What would you want in your quasi-lich tomb?

[Milodiah]

So, the PCs are closing in on the resting place of the dungeon's owner. Enemies defeated, puzzles solved, treasure hoarded. The only thing left to do now is enter the inner sanctum of the BBEG.

Only he's not dead. He's a necromancer who has entered a state of undeath (not lichdom, I'm using Necropolitan template, but that's somewhat irrelevant), and has been down here for the last thirty-some odd years, entertaining himself mostly by painting murals all over the dungeon and doing applied research into the fields of necromancy. So, the question is...what all does he have in there to keep himself sane for decades, if not centuries?

I mean, he doesn't have needs, per se...he really could just stand there for all that time, since he doesn't have to sleep, eat, go to the bathroom, etc. But this dude was a culturally refined lieutenant of a very powerful wizard general, and although this crypt was built more or less near the frontlines by his former troops while the evil army's luck is turning, it's still no doubt going to be highly luxurious and well-furnished.

So, I suppose I'm here for interior decorating tips. What all should I give this fellow in his private chamber(s) to make it really feel like they were built to accommodate him for decades on end?

[Abd al-Azrad]

The trapped souls of my most hated foes, built into animated statues which defend my keep.

See, after a while, "defeated hated foe" is basically the closest thing I can imagine a powerful necromancer has to friends. So this is less about creepy revenge, and more about keeping around company which can provide me an occasional intellectual challenge. And gloating rights, of course.

[OldTrees1]

A shrine to their patron god.
A place for guests complete with amenities for any living guests.
A way in and out independent of distance.
1 shelf per decade of books.

[Yogibear41]

Reanimate Intelligent Undead Play Checkers/Chess for eternity. Ha Ha

[atemu1234]

Skeletal Humans (Humans with Skeletal Template) Bards with ranks in Perform (Song & Dance).

Spooky scary skeletons/send shivers down your spine...

[DruidAlanon]

An undead cohort- undead Bard/grey jester to keep him entertained (playing the Bagpipes of the Damned among other instruments), a slaymate and his undead companion.

Also, a personal (and useless) collection of undead grafts, a collection of old necromancy/fiction/tales books, a (moderate?- depending on you party's average level) collection of positoxins and other alchemical substances (maybe trophies from previous adventurers).

Consider having a Brain in the Jar as well (or an unfinished brain in the jar if you think it's too much for your party), some Raiments walking arround and an Entomber for the dirty tasks (he can even clean, wash clothes, etc).

[Zakerst]

So much black sand (Sandstorm) and a rake (think a zen garden of undeath), even better make it black shape sand.
Some way out of there, he's gonna need more spell components some time (though flesh can be made with wall of stone -> stone to flesh)
Some other(s) to talk to even if they're not physically there, ghosts might be good?

[drack]

The trapped souls of my most hated foes, built into animated statues which defend my keep.

See, after a while, "defeated hated foe" is basically the closest thing I can imagine a powerful necromancer has to friends. So this is less about creepy revenge, and more about keeping around company which can provide me an occasional intellectual challenge. And gloating rights, of course.

nonsense, he's got a whole army of friends... which he probably talks to... You know, if he's painting on the walls while unraveling the ever darker secrets of necromancy, I wouldn't expect him to be sane anyways... Honestly, I play plenty of insane necromancers, plenty are rather reasonable, and none chaotic (I just don't really do chaotic, insanity comes in many flavors after all.)

A shrine to their patron god.
A place for guests complete with amenities for any living guests.
A way in and out independent of distance.
1 shelf per decade of books.

Religion and books are good, but toss in a scrying orb, necromancers live much longer when they're shut ins without many relations regardless of wheather they're the good or bad sort of relations.

[Inevitability]

Seconding the 'zombie chess' idea. The PC's may even be able to avoid a fight by challenging him to a game of chess. I mean, this guy was a lieutenant, he should be at least a little interested in warfare.

Other ideas could be a scrying crystal of some sort. You have real-world people who entertain themselves by watching TV twelve hours a day, so why have him watch scrying crystal?

