Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
kourana

Player killing Player

25 posts in this topic

I'm currently playing this dark heresy campaign and the one player told me that the next gaming night they were going to kill another player. How would that work ingame. Just a normal fighting sequence with a mass of fate points being thrown around? I'm not sure how its going to play out. If anyone has had this before or has any sugestions let me know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, (imho) If one or the other has not invested anything in the way of experience points, or wants to create a different character, or really does'nt take this kind of thing seriously at all, or enjoys having his/her character die, I'd say some one is going to get pissed off at this unexpected action. The whole point of most RPG's are to have a good time, with carefully constructed  alter-ego's and to survive adverse conditions to improve and better thier characters through imaginary scenarios. So, I guess it depends on the group you play with. If the character that is being targeted, is in need of elimination through no fault of his own…ie through possesion or insanity, and no other rehabilitory solution is present, then I guess there might not be any other recourse. But if you just dislike the player or character, then I suggest you try playing different games that encourage that kind of behavior like "Paranoia". or not play at all, to avoid some hard feelings that are not what these games are all about. My players play because they like the game and it's kind of a bonding situation between us. The murder of another character in cold blood in our game (even in the grim darkness of the Warhammer universe) would comprimise the benefits of why we play Dark Heresy or any RPG for that matter. We know it's "Just a game" But the whole idea of it is to work together to solve problems. And if you need to kill another team member, then I think you have failed as an inquisitorial cell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That makes a lot of sense, and i never even thought of that. Thanks for the insight. The squabble in our campaign is a scum was pickpocketing civilians and our arbitrator didnt like it and caused a scene and other guards were called on this planet, and almost caused the whole mission to go wrong. So the scum wants revenge. Thanks for replying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thing that in your example the scum player may be justified as his character would actually want to kill the arbitrator. In order to avoid this sort of situations you can use NPCs. For example in our group the Interogator is an NPC and is played by the GM. In this way he can intervene whenever something like this is likely to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it depends on your players. In my group we have the strict rule to differentiate between players and characters. We play with all consequences and if one player shoots at the other this is like regular combat, even if he has the intention to kill the other. We all like our characters but we have agreed that WH40k is a grim and dark world where even the people at your side can become your enemies, we live with that and we like it that way because it adds some paranoia because you never know who your friend is and who not.

Though all Characters have the right to use and burn their fate-points and a scum that tries to kill somebody just for his personal revenge should not expect mercy of his inquisitor and if the Arbitrator suvrives with his fate-point burned he might seek out for some retribution for himself. This might have a major impact on the group because intern fights might destroy the ability to work and therefore makes them useless for the inquisitor. He might save some Akolythes that have proven still usefull and able to work with others though my Inquisitor would just kill these childish soldiers. They know to much and have shown to be not able to work - grant them mercy.

Another thing would the intervention of an NPC or (what I like more) of your other players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PCs fighting and trying to kill each other could either be an excellent plot for your campaign or it could completely ruin the gaming experience for all involved, so whoever intends to kill another player's character must think of the consequences before acting. You know, just like in real life. 

Same goes for the characters involved. Did the Arbites really piss off the Scum to the point where the Scum has no other option for revenge but to kill the Arbites? To me, Scums are about survival and when you consider killing an Inquisitor's acolyte, even if it is a fellow Acolyte, the Scum must consider the consequences (unless it's a spur of the moment thing), which is - ultimately - his demise. Revenge against a fellow Acolyte, no matter the slight, is not worth the trouble if it means the Scum also gets killed off as a result. (Unless the whole situation has been building tension over months, nay, years.) Otherwise, it is just plain silly from the Scum's side. Besides, there are several ways to die a miserable death and the Scum can contribute to such an event, even if it means simply not acting when he should. (For example, Arbites is under heavy fire and low on ammo, voxes for back-up, Scum says he'll be there in a moment, then doesn't turn up until after the Arbites bites the dust.)

Just blowing the brains out of the other character's head for no good reason is a rather silly way of ensuring your own death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the replies. They have been very helpful in multiple ways. So i'll see how it goes when it happens and i'll post a follow up after. If anyone still has more opinions i'd love to read them. Thanks again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I try to have my players develop their own philosophies in terms of playing style- though we tend to take a third person perspective on things

["My character would do this, or this instead of the standard "I do this or this" most of the time. Don't get me wrong, people still speak in first person- but often when it comes time to talk about big ideas in relation to 40k, the discussion devolves to what the players think their characters are going to do.] 

Now this has lead to several occasions where PvP has been an option. 

In the first campaign, two players (One of them a malefic adept, the other a rather radical Psyker] accepted Boons from an Avatar of Slaanesh and slowly morphed into Snake-men. The rest of the group spared them at first- and forgave the Adept his sorcery [or turned a blind eye to it, seeing as he was healing everybody], but both of them mutated more and more and became more monstrous until one of the other players was able to catch a glimpse of their true forms for an instant- but he did nothing. Kept Quiet. Which allowed the both of them to escape at the end of the mission. 

PvP was avoided likely because there was an "unspoken rule" around the table, it seems, that players don't kill players- even though, in that particular situation, two of the players were clearly half-snake/half-man monstrosities. 

Alternatively, at the very start of the next campaign- the group was not yet working for the inquisition and happened to be forced into a situation where I had hoped they would work together. One of them seperated from the rest minutes before the start of the adventure, and when he rejoined with the others, they simply did not trust "his character" - so took away his guns before he woke up [he had fainted after running into some monstrous spiders].

