the Redcliffe Chantry are not in the same hierarchy as the Arl's knights. But they are still "knights of Redcliffe". The Arl's knights are their own order. They also qualify as "knights of Redcliffe". Both independent groups are knights. Both perform their duties in Redcliffe, and both are charged with protecting the people of Redcliffe. That makes BOTH groups "knights of Redcliffe". Are you really saying that is a completely implausible interpretation? Really?

 

I am not suggesting that the chantry knights are "working for Isolde". They did not have to swear an oath to her. They are cooperating on a quest with the secular authorities. That does not require an oath to those authorities,.

 

I know it was suggested that Ser Henric was knighted by the Arl before becoming a Templar, but I am not arguing that. I don't think Ser Henric was special in any way. I think he was just another (Templar) knight of (the) Redcliffe (Chantry). The words (Templar), (the) and (Chantry) in that sentence do not contradict or eliminate the remaining words "knight", "of", and "Redcliffe".

 

Why do the Templars cooperating with and taking orders from the Warden in fighting the Darkspawn in Denerim during the final battle not cause this "oaths/duties" conflict?

 

Sorry, but if you think I didn't address you arguments, I think you must have stopped reading my post a few sentences in.

 

At any rate, I gave you a chance for a rebuttal, but you did not attempt to rebut any of the counterarguments I made, rather you stated that I didn't make any. Given that I spent a couple of hours composing my response, and making sure that I very much did address every point you made, I think I would be justified in considering the matter closed, but as you've been very helpful and cool otherwise in all of this, I'll give you another chance to answer the questions I've posed. Because I have posed several, both in this post and my previous, that went directly to your arguments. Care to try? All I ask is that you please don't suggest, again, that I didn't ask any, or that my responses are relying on "imagination".

 

If I had to boil it down all of my questions to one, it is this:

 

"I have nothing else to offer other then he is a knight of Redcliffe."

 

I agree. He is a knight of Redcliffe. All Templars are knights. Some Templars are stationed at the Redcliffe Chantry. Please explain why a (Templar) knight of (the) Redcliffe (Chantry) doesn't qualify as a "knight of Redcliffe", and what would preclude one from being referred to in such a manner, especially when working in tandem with a different order that also happen to be knights of Redcliffe?. And if the Templar Knights of the Redcliffe Chantry didn't go on the quest for the Urn - then where were they? Did they just abandon the Chantry?

Edited June 14, 2017 by Qwinn

[AdenYeshua]

How does "no oath is necessary for chantry knights to cooperate with secular knights" not answer that?

 

Kind of a roundabout way of answering but it still not address the "core" neither is it shown in the game at all. He could very well have been referring to just his knights. The Templars are never shown actually helping the Arl throughout the game, it's conjecture and assumption. Even when storming the castle it was just Redcliffe forces. Only after the plea of the Warden and completing a dozen or so tasks make the Templars actually willing to aid in the slightest.

 

Why do the Templars working for the Warden in fighting the Darkspawn in Denerim during the final battle not cause this "oaths/duties" conflict?

 

Because it is made very clear that they are still Templars under the Hierarchy of the Church if they wished they could order them to stop at any time there is enough information on that.

 

Again I am not aruguing "is it possible" yes I suppose that perticular branch under the orders of the commander could have been ordered to cooperate. It takes quite a leap, and requires quite a bit of filling in your own gaps, but it can be done I guess. What I argue is cooperation is only seen protecting the church. No other Templar is ever shown helping the Arl, nor is it ever mentioned.

 

We are not suggesting that the chantry knights are "working for Isolde". They did not have to swear an oath to her. They are cooperating on a quest with the secular authorities. That does not require an oath to those authorities.

 

Based on what? there is simply and absolutly no evidence of this throughout the game? Don't you think the writers would have put a better effort showing the Chantry wanted in on that action besides one measely guy? Bioware is no slouch even in DAII in presentation, and delivery. At no time does the player (you and me) and anyone else really feel this is a joint operation between even the local church branch and the knights. In-fact one small change of words completely eraticates the notion of it.

 

 

Sorry, but if you think I didn't address you arguments, I think you must have stopped reading my post a few sentences in.

 

Nope, I just literally have nothing on a basis other than what is presented, and what is isn't much. What I know and believe is he is a knight of Redcliffe that seemingly reports to other Knights of Redcliffe, sent by the Arlessa, to find an object that she wishes to use for personal gain. At no time is a Templar ever shown helping the Arl outside of protecting their own church in Redcliffe. At no time is it ever shown a Templar helping look for the Ern, and lastly at no time is the player ever approached by the church or the chantry in interest even AFTER finding the Ern.

