Question: Are there ANY gods that could be considered wholly 'good' by today's modern standards and definitions, or are they all just giant dicks?
Well, this is really an unanswerable question, because there's no such thing as "today's modern standards" as an umbrella term. Different cultures worldwide have very different ideas of what is and is not morally okay, and since we do not yet live in the Utopia of Earth (come on, Star Trek, hurry up and happen already!), there's no universal constant or definition for good and evil. Some countries consider killing in any form completely immoral and abhorrent; others, including the United States, still practice capital punishment. Some religions consider balance in all things to be necessary to life, and others strictly prohibit some behaviors and pleasures in pursuit of righteousness. Some parts of the world think of circumcision (for either sex) as a horrifying mutilation of children, and others merrily continue with it as an institutionalized and ubiquitous practice. Even within the same society, there are still vast differences and arguments on these and many more subjects, and without the distance and focus of being able to look back at history, we can't make too many generalizations about what "modern people" think is right and wrong. (Well, not without probably being inaccurate, anyway.)
I think you're mostly asking about the basics - are there any gods who don't indulge in things like murder, rape, theft, coercion, treason or assault? And the answer is sure, there are definitely a few, including Guanyin of China and most of the Yazata of Persia. But even they could be argued by some to be not wholly good; are the Yazata really good when their religious fanaticism leads them to label an entire other race as evil demons? Is Guanyin truly good when she offers enlightenment and compassion but doesn't use her divine powers to actually ease anyone's material suffering since she wants them to learn from and escape it? Different people are going to come up with different answers. Morality, in history as well as now, is always a continuum of grey that every person sees in different shades.
As a generality, the overwhelming majority of gods are, as you put it, giant dicks. That doesn't mean their people thought of them that way, but rather that they came from cultures with radically different values and morals than we may be familiar with or willing to accept. And even within those cultures, often they're giant dicks - see Odin and Loki, Yam and Baal, Set and Horus, or any other gods that intentionally do things they know are not okay for their own ends. These aren't the omnipotent, all-loving gods of the monotheistic religions; they are personalities, and like every personality, they don't always make the best choice they could.
Basically, ancient gods were generally conceived of by their worshipers as people - giant people, incredibly powerful people, awesome and beyond comprehension people, but people nonetheless. And, just like their own mortal worshipers for whom they functioned as giant mirrors, they made bad decisions, acted out of selfishness or greed or anger, turned to violence, refused to consider the feelings of others, and every other sin most of us commit at some point in our lives. Like humans, they are never "wholly good", because like humans they have emotions and desires and motivations that don't always lead to perfection. From an ancient perspective, they could be nothing else - how could they represent and control a whole society of people who acted that way, if they did not act that way themselves? Where else did humanity learn jealousy or covetousness or wrath, if not from the gods who shaped them and their society?
So no, none of them are "wholly good". But neither are any of us, nor the Scions we play, so that's perfectly okay.
Showing posts with label morals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label morals. Show all posts
Thursday, August 29, 2013
Monday, August 5, 2013
Our PCs Hate These People
Question: How do you handle Hod in your games? Does he come up? Is he the'elephant in the room no one talks about or what? Does he hate Baldur? Also, how does Odin get along with his various children? Does he have a soft spot for them, or is he a king first and a father second?
Aww, Hod! Hod has actually appeared as a major character in our games, thanks to both Geoff Matheson's and Aurora Dahl's bands being heavily involved in Ragnarok and the events leading up to it. If you're interested in reading some of our interactions with Hod "live", so to speak, there are stories involving Geoff's interactions with him here and here, and detailing Aurora's relationship with him here and here.
But if you're not into our stories, that's cool, we'll talk about Hod here, too! The Scion books do a really weird number on Hod, from trying to suggest that he wants to kill Baldur to demanding that Aesir Scions who don't try to kill him roll Loyalty (what? that's the exact opposite of Loyalty, dudes!). We have many opinions, because when do we not?
