crazyroosterman
Posts: 187
7/8/2017
|
em...so I have to ask being a young wiper snapper of the tender age of 21 what the phrase 'gaslighting' means in this context?.
|
|
|
0
link
|
Diptych
Administrator
Posts: 3493
7/8/2017
|
I'll explain in PM, so as to keep the general conversation on-track.
--
Sir Frederick, the Libertarian Esotericist. Lord Hubris, the Bloody Baron.
Juniper Brown, the Ill-Fated Orphan. Esther Ellis-Hall, the Fashionable Fabian.
|
|
|
+1
link
|
Anne Auclair
Posts: 2215
7/9/2017
|
Amsfield wrote:
Feducci has promised to allow an Urchin the same opportunities as an aristocrat's scion; tell me that that was not precisely Jenny's intent with her beloved finishing school! We voted for our mayor in part because she promised to lessen the advantage a chosen few had over their peers by accident of birth, and Feducci's campaign takes this further. Even the titles handed out arbitrarily may soon be decided by the merits of skill, sweat and cunning. Tell me, who do you think will prosper when anything may be fought for: a silver-spooned fop, or those who hew their muscles with honest labour on the docks and the Urchin who has had to strive for survival all there life in the rookeries and the Flit?
One thing that has repeatedly puzzled me. How do those who contend that the Campaigner and/or Detective's programs are too ambitious think the above would even work? Titles are after all not the domain of the Mayor's office, but rather the Shuttered Palace. Could Feducci actually stop, say, his Amused Lordship from being a lord? Could he strip the Duchess of her title? The Lord Privy Councilor? The Ambassador? The Captivating Princess? That's just absurd, Her Undying Majesty would just tell the Mayor to go away and that would be the end of it. The Empress is Sovereign, Feducci is not.
Alongside the question of titles, there's also the question the very vast fortunes that the wealthy control. Feducci's program doesn't call for redistribution, so the wealthy will always have superior resources. Nor does his program call for regulation, so the wealthy will have no hindrance in bringing those superior resources to bear whenever they want. It's one thing to talk about giving the an urchin the same opportunities as, say, a wealthy child of Society. But the urchin is poor, homeless, has probably received very little education, and in all likelihood has been forced into crime or child-labor. The child of Society meanwhile has had money and good clothes, a warm home, access to education through schools and governesses, and a comfortable childhood. Growing up, the urchin will end up entering one of London's many criminal gangs or becoming a laborer or zailor in the brutal and underemployed Wolfstack workforce. The grownup child of Society will on the other hand end up joining one of London's many exclusive social clubs, meeting all the right people, and find their way to an advantageous marriage or a prosperous career. If the former urchin picks up some vices they cannot deal with, they'll probably end up homeless and unemployed, while the child of Society will be protected by their money (the woman who introduces the player-character to honey is a Honey-Sipping Heiress after all). Feducci wouldn't change any of this, because trying to make things a bit more equal through wealth redistribution is completely ruled out: Equality In Death.
Wealth influences almost everything. Even the loss of the soul, something one would initially imagine as an equalizing experience, is incredibly class bound in Fallen London. The poor sell or lose their souls to Spifers or go to wait in long lines at the Brass Embassy. If they get anything at all, if their souls aren't simply stolen, it's meager subsistence (selling our souls for bread). More Bohemian types, those who live a sort of gentile poverty, lose their souls to Devils in Infernal gin dispensaries. The extremely wealthy however are abstracted in luxurious surroundings, paid a high price, and consider it a mark of fashion or a means of boosting their careers if they work in law. The poor sell their souls to live or escape debt, the wealthy lose their souls on a whim or to get ahead. The poor are poorer for losing their souls, the wealthy more fashionable or even more successful. And if the wealthy have regrets about it, they have far greater resources to get their soul back.
This is ultimately why most people are doomed to remain where they are. But Feducci refuses to acknowledge structural forces, for him it all comes down to individual will. Hence why his first principle: All Could Rise, Most Shan't. In the past I've focused on the anti-egalitarian sentiment of the "Most Shan't," but the first part "All Could Rise" is dead wrong. Most cannot rise because there's something called a social system standing in their way, vast barriers of wealth, protection and connections that will defeat all but the most fortunate of climbers. For most people the battle is over before it has even begun. And Feducci, because he doesn't recognize this aspect of the problem, he has no plans to deal with it.