[drack]

Hmm, playing chess with undead hoards... I quite like that one... :smallbiggrin:

[Callin]

A Comfortable Chair to remind him of past luxuries. He sits in it to play chess, read books, feel a memory of relaxed muscles. An Effigy (bust) of himself, no mirrors though (unless he has a permanent Gentle Repose on him). Since he likes to paint; how about an easel with a half finished painting on it? It could be of the adventurers if they have been down there for a week or so. (15 min adventuring day joke)

[OldTrees1]

Religion and books are good, but toss in a scrying orb, necromancers live much longer when they're shut ins without many relations regardless of wheather they're the good or bad sort of relations.

Shut ins only live longer if they are not driven insane from lack of social contact(most liches are from social races). Plus, you could always keep the guests until they die.

[drack]

Well, first, intelligent undeads in your legion. :smalltongue: (even if they are only ghouls) then I suppose I'd point out that some people even from social races don't really need social contact, and I'd also point out, again, that insanity comes in many may flavors, some of which cause you to unleash your legions and die, but if he's still alive and scribbling on the walls chances are he's lost his sanity to the endless mysteries of undeath and, much like those "genius types" people tell stories about, he likely doesn't need any distractions from his work... his life... his unlife! :smalltongue:

Nah, but seriously, where do you even begin to classify insanity? Please don't just quote Einstein's nonsense at me....

[OldTrees1]

Well, first, intelligent undeads in your legion. :smalltongue: (even if they are only ghouls) then I suppose I'd point out that some people even from social races don't really need social contact, and I'd also point out, again, that insanity comes in many may flavors, some of which cause you to unleash your legions and die, but if he's still alive and scribbling on the walls chances are he's lost his sanity to the endless mysteries of undeath and, much like those "genius types" people tell stories about, he likely doesn't need any distractions from his work... his life... his unlife! :smalltongue:

Nah, but seriously, where do you even begin to classify insanity? Please don't just quote Einstein's nonsense at me....

Psychological studies have found that complete lack of social contact is harmful to humans. This is not contradicted by some people benefiting from little/limited social contact. Those "genius types" are remarkably good examples of limited social contact(especially in between bursts of work).

I would classify insanity as some threshold of irrational:rational thinking taking into account that rational humans do not think rationally all the time. Such would tend to slow down or ruin the necromatic works of the "lich".

[drack]

I never said beneficial, though some grow well accustomed to it. Surely you probably don't know them as that's the point of not being social or interacting, it also makes you less likely to be subjected to such studies, but surely of all the isolated prisoners and such who have virtually no human contact, a fare few of them must be quite sane, no? Heck, I could probably use a few months of being locked in a room without distractions right about now, I find it rather meditative. Now I may agree that we probably do need sensory inputs, though I wouldn't set any figure on to what extent that is.

Well then I would point out the subjective nature of rationality. What you may consider irrational or even erratic may well be a rather methodical and disciplined response, it may have all the logic in the world behind it and simply rest upon different givens. Perhaps you would find it mad and perhaps they would find you equally mad. Does your madness at present keep you from living just fine? :smalltongue: Now I very much appreciate the research our psychologists and such have preformed, but it is often not nearly so readily applicable as folks take it to be.

[Milodiah]

I'll add that he does have intelligent undead as his personal guard, in addition to all the mindless stuff the PCs have already destroyed, but they've all got Fighter or Warrior class levels. I can't help but think he'd be pining for just a minute of intelligent conversation with the two magic users in the party, since the last thirty years have been spent with rotted-meat-heads.

[OldTrees1]

I never said beneficial, though some grow well accustomed to it. Surely you probably don't know them as that's the point of not being social or interacting, it also makes you less likely to be subjected to such studies, but surely of all the isolated prisoners and such who have virtually no human contact, a fare few of them must be quite sane, no? Heck, I could probably use a few months of being locked in a room without distractions right about now, I find it rather meditative. Now I may agree that we probably do need sensory inputs, though I wouldn't set any figure on to what extent that is.
I think we are in agreement. That is why I suggested a guest room rather than a guest. So the lich could have the "few months of being locked in a room without distractions".


Well then I would point out the subjective nature of rationality. What you may consider irrational or even erratic may well be a rather methodical and disciplined response, it may have all the logic in the world behind it and simply rest upon different givens. Perhaps you would find it mad and perhaps they would find you equally mad. Does your madness at present keep you from living just fine? :smalltongue: Now I very much appreciate the research our psychologists and such have preformed, but it is often not nearly so readily applicable as folks take it to be.

If it has all the logic in the world behind it, then I would classify it as rational since I approach my definition of rational from a definition of logical validity rather than from definitions of normal or erratic.