First of all, prior to Ragnarok, Hod is certainly around, though in what dimension is entirely up to the Storyteller. He may know he's destined to kill his brother, but until that time he hasn't actually done anything and can't be punished for a crime he has yet to commit, so just like Loki is still given free run of Asgard until such time as he starts misbehaving, so is Hod still allowed to live in his homeland. In fact, he's probably more welcomed and better-treated than Loki, considering that he's a native son of Odin and Frigg, although his blindness would make him an object of pity and/or scorn for a culture that values fighting ability above most other things. In our games, once Fimbulwinter started, Hod took to hiding in the Mirkwood in the hopes that he would be trapped there and unable to kill his brother; you might decide he does something similar, or else is still in Asgard hoping to overturn his Fate or fatalistically awaiting the day it comes for him.
As for Hod's relationship with Baldur, it's a complicated one, but hatred is probably not in the cards there. It's almost literally impossible to hate Baldur, who is the epitome of lovableness and whose Ultimate Charisma and Ultimate Appearance make him impossible to ignore or dislike even a little. Even without the strong bonds of brotherhood and family, Hod would have trouble thinking nasty thoughts about Baldur, let alone actually nursing hatred of him. On the other hand, Baldur has very concretely Done Him Wrong in taking Nanna from him to be his wife; according to the story of their awesome rivalry over the goddess, she loved Hod and he successfully fought for her and defeated Baldur, but she's now married to Baldur anyway. The Norse sagas don't explain where that switcheroo happened, so you're free to draw your own conclusions; we think it's most likely that Baldur just up and used his Ultimate Mojo on her, possibly in some kind of permanent Engender Love that left Hod utterly unable to compete with him, but it's also possible that some outside agency (Loki, is that you again?) engineered it or that Nanna has motives of her own that we don't know about. Whatever happened, the fact remains that the love of Hod's life is now his brother's wife, and that's bound to put some sour raisins into the bread pudding of his emotional state. That still doesn't override either Baldur's social mastery or Hod's own Loyalty to him, but it surely makes for a confusing and upsetting relationship between them sometimes.
It's pretty well-established in Norse myth that Hod does not kill Baldur on purpose; he's tricked into doing so by Loki, for mysterious reasons that are never fully explained (theories range from "attempting to prevent Ragnarok" to "giving Odin a big fuck you" or even "matchmakng Baldur to marry his daughter"). We don't see any reason to assume Hod would want to kill him, and although he's almost certainly extremely sad and even angry over the loss of Nanna, it's not enough of a motivation to explain him suddenly deciding to take vengeance on his brother after centuries of playing nice. What Hod is doing and feeling up to Ragnarok depends on the Storyteller, but our Hod was always pretty despondent over the idea that he was going to kill Baldur and there was nothing he could do about it, and would have loved to find a way to avoid it, just like most of the Aesir are not enthused about their eventual fates.
As for Odin... well, as you all know, Odin is more than a little bit of a humongous dick. This extends to his children as well as to everyone else; you only have to look at the stories of him cheerfully punking Thor's face off in disguise or nodding sagely as Tyr gets his hand bitten off to know that. That doesn't mean he doesn't care about them, of course, but he's always been very much about his own schemes first and foremost, and everybody's welfare somewhere a distant second. He would undoubtedly want to help his kids when they need it, provided he can do so without some kind of heinous penalty, but if there's something else he needs to be doing or helping them out would be just too much of a pain in the ass, he's likely to let them figure it out themselves rather than stepping in. He's trying to simultaneously avert Ragnarok, hold onto his own power and still have time for prankship along the way; he ain't got time for your problems right now, Bragi.
Of course, if you asked him, I'm sure he would tell you that averting Ragnarok is in everyone's best interests and he is therefore constantly working to safeguard his people. It just happens to come with the delicious side benefit of himself not getting eaten by a giant wolf. He's an altruist!
Aww, Hod! Hod has actually appeared as a major character in our games, thanks to both Geoff Matheson's and Aurora Dahl's bands being heavily involved in Ragnarok and the events leading up to it. If you're interested in reading some of our interactions with Hod "live", so to speak, there are stories involving Geoff's interactions with him here and here, and detailing Aurora's relationship with him here and here.
But if you're not into our stories, that's cool, we'll talk about Hod here, too! The Scion books do a really weird number on Hod, from trying to suggest that he wants to kill Baldur to demanding that Aesir Scions who don't try to kill him roll Loyalty (what? that's the exact opposite of Loyalty, dudes!). We have many opinions, because when do we not?
