What do you mean by "Technologies will slowly fail"? Do the machines break? Does the knowledge of how tools are created fade from memory? Does the rules of the world slowly warp, making technology useless over time?
If I'm understanding correctly, the only perspective on theism mentioned in the description is that prayer increases the influence of a god, and that this is a contentious matter.
On that point, you've said that all gods save for those who allied with the mundane species were exiled. I'm inclined to expect then that there might be a push towards prayer to the remaining gods—the gods after all who aided the mundane species—asking for help against the waning of technology.
Not only might doing so petition aid, but it might increase the potential for aid by increasing the relevant god's power.
(This does, however, presume that said waning is recognised by the mundane species.)
That would depend heavily on how magic works and what it can do in your setting, I think. I would suggest looking into the method and effects of magic, and seeing what applications are suggested by them.
My Games & Writing
I didn't elaborate too much because I wanted to keep the description short - but the relevant technology would rot, rust into nothingness, crumble to dust, or otherwise fall apart, the speed of which depends on how advanced such a thing compared to the "baseline" of what can still function. This can lead to scenarios where the paper of a blueprint you're working on begins crumbling to bits because an idea you're trying to document suddenly crosses some threshold, or some makeshift device comparable to more modern technology but made of basic things only has a few minutes of viable use at most before forces at work cause it to break. The (at times) unclear nature of such a line could possibly be a plot point at some time, depending on whether characters are ever in a position where they have to improvise a solution, or have to determine whether some equipment in an abandoned cache could still be used without being a danger or failing at a key moment. Notably, chemical compounds aren't subject to this just because they are more "recent" discoveries in the real world (as recent as the 19th century could be considered, anyway) - for example, formaldehyde or morphine would both remain viable, though any advanced technology used to isolate them may eventually fail.
And that segues to the next point. Though such compounds themselves are immune to the curse, that does not extend to their documentation, if it falls under more "advanced" knowledge - documentation of the process of isolating morphine, for example, would crumble to dust, just like documentation of (relatively) advanced medical technology. Though the documentation of things can fall apart, it does not get forcibly pulled from memory - such a thing would run contrary to one of the key in-universe limitations of gods, that being that they cannot be used to directly harm or negatively impact sapient beings. (The god of pestilence, for example, back when gods were more active, could manipulate some conditions to be more conducive to disease, or could infect a chicken with bird flu, but couldn't directly infect a human with smallpox. In addition, such capabilities were kept in check by the will of the god of fate, so the god of pestilence couldn't get mad one day and wipe out all life on a whim.) Essentially, knowledge and experience on the creation of things which couldn't have their processes documented would be passed down like most apprenticeships, though there wouldn't be the luxury of making reference materials. This could hypothetically lead to a major problem if many of the practitioners of such knowledge were to die at once - if the knowledge were completely lost, it would have to be rediscovered. It is doubtful that it would ever be impossible for humans to recreate such things - simply noting that things exist wouldn't cause the documentation to fall apart (the exception to this being if said documentation involved pictures taken by cameras, transcribed by printers, or some other technology that becomes afflicted - . The documentation only becomes vulnerable when a person could reasonably use it as a direct guide to recreate such things. If everyone who knew about morphine died, people who learn about its existence in an encyclopedia, or stumble upon a label in a warehouse, they could try to figure out how to create such a thing themselves. This is naturally less significant for things that are themselves vulnerable to the curse - documentation on how to create a device loses its usefulness when the device itself cannot remain workable. Eventually, much of the knowledge of this technology beyond its mere existence would be lost between the difficulty and impracticality of passing it down.
On the subject of deterioration of technology - if you were to, for example, bring an extremely complicated device like a space shuttle into the time period of the universe via some Time Travel trickery, it would deteriorate in mere seconds - you would get to watch the large device rust, erode, and crumble in real time, as if it were left in a briny, windy area for hundreds of years. By contrast, technology which has just started to fail could (depending on how long after the war the technology has started to fail) probably remain usable with increased maintenance for some time, until the deterioration becomes too much to counteract with typical issues. Generally, people would monitor blueprints and other technological documentation to identify when something started becoming at risk - paper, being much weaker, falls apart much more obviously. While technology would fall apart, it would still befunctional insofar as the device is still capable of physically operating - that is, if you were to find a firearm model that just started deteriorating, it would still fire bullets until the mechanisms were too rusted to operate, or the spring was too worn to function, or the frame was too weak to survive the recoil.
