Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Amphitheater > The Colosseum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-24-2010, 04:13 AM
chunksmediocrites's Avatar
chunksmediocrites chunksmediocrites is offline
ne plus ultraviolet
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Portland Oregon USA
Gender: Male
Posts: MVCMLXXXIV
Images: 295
Default D&D Paladin and code of conduct problems

I'm trying to figure out how to fairly DM and gracefully play the paladin character class in D&D, specifically 3e, and hoping to bounce some ideas off the gamers here and get some feedback that can help me do right by the group I'm in.

The description for Code of Conduct:
Quote:
Originally Posted by D&D Player's Handbook 3rd Ed., pg 43
A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all special class abilities if she ever willingly commits an act of evil. Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, etc.), help those who need help (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those that harm or threaten innocents.
At least one individual (Grumblin' Grognard, in his many-part dissection of the paladin in RPG and history generally) points out that the use of the word [punish] in the final sentence may be an important distinction.
Quote:
The last thing I want to mention is the code of conduct. I actually think it is significant that the code of conduct is specifically called out. The items called out are similar to what was in the first edition version, but there are a couple of slight differences. The one that I want to bring up is, “…punish those who harm or threaten innocents.” Punishment is an interesting term. There is an element of judgment associated to punishment. When I say judgment, I do not mean a subjective judgment, but rather a judgment that comes from a authority to judge, and that means there is a legitimacy to it. This implies that the paladin is authorized to judge and issue out judgments that are legitimate. This is very similar to the power that a commanding officer or a captain of a ship would have. Both have authority to issue out judgments that are legal and binding. Punishment is very different from mercy. Punishment is punitive in nature. Forgiveness and redemption are not apart of punishment. While the text does not give examples of what punishments are appropriate, there is an implied tone of what this really means in the dungeon environment.
Grumblin' Grognard likes this code out of Castles and Crusades that he discusses here, along with D&D4e, for which he is not so hot.

Some questions I want to resolve:
-how do you handle evil creatures that surrender?
-how do you delineate between helping the weak/ helpless and vanquishing evil, when some or all of the weak/ helpless are evil?
-how do you determine sincere recanting of evil ways? Would an alignment check then show that? Having them say so in the presence of a candle of truth or zone of truth?

Part of the difficulty I have is putting my head into a world so different from our own; in this world, sentient non-human races are born or trend to evil with very high probability; numerous sentient races want to enslave, eat, torture, sacrifice, and/ or destroy good (or all) humans and other usually good-aligned races; deities are not only worshipped but actually exist and manifest; and magic can be used to determine with extremely high reliability the state of a being's alignment and veracity of statements.

Here's another code example that is pretty close to the D&D 3e code;