First of all, prior to Ragnarok, Hod is certainly around, though in what dimension is entirely up to the Storyteller. He may know he's destined to kill his brother, but until that time he hasn't actually done anything and can't be punished for a crime he has yet to commit, so just like Loki is still given free run of Asgard until such time as he starts misbehaving, so is Hod still allowed to live in his homeland. In fact, he's probably more welcomed and better-treated than Loki, considering that he's a native son of Odin and Frigg, although his blindness would make him an object of pity and/or scorn for a culture that values fighting ability above most other things. In our games, once Fimbulwinter started, Hod took to hiding in the Mirkwood in the hopes that he would be trapped there and unable to kill his brother; you might decide he does something similar, or else is still in Asgard hoping to overturn his Fate or fatalistically awaiting the day it comes for him.
As for Hod's relationship with Baldur, it's a complicated one, but hatred is probably not in the cards there. It's almost literally impossible to hate Baldur, who is the epitome of lovableness and whose Ultimate Charisma and Ultimate Appearance make him impossible to ignore or dislike even a little. Even without the strong bonds of brotherhood and family, Hod would have trouble thinking nasty thoughts about Baldur, let alone actually nursing hatred of him. On the other hand, Baldur has very concretely Done Him Wrong in taking Nanna from him to be his wife; according to the story of their awesome rivalry over the goddess, she loved Hod and he successfully fought for her and defeated Baldur, but she's now married to Baldur anyway. The Norse sagas don't explain where that switcheroo happened, so you're free to draw your own conclusions; we think it's most likely that Baldur just up and used his Ultimate Mojo on her, possibly in some kind of permanent Engender Love that left Hod utterly unable to compete with him, but it's also possible that some outside agency (Loki, is that you again?) engineered it or that Nanna has motives of her own that we don't know about. Whatever happened, the fact remains that the love of Hod's life is now his brother's wife, and that's bound to put some sour raisins into the bread pudding of his emotional state. That still doesn't override either Baldur's social mastery or Hod's own Loyalty to him, but it surely makes for a confusing and upsetting relationship between them sometimes.
It's pretty well-established in Norse myth that Hod does not kill Baldur on purpose; he's tricked into doing so by Loki, for mysterious reasons that are never fully explained (theories range from "attempting to prevent Ragnarok" to "giving Odin a big fuck you" or even "matchmakng Baldur to marry his daughter"). We don't see any reason to assume Hod would want to kill him, and although he's almost certainly extremely sad and even angry over the loss of Nanna, it's not enough of a motivation to explain him suddenly deciding to take vengeance on his brother after centuries of playing nice. What Hod is doing and feeling up to Ragnarok depends on the Storyteller, but our Hod was always pretty despondent over the idea that he was going to kill Baldur and there was nothing he could do about it, and would have loved to find a way to avoid it, just like most of the Aesir are not enthused about their eventual fates.
As for Odin... well, as you all know, Odin is more than a little bit of a humongous dick. This extends to his children as well as to everyone else; you only have to look at the stories of him cheerfully punking Thor's face off in disguise or nodding sagely as Tyr gets his hand bitten off to know that. That doesn't mean he doesn't care about them, of course, but he's always been very much about his own schemes first and foremost, and everybody's welfare somewhere a distant second. He would undoubtedly want to help his kids when they need it, provided he can do so without some kind of heinous penalty, but if there's something else he needs to be doing or helping them out would be just too much of a pain in the ass, he's likely to let them figure it out themselves rather than stepping in. He's trying to simultaneously avert Ragnarok, hold onto his own power and still have time for prankship along the way; he ain't got time for your problems right now, Bragi.
Of course, if you asked him, I'm sure he would tell you that averting Ragnarok is in everyone's best interests and he is therefore constantly working to safeguard his people. It just happens to come with the delicious side benefit of himself not getting eaten by a giant wolf. He's an altruist!
Thursday, August 1, 2013
Ten-Question Roulette
Here's something you guys haven't seen before - it's a magical extra bonus vlog! The question box has been blowing up lately, so in an effort to catch up a little bit, here's a ten-question smorgasbord of Scionness!
Question: What happens when someone with divine socials manages to insult the Virtues of another Scion? What takes precedence - the ichor boiling in response to the insult or the inability to hurt someone divinely likeable?
Question: For Haunted Mists, the more powerful you are, the more time you need to concentrate for the mists to gather. That doesn't make much sense to me... someone who hasn't branched out much in the Death purview can summon forth the mists much more quickly.