[Milodiah]

Now that we mention it, I might as well rebuild the combat to have capturing one or two of the party for semi-enslaved dinner guests as a secondary objective.

It's a shame Enchantment is one of his barred schools, I think he'd get some weeks of entertainment out of mind-tricking the less mentally astute members of the party into believing they were in a luxurious bed and breakfast.

[drack]

I think we are in agreement. That is why I suggested a guest room rather than a guest. So the lich could have the "few months of being locked in a room without distractions".
That's me personally mate, and with the acceptance that I have to earn my bread, the lich don't, and I'd probably be fine for quite a bit longer myself. That said I'm probably a far cry from the most isolationist person. (Hey look, I'm even on the internet where billions of other people can be found!) there have been people to do so in the past, and lets be honest, that's where the stories that inspire that which inspires your beliefs stems from. Socially minded individuals contemplating how it would be to be stripped of that which comforts them so, ignoring the potential that it doesn't to those that they've witnessed choosing to leave them. Certainly there are, even now in our "developed" age, mountain men and woodland hermits. Folks who simply choose not to have any human contact.


If it has all the logic in the world behind it, then I would classify it as rational since I approach my definition of rational from a definition of logical validity rather than from definitions of normal or erratic.
lets take us a step back. A man is sitting in a padded cell and decides to start stabbing himself repeatedly in the hand with a shank that he somehow obtained. Is this rational? It meets with your definition if what you're saying here is true, yet, perhaps simply because of our societal philosophies, I fear I am left with lingering doubts that you might try arguing that stabbing ones own hand is a sign of irrational behavior or madness that the subject is experiencing as a result of his isolation.


Now that we mention it, I might as well rebuild the combat to have capturing one or two of the party for semi-enslaved dinner guests as a secondary objective.

It's a shame Enchantment is one of his barred schools, I think he'd get some weeks of entertainment out of mind-tricking the less mentally astute members of the party into believing they were in a luxurious bed and breakfast.

your call mate, I fear we've tanjented off into the philosophies of psychology and madness. :smallbiggrin:

That said, we're just debating any sort of contact, the intelligent undead should do it mate. dinner guests have a way of getting sloppy, particularly when they're murderhobos.

[OldTrees1]

lets take us a step back. A man is sitting in a padded cell and decides to start stabbing himself repeatedly in the hand with a shank that he somehow obtained. Is this rational? It meets with your definition if what you're saying here is true, yet, perhaps simply because of our societal philosophies, I fear I am left with lingering doubts that you might try arguing that stabbing ones own hand is a sign of irrational behavior or madness that the subject is experiencing as a result of his isolation.

I would have to cast Detect Thoughts (or just ask "why?") to be able to answer if the stabbing was or was not rational. If he was stabbing his hand in order to mutilate his hand then it seems like a rational means of achieving his goal. If he was stabbing his hand in order to make the _insert sports team_ win then it is probably an irrational means of achieving his goal. If his goal was to get the attention of somebody, then I suspect there were more efficient means that he was aware of and thus the means he chose was likely irrational.

[drack]

Well in the instance I had it mind his reason was more or less what we were talking about before, sensory deprivation. White padded cells are made without much in the ways of sensory inputs so inflicting harm to himself is one of the only ways to experience a true sensation, especially as it becomes harder to tell what you think from what you say and so on, pain has a way of cutting through. Now some would say he's staving off the madness, others that he's already gone mad, but remember that when viewing "insanity", you do it not from the mind of the "insane", else everyone would appear sane, for how they think makes sense to them, and people never do something they think is "wrong". (To clarify, I'm not talking about their struggles with morality, but rather with that if they thought something else was a better option or action they'd do that instead.)

This is why I went to have you define insanity, because even though you said humans are irrational creatures, I find it hard to find an instance of such behavior when one considers all associated variables. Even the man stabbing his hand to make the team win, if in the past stabbing his hand at one tempo led to a majority of red team wins, and another tempo a majority of blue team wins, then it would be "logical". After all science works like that to some extent (observation and coloration), albeit to different extents in different fields, and the manufacturing industry to a much larger degree. In fact in any instance in which you lack knowledge of all associated factors, or even just the major ones, one could argue it the most reliable method of seeking out the truth. We as observers however don't see this logic, nor would we necessarily make the connection even peering into the man's thoughts. Thus we may call it insanity as you just did. :smalltongue:

[OldTrees1]

In the stabbing case, with the additional information, I would say that the person is more irrational than normal because slicing was a known alternative and is more efficient.