And here is another, that addresses the idea of a code in an absolute universe:
Quote:
"Make no mistake, faithful paladins and devout clerics: this is a war, and you are soldiers in that war. The sides are arrayed, and the battle-lines are clearly drawn. It is a war of good against evil, of light against darkness. Your duties in that war are clear, and your code of conduct is well delineated. There are certain forces in this universe, absolute forces of good and evil; and some creatures are born intrinsically allied with those ontological powers. Indeed, the universe itself seems to be made up of three ethical substances: good, evil, and the unaligned substance. Some creatures seem, indeed, to be spawned from those powers, and their souls are colored through and through with them.
...>snip<...
Your role, then, is clear: you must slay with no compunction creatures such as demons that are intrinsically allied with evil. Have no concern for their appearance or what they profess their intentions to be. Have no concern for their race, age, or gender. Certain creatures are our eternal and definite enemies and they must be destroyed if goodness is to win our ancient war. A list of creatures that have been identified over the centuries as irreparably evil by nature is held in the sacred Book of Heshtail in St. Quentin's Church and is to be memorized. Other creatures are not quite fully evil by nature but have a strong attraction towards evil, have evil tendencies, and nearly invariably choose evil when given the option between it and our holy and pious ethical outlook. Your duty towards these creatures, such as orcs and goblinoids, is hardly less certain. You need to dispatch them if they do not immediately surrender and throw down their weapons. Show them no mercy, for they are foot soldiers of the enemy in our cosmic war. Pay no heed to their gender or age, either. The correctness of this dictum has been born out through the use of many divination spells as well as the fact that many paladins have lived by this code of conduct throughout the ages and have retained their holy status. Finally, certain creatures have no clear transcendental ethical alliance and are as likely to choose goodness as evil. Creatures like this, such as humans, are not to be slain, but are to be judged by their actions first. They need to be given opportunity to surrender and indeed to change their ways. Proselytization here is imperative, for these creatures have the potential to become staunch allies if their societies and cultures can be influenced to revere the law and goodness that the Lord Heshtail embodies.
The metagame notes on the same page are worth looking at as well:
Quote:
The Farland universe is a universe that is not at all relative. In a sense it is a cross between Zoroastrianism and Platonism as laid out in the works of Plotinus, with actual Forms of Goodness and Evil extant. When this cosmology is used to outline a paladin and lawful good clerical code of ethics, the player can expect that the enemies of his church have been well documented over the years. It has certainly been noted when and why paladins have fallen from grace, and the ample use of detect evil and divination spells, as well as plane travel, have revealed creatures that are evil and thus enemies of the church. These are ontological enemies and are to be destroyed. This couldn't be clearer: paladin PCs are always to slay all members of an intrinsically evil race, regardless of whether or not they are children of the race. A monster that is not from one of the Greater Planes does not have an intrinsic alignment, but unfortunate statistics dictate that the paladin will often end up slaying this creature, but the paladin is first to give the creature the benefit of the doubt, help it if it is in need, and give it every opportunity to ally itself with the lawful good transcendental forces of the universe. The paladin should only slay these creatures if they express an overt and immediate inclination to do real evil, which unfortunately it seems they will frequently do.

The objection to this point, of course, will be that there is no real distinction between good or evil in this cosmology. Both creatures slay the others, and both slay children. This is not, however, the case. Good creatures are good because they ally themselves with objects, creatures, methods, and techniques that are ontologically good, holy, and pious. They revere charity towards the poor. They do not lie. They never employ torture or poison, no matter the circumstances. They are good because there is a real, concrete goodness in the universe with which they choose to align themselves.
This was kind of my conclusion in looking at the D&D world, though now I am less certain. I thought that a paladin is basically an agent of a deity, literally "on a mission from God", whose ideology is clearly delineated: evil is to be destroyed. Detect evil, smite, sleep the sleep of the just. Given the power to determine guilt or innocence and pass sentence, including death. It is disconcerting for me to hold this position because I start saying things that could as easily come out of a neocon rant, the most dogmatic theological views, or Judge Dredd (though fellow players argue Judge Dredd is more lawful neutral).

Other players have argued that good-aligned means that one values life as a core principle. The analogy used was a figure like the Dalai Lama or some other theological agent whose code of conduct almost entirely forbids the taking of life, especially sentient life. It was argued as well that a lawful good being would not execute a prisoner in any circumstance, nor execute a sentient being because of evil they might do in the future (here again in the real world it gets uncomfortable- actions smacking of Orwellian detention/ execution against potential future crimes). Banishment was offered as a possible solution as punishment for evil.

The other consideration with prisoners and punishment is how such functions in a medieval (albeit magical and fantasy) setting. Fines, weregild, pillories, sold into bondage (for those without the ability to pay fines), stocks, public humiliation; cutting off ear(s), hand(s), cutting off digits, cutting off or slitting the tongue or nose; branding, shaving of the head, banishment (for the powerful, usually), or execution seem as much a possible as imprisonment; imprisonment which was as likely (for the poor or powerless) to be in conditions encouraging disease, starvation or a diet missing nutritional basics, madness, withering, and death.

Additionally, the question also arises, What Would [Your Deity's Name Here] Do? I think it is fair to say there can be some leeway between a paladin for a god of valor, law, and war, and a god of the Sun, healing, and strength, or even between paladins of the same order but different personalities.