Question: It sounds like in many of your games, the Scions quickly become the bad guys, at least in the mortal world. Have any of your characters had the strength of will or luck to be a good guy? For instance, causing more good in the world than bad?
Question: What happens when you use two Avatars simultaneously with a multiple action? Do you combine the narrative awesome of both, or does one just fizzle?
Question: Kin-slaying is a big taboo among the Greeks, but how close does someone have to be to be considered "kin"? Could Hera contract a Scion of Hades to bump off some of Zeus' more offensive bastards without anyone receiving a visit from the Kindly Ones? Would she even go there, if she thought she could get away with it?
Question: Have you guys ever considered officially moving Goibnhiu from the Nemetondevos to the Tuatha? Or is he too minor a figure to bother moving?
Question: Are Norse dwarves immortal?
Question: How do you justify a number of boons metric when not all purviews have the same opportunity to get them? Prophecy and Stars come to mind - they both only have 1 boon per level, compared to, say, Magic, which has more boons than any other.
Question: You've mentioned a couple times that you believe that most of the Nemetondevos aren't Legend 12. Well, I just wanted to know which ones, in your opinion, are.
Question: You once mentioned a possible bestiary, but it never shows up on the voting poll. Why is that?
John is such a grumper. Fantastic at it, though.
Question: What happens when someone with divine socials manages to insult the Virtues of another Scion? What takes precedence - the ichor boiling in response to the insult or the inability to hurt someone divinely likeable?
Question: For Haunted Mists, the more powerful you are, the more time you need to concentrate for the mists to gather. That doesn't make much sense to me... someone who hasn't branched out much in the Death purview can summon forth the mists much more quickly.
Question: It sounds like in many of your games, the Scions quickly become the bad guys, at least in the mortal world. Have any of your characters had the strength of will or luck to be a good guy? For instance, causing more good in the world than bad?
Question: What happens when you use two Avatars simultaneously with a multiple action? Do you combine the narrative awesome of both, or does one just fizzle?
Question: Kin-slaying is a big taboo among the Greeks, but how close does someone have to be to be considered "kin"? Could Hera contract a Scion of Hades to bump off some of Zeus' more offensive bastards without anyone receiving a visit from the Kindly Ones? Would she even go there, if she thought she could get away with it?
Question: Have you guys ever considered officially moving Goibnhiu from the Nemetondevos to the Tuatha? Or is he too minor a figure to bother moving?
Question: Are Norse dwarves immortal?
Question: How do you justify a number of boons metric when not all purviews have the same opportunity to get them? Prophecy and Stars come to mind - they both only have 1 boon per level, compared to, say, Magic, which has more boons than any other.
Question: You've mentioned a couple times that you believe that most of the Nemetondevos aren't Legend 12. Well, I just wanted to know which ones, in your opinion, are.
Question: You once mentioned a possible bestiary, but it never shows up on the voting poll. Why is that?
John is such a grumper. Fantastic at it, though.
Saturday, July 27, 2013
Moral Sunday
Question: Hey, you guys haven't done an alignment chart for your new PCs yet. It would be awesome to see which side of good and evil they lie on.
Fun side project time! After we did the original alignment charts way back in the dawn of time, we didn't think we'd be revisiting the fun, but we have new crops of baby Scions and they run the gamut of outlooks and morals.
Here's a chart (co-ed, because there are fewer characters than in the main game universe) for Eastern Promises:
Several other characters could fill some of these roles - Akhileswar, Cassara, Darrius, Kebo, Layla and Padma are probably Neutral Good, Mohini and Haji are probably Chaotic Good, Mrs. Young is likely to be Lawful Neutral and Samuel's probably rocking the True Neutral with Paniwi.
Gangs of New York is so young that we don't have enough folks to fill out the chart yet; there's been nobody in that game who could really be considered Neutral Evil, for example. However, I'm sure they'll grow into it - they'll spread those baby Scion wings and start being evil any day.
Fun side project time! After we did the original alignment charts way back in the dawn of time, we didn't think we'd be revisiting the fun, but we have new crops of baby Scions and they run the gamut of outlooks and morals.