 

See that's the part that can never make me a believer in your theory Qwinn, if they are truly interested in finding the Relic why is the player never asked? This was not something they were interested in themselves? The Arl is cured with the Ashes, that suggests the Templars are not actually interested in the Ashes or finding them, at all. There were even many witnesses to using the ashes.

 

The entire basis of your argument and this proposed partnership is based on mutual interest of the Chantry finding the ashes for themselves. This is not seen or ever shown, and make no effort to discover the location even after presented with evidence that the warden known the precise location.

 

Like I said, retract this fix and go under that assumption, it opens a ton of never going to be answered questions and plot holes, Occam's razor or simply change it and all problems solved. At this point there is atleast 1,529 people who think this is a ligitimate fix.

[Qwinn]

Thank you for a proper answer that time. Okay.

 

"Based on what? there is simply and absolutly no evidence of this throughout the game?"

 

Except for Ser Henric being dressed as a Templar and being referred to by the quest as a Templar.

 

And then there's this evidence:

 

"Ser Donall says: "Every knight of Redcliffe has gone in search of the Urn of Sacred Ashes." "

 

You have not answered my question. Can that statement possibly be true with a bunch of knights still sitting around in Redcliffe? I am arguing that (Templar) Knights of the (Redcliffe) Chantry qualify. That is evidence. Very clear, direct evidence, UNLESS you can give me a rational argument as to how he could say "Every knight of Redcliffe" went on the quest while a bunch of knights are still sitting on their asses back in Redcliffe? Your position REQUIRES that a bunch of knights were still sitting on their asses back in Redcliffe. We know those knights had to exist, because of Harrith. Your position is in direct contradiction to Ser Donall's statement. What other statements do we have to go on?

 

"At no time is a Templar ever shown helping the Arl outside of protecting their own church in Redcliffe."

 

Actually, I don't believe we even see that. The only Templars of the Redcliffe Chantry we ever see, I believe, are Harrith and Henric. Harrith alone is clear evidence that there IS a contingent of Templars stationed at the Redcliffe Chantry, though, unless he just commands himself. It is not at all implausible that none of the other Templars make it back in time for the game's events (especially as they are very likely summoned away to prepare to fight for the Warden once Broken Circle is done), and heck, not that many of the Arl's men do either, just Perth and his 3 knights.

 

"Don't you think the writers would have put a better effort showing the Chantry wanted in on that action besides one measely guy?"

 

You act as if we have droves of Arl's knights to compare it with. The only knights we see that ever participated in the quest outside of Redcliffe itself is Ser Donall and Ser Henric. That's it. And Bioware made one of them a Templar. So. One Arl's Knight of Redcliffe. One Templar knight of Redcliffe. Who else? So that's 50% Arl's knights and 50% Templars. If "one measly guy" doesn't cut it, why is Ser Donall as the sole representative outside of Redcliffe adequate to represent droves of Arl's knights?

 

So in sum total, we have 2 Redcliffe Templars (Henric and Harrith) and 5 arl's knights (Donall, Perth, and his 3 flunkies). That's it. I don't see that as wildly unbalanced. There's very limited content regarding the search. The bits you're looking to eliminate about Ser Henric comprise a significant portion of what Bioware felt worth showing. I need more reason to eliminate it.

 

I don't think Greagoire had any interest in helping the Arl. And I don't think Tavith had any interest in helping the Arl. But I think a bunch of Templar knights who live and work in Redcliffe and who respect him as a leader would be interested in helping. I think they'd also be interested in helping their fellow (secular) Redcliffe knights who are EXTREMELY devoted to the Maker (as I also mentioned in my first response). They are human beings, not automatons, and they're going to feel allegiance to the people they work and live next to. That doesn't require "imagination". That's human nature. You'd need to explain to me why they would piss on their neighbors and the specific town they were sworn to protect, ignore them in their time of need, ignore their extremely religiously devoted fellow knights, and also, if they did so, then *why aren't they in Redcliffe*?

 

Oh, and lastly, I'm not buying your idea that the Templars had no interest in the Ashes. The epilogue where Genitivi gets an expedition funded by the Chantry completely contradicts that.

Edited June 14, 2017 by Qwinn

[AdenYeshua]

I have answered all of your questions, but I will attempt to do so again.

 

You have not answered my question. Can that statement possibly be true with a bunch of knights still sitting around in Redcliffe? I am arguing that (Templar) Knights of the (Redcliffe) Chantry qualify. And Ser Donall says EVERY knight of Redcliffe went on the search. That is evidence.