So what is a paladin to do? Here are scenarios we ran into, though the first two did not have paladins present.
Scenario one:
Your party just defeated a dragon. The dragon was using dark magic to give itself power through the slaying of weak and emaciated humanoid prisoners that are in cells around the perimeter of the cavern. Freeing the four remaining living prisoners, you discover one of the prisoners is a drow. The drow indicates primarily her interest in leaving your company as soon as possible, and is not acting aggressively.

Drow are listed as usually neutral evil alignment. Usually is defined as the majority of the race (more than 50%). Go a step further: detect evil reveals: evil.

What if this being was a race listed as always evil, rather than usually?

Scenario two:
Your party has tracked the kobolds back to their caverns. The kobolds had been capturing human woodcutters, most likely for food or enslavement- (the kobold males appear similarly enslaved). Kobolds: usually lawful evil. Your party slays the kobold males in combat, and then encounters a group of kobold non-combatants- sub-adults, pregnant females, etc. They are freaked out and huddled defensively but are not attacking your party.

Scenario three:
Your party was beset by a floating 40' disk-shaped platform, that lowered slavering monsters to battle your party while wealthy and majority evil humanoids watch from luxury above. After destroying the monsters and killing most of the disk crew (some of the carnage voyeurs escape through a magic portal), you end up with an unconscious human sorcerer. The sorcerer had attacked your party, is part of the disk crew; you also discover the platform is powered by drawing life-force from prisoners (some of good or neutral alignment) that are drugged and unconscious in the hold of the platform.

A question I asked here also was, what if the sorcerer wasn't human, but rather a ogre-mage? Or a demon?

Sorry that's kind of long, but I am really interested in some more viewpoints to help me with the game mechanics and the headspace for playing and DM-ing a paladin; this may include not thinking about it so much!
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Crumb (02-24-2010)
  #2  
Old 02-24-2010, 04:20 AM
Deadlokd's Avatar
Deadlokd Deadlokd is offline
Not as smart as Adam
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Queensland
Gender: Male
Posts: MXCCXXIX
Images: 21
Default Re: D&D Paladin and code of conduct problems

You cannot kill Drizzt Do'Urden. :glare:
__________________
Don't pray in my school and I won't think in your church.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
chunksmediocrites (02-24-2010), Crumb (02-24-2010), Stormlight (02-24-2010)
  #3  
Old 02-24-2010, 04:50 AM
Nightson's Avatar
Nightson Nightson is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: California
Posts: MCCCLXXIX
Default Re: D&D Paladin and code of conduct problems

My response to this hasn't changed over the years. Objective alignment crumbles when actually looked at closely. If people could decide what good meant in a roleplaying game they'd be able to decide what it meant in real life.

The paladin's code is probably the worst part of the mess that is alignment. Whether you get punished for killing the prisoners basically boils down to whether the DM thinks it's evil or not. And that's the big flaw of a mechanical alignment system. The DM is the ruler of the system what good an evil are flow naturally from what he thinks they are, even if the players have radically different moral system.

The grognard article likes to bash on the 4e paladin, but what he totally fails to mention is why those changes were made. If you wanted to play a paladin in 3.5 you had a single archetype, the flavor is built into the class. You are a good to the tenth power person, you have a code of conduct and you lose your powers if you do anything bad, you can't associate with evil people, you have a big shiny mount.

And now all of a sudden it's stripped away. Oh no, now you can't play that paladin! But of course, you can still play that archetype if you want, you can be the goody two shoes party conscience, I would know, I'm playing one in a campaign right now. But it also frees up other archetypes. Paladins who crusade for something other then lawful good morality, ones who are a bit more pragmatic, a paladin who can cheat on his wife.