Here's a chart (co-ed, because there are fewer characters than in the main game universe) for Eastern Promises:
Several other characters could fill some of these roles - Akhileswar, Cassara, Darrius, Kebo, Layla and Padma are probably Neutral Good, Mohini and Haji are probably Chaotic Good, Mrs. Young is likely to be Lawful Neutral and Samuel's probably rocking the True Neutral with Paniwi.
Gangs of New York is so young that we don't have enough folks to fill out the chart yet; there's been nobody in that game who could really be considered Neutral Evil, for example. However, I'm sure they'll grow into it - they'll spread those baby Scion wings and start being evil any day.
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
Crazy Gods
Which gods do you think are not batshit nuts by our standard? I mean, the gods that would probably get along with our modern morals and ethics?
There is a big difference between batshit nuts and getting along with modern morals and ethics.
I dont think ANY gods would really be able to agree with modern morals and ethics. Their cultures were so vastly different that across the board modern ethics would be confusing.
What do you mean I cant have slaves? I defeated their city in combat!
What do you mean I cant murder that guy? He killed my dad, I get to murder him.
That guy embarrassed someone in court? Jail forever!
I often see players making the mistake of thinking that the female gods could somehow get along with modern ethics, but its only the male gods who would have "less power" by todays standards who couldnt handle it. But female gods would be just as confused by todays standards. A lot of the advances women have had in modern countries, the goddesses have had forever. Not that goddesses were always treated awesome, or even well, but they were able to speak their mind(usually) and had a much greater effect on the world around them that human women didnt have until recently.
Batshit crazy though? Thats different. Very different. I think it actually ends up depending on your own personal values. Many people find vengeance to be batshit crazy, but to a mediterranean like me.....vengeance extremity seems like a normal course of action. If someone killed my cat, I have no doubt I would hunt them with an axe. And i dont really think Im batshit crazy.
Dionysus, Tezcatlipoca, probably loki(although not in a normal batshit crazy way)...i really Im just naming chaos gods. Maybe only chaos gods are what id consider actually crazy, becuase just having that level of chaoticness is what most people consider crazy....maybe thats just cause we have too much Order bred into us.
There is a big difference between batshit nuts and getting along with modern morals and ethics.
I dont think ANY gods would really be able to agree with modern morals and ethics. Their cultures were so vastly different that across the board modern ethics would be confusing.
What do you mean I cant have slaves? I defeated their city in combat!
What do you mean I cant murder that guy? He killed my dad, I get to murder him.
That guy embarrassed someone in court? Jail forever!
I often see players making the mistake of thinking that the female gods could somehow get along with modern ethics, but its only the male gods who would have "less power" by todays standards who couldnt handle it. But female gods would be just as confused by todays standards. A lot of the advances women have had in modern countries, the goddesses have had forever. Not that goddesses were always treated awesome, or even well, but they were able to speak their mind(usually) and had a much greater effect on the world around them that human women didnt have until recently.
Batshit crazy though? Thats different. Very different. I think it actually ends up depending on your own personal values. Many people find vengeance to be batshit crazy, but to a mediterranean like me.....vengeance extremity seems like a normal course of action. If someone killed my cat, I have no doubt I would hunt them with an axe. And i dont really think Im batshit crazy.
Dionysus, Tezcatlipoca, probably loki(although not in a normal batshit crazy way)...i really Im just naming chaos gods. Maybe only chaos gods are what id consider actually crazy, becuase just having that level of chaoticness is what most people consider crazy....maybe thats just cause we have too much Order bred into us.
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
It's Tough to be Pretty
Question: Do you think people with high Epic socials often feel guilty? If you have massive Charisma, people just surrender to your opinions even if you are wrong. If you have massive Manipulation, people just agree with your well reasoned arguments even if you are wrong.
And if you have massive Appearance, their brains basically turn off. Yay! Epic socials are fun!
But as far as guilt goes, I think having the socials has nothing to do with it; it's whether or not that's a person who would normally feel guilt about railroading someone else. Some certainly do; Geoff feels like a heel pretty regularly for using his powers on others, even when it's something as innocuous as making himself a little more likeable for an important meeting or convincing his wife she likes him too much to gut him. Whether or not they feel fine about it in the moment, using Epic social powers on others means you're taking away their free will and forcing them to do something they wouldn't have without your magical influence, and most people with fairly normal morality are going to find that sketchy at the least, sometimes even if it's done for a good cause. Ethically conscious social Scions often have to grapple with the idea of their own automatic effect on others and how much of it is fair or honorable to throw around.