 

In a broad sense maybe, but surely he did not mean knights not even under his command, nor did he mean the mercenaries presumably in the area, nor did he mean the knights passing through Redcliffe territory at the time going to their destination. Nor the Squirrels, plants or anything else that he cannot command. It is my belief that all the knight under HIS command were ordered away.

 

I -do- believe the Church did what it could to protect its neighbor as almost all do. Never once did I argue that they are robots, or did nothing, they just don't believe in finding the Urn. Nor make the slightest effort to do so. Again with one small change this all comes crashing down, Templars are often used as placeholders for dead corpses. Sten is surrounded by them even in the fade, even though he submitted willingly to the Templars without issue. Even refers to them as Qunari.

 

Even when Redcliffe is saved and the Town secured the Templars remaining are not sent back out to search. Again virtually no evidence.

 

Actually, I don't believe we even see that. The only Templar of the Redcliffe Chantry we ever see, I believe, is Harrith. He is clear evidence that there IS a contingent of Templars stationed at the Redcliffe Chantry, though, unless he just commands himself. None of the Templars make it back in time for the game's events, and heck, not that many of the Arl's men do either, just Perth and his 3 knights.

 

You act as if we have droves of Arl's knights to compare it with. The only knights we see that ever participated in the quest outside of Redcliffe itself is Ser Donall and Ser Henric. That's it. And Bioware made one of them a Templar. So. One Arl's Knight of Redcliffe. One Templar knight of Redcliffe. Who else? So that's 50% Arl's knights and 50% Templars.

 

 

Not droves but at least enough to establish a plot device. I'm 99% sure we do see a dead corpse in the village of Redcliffe Knights that were killed looking for the Urn. But maybe just blood, but the writers at least gave the illusion that the Knights of Redcliffe are involved.

 

But I think a bunch of Templar knights who live and work in Redcliffe

 

There are those funny words again, again I presume to, does that translate into a full-blown manhunt for the Urn? Does it translate into abandoning the defense of Redcliffe? Does it translate into Hierarchy level or reporting to Redcliffe Knights? Will find this Urn that they seemingly have zero interest in given all available data achieve the goals set forth by the Church?

 

If DAII has done anything and even the "Rite of Annulment" is when the Church knows of something they have the means and the power to take care of it. Your theory would have us swallow that instead of contacting the Chantry they who with legions of undead pouring out of a castle with Mages involved would be the sole purpose of eradication and presumably send literally their entire army to deal with? instead opted to quietly look for the Urn?

 

Anyway...

 

That's human nature. You'd need to explain to me why they would piss on their neighbors and the specific town they were sworn to protect, ignore them in their time of need, ignore their extremely religiously devoted fellow knights, and also, if they did so, then *why aren't they in Redcliffe*?

 

See that is easily explained away by the plot, they are there. Very few left, none seem interested in freeing Redcliffe castle, and after days of siege with token Redcliffe forces, I imagine they took the brunt of the losses. Yes, they did help, that was never my argument at all.

 

I respect you Qwinn, but it is you that is not getting my point. Allot of what you are bringing up has no bearing on what I'm saying or I disagree with at all, yet you repeat. You are simply not getting what I'm saying, by choice or not its the same.

 

~~

This is what I believe happened, Redcliffe waited to the absolute last second to ask for Aid, this was probably due to the Arlessa not wanting her son to perish in the purge that would take place. The local chantry did send for help but either the Mages Tower or something else happened to impede that or stop it altogether. There was no help in the search for the Urn because quite frankly The Chantry could easily handle the situation when made aware. There was no proof of not only finding the Urn but that it would cure him and that would solve the issue of the undead city.

 

Most likely every Knight under the Chantry was ordered to stay under to help secure the village. THAT IS WHY THEY ARE THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE!

 

Your theory is some unknown alliance of brotherhood and neighborly goodness, ignoring The Chantry's vast power, opting for unconventional fixes, ignoring notes, ignoring lack of effort, requires a vast amount of questions, requires quite a bit of imagination, and a little pinch of whatever the hell to top it off.

 

Mine requires nothing, looks coherent, looks legit, and to any player they wouldn't think twice.

 

You'd need to explain to me

 

Equivalent to me telling you, you need to make Fixpack 4.0 and start working on DAII. I don't but out of respect I'm trying to, as I said there is more than enough to label him just as a knight of Redcliffe, there is a semi-plausible argument sorta that the Local Church helped in that unconventional manner, just as there is nothing explicitly saying the Arl didn't legitimately order the hounds to go out and find the Urn after the dogs were knighted. That is just as plausible as your argument you are proposing. What I am proposing is it was a mistake. Your call.