In addition, the time period something was invented in real life wouldn't strictly correlate to the threshold at which the curse starts destroying it. Syringes as we know them today, for example, would not be vulnerable, while anything more advanced than more early arquebuses would. A lot of it would probably come down to a combination of its simplicity, and how much the loyal gods resented the particular technology or attributed its existence to their downfall. Syringes are relatively simple devices, purely mechanical in function; their existence served to administer medicine, which might have helped wounded soldiers but was not a tool directly used to harm them. Guns, on the other hand, were a weapon which gave the rebel species the power to stand against the gods and their allies (or "thralls", a term which would probably be derogatory in nature, and would persist even as dialogue aged due to it being inextricably linked to those allies.) A very advanced mounted gun, imbued with the power of the rebel gods, would have been used to kill the god of fate, despite him not wanting to escalate the war in any way that threatened sapient races with destruction since he always believed coexistence was still possible. Such a killing would be considered the single greatest transgression in the history of the universe; even guns that bore only the most cursory resemblance to the more advanced guns at the time of the war would be victim. The arquebus would probably be the most advanced functional firearms in the setting of the story; the limit there would likely be a function of such a weapon having to compete with crossbows, which themselves had to compete with bows, the latter (and possibly crossbows, though I'm very far from decided on that) predating the rebellion. Non-metallic, and the fletchings of arrows and bolts, could both be enchanted with the magic people learn to harness at the time. such a thing could not be practically done to bullets due to the more difficult nature of enchanting metal. (It's possible, but highly impractical to the point of needing significant workaround at the time of the main story, with magic still having far to develop as a science. Without going too far off topic, a very rich warrior could afford armor made of steel forged from incorporated phoenix ash, and that armor could likely receive some level of enchantment, but individual bullets are impractical.)
Ironically, this, combined with arquebuses being vulnerable to interference from magical spells, would lead to the weapon having a stigma in any context outside personal hunting, due to its association with people too cheap to afford a more advanced crossbow, too simple to become proficient with a bow, and not expecting to encounter a mage (or at least not expecting to take one who's aware of them); lowlife bandits and drafted cannon fodder soldiers would inevitably make up such a large portion of that group.
Sorry if I went way off-tangent and this is TL;DR to you by this point, but I know I'll forget these things if I don't note them as I type them. I also appreciate you asking a question - though it may not seem like much to you, the very fact that you've done so gives me some validation, as it shows me that I've proposed something that people might at least be a little more curious about as opposed to no one caring enough to ask anything.
I'm just.. a guy....
Be forewarned; you're going to see "sapient beings" a lot, since it is a term that's both fully encompassing and not as clunky as "humans and all other major story-relevant intelligent species I haven't yet decided on."
> On that point, you've said that all gods save for those who allied with the mundane species were exiled. I'm inclined to expect then that there might be a push towards prayer to the remaining gods—the gods after all who aided the mundane species—asking for help against the waning of technology.
> Not only might doing so petition aid, but it might increase the potential for aid by increasing the relevant god's power.
I'm sorry if I gave you that impression, because doing so constitutes a failure on my part to communicate effectively - all the gods were exiled, and can no longer interact with the world directly. I won't elaborate on how the banishment occurs at the end of the battle, since I have several ideas, but in no event was it a deliberate case of selfless self-sacrifice on the part of the rebel gods. I'm leaning towards a Dying Curse by the god of fate who, even in his final moments of betrayal, upheld his principle of wanting to avoid gods becoming tyrannical rulers - by banishing them to make such a thing impossible in the power vacuum. Regardless of that, you bring up a fair point - I haven't completely considered how far loyalty to the rebel gods would go, except that some in humanity might pride themselves in being the first species of the rebellion. Let me think a bit more...
Though many would be grateful to these gods, they would not forget their destructive capabilities, even if such things could be manipulated for practical purposes. Whereas the god of fertility manifesting her power more in the world can lead to crops growing more - at worst, vicious plants growing uncontrollably - the god of fire, to use the original, can bring devastation to forests or cities, which would cause devastation to societies if he were to do so. The pantheon relied on the destructive gods bringing ruination in the form of great fires, storms, plagues, or other catastrophes in order to balance the world as the god of fate saw fit - this imbalance is what caused worshipers to overwhelmingly favor the benevolent gods - praising them for their bounty, with few acknowledging the role of the destructive gods in keeping the environment stable - this led to the resentment which, in comparison with the god of fire believing the benevolent gods kept sapient beings limited in order to keep them dependent and reliant, caused the rebellion.