So in short, ditch alignment. Let the players worry about what to do in scenarios like that and let the world respond like the world. Some people will be horrified, some people will think those drow got what they deserved, some people will think it's sad but it was for the best. An objective alignment system says you have to pick one of those viewpoints to be the absolute truth of the universe. There's no arguing, because the universe will actively show and tell you what is right and what is wrong if you spend a moment consulting a Phylactery of Faithfulness

And that's really without even touching on the law vs. chaos aspect of alignment. Which I could rant about even longer.
__________________
We all carry within us our places of exile, our crimes and our ravages. But our task is not to unleash them on the world; it is to fight them in ourselves and in others. ~Albert Camus
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Adam (02-24-2010), chunksmediocrites (02-24-2010), Crumb (02-24-2010), Kael (02-24-2010), Megatron (02-24-2010), Stormlight (02-24-2010)
  #4  
Old 02-24-2010, 04:54 AM
Kael's Avatar
Kael Kael is offline
the internet says I'm right
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Western U.S.
Gender: Male
Posts: VMCDXLIV
Blog Entries: 11
Images: 23
Default Re: D&D Paladin and code of conduct problems

I find that in an actual game setting, the most important thing is to be consistent. Since D&D takes place in a world where morality is truly objective, you need to be willing to make calls on whether an action is good/evil/neutral and willing to stick with those calls. Because in such a universe that wouldn't change. Ever. So, if you decide that a creature being helpless ranks higher moral consideration than it being evil, just stick with it. If you decide the other way, that's fine too, just stick with it. Some player input is good, like if one of the players would be uncomfortable playing or grouping with a character who killed (evil) prisoners in cold blood, then it might be prudent to rule that killing helpless creatures outweighs whatever alignment considerations there are.

So, group dynamics should be considered as you lay down these rules, but in a typical D&D setting they wouldn't change, and the only time a player or character would have a moral quandary would be in situations they've never encountered before.

To take your first example, the first time a character or party rescued helpless prisoners of evil races or alignments, the paladin might ask for divine guidance to show him if it would be good or bad to slay them, or otherwise harm them, when they are helpless. Or he might simply choose one and find out in the aftermath whether it was good or bad. The point is, from then on he knows whether he is doing a good thing when he kills helpless or imprisoned creatures of evil races or alignments. Every time he encounters one after that he knows what to do, and the same action should not change its moral impact.

It's a bit like Kant's Categorical Imperative, actually. I found a write-up once of a Kantian Paladin that was pretty funny and interesting, including the argument that it is a purely good act to slay evil creatures regardless of the context, as not only were you removing them from the world and preventing any more evil they might perpetrate, but you were hastening them to their afterlife where, in the D&D world anyway, evil is rewarded for being evil just as good is rewarded for being good.

Of course some in your group may not want to play a game like that, but as I said the important thing is to stick with it. Though it may differ from Kant's philosophy in that the good/bad nature of an act may be decided on one way or the other as you see fit, just like his philosophy it would remain unchanging regardless of context.

That's my opinion on running Paladins and other divine servants in a typical D&D setting anyway. This is a really fun topic to discuss, though.
__________________
For Science!
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Adam (02-24-2010), chunksmediocrites (02-24-2010), Crumb (02-24-2010)
  #5  
Old 02-24-2010, 04:59 AM
Kael's Avatar
Kael Kael is offline
the internet says I'm right
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Western U.S.
Gender: Male
Posts: VMCDXLIV
Blog Entries: 11
Images: 23
Default Re: D&D Paladin and code of conduct problems

Oh, I should add that I also completely agree with Nightson. My post was made under the assumption that the campaign would be primarily by-the-book 3.5, and in such a case that's the way I do it.

I prefer to muddle with/do away with the alignment system wherever possible, though, and I love settings and custom rules for Paladins of alignments other than Lawful Good.

One thing I like to do in settings where I want to keep (mostly) objective morality, but keep the difficult decision-making aspect of subjective morality is to rule that beings native to the Prime Material Plane are immune/unreadable/unaffected by any alignment-based magic, including detects, circles, etc. That way, alignment and morality are still absolute, but your Paladin can't go into town, throw down a Detect Evil and start slaying people right and left and be perfectly right in doing so.
__________________
For Science!
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Adam (02-24-2010), chunksmediocrites (02-24-2010)
  #6  
Old 02-24-2010, 05:00 AM
Brimshack's Avatar
Brimshack Brimshack is offline
Northier Than Thou
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: There
Posts: MMMCCCXCIII
Blog Entries: 4
Images: 44
Default Re: D&D Paladin and code of conduct problems

Ultimately, I think this is your decision, and I think the basis for the decision boils down to what kind of world do you want to make and what kind of sandbox you want your players to play in.