A Telepathy(or someone that asks "why?") would indeed be able to divide thought into rational and irrational (and mixtures) by whether the reasoning was logical or "logical"(aka logically invalid). Cognitive biases and Fallacies are examples of objective divides between logically valid and logically invalid thought.

One example for Humans being partially irrational is that being more rational expends greater time and energy. Depending on the goal, at some tipping point, being more rational is an irrational choice.

PS: Your post was dense. I think I addressed everything that needed addressing.

[drack]

A Telepathy(or someone that asks "why?") would indeed be able to divide thought into rational and irrational (and mixtures) by whether the reasoning was logical or "logical"(aka logically invalid). Cognitive biases and Fallacies are examples of objective divides between logically valid and logically invalid thought.
No, generally our thoughts work on the assumption of prior knowledge of huge glomps of thought beforehand. for instance you may choose something with which your mind associates this entire conversation, and your thoughts won't really need to touch on the conversation itself at all, only that thing you associate with it making a totally irrational jump from a question regarding it to the turkey sandwich you're enjoying to the answer and the telepathy would be somewhat in the dark on the whole ordeal. Then again i suppose we'd have to flush out our telepath's abilities, it's not one of those mentally superior "I looked at you now I know everything you know" sort is it? =\ It gets wonky when they've got more then just telepathy there. I was assuming detect thoughts level where it's your surface thoughts.


One example for Humans being partially irrational is that being more rational expends greater time and energy. Depending on the goal, at some tipping point, being more rational is an irrational choice.

This is an example? Sounds rather abstract... It also seems like you're assuming that they have a good base of information to start with . People sell more fruit for more money then individually because they're selling more food so it's better and should bring them more money. We would say this is unreasonable, silly, perhaps even illogical, but the stated logic is pretty good considering that they don't know the stuff that lets you call it illogical. Thus we get into where our current societal definition requires both conformity and a standardized set of givens.

PS: Your post was dense. I think I addressed everything that needed addressing.

Sorry 'bout that.

[OldTrees1]

I was using Telepathy/Detect Thoughts in a joking manner. They would be identical to asking "Why?" enough times and getting honest answers each time.

Yes the example is abstract. It is better that way. (although it assumes less than you think)

Being unaware that a step is logically invalid does not make that step logically valid. Doing a logically invalid step as part of your reasoning makes that reasoning more irrational regardless of if you know that it was logically invalid(note I am not talking about false premises, just logically invalid steps).

No need to apologize. I was preemptively apologizing in case I missed something.

[drack]

Not only getting honest answers, truth be told plenty of folks think in totally alien ways when compared with others, it would have to get an honest answer that the listener could understand regardless as to whether or not the one answering understood it in such terms, and for it to still be completely accurate. that is accurate regardless of whether or not the answerer even knows the answer or even understands the question. :smalltongue:

But that's the thing, it's not logically invalid. That is how she sees it, but to lay it out in a way you can probably better understand, if she sells allot at once she wants to get enough money to make it a good day so she can celebrate her achievement and what not. While she doesn't notice this may mean less overall sales, it doesn't really affect her argument. It's not a case of faulty logic, just that you assume knowledge she doesn't have.

Well, I'm sure you missed some, but I'll be honest, I've had conversations like this where nobody missed anything... it was by e-mail, but they became agonizingly long to the point you really didn't want to read the next one because you'd have to reply... :smallsigh:

[OldTrees1]

People are less alien than you think. But that is besides the point since there are universal languages like math/logic.


But that's the thing, it's not logically invalid. That is how she sees it, but to lay it out in a way you can probably better understand, if she sells allot at once she wants to get enough money to make it a good day so she can celebrate her achievement and what not. While she doesn't notice this may mean less overall sales, it doesn't really affect her argument. It's not a case of faulty logic, just that you assume knowledge she doesn't have.