Sapient beings would have been worshiping the benevolent gods for far longer than the rebel species worked with the rebel gods. Despite this, however, there would have been many, many generations between when the war started and the time of the main story. Centuries after the end of the rebellion, many of the rebel species would naturally come to feel that their loyalty is owed to the rebel gods for freeing them. However, this would have to be balanced with the fear many have of gods in general, and specifically the fear that providing worship to those who they owed the most loyalty to would empower those the most capable of harming them. Some societies would base their entire existence around this worship; others would likely have state-enforced atheism. I want to avoid the story straying into Sealed Evil in a Can territory, which I'm personally extremely sick of, so having some god break free from their banishment and tyrannize life on the planet is not something I plan on ever going with - looking at possibilities, the closest I might ever consider coming to that is the god manifesting their power through sapient beings in a mutual agreement, or sapient beings seeking to forcibly chain a god to their will. In both cases, the primary focus would be on fighting between people, rather than some epic about the struggle between good and evil or similar. I want a major part of the story to involve the world as a whole, and how people are adapting to it; it will definitely involve The Hero and company, but much of the story perspective will be in the context of the lasting effects of their actions on countries and societies (those they hail from, those they now fight for, and those they fight against), as opposed to those things just being a backdrop to give context to their actions. History is a subject that has always interested me; and though individuals do great things, it is inevitably about society as a whole.
On that note, not all sapient beings would have supported the rebellion; there would be species which, as a whole, sided with the old older and suffered massive casualties in their eventual failure to defend it, and people (individually from the general opinion of the species) that would have different views than the species as a whole. Humans, for reasons already stated, would be overwhelmingly more inclined to support the actions of the rebellion, while... some race with a more divine attachment historically would see those who embraced the rebellion as completely lost to decadence in pursuit of their own greatness, and would see the curse on technology as a fitting comeuppance for such a thing.
Oh, yeah - as for races, I haven't decided yet. I know Tropes Are Tools, so I'm not going to oppose the use of elves and the like just on principle, but I want to get a better idea of the roles I'm looking for the species to fill before I decide on which species will fill those roles. One thing for certain is that I'm not going to go through the effort of creating some completely different species that is functionally the same as a well-established species just for the sake of being unique and edgy - if, for example, I figure I need a species that is the same as or similar to what people expect of elves in every way that matters, then I'm just going to use elves. If I use something different, it'll be because a standard species doesn't fit the role in the way I need it to. For example, I will avoid using orcs at all costs. They are typically shorthand for a stupid, vicious, and evil species that one can justifiably kill without question, and regardless of any effort I might show in demonstrating otherwise, I don't want any potential reader to instantly get the impression (consciously or subconsciously) that the killing of people in the particular group is innately justified and acceptable just because of who they are. And yes, I know that's not what Tolkien intended initially - Tolkien, most likely due to the influence of fighting a real war, went through great effort to showcase them as closer to incorrigible tools used as a means to an end instead of anything comparable to a group of soldiers who should have humanity but chose to be wicked - and even then, he gave them redeeming traits in that they were often shown to be crafty and clever.
Unfortunately, that got borrowed by other fantasy artists and became shorthand for an Always Chaotic Evil species with no redeeming qualities - in many cases, they are multiple of dumb (ironically in contrast to Tolkien's orcs), ugly, brutish, vulgar, but otherwise possessing many of the same mannerisms as a sociopathic soldier. Their cruelty and antagonism is often shown as a result of their own sadistic beliefs and culture, rather than an immutable part of their nature as a deliberate result of their creation and breeding. There might be exceptionally intelligent or good orcs, but they are often the exception rather than the rule.