Edited June 14, 2017 by AdenYeshua

[Qwinn]

Your scenario is plausible. The test for a lore related change like this to qualify as a fix rather than a tweak is not that the resulting change be plausible itself. It is that the original content be implausible to the point od virtually impossible.

That's why you think I'm not "getting" your argument. You're arguing why your scenario is *more* plausible than Henric being a templar. And maybe it is. But that's not the test. To qualify as a fix (which is what I mean when I say things like "you need to explain"), you have to successfully argue that Henric being a Templar is *not plausible*. It has to actually contradict another fact. You have not presented any such fact. You say I have to "ignore the note". I'm not ignoring the note. If the note were inconsistent, it would be enough. I'm arguing that it is plausible and contradicts nothing that a Templar Knight of the Redcliffe Chantry signed a note "Ser Henric of Redcliffe". What lore related fact does that contradict? What is implausible about it? What makes it a *bug*?

That's where our disconnect is, I think. You're not appreciating the bar I have for deeming something a bug. Everything I have argued is presenting a plausible scenario that explains in game content. Your responses are "but the change is even more plausible". That might make it a good tweak, but it isn't a fix.

(Don't respond yet, saving this from phone, moving to computer cause I just reread and I'm getting kinda pissed off now.)

 

Ok, at computer. The above all remains true. Now let's consider the things you've said. And it is my last post on this subject until I see some evidence of this "respect" you're purporting to have for me, because that last post lacked pretty much anything resembling respect.

 

First, let's get your outright factual mistakes out of the way:

 

"they just don't believe in finding the Urn. Nor make the slightest effort to do so. "

 

Have you ever supported this notion that they don't care about the Urn? Considering, you know, the massive expedition Genitivi tells you gets funded by the Chantry to find the Urn? That is a MASSIVE piece of evidence that they are interested in the Urn - in fact, incontrovertible, overwhelming evidence. I see no evidence or argument for your assertion that they *don't* care about the Urn beyond - you don't want them to.

 

"Even when Redcliffe is saved and the Town secured the Templars remaining are not sent back out to search. Again virtually no evidence."

 

Epilogue: "Some years later, the Chantry announced that the resting place of Andraste's Ashes had indeed been found. They were located, however, in ruins that were also the lair of a high dragon, thus proving too dangerous to approach. Many made demands to secure the Ashes so that followers could undertake pilgrimages to partake of their healing powers. Following numerous failed attempts to deal with the dragon, the beast finally flew off to find another haven... but leaving the mountaintop sanctum in ruins. An excavation found no traces of the Urn."

 

So, yeah, no interest, they just faced a dragon trying to get to them out of boredom. Unless maybe you think it was the Sisters of the Chantry that took that task on.

 

"There are those funny words again, again I presume to, does that translate into a full-blown manhunt for the Urn?"

 

Genitivi: "I've written to the Chantry, telling them of your adventures. They are interested in having me lead an expedition!"

 

Leliana: "I've been asked by the Chantry to return to the Urn of Sacred Ashes."

 

"Does it translate into abandoning the defense of Redcliffe?"

 

At the time they were sent out (and incidentally, they all volunteered per dialogue), the attacks had not begun yet, so no defense was abandoned.

 

"Does it translate into Hierarchy level or reporting to Redcliffe Knights?"

 

The Arl's knights being in charge of the expedition makes more sense than the alternative.

 

"Will find this Urn that they seemingly have zero interest in given all available data achieve the goals set forth by the Church?""

 

Again, they showed massive interest. In Genitivi's dialogue. In the epilogue. In every possible place and dialogue where such interest, or lack of it, would be discussed. I have no idea where you get this notion that they had "no interest" in the Urn. That is contradicted by, literally, everything, and supported by, literally, nothing.

 

"Not droves but at least enough to establish a plot device"

 

So Ser Donall, by himself, establishes a plot device, but Ser Henric, by himself, cannot, by virtue of only being "one measly guy". I guess Ser Donall is "one big strapping plot device of a guy". Probably cause he could still talk.

 

"This is what I believe happened, Redcliffe waited to the absolute last second to ask for Aid, this was probably due to the Arlessa not wanting her son to perish in the purge that would take place."

The attacks start just a couple of days before you, the player, get to Redcliffe. There wasn't time to ask for aid. The expeditions had gone out weeks before they even knew there'd be anything to defend against.