The great thing about math is that once you know the rules, you have all the knowledge you need to get all the knowledge you need to ... all the knowledge you need. So if she were to translate her thought process(aka her reasoning) into the universal language of math, then it would be clear if/where she made any logically invalid steps. If her goal was to increase sales, she proposed the means of pricing her entire store at what used to be the price for 1 item, and she can count, then she has all she needs to be able to deduce that her means would only achieve her ends if she was previously unable to sell even 1 item at the old deal. If she was previously able to sell at least 1 item at the old deal, then her new plan is irrational due to at least 1 logically invalid step in her reasoning. What is more, her reasoning would still have been logically invalid even if she did not have the means to know that her reasoning was logically invalid(if she couldn't count in this case).

[Bad Wolf]

I'd get some unintelligent zombies, intelligent zombies for undeath-related puns (need a hand?, I'm dead on my feet! Drop dead, and others.), and a scrying orb/Teleportation Circle to view the outside world.

And a Half-Fiend bunny familiar.

[frost890]

Well since he likes to paint, I would have a room full of old paintings. Also he needs someway to get more paint. I Would have a mirror that connects someplace in town so that he can get more supplies. "Yes lord I have the red paint you asked for and the bodies have been gath.. what you are not lord Keple. Who are you?" Also do you have a Workroom somewhere? Someplace where he can work on his army?

[drack]

People are less alien than you think. But that is besides the point since there are universal languages like math/logic.



The great thing about math is that once you know the rules, you have all the knowledge you need to get all the knowledge you need to ... all the knowledge you need. So if she were to translate her thought process(aka her reasoning) into the universal language of math, then it would be clear if/where she made any logically invalid steps. If her goal was to increase sales, she proposed the means of pricing her entire store at what used to be the price for 1 item, and she can count, then she has all she needs to be able to deduce that her means would only achieve her ends if she was previously unable to sell even 1 item at the old deal. If she was previously able to sell at least 1 item at the old deal, then her new plan is irrational due to at least 1 logically invalid step in her reasoning. What is more, her reasoning would still have been logically invalid even if she did not have the means to know that her reasoning was logically invalid(if she couldn't count in this case).
indeed, She should translate her seven live sheep plus eight diseased sheep with her five slaughtered, quartered, and shared sheep of which she gets .37 of each to decide that she owns 16.85 sheep and then run a population expansion equation on that! No, lets be real, not only is it incredibly impractical and equipped with excessive potential for such misrepresentations, but our affirmed proof of 1+1=2 ended with the conclusion that it could not be proven, but that math relied on many assumptions and some blind faith in order to function at all. Similarly our notice of other cultures coming to many of the same realizations of us doesn't not convey uniformity nor does it in any way disprove the potential of alternate "maths", for instance numerology could be considered a "math" that obeys entirely alien rules and logics to the math that I'd assume you're accustomed to, even while maintaining the same basic rules and structure.

Forgive me, we say different "logic", but what changes isn't truly the nature of rationality as we perceive it, but a differing in the base assumptions from which the system operates.

[OldTrees1]

indeed, She should translate her seven live sheep plus eight diseased sheep with her five slaughtered, quartered, and shared sheep of which she gets .37 of each to decide that she owns 16.85 sheep and then run a population expansion equation on that! No, lets be real, not only is it incredibly impractical and equipped with excessive potential for such misrepresentations, but our affirmed proof of 1+1=2 ended with the conclusion that it could not be proven, but that math relied on many assumptions and some blind faith in order to function at all. Similarly our notice of other cultures coming to many of the same realizations of us doesn't not convey uniformity nor does it in any way disprove the potential of alternate "maths", for instance numerology could be considered a "math" that obeys entirely alien rules and logics to the math that I'd assume you're accustomed to, even while maintaining the same basic rules and structure.

Forgive me, we say different "logic", but what changes isn't truly the nature of rationality as we perceive it, but a differing in the base assumptions from which the system operates.

I am having trouble parsing your disagreement. Question: Are you saying that for a math problem with the same input values, the correct answer with vary from person to person? If not, then what are you objecting to in my definition of irrational? I defined irrational to only apply to when someone goes from their inputs to their conclusion in a way that is not valid. The storekeeper example you gave (selling the entire store for the price of 1 unit in order to make more money) continues to sound like it was demonstrably invalid reasoning (aka 1+2=5) except for the rare case(nobody was buying anything before).

[Jack_Simth]

Now that we mention it, I might as well rebuild the combat to have capturing one or two of the party for semi-enslaved dinner guests as a secondary objective.