I think appropriation of orcs (outside of drafting for war) was the greatest crime done to Tolkien and his legacy; the careful effort to avoid creating an evil race that could easily be substituted for wicked humans despite being humanoid, became corrupted into a species like humans that are typically stupid, sadistic assholes by choice. I have no problem with artists being influenced by other artists, but seeing orcs become the thing Tolkien was careful to avoid is extremely unsettling to me. Tolkien saw many men, allies and enemies, die in the trenches; as someone who knew the humanity of both allies and enemies, he understood why it was important to make sure that soldiers fighting for a force of pure, irreconcilable evil couldn't be seen as simply wicked humans, as such a thing makes it easy to rob people of their humanity because of who they fight for. It is easy to dehumanize individual soldiers just for being on the wrong side - as former military myself, I do not want any story I make to do so even inadvertently, by associating a fantasy species with the corrupted version of Tolkien's orcs.
Well, sorry about that tangent... it's something I'm a bit passionate about.
> That would depend heavily on how magic works and what it can do in your setting, I think. I would suggest looking into the method and effects of magic, and seeing what applications are suggested by them.
Yeah, I still have to establish the general rules of magic - overall, it wouldn't be anything that's so different from typical manifestations of magic that it's unrecognizable. One thing I'd like to note reiterate is that magic would be noted as a constantly evolving science, much like technology was, as opposed to something that just exists and has rules that people simply accept as opposed to constantly pushing them. One of the smaller details I've established is that magic is more easily channeled through organic, petrous, or faceted material - the latter moreso than the former two.
Technology which incorporates magic in its operation would, to some extent, be more resistant to the curse, but not completely. (e.g. Though such a thing wouldn't exist in the time of the main story, a gun which operates on a magical spell causing an explosion of some kind as opposed to a gun that works on gunpowder would perhaps take many more years before it starts succumbing.) Though it may come off as a cheap excuse, I feel this existing to some extent would be important to the story, as it reinforces the idea of magic being an advancing science - a key tenet of science is integrating new discoveries into existing knowledge, and the easiest way to showcase this is a practical application, using magic to enable some technology to function when it would otherwise not do so.
Edited by AGuy on Jan 21st 2021 at 5:14:31 AM
I'm just.. a guy....
You wrote quite a lot there, so I hope you'll forgive me if I didn't go through all of it. ^^;
I'll just pick out a few things that I spotted, and that I have responses for:
That's fair; it makes sense to use a more concise term, after all!
(I prefer "sentient beings" myself, but I won't gainsay "sapient beings"—both terms are similarly accurate and inaccurate, to my understanding.)
Ah, I see—and going back to your original post, I do see your meaning there now, I believe.
Okay, fair enough. As an in-universe event that's... honestly kinda saddening, the loss to all those people of all of their gods. Especially as some of those gods were explicitly benevolent.
So is it possible for a god to be freed from their exile, then?
If so, and should this be known to the peoples of the world, I could very much see a number of drives being enacted to bring back this god or that. And for both benevolent and non-benevolent gods, and for a variety of reasons, at that!
I do like this idea: I'm fond of magitek, and interested to see examples of societies developing with magic as the dominant technological force rather than non-magical means.
Edited by ArsThaumaturgis on Jan 21st 2021 at 6:44:40 PM
My Games & Writing
Yeah, I should probably have marked the most relevant parts somehow; I'm writing down a lot of these ideas as I develop them as a result of pondering what you've asked, but only parts of it are directly relevant. I don't fault you for not reading through all of my various tangents.
I prefer the term "sapient" to "sentient" because, by the latter's technical definition, most animals would be classified as sentient. Sapient is more specific, referring to intelligence rather than just the ability to feel - and the root of the word, from where we get homo sapiens, implies a human-like quality.
The gods are (or were) classified as "benevolent" and "destructive" based on how people perceived them - even when both are just doing their job in keeping balance according to the god of fate, it's a lot easier to see the one giving you more food or good weather as being kind, than the one bringing earthquakes or other disasters in order to keep sapient beings from becoming complacent, or keeping civilizations in check. People probably didn't think those gods were causing devastation just for kicks, so they wouldn't have been classified as "malevolent". Of course, those perceptions would likely have shifted somewhat by the time of the main story. Were the benevolent gods actually so? Although some (like the god of fire) could argue about their true intentions, and how much they held back when they could have done more, it's indisputable that the benevolent gods liked seeing people thrive as a result of their blessings.
And yeah - by killing the god of fate and with the banishment of the other gods, some would argue that people now had the power to determine their own fate - many others would have felt lost and without direction, however, especially those species who were loyal to the old order. There would be far more warring after the departure of the gods than prior to the rebellion - two major reasons (though not the only ones) being that the one pillar binding all sapient beings, the gods, no longer existed, and gods could not keep civilizations in check when they grew too powerful.