So Feducci seems to be offering a classic Missing Steps Plan:
Step 1: Feducci becomes Mayor.
Step 2: ????
Step 3: Equality of Opportunity!
It's no accident that when Feducci tries to describe his vision, he uses the language of gambling. Win big, rise high, lose all!
Feducci wrote:
What if an urchin could rise to the same heights as a Governor's son? And then - What if he could lose all his fortune again in an hour?
It sounds like the proposal for a lottery, not a fairer society. It's very telling that the imaginary winner of Feducci's imaginary, less uneven game is very similar to a wrist player who enjoys a period of incredibly good luck before going broke, or a duelist who wins a series of battles before fighting...somebody like Feducci. This is probably because extraordinary moments of good fortunate are the only way Feducci can actually perceive people on the bottom making it to the top. Whenever he tries to delve into the details of a deeper program things just get incredibly muddled and unworkable, because he has already ruled out the types of government action advocated by Jenny and the Campaigner and has no way of balancing out the very real social inequity that keeps complicating the implementation of his grand abstractions.
.
edited by Anne Auclair on 7/9/2017
--
http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Anne%20Auclair
|
|
|
+1
link
|
Gillsing
Posts: 1203
7/9/2017
|
Anne Auclair wrote:
Feducci wouldn't change any of this, because trying to make things a bit more equal through wealth redistribution is completely ruled out: Equality In Death.
That is still just your interpretation. It doesn't say "Equality only in Death", does it?
But you're probably right in that Feducci doesn't care about the children. Won't someone please think of the children? The poor, uneducated urchins in the Flit! Last I heard they were fine with scaring a certain Vehement Campaigner away from their rooftop classroom, using "Newtonian gravity as applied to the quick get-away" and "the trigonometry involved in plotting the arc of a lobbed Aeolian Scream." Could it be that they might not appreciate being used by people in attempts to score political points? Could it be that they would prefer at least a promise of equality in opportunity?
|
|
|
+3
link
|
Anne Auclair
Posts: 2215
7/9/2017
|
Gillsing wrote:
Anne Auclair wrote:
Feducci wouldn't change any of this, because trying to make things a bit more equal through wealth redistribution is completely ruled out: Equality In Death.
That is still just your interpretation. It doesn't say "Equality only in Death", does it?
The meaning is crystal clear. Equality is either impossible or bad and must/should wait until death. It takes a great deal of torturous effort to make that clause mean anything else.
Gillsing wrote:
Could it be that they would prefer at least a promise of equality in opportunity?
Might not a sick man prefer the promises of the Snake Oil Salesman to the regimen of the Doctor?
Gillsing wrote:
Could it be that they might not appreciate being used by people in attempts to score political points?
Um, Feducci uses the example of a successful, imaginary urchin to score political points. Despite not actually having any policies to help said urchin.
.
edited by Anne Auclair on 7/9/2017
--
http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Anne%20Auclair
|
|
|
0
link
|
Gillsing
Posts: 1203
7/9/2017
|
Anne Auclair wrote:
It takes a great deal of torturous effort to make that clause mean anything else.
Perhaps for you that is true. But I can assure you that does not apply to me. I am quite averse to both effort and pain, so I would know, and thus abstain.
|
|
|
+3
link
|
Anne Auclair
Posts: 2215
7/9/2017
|
Gillsing wrote:
Anne Auclair wrote:
It takes a great deal of torturous effort to make that clause mean anything else.
Perhaps for you that is true. But I can assure you that does not apply to me. I am quite averse to both effort and pain, so I would know, and thus abstain.
I notice you've yet to provide an alternative explanation as to its meaning.
--
http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Anne%20Auclair
|
|
|
0
link
|
Gillsing
Posts: 1203
7/9/2017
|
Anne Auclair wrote:
I notice you've yet to provide an alternative explanation as to its meaning.