If you want, first edition D&D and the 'absolute' codes you list provide the rationale for an approach that ties the significance of n action to the nature of the participants. I don't see this as absolute so much as essentialist. It is the ethics of mythology, and for that matter of professional wrestling. A good creature is not good because of how they act; they act good (usually) because they are good, and visa versa with evil. In an absolute world killing a baby would be wrong even if it was an orc baby. But in this world, the orc baby is evil by definition and hence can be slain as you see fit.

One advantage to this approach is that it's usually pretty easy for players to grasp and can minimize the potential for player-GM conflict over the morality of their own characters.

One disadvantage, for me at any rate, is that it reminds me too much of the behavior of people I do not consider good at all. It reminds me too much of the way white folks enslaved Africans and slew Indians, all the while congratulating themselves on their own moral superiority. This approach takes social manicheanism and validates it with a metaphysics of its own. For me, anyway, it strains against my ability to suspend disbelief. I can see it is just a fiction, and it works in the logic of the game, but it's a logic I have spent an awful lot of time fighting in other contexts, and at the end of the day, it's a logic I do not wish to play at. I'd rather play an outright self-professed evil than a good who may kill a creature that hasn't done anything wrong. It isn't that I lose sight of the fact that it's just a game; it's that for me the game stops being fun when it mirrors too closely the logic of Colonel Chivington. Mind you, I'm happy to have a Chivington in my games, but on the sheet, he will be listed as Chaotic Evil, and that is how such behavior will be interpreted.

Alternatively, and especially in keeping with 3.5s penchant for naming most monsters as "usually..." rather than "always", you could maintain that where such doubt exists, at least in those instances a Paladin ought to show compassion and give those creatures a chance. This involves an assumption of risk, but then again so does the decision to refrain from lying, etc. The Paladin would then be limited in her punishment to those who have actually done something wrong. (I also tend to think that an interpretation of punishment that does NOT contradict the value of life ought to be preferable to one that simply overrides it, as the Grognard's interpretation does.)

Caveat: I believe I am in the minority in this approach, though I also find that an awful lot of players want to run Paladin's without actually observing any moral restrictions. They will have their Paladin lie, cheat, ambush, backstab, etc. The mere suggestion that a Paladin would not do such things counts as 'lawful stupid' to many a D&D player. To me the code of conduct is part of the cost of the Paladin's abilities. It isn't stupid to refrain from such things. Doing so is the very source of his power. It is what makes him superior (in his view, and more importantly, in the view of his God) to the mundane characters around him.

Caveat II: Whatever your approach, make very sure the players know your position in advance so they will not be surprised when issues come up.

I've never understood the mindset of the average player when it comes to that class.

Last point, I think some of the problems associated with Paladin ethics stem from an the abstract nature of goodness, which is why in my home-brew I tried to break it down into more specific values. Players start with concrete values such as compassion, honesty, justice, honor, generosity, protection, and there may be a few that I forgot. How a "Paladin" would treat an apparently innocent creature with evil qualities (i.e. one with evil moral values that hasn't actually done anything wrong as far as the Paladin knows) depends at least partly on what values she actually has. If she possesses and honesty and generosity, then she very well might, but if she also has compassion, then the answer is no. It's not a perfect resolution, but it works for me.
__________________
"...because everyone is ugly as sin, when you rip away their skin."

:germany: :tx: :co: :ca: :wy: :nv: :il: :navajonation: :az: :tx: :ak:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Adam (02-24-2010), chunksmediocrites (02-24-2010), Crumb (02-24-2010), Kael (02-24-2010)
  #7  
Old 02-24-2010, 05:17 AM
Kael's Avatar
Kael Kael is offline
the internet says I'm right
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Western U.S.
Gender: Male
Posts: VMCDXLIV
Blog Entries: 11
Images: 23
Default Re: D&D Paladin and code of conduct problems

Oh, one homebrew idea I just remembered that I liked a lot, though it requires a bit more bookkeeping.