As for coordinated efforts to bring back certain gods - glad you brought that up, since I haven't given it too much thought. There could be talks of doing it, but the actions would probably have to be clandestine to a major degree. Other nations - mainly those comprised mostly of rebel species - could see such efforts as a major threat. The most powerful nations militarily would be those which took full advantage of the opportunity created by the fall of the gods in order to expand their influence, and they would not be looking to entertain the possibility of forfeiting their power to gods.
Definitely going to mull over magitek more - I want to do it, but in a way that's not just "X thing but magic!" I would probably need to draft a set of rules or general principles for magitek devices that differentiate them from mundane devices. Likely, at the time of the main story, someone using one would have to at least have basic proficiency in magic, even if not to the level of a mage. This would, amongst other things, limit the general application of such things compared to mundane technology - important to avoid diminishing the significance of the setting.
Edited by AGuy on Jan 21st 2021 at 3:05:32 PM
I'm just.. a guy....
But by the former's technical definition, only people possessed of wisdom would count. Fools would not. :P
In short, I believe, "sapient" uses "wisdom" as a shorthand for intelligence; "sentient" uses "conscious"/"aware" as a shorthand for the "conscious mind" (i.e. self-awareness). Neither is a perfectly accurate use of the words in question, and both have their virtues in this use.
[edit] But anyway, I'm not trying to argue that you should use "sentient" over "sapient"; just providing some support for the use of the former word. And furthermore, the matter is tangential to the thread-topic.
So, having given my thoughts on the matter, let me leave my part there. Sorry if this has been a bit too much of a derail! ^^; [/edit]
There's another element that comes to mind:
Now, I don't know much about the religions of your world, so I'm drawing from my own experience; disregard these thoughts if the two don't align.
That said, it's worth noting that religion is a relationship; and indeed, it can be one of the most important, and one of the deepest, relationships that one can have. To suddenly lose the other in that relationship would be a bereavement, I feel.
Now, not all worshippers would feel that way, I daresay. But conversely, I also imagine that even some of the less-devout might feel it to some degree.
Indeed, I could see quite a bit of potential for drama here, on both sides of the matter: those seeking to return a god striving to both make progress and escape the gaze of those who would thwart them; and those in power trying to hunt down elusive groups who endanger their power.
I think that this approach could work, indeed.
For myself, I might start from the principles of magic itself, and see what they lead to—they may well suggest technologies different to what we have. But then I have a fondness for magic, so working from the sorcery itself appeals to my interests.
Edited by ArsThaumaturgis on Jan 22nd 2021 at 10:06:45 PM
My Games & Writing
As mentioned before, "sapient" also means "related to humans" - Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons, for example. In addition, the OED identifies "intelligent" as one of its definitions - it does not do such a thing for "sentient". "Sapient" is just, I feel, a much better word, because it cannot be applied to animals, and mandates human-like traits in any way you may choose to interpret its definition. "Sentient" has the same root as words like "sentiment" or "resentment" - the root refers to feeling, not intelligence or humanity. To apply it in such a strict manner disqualifies the vast majority of things that would fall under its technical definition, and at that point it feels like too great a misuse of the word for me to like it. I tend to prefer using technically correct definitions whenever possible, something that extends to my everyday speech. That's not to say that I don't think you have a point, but aspects of my nature give me a tendency to be set in my ways, as far as mannerisms go.
On the subject of resentment - I imagine the feelings on the matter of the rebellion would probably stabilize in the centuries to follow. People would generally have adapted to the new normal, by choice or by necessity - almost no one today, for example, would say that the Crusades have a direct effect on the strength of their own faith. That's not to say the effects aren't still significant - far from it - but the feelings of bereavement would have been a driving part in events in the immediate aftermath of the rebellion, with the consequences of such events setting the background for the contemporary setting.
Granted, that doesn't disqualify more extremist reactionary movements idolizing the before times. Benito Mussolini, for example, invoked the idea of returning to the glory of the Roman Empire. Hmm... definitely an idea I'm going to note down. Religion and fascism have often been connected in history, after all...
Edited by AGuy on Jan 22nd 2021 at 8:52:33 AM
I'm just.. a guy....