I already did, here and then here. I had forgotten about that second one though, so I suppose I can forgive you for having forgotten both of them. Irrigo, eh?
|
|
|
+3
link
|
Anne Auclair
Posts: 2215
7/9/2017
|
Gillsing wrote:
Anne Auclair wrote:
I notice you've yet to provide an alternative explanation as to its meaning.
I already did, here and then here. I had forgotten about that second one though, so I suppose I can forgive you for having forgotten both of them. Irrigo, eh?
That isn't really an alternative interpretation as it rules out peaceful redistribution and has violence and death as the only equalizers. Equality is still very much a bad thing, because if you are subject to it then it means you failed and were killed. And since Feducci cannot die, he cannot be threatened with equality.
--
http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Anne%20Auclair
|
|
|
0
link
|
gronostaj
Posts: 403
7/9/2017
|
Anne Auclair wrote:
And since Feducci cannot die.
Doesn't the Presbyterate have some means of population control? I had a distinc impression that it's not like these guys can't die, it's just that the player, being some casual Londoner, can't kill him. Or won't. Because they're not trying harder. Wonder if he'd came back if you, dunno, set him on fire. Go Hannibal Lecter on his corpse. Throw him down the well and fill the shaft with very big very heavy stones. Endless possibilities 
--
Gronostaj (pl. Ermine), a decadent duellist of mysterious and indistinct gender. Seeker. Willing to die- but not of boredom. Open to all social actions, including the harmful ones.
Soft-Spoken Surgeon, a doctor who owes an onerous debt. Professor of medicine at the University by day, at criminal employ by night. Open to all non-harmful social actions.
|
|
|
+1
link
|
Sara Hysaro
Moderator
Posts: 4514
7/9/2017
|
Over in the Presbyterate they set a hard limit of (I believe) 1000 years before you must die. Attempting to live beyond your allotted years results in your children being restricted to less than 100 years. Not sure if it's just children or all of your descendants, but either way it's not a good idea.
--
http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Sara%20Hysaro
Please do not send SMEN, cat boxes, or Affluent Reporter requests. All other social actions are welcome.
Are you a Scarlet Saint? Send a message my way to be added to the list.
|
|
|
+4
link
|
Amsfield
Posts: 176
7/9/2017
|
Anne Auclair wrote:
Titles are after all not the domain of the Mayor's office, but rather the Shuttered Palace. Could Feducci actually stop, say, his Amused Lordship from being a lord? Could he strip the Duchess of her title? The Lord Privy Councilor? The Ambassador? The Captivating Princess? That's just absurd, Her Undying Majesty would just tell the Mayor to go away and that would be the end of it. The Empress is Sovereign, Feducci is not.
A Campaigner campaigner really wants to be the one to bring up the limits on the power of the mayor? Very well, if you insist, I shall be the one to point out the obvious. Firstly, no one intends to take try to take away The Captivating Princess's title, nor should they; only the most vile of anarchist could ever hope for such a thing! But has to the rearrangement of titles, yes it is unquestionably Her Undying Majesty right to bestow and rescind titles, as befits the role of our gracious sovereign, but I'm afraid I fail to see how that should interfere with their being won and lost. Whilst I'm sure she would be with in her rights to revoke the title taken by the victor and bestow a similar title on the one who gambled and lost it, why would she do such a thing? To what end? If it is her desire to stymie Feducci as mayor, she need not wait: one statement from Her and most of London would turn there backs on him, but no word has come from The Shuttered Palace. However, The Temperance Campaigner has most definitely set her self in opposition to Powers greater than that of the Mayor. Wines and Veils shall most certainly stop anything she might do to hinder their business, Fires shall tolerate no interference with his employees and no other Master would tolerate any such meddling either. You are correct, the mayor is not the ultimate authority, but yours is the only candidate who would suffer for it!
Anne Auclair wrote:
Alongside the question of titles, there's also the question the very vast fortunes that the wealthy control. Feducci's program doesn't call for redistribution, so the wealthy will always have superior resources.
I had quite forgotten The Dauntless Campaigner promise to strip the wealth from society and and scatter it amongst the Urchins! How foolish of me. It Seems so at odds with the rest of her policies!