Paladins could be any alignment and worship any god, but the price for their powers were specific oaths to refrain from or participate in specific actions whenever possible, such as an oath to never lie, or an oath to never show mercy in combat.

The more powerful you got the more oaths you had to take and keep to maintain that divine power. I liked the idea so much I started working on applying it to all my divine classes, with each deity supporting specific oaths in keeping with their alignment and dogma.
__________________
For Science!
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Adam (02-24-2010), chunksmediocrites (02-24-2010), Crumb (02-24-2010)
  #8  
Old 02-24-2010, 03:09 PM
Adam's Avatar
Adam Adam is offline
Vice Cobra Assistant Commander
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Indianapolis, IN, USA
Posts: XMVDCCXLIX
Images: 29
Default Re: D&D Paladin and code of conduct problems

I'm more or less on the same page as Nightson. One of the 4e changes I actually liked was the fact that paladins now canonically function the way I've always treated them. They don't have some vague allegiance to a poorly defined notion of objective goodness, they have allegiance to a particular deity, and are responsible for upholding that deity's ideals, whatever they may be.

The notion that the alignment system represented an objectively valid moral system always bothered me. Either you end up in a situation where, since morality is part of the fabric of the world, DM fiat determines what is right and wrong, or else you end up with a situation where good and evil are just team names. It makes more sense to me to have the DM telling the players, not what is objectively and inarguably right and wrong but, rather, what, say, Pelor thinks is right and wrong.
__________________
"Trans Am Jesus" is "what hanged me"
ARMORED HOT DOG
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
chunksmediocrites (02-24-2010), Crumb (02-24-2010)
  #9  
Old 02-24-2010, 06:42 PM
Crumb's Avatar
Crumb Crumb is offline
Cmurb!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Cascadia
Gender: Male
Posts: LVMMMDLV
Blog Entries: 22
Images: 355
Default Re: D&D Paladin and code of conduct problems

Quote:
Originally Posted by chunks
Scenario one:
Your party just defeated a dragon. The dragon was using dark magic to give itself power through the slaying of weak and emaciated humanoid prisoners that are in cells around the perimeter of the cavern. Freeing the four remaining living prisoners, you discover one of the prisoners is a drow. The drow indicates primarily her interest in leaving your company as soon as possible, and is not acting aggressively.

Drow are listed as usually neutral evil alignment. Usually is defined as the majority of the race (more than 50%). Go a step further: detect evil reveals: evil.

What if this being was a race listed as always evil, rather than usually?

Scenario two:
Your party has tracked the kobolds back to their caverns. The kobolds had been capturing human woodcutters, most likely for food or enslavement- (the kobold males appear similarly enslaved). Kobolds: usually lawful evil. Your party slays the kobold males in combat, and then encounters a group of kobold non-combatants- sub-adults, pregnant females, etc. They are freaked out and huddled defensively but are not attacking your party.

Scenario three:
Your party was beset by a floating 40' disk-shaped platform, that lowered slavering monsters to battle your party while wealthy and majority evil humanoids watch from luxury above. After destroying the monsters and killing most of the disk crew (some of the carnage voyeurs escape through a magic portal), you end up with an unconscious human sorcerer. The sorcerer had attacked your party, is part of the disk crew; you also discover the platform is powered by drawing life-force from prisoners (some of good or neutral alignment) that are drugged and unconscious in the hold of the platform.
These scenarios seem oddly familiar to me... :chin:

I think that the only important opinion on what is good or evil for a paladin is the god granting the powers. So you can have different gods have different standards of behavior. So two paladins following two different gods (even if they are both LG) may have different rules to follow. So one god can demand a crusade against all evil while the other can be concerned with the ethical treatment of prisoners and the helpless even if they are evil aligned.

Just be sure that the paladins have a way of figuring out what their gods expect of them. :wink:
__________________
:joecool2: :cascadia: :ROR: :portland: :joecool2:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
chunksmediocrites (02-24-2010)
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Amphitheater > The Colosseum


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.46492 seconds with 15 queries