Of course, there's no law saying Scions (or gods) always have to be ethical by human standards, or even ethical at all. Jay Ortiz has no compunctions whatsoever about starting orgies and riots in his general vicinity, because he thinks those are good things society should be doing more, and therefore doesn't care if the people involved might have wanted not to be there; in essence, he believes that they aren't as well-equipped to make that choice as he is, so he makes it for them. Gods get in on that action, too - Eros is one of the most obvious examples, explicitly causing feelings in others that they might never have had (or wanted to have) on their own. Then there are the gods who don't really think about their social powers or realize that some might think they're being unfair (Baldur never feels guilty about using his Epic socials, because in Baldur's world, everyone loving him and doing whatever he wants is the natural order of things), and of course there are the ones who straight up don't care about other people very much and could not give less of a damn whether they wanted to be mind-whammied today as long as it gets them what they want.
And characters aren't static; they grow, which means their outlooks might change over time. Our prime example is Goze, who as a young demigod had no issue sacrificing other peoples' lives for his own or manipulating them for his own amusement, but who, after being shown what an almighty douchebag he was becoming, repented and became the king of guilt and remorse. A character who believes that social powers shouldn't be used to obviate free will might see that ideal erode as things force her to make difficult choices; a character who looks out for number one might experience a change of heart if doing so causes someone or something they care about to suffer.
Honestly, asking this question is a bit like asking if heavily physical characters ever feel guilty when they beat up or kill things. If they're classically good people, then yes, probably. If they have skewed outlooks or believe it's for the greater good, maybe less so. If they don't care about other living things much, they can sleep just fine after spreading their entrails all over a city block. It depends entirely on the character, how they use their powers and what consequences result from those actions.
And if you have massive Appearance, their brains basically turn off. Yay! Epic socials are fun!
But as far as guilt goes, I think having the socials has nothing to do with it; it's whether or not that's a person who would normally feel guilt about railroading someone else. Some certainly do; Geoff feels like a heel pretty regularly for using his powers on others, even when it's something as innocuous as making himself a little more likeable for an important meeting or convincing his wife she likes him too much to gut him. Whether or not they feel fine about it in the moment, using Epic social powers on others means you're taking away their free will and forcing them to do something they wouldn't have without your magical influence, and most people with fairly normal morality are going to find that sketchy at the least, sometimes even if it's done for a good cause. Ethically conscious social Scions often have to grapple with the idea of their own automatic effect on others and how much of it is fair or honorable to throw around.
Of course, there's no law saying Scions (or gods) always have to be ethical by human standards, or even ethical at all. Jay Ortiz has no compunctions whatsoever about starting orgies and riots in his general vicinity, because he thinks those are good things society should be doing more, and therefore doesn't care if the people involved might have wanted not to be there; in essence, he believes that they aren't as well-equipped to make that choice as he is, so he makes it for them. Gods get in on that action, too - Eros is one of the most obvious examples, explicitly causing feelings in others that they might never have had (or wanted to have) on their own. Then there are the gods who don't really think about their social powers or realize that some might think they're being unfair (Baldur never feels guilty about using his Epic socials, because in Baldur's world, everyone loving him and doing whatever he wants is the natural order of things), and of course there are the ones who straight up don't care about other people very much and could not give less of a damn whether they wanted to be mind-whammied today as long as it gets them what they want.
And characters aren't static; they grow, which means their outlooks might change over time. Our prime example is Goze, who as a young demigod had no issue sacrificing other peoples' lives for his own or manipulating them for his own amusement, but who, after being shown what an almighty douchebag he was becoming, repented and became the king of guilt and remorse. A character who believes that social powers shouldn't be used to obviate free will might see that ideal erode as things force her to make difficult choices; a character who looks out for number one might experience a change of heart if doing so causes someone or something they care about to suffer.
Honestly, asking this question is a bit like asking if heavily physical characters ever feel guilty when they beat up or kill things. If they're classically good people, then yes, probably. If they have skewed outlooks or believe it's for the greater good, maybe less so. If they don't care about other living things much, they can sleep just fine after spreading their entrails all over a city block. It depends entirely on the character, how they use their powers and what consequences result from those actions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)