Must... Not... Continue... Argument about "sapient" and "sentient"! XD;;
I have feelings about that dichotomy, and the claim that one is more correct than the other. (Either one, to be clear.) But argh, yes, I should leave it. ^^;;;
That's fair—I suppose that I'm losing track somewhat of just how much time has passed by the "present" of your setting! ^^;
Oof, if you do include points along this line, please do include some counterbalance. Religion has been connected with liberal perspectives in history, too, I believe.
Edited by ArsThaumaturgis on Jan 22nd 2021 at 5:38:17 PM
My Games & Writing
Indeed, but dont hesitate to take the conversation over to the psychology thread if you really want to follow up.
> Oof, if you do include points along this line, please do include some counterbalance. Religion has been connected with liberal perspectives in history, too, I believe.
Naturally. Jesus was a strong liberal, for example. Often in history, totalitarian regimes that did not seek to take advantage of religion tried to stomp it out by force, as it challenges the idea of the leader of the state having absolute authority.
Making a plot purely about religion being evil would be an oversimplification which would be incompatible one of the main themes of the story, especially considering the background of the hero.
Edited by AGuy on Jan 22nd 2021 at 6:48:53 AM
I'm just.. a guy....
Aah, that's good to read! ^_^
Hah, it's tempting! But I think that for now, with the argument out of sight, I'd rather let it lie. ^^;
My Games & Writing
So over the past few days, I've had a pretty significant idea - I haven't done amy story writing outside of forum RPGs, but I like it enough that I might try something with it. If anyone is interested in a more thorough summary, I have one saved somewhere; given that you're presumably not getting paid to browse TV Tropes on the toilet all day, I'll give you a more concise version, as short as I can.
There are essentially two classes of gods: "benevolent" and "destructive". They work together to keep order, per the wishes of the god of fate. Some of the "destructive" gods grow resentful. One, god of fire, believes that sapient beings are being limited to keep them obedient. He makes first contact with humans (one sapient species of several) and teaches them how to use fire to develop themselves, in a twist on Prometheus. With this help comes rapid technological development and growth of humans (and later, their allies.)
Other gods don't like this. Events eventually lead to humans and other species coordinating with defected gods to wage a long war against the old order, leading to death of the god of fate and banishment of all other gods. Gods imbue the world with their residual divine power, and curse it so that the technology that the revolutionaries so valued would slowly fail. This happens gradually over lifetimes, with devastating effects on societies. This same residual power can be harnessed to cast magic, though it falls far short of making up for what was lost. It's discovered that prayer and worship to gods increases their influence, with such a thing naturally being a contentious issue.
Now that that's out of the way, here's where I'd like your help/feedback. What subjects, if any, do you think I'm missing or should otherwise bring up? What are some other notable pieces of modern (or at least post-medieval) technology that would cause drastic effects on society were they to start failing? Do you think the perspectives on theism make sense for the universe? What are some ways magic would be utilized in place of technology, without just replacing said technology with "A Wizard Did It"? What notable shifts in society could you foresee with everything happening?
On the note of societies... I haven't yet figured out exactly what societies would be like. Though technology would develop relatively quickly, it's doubtful that politics and ethics would evolve in similar speed, except insofar as such changes become more pragmatic for those in charge. I'd imagine that older economic ideas circulating when technology allowed for providing for more people would be discredited when that technology no longer existed.
Importantly, addressing and solving these things wouldn't be the main focus of an initial story - rather, these things would form the setting, which would influence the main story. None of the characters alive (barring possibly a Really 700 Years Old type character) would have been around to see the more severe effects on society resulting from failing technology. By the time of the initial story, the sorts of weapons and armor in use would generally be around typical medieval fantasy, except with primitive guns and cannons in aversion of Fantasy Gun Control. I'd like to have all of these major details about the setting reasonably formulated before committing - not too rigid to the point of limiting my creativity, but enough to create solid scaffolding to give direction.
I don't want the background to just be an excuse for Medieval Stasis, nor do I just want to settle for a standard fantasy setting with little more history than a creationist fable - this is a concept that's suddenly piqued my interest, and I really want to explore it.
I apologize if this is too long, I really didn't know how to shorten this without leaving out key details.
Edited by AGuy on Jan 20th 2021 at 8:29:09 AM
I'm just.. a guy....