 

"Your theory is some unknown alliance of brotherhood and neighborly goodness, ignoring The Chantry's vast power, opting for unconventional fixes, ignoring notes, ignoring lack of effort, requires a vast amount of questions, requires quite a bit of imagination, and a little pinch of whatever the hell to top it off."

 

bulls***, by every possible measure. Not one single word of that is true. I ignore nothing. No questions are left unanswered. No imagination is required.

 

"Mine requires nothing, looks coherent, looks legit, and to any player they wouldn't think twice.Mine requires nothing, looks coherent, looks legit, and to any player they wouldn't think twice."

 

Except for ignoring vast amounts of evidence that the Chantry's interest in the Urn is dialed up to 11 in every place such evidence could possibly exist. Therefore looks incoherent and illegitimate.

 

 

 

And now to the parts that just pissed me right the hell off:

 

"In a broad sense maybe, but surely he did not mean knights not even under his command,"

 

What? Why is this even plausible, let alone "surely"? How does he NOT mean knights not under his command? He said "Every knight of Redcliffe". PERIOD. Just saying "surely not" isn't an argument, it's just an assertion. "Every knight of Redcliffe" is going to include Templar knights of Redcliffe, in all cases and conditions. This is Logic 101. Templars are knights. Stationed in Redcliffe. They are therefore knights of Redcliffe. This is not a stretch. This is not implausible. It's standard English.

 

You're inserting "under his command" as some sort of requirement or condition of his statement COMPLETELY OUT OF THIN AIR.

 

Completely!

 

Out!

 

Of!

Thin!

 

Air!

 

But you now get really insulting by comparing my assertion that Templars in Redcliffe are knights of Redcliiffe as plausible as "squirrels and plants" being knights of Redcliffe. What. The. Hell.

 

And just to really lather it on at the end: "just as there is nothing explicitly saying the Arl didn't legitimately order the hounds to go out and find the Urn after the dogs were knighted. That is just as plausible as your argument you are proposing."

 

And the ENTIRETY of my apparently COMPLETELY implausible argument - as implausible as knighting dogs, I tell you!!!! - is: A Templar Knight of the Redcliffe Chantry might sign a note "Ser Henric of Redcliffe".

 

That's it! That's my crazy theory! Which is consistent with every single other known fact and dialogue in the game!

 

Excuse me, but what a f***ing absurd argument. Ridiculous. Disingenuous. Bad faith. Deliberately insulting as all hell. Unsupported by facts in any way shape or form. Pissed at myself for wasting this much time trying to argue in good faith and get crap like that in return. Good night.

Edited June 14, 2017 by Qwinn

[AdenYeshua]

....Meh it's not worth getting pissed off over. The crux is as what you say, with one tiny exception it's not only implausible it's very very implausible. Not impossible though which is what you are looking for... I cannot fulfill this request as I do not have enough info. It does not say "Ser Hendric of the Red Cliffe chantry" or your colorful and eloquent description, it says simply "Ser Hendric of Redcliffe" reporting to a fellow knight. Everything else is you filling in the blanks, you even did it in your post just now. Everything you've mentioned is you filling in the blanks. I could highlight in red where you made up the rest but it's not worth it.

 

There is already an established and popular fix for this, it's not worth getting heated. In a silly way I'm glad you set the bar, good work. Go ahead and win the debate drive it home qwinn

[Qwinn]

Soooo.... the completely discredited notion that the Chantry "doesn't care about the Urn" - completely contradicted by quotes from Genitivi, Leliana and the epilogue showing *extreme* interest in the Urn, including yes, even a "full blown manhunt", including facing a dragon for it....

 

None of that changes your mind a whit. Your argument is as strong as ever. Even though it relied COMPLETELY on that single assertion - one you repeated half a dozen times, so it must've been pretty damn important - that could not possibly be demonstrated to be more false. You're still correct, and me saying a Templar from Redcliffe might plausibly sign a note "Ser Henric of Redcliffe" remains - your words - "very, very implausible", and requires me to be filling in gaps with my own crazy imagination all over the place. Oh, and I also maintained that Ser Donall wouldn't say "Every knight of Redcliffe is searching for the Urn" if a dozen knights remained loitering around the Redcliffe Chantry, but that is also very very implausible, because he didn't COMMAND every knight in Redcliffe (not even the plant and squirrel knights!), and that therefore makes his statement that "Every knight of Redcliffe is searching for the Urn" completely consistent with a dozen knights hanging out in the Redcliffe chantry, utterly uninterested in an Urn they later go fight a dragon for.

 

That's why I said "bad faith" and "disingenuous". That's the reason I'm pissed off. For the record.

 

Consider it driven home. Good night.

Edited June 14, 2017 by Qwinn