You argue that those of means have certain advantages over those without, and this is plainly true. Our candidates each have a policy on this, The DTC's stance is that to completely ignore this concern. Yes, I'm sure she will provide some blankets to the less fortunate, but never has she for one moment indicated that she has plans or even the desire to address the larger inequities in station. Under her governance, the poor will unquestionably remain poor. It is no surprise that the majority of her supporters are not the disenfranchised but the pillars of society, who have vested interests in maintaining the status quo. Obviously there is the financial and societal reasons, but for many of her supporters I suspect a more callus reason; they are hobbyists. With out a helpless huddles mass, how else might these people play philanthropist. Though I do not claim this to be the motivation of the lady herself, the truth is her policies help the less fortunate no more than is required to assuage the guilt of the privileged. Feducci, by contrast allows for a scenario where these advantages are not present; ones farther's connection make little difference in a contest, a fashionable address does not influence the role of the dice and the urchin's education serves him better in a duel than Classics lessons. This is what we mean by 'Fair Play', an opportunity to compete on equal footing.
Allow me to provide an example. The Campaigner has brought up the issue of unscrupulous landlord; a worthy concern, undoubtedly. Let's look at that situation under both mayors; The Landlord has the advantage in that he has the wealth to afford him property, the tenant does not and so must suffer under the caprices of the other. The campaigner, so far as I have seen, shall tut at the Landlord until he fixes the roof, an act I acknowledge will improve the tenant's life, and there is where we leave it; the tenant is still poor, still forced to suffer whilst the landlords cruelty is slightly abated but he still enjoys the luxuries his station affords him and is free to buy more tenements and continue as he had, so long has he ensures each has mended roofs. Under Feducci, the tenant my challenge his Landlord in an arena where their wealth is no shield and they shall compete. There will be a winner, and yes a loser. If the tenant wins, his fortunes are reversed and he no longer must suffer under the Landlord, the power and comfort previously the domain only of his oppressor are with in reach. The building is now his, the landlord under his power. Possibly the previous tenant will be a better, fairer man than his former landlord was and fix the roof out of pity, possibly not, this too is fair play. Of course, the Landlord may win and the situation will remain much as it was, but at least the tenant may arrange some conflict where he is on equal footing with his adversary rather than suffering without hope of change. It is far better to allow people to stand as equals, however briefly, than it is to perpetration the current system, to offer consolation prizes to people who were never even permitted to compete.
You describe Feducci's plans as a lottery, but that is hardly fair. The campaigner's plans continue a lottery of birth with few winners, and offers those who found that they were losers with out consenting to enter little more than tea and sympathy. Feducci offer's something completely different, real competition, with real chance of advancement.
Anne Auclair wrote:
But Feducci refuses to acknowledge structural forces.
Country to your statement, Feducci is the only one who will redress the inequity these forces present.
'Fair Play, Fair Game'
--
Amsfield: http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Amsfield
A devotee of pleasures intellectual and fleshy. Always fabulously masked.
Honoria Kastern: http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Honoria%20Kastern
A hunter, a shooter and a fisher. Also a patriotic busy body. Mildly corrupted.
Maiser: http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Maiser
A young firebrand of obviously criminal intent.
Venshik: http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Venshik
Not a nice person.
Asmeria: http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Asmeria
Quiet, thoughtful and possibly mad. Excellent listener though. Favours grey.
|
|
|
0
link
|
Anne Auclair
Posts: 2215
7/9/2017
|
Amsfield wrote:
Under Feducci, the tenant my challenge his Landlord in an arena where their wealth is no shield and they shall compete. There will be a winner, and yes a loser. If the tenant wins, his fortunes are reversed and he no longer must suffer under the Landlord, the power and comfort previously the domain only of his oppressor are with in reach. The building is now his, the landlord under his power. Possibly the previous tenant will be a better, fairer man than his former landlord was and fix the roof out of pity, possibly not, this too is fair play. Of course, the Landlord may win and the situation will remain much as it was, but at least the tenant may arrange some conflict where he is on equal footing with his adversary rather than suffering without hope of change. It is far better to allow people to stand as equals, however briefly, than it is to perpetration the current system, to offer consolation prizes to people who were never even permitted to compete.
