Kevin's Watch

Murrin wrote:It probably is coincidence, but Chastus is working for someone, currently unknown. And unless I'm mistaken and there's been more deception going on that I thought, then Veria, Veria's Hand and Veria's Herald were all working for someone unknown as well.

A god? It seemed fairly powerfull. It almost took me entirely.

Also, who's Veria?

Necromancer.

Vadhaka wrote:Necromancer.

...................doesn't help. Am I missing something major?

If you don't know about it, it's not happening to you.

I'll take it that that's a good thing.

He is a necromancer who commands two other, slightly less powerful necromancers - Veria's Hand and Veria's Herald. When I destroyed all the undead in the four cities of Queeaqueg on Landir, Veria's Herald was weakened but not dispatched.

So the other two are still at large?

I think the important point that we're leaving out is that they repeatedly attempt to build large armies within a god's territory, and so far noone knows who they work for.

As far as I know both the Hand and the Herald are at large. I was asked to aid agaist the Hand but since the same spell that destroyed four cities of undead could not kill the Herald the next season I'm not sure how much help I would have been.

Indeed. The use of a mortal mage as a collaborator in the first encounter simply made us unprepared for the power that the others possessed when we next challenged them.

Murrin wrote:Indeed. The use of a mortal mage as a collaborator in the first encounter simply made us unprepared for the power that the others possessed when we next challenged them.

Mabye it's the time here and im proccessing slowly. But do you think that the Necromancer is ordering Chastus?

Is that what we're talking about?

As amusing as it might be, I'm starting to wish people would just lay off of Nor Yekith about the plagues. Time to find something new to pester him about, heh.

Edit: Adomorn: I was suggesting that they might work for the same higher power. Which, considering what Norn has told us, would be Nephirthos. Which has some implications I'm not ready to go into openly right now.

As a player, I must make something clear. Bhakti's lastest statement is rather annoying. If Nor takes the blame for the plague affecting Thellarr he will retaliate. I understand Nor can't be trusted, and I like that, but to be constantly hounded over the plague issue isn't making the game fun for me.

Yeah, it's getting annoying for people who have to watch the arguments, too.

Edit: I was just about to defend Nor in the thread, and then I realised that I was about to write "it wasn't necessarily a malicious attack."
Lore, my hands are tied. Sorry I can't help keep them off your back. Grammatically, it seems you're undefendable.


Also:

Thesaurus - A dinosaur that shadow writes for Stephen R. Donaldson.

Eh? Bhakti never accused Nor Yekith of either creating any plague, or of spreading it in Thellar. However, it is a fact that Nor Yekith spread it in Bhakti's lands when he exploded his plague-carrying Houka there. How is Bhakti the bad one here???

Fist and Faith wrote:Eh? Bhakti never accused Nor Yekith of either creating any plague, or of spreading it in Thellar. However, it is a fact that Nor Yekith spread it in Bhakti's lands when he exploded his plague-carrying Houka there. How is Bhakti the bad one here???

Bhakti is the bad one when his paranoia gets so bad that Nor becomes the blame for everything. Go ahead and blame him for the second outbreak, but just don't expect Nor to react kindly.

All I am saying is that it's becoming tiring the whole 'Bhakti versus Nor' routine.

Murrin wrote:Grammatically, it seems you're undefendable.

Eh?

*shrug* Personally I think that the plague is an important issue, and as a spectator, the occasional reference to it, (which occurs only when relevant I think), doesn't bother me.

Loremaster wrote:

Murrin wrote:Grammatically, it seems you're undefendable.

Eh?

Hehe. Sorry. Referring to the fact that you can't deny intent to harm when the accused is god of malice, or "intent to harm". Just a litle joke, didn't mean anything by it.

Murrin wrote:

Loremaster wrote:

Murrin wrote:Grammatically, it seems you're undefendable.

Eh?

Hehe. Sorry. Referring to the fact that you can't deny intent to harm when the accused is god of malice, or "intent to harm". Just a litle joke, didn't mean anything by it.

Oh no I wasn't annoyed - just wasn't sure what you meant.

I was annoyed.