It's a shame Enchantment is one of his barred schools, I think he'd get some weeks of entertainment out of mind-tricking the less mentally astute members of the party into believing they were in a luxurious bed and breakfast.Necromancy is, ironically, one of the better "bring 'em back alive" schools.

Bestow Curse, Blindness/Deafness, Enervation (if you're careful), Ghoul Touch, Contagion, Ray of Enfeeblement, Ray of Exhaustion, Symbol of Pain, Symbol of Weakness, Waves of Exhaustion, and so on can be stacked to completely cripple someone... without killing them.

Exhaustion (from Waves of Exhaustion): -6 Str/Dex, no save, in a pretty big area.
Symbol of Weakness: 3d6 Strength Damage, Fort negates (inherited from Symbol of Death) in a pretty big area (average 10 - 18, if you rod-maximize it)
Empowered & Maximized Ray of Enfeeblement: 11+((1d6+5)/2) penalty to the target's Strength (limit str 1) to a target. Add Chain spell to taste.
Bestow Curse: -6 to a chosen ability score (Strength), with a minimum result of 1 (reach/chain to taste).

All stackable, if you ignore the silly reading that Bestow Curse / Ray of Enfeeblement mean that other causes of penalties prevent the ability score from ever going below 1.

So... a few Rod-maximized, Permanencied Symbols of Weakness (set such that all but one is constantly running), with a few undead running around to keep them from getting Rogue'd, followed by Waves of Exhaustion when the BBEG shows up. Everyone's on the ground, he picks them up, ties them to chairs, and puts them at his dining table to recover....

[Vhaidara]

The comic to the left side of your screen should be able to give you some ideas...
Scrying orb with Teevo (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0376.html) (Can't find the comic with the Teevo in it, might have only been in the books)
This (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0541.html)
Gladiator matches between undead and golems (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0548.html)

I kind of imagine the party coming up a flight of stairs, and then the stairs seal off behind them the lights come up, and they realize they're in a wrestling arena/gladiator pit and the announcer is introducing them.

[Ferronach]

Perhaps a beautiful woman suspended in sort of magical stasis?
Turns out that she is/was his wife and the reson for him becoming a necromancer. He seeks to save her from something that was about to kill her before he snapped the "stasis" field around her.

A tactical map that encompasses an entire wall. A table with a realistic representation of part of the world and a large number of animated "miniatures" to allow him to practice war tactics.

A loyal servant or one that he has forced into servitude.

A dragon skull - animated for entertainment

If he is high enough level and it wont cause a TPK, he could have a dragon bone golem that appears to be a statue until you are past it, at which point it turns around and opens a can of whoop arse on the party.

[drack]

I am having trouble parsing your disagreement. Question: Are you saying that for a math problem with the same input values, the correct answer with vary from person to person? If not, then what are you objecting to in my definition of irrational? I defined irrational to only apply to when someone goes from their inputs to their conclusion in a way that is not valid. The storekeeper example you gave (selling the entire store for the price of 1 unit in order to make more money) continues to sound like it was demonstrably invalid reasoning (aka 1+2=5) except for the rare case(nobody was buying anything before).

in part, but I'm more saying that math is a set of rules people set and manipulate and use as tools to simplify life. Not only could there be a separate "math" inconceivable to us, but there are already plenty so to speak, given a set of assumptions you make your determination be those assumptions the basics of our mathematical system such as 1+1=2 and the like or not. :smallbiggrin:


Anywho, in terms of decor, you always gotta have the half built Frankenstein monster laying about, something twice as big as the biggest thing the party fought. :smalltongue:

[OldTrees1]

in part, but I'm more saying that math is a set of rules people set and manipulate and use as tools to simplify life. Not only could there be a separate "math" inconceivable to us, but there are already plenty so to speak, given a set of assumptions you make your determination be those assumptions the basics of our mathematical system such as 1+1=2 and the like or not. :smallbiggrin:


Anywho, in terms of decor, you always gotta have the half built Frankenstein monster laying about, something twice as big as the biggest thing the party fought. :smalltongue:

If I understand correctly, then we are looking at the same things but you are 5 degrees of to Port(I am 5 degrees off to Starboard).

The half build frankenstein should also be a anatomy/necromancy study aid.

[drack]

Probably, math is a system of rules people made up and at times you need to ignore or add some, and in doing so your math no longer remains universal. :smalltongue:

Like medical preservations?