This is the point in the pitch where you start selling bridges in the Elder Continent. Feducci's good for them, he knows the Presbyter.
Amsfield wrote:
However, The Temperance Campaigner has most definitely set her self in opposition to Powers greater than that of the Mayor. Wines and Veils shall most certainly stop anything she might do to hinder their business, Fires shall tolerate no interference with his employees and no other Master would tolerate any such meddling either. You are correct, the mayor is not the ultimate authority, but yours is the only candidate who would suffer for it!
There you have it, an open admission that the Dauntless Temperance Campaigner actually challenges the Powers That Be in London...while Feducci does not. So much for Feducci being bold and daring.
--
http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Anne%20Auclair
|
|
|
0
link
|
Amsfield
Posts: 176
7/9/2017
|
Anne Auclair wrote:
There you have it, an open admission that the Dauntless Temperance Campaigner actually challenges the Powers That Be in London...while Feducci does not. So much for Feducci being bold and daring.
No, she doesn't challenge them, as you have made cleare. She mearly opposes them; challenges implies she could be considered even an inconvenience. She may as well run on a campaign to bring London back to the surface, for all she will achieve.
And again you contradict yourself, a moment ago you claim Feducci sets his sights too high, but when it is pointed out that it is your candidate who tilts at windmills you imply to do otherwise is cowardice. Is there no stance you will remain consistent in? Will you next claim that because she is bipedal the campaigner is made in God's own image, whilst claiming the same form makes Feducci too ape-like for governance?
--
Amsfield: http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Amsfield
A devotee of pleasures intellectual and fleshy. Always fabulously masked.
Honoria Kastern: http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Honoria%20Kastern
A hunter, a shooter and a fisher. Also a patriotic busy body. Mildly corrupted.
Maiser: http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Maiser
A young firebrand of obviously criminal intent.
Venshik: http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Venshik
Not a nice person.
Asmeria: http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Asmeria
Quiet, thoughtful and possibly mad. Excellent listener though. Favours grey.
|
|
|
+6
link
|
Anne Auclair
Posts: 2215
7/9/2017
|
Amsfield wrote:
Anne Auclair wrote:
There you have it, an open admission that the Dauntless Temperance Campaigner actually challenges the Powers That Be in London...while Feducci does not. So much for Feducci being bold and daring.
No, she doesn't challenge them, as you have made cleare. She mearly opposes them; challenges implies she could be considered even an inconvenience. She may as well run on a campaign to bring London back to the surface, for all she will achieve.
And again you contradict yourself, a moment ago you claim Feducci sets his sights too high, but when it is pointed out that it is your candidate who tilts at windmills you imply to do otherwise is cowardice. Is there no stance you will remain consistent in? Will you next claim that because she is bipedal the campaigner is made in God's own image, whilst claiming the same form makes Feducci too ape-like for governance?
Feducci promises airy phantoms that he is incapable of conjuring. He puts on a big show about being bold and transgressive, but its all an empty carnival act. On issues of real substance he surrenders immediately (the kings and queens of the game cannot be touched, most shan't rise - i.e. London remains the same). He cannot lose anything because he has not really wagered anything.
The Campaigner has offered a substantial program that actually challenges the Masters (and the Calendar Council too, one should not forget them). One of the sources of the Masters' power is that they are perceived as too powerful to challenge, when in reality they tend to give way when put under suitable public pressure. Well, the Campaigner promises to publicly pressure them in a lot of ways. She goes after their business interests, their revenues, their untouchability, their agents and allies. If she wins, the results will shake London: the Masters defeated on their own turf by an ordinary woman. Now that's real daring, not the false daring of Feducci.
.
edited by Anne Auclair on 7/9/2017
--
http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Anne%20Auclair
|
|
|
0
link
|
Amsfield
Posts: 176
7/9/2017
|
Anne Auclair wrote:
-snip-
I agree that Feducci has not promised to fight anything, excepting perhaps to change the rules of a rigged game, or the myth of immutability in our societal structure. What he has promised is to allow us, as individuals, the right to fight!
That is the immutable difference between the two candidates. Feducci empowers us, the good people of London to act and affect change. The Temperance campaigner seeks to mother us, to assure us that she alone knows what is best and to coddle us. 'Don't worry about the scary things, let me take care of those; no, don't do that, it's naughty.'
The truth is the people of London do not need her! We are a city of the bold and the striving! From the urchins of the Flit who race across rooftops and thumb their nose at respectability, to the Zee Captains who brave monster filled waters under starless darkness to our honey sipping poets who dare tread the reaches of dreams to bring back beauty and wonder. And that is why Feducci is winning the votes of London.
--
Amsfield: http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Amsfield
A devotee of pleasures intellectual and fleshy. Always fabulously masked.
Honoria Kastern: http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Honoria%20Kastern
A hunter, a shooter and a fisher. Also a patriotic busy body. Mildly corrupted.
Maiser: http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Maiser
A young firebrand of obviously criminal intent.
Venshik: http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Venshik
Not a nice person.
Asmeria: http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Asmeria
Quiet, thoughtful and possibly mad. Excellent listener though. Favours grey.
|
|
|
+2
link
|
Isaac Zienfried
Posts: 364
7/9/2017
|
Amsfield wrote:
And that is why Feducci is winning the votes of London.
Is it also why we're seeing a bunch of defectors at our campaign headquarters?
You make a lot of assumptions about mothering and coddling. I wonder, is the idea that providing leadership for a fight will encourage everyone to rise up and make a coordinated change so odd? It certainly beats a haphazard and likely pointless chaos of duels and gambles.
--
Isaac Zienfried, 'The Vacillating Belligerent.'
A gentleman of complicated loyalties, complicated morality, and complicated goals.
But really, it's hard to keep things simple down here!
|
|
|
0
link
|
Anne Auclair
Posts: 2215
7/9/2017
|
Amsfield wrote:
I agree that Feducci has not promised to fight anything... What he has promised is to allow us, as individuals, the right to fight!
That is a very romantic way of saying that Feducci has promised you absolutely nothing. He has promised you London as it exists now: individuals fighting amongst themselves for scraps, the Masters and the Devils unchallenged, the city fabric fraying and the empire weakening. And it's all he has.
.
edited by Anne Auclair on 7/9/2017
--
http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Anne%20Auclair
|
|
|
0
link
|
Spitfire Youngster
Posts: 32
7/9/2017
|
Anne Auclair wrote:
That is a very romantic way of saying that Feducci has promised you absolutely nothing
That is a very bold statement coming from a supporter of someone whose best idea for dealing with problems is to put them in a well.
And we all how well that ends.
edited by Spitfire Youngster on 7/9/2017
--
http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Spitfire%20Youngster
Professional troublemaker, not a single regret since [REDACTED]
|
|
|
+1
link
|
Amsfield
Posts: 176
7/9/2017
|
Anne Auclair wrote:
That is a very romantic way of saying that Feducci has promised you absolutely nothing.
If you truly believe that London as it stands offers 'Fair Play, Fair Game', then why do you campaign so aggressively for change. If you do not think that allowing individuals to challenge for advancement on equal footing is a significant promise, then you are ignoring the inequity that pervades London.
Feducci has been quoted as saying 'all could rise, most shan't', and you have often focused on the second part. What you ignore is that the DTC has not promised that anyone shall. There may be implications she may offer some charity, but there are stronger implications she will protect the privileges of the privileged at least as vehemently. The fact is that The Temperance Campaigner has made no concrete promises beyond attempting to restrict the supplies of wine and honey. If you honestly believe that she will bring about the egalitarian utopia you imply then it is for your sake above all I hope she is bested, because you will be the most bitterly disappointed if she wins.
--
Amsfield: http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Amsfield
A devotee of pleasures intellectual and fleshy. Always fabulously masked.
Honoria Kastern: http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Honoria%20Kastern
A hunter, a shooter and a fisher. Also a patriotic busy body. Mildly corrupted.
Maiser: http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Maiser
A young firebrand of obviously criminal intent.
Venshik: http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Venshik
Not a nice person.
Asmeria: http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Asmeria
Quiet, thoughtful and possibly mad. Excellent listener though. Favours grey.
|
|
|
+7
link
|