Now when the characters woke up, he went insane and wanted the guns back. So much so that he "rolled a die to determine whether or not he would "frenzy" [even though he didn't even have the talent- just in terms of behavior], failed it, and started attacking them. The others killed him. The group was split between those who wanted him dead, and those who didn't- and who had actually saved him from the spider.

After this incident, which put a bitter taste in all of our mouths [it was probably our worst session], I had to determine "official" rules for PvP. From now on, Initiative rules apply for players if they want to Pvp- so that other players have a chance to itntervene to stop it or something. Furthermore, burning a fate point causes the loser to "Vacate" the cell- perhaps by barely surviving, falling off a cliff, etc etc- in other words, he's out of the picture. The character isn't dead, and may return as an NPC for revenge, but in terms of participating in future investigations with this group, he's finished.

Does the arbitrator have light sleeper or paranoia? If so, have him roll  perception/roll perception for him. If he wakes up- deal with it as you would a standard fight. Roll Initiative and all of that. If he doesn't, the scum has one round of surprise. He attacks, deals damage- as the sleeping man is helpless, the attack deals 2d10 extra damage. But even then, the arbitrator is likely COULD survive it- he could roll a couple of 1s, only grazing the sleeping man.

Try to stick to the rules as much as possible. And in order to avoid the "Chain burning of fate points" [and the one with the more fate points winning out at the end], once the first fate point is burned- that character should be out. And depending on the context, retribution will soon follow for the murderer… unless of course he silences all of the witnesses first :P He better have a damned good report to justify an entire dead team though [and his survival :P]!   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a rule that players are not allowed to burn Fate Points to survive against attacks directed at them by other players who are intending to kill them (i.e. they arent under mind control or caught in a blast radius of a weapon intended for someone else). The reason for this is that is prevents the idea that the player with the most fate points will win any fight to the death.

It came about in legitimate discussions about the roles of certain players in the group. It was realised that one player could likely take on the rest of them because of his overwhelming number of fate points (3 at a time the rest of them were sitting at 1 or 0). It was realised that there could be legitimate reasons for this character to go against the others and if he did he would end the game by wiping the party so the rule was introduced so that should he go and do that then he wouldn't have the ability to win the fight through burning fate points. Basically the idea is to prevent one character from being able to ruin the game for everyone else even if its for good in character reasons.

We view group strife as part of our Dark Heresy game and while everyone knows not to let little arguements explode into fights to the death, Dark Heresy is often a group of conflicting characters and viewpoints and the actions within the game can legitimately lead to them wanting each other dead. In most cases any disagreement can wait until the end of a mission at which point the players can attempt to come to a solution that is amicable for them both.

A case in point was our mind wiped psyker who killed 136 noble men and women in the party at the end of the Tattered Fates scenario. The character had just been introduced and when he had I had entrusted the Sister Hospitaller Character and the Cleric Character to watch over him for signes of instability. When this happened the Sister was the only one of the Acolytes in range and hunted him through the manor and killed him. In that situation she was allowed to burn her Fate points on her Pure Faith ability but not to survive other attacks. Without this rule the psyker would have easily defeated the sister and would have proceeded to hunt down and kill the other characters so that no one would know what he had done effectively ending the game.

Kaihlik

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty much a onetrack mind about this. Unless it's an actual part of the scenario, player versus player combat is strictly forbidden. No ruining the game for the other players!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I do not think it might ruin games automaticly though it can end an campaign pretty fast. But if at least everyone sticks to his role and character I see no problem with it. If other characters want to intervein and to stop this they have enough ways to do so. PvP has not alaways to end with someone dead, it can be a great way to make a point.

One of the campaigns I played in had a climax between a tech-priest and a cleric. The cleric gathered some STC fragments and was unwilled to hand them to the priest, in the foreplay there were several minor ocasions where the cleric did not accept the souvereinity and independence of the AdMech, also not their authority over technology, so the Tech-Adept pointed his weapon to the cleric. The later pulled out his melee weapon and was constantly approaching the priest though he was warned to do not. After the third warning the Priest openend fire. While this happened the psyker of the group was readied to stun the others and was sucessfull. In the aftermaths to two of them had to settle down their differences and it was quite interisting to play in such a group where not everybody was your firend. In the end we considerend this scene (that consited of much more than my short summary) as one of the best of an entire campaign that lasted over a year at that point.

The important thing is that the player seperate themself from their characters. They may fight and argue but as long as the players can talk and laugh about that in the aftermath everything is okay. Though everyone likes his charakter I think no charakter should be save from danger and death, especially in a setting like Dark Heresy and this includes the own group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well sure, it might not ruin the game that a player kills another player, but then again it can create conflicts between the players themselves. We have, unfortunately, a bad experience with this happening in our group and while the "victim" in that case most certainly overreacted to the killing of his character by another player (especially when you consider that I tried to kill EVERYONE just minutes earlier, resulting in my own death) we do strive to not let it happen.

There's also the Gamemaster to consider. We mostly play our own adventures, so we try not to deviate too far (some leeway is certainly allowed, this isn't a railroad!) from what the GM has prepared for the session.

The Gamemaster killing players, however….reir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the scum put an explosive collar onto the arbitor. Initiative was rolled. He exploded the collar, a fate point was used. The arbitor was then in some like vehicle safety belts he used a round to get out of it. Power sword into arbitors face another fate point used. Arbitor then one shots (gets a rigtheous dont think that should happen against other imperium) scum with bolt pistol…. Then the funny thing was the other players abandoned the mission totally out of character grabbed the arbitor. at this time were all in vacuum space with suits..  The 2 scum that are there with the hostage(mission) continue taking hostage back while the other 4 attempt to heal arbitor. Was kinda funny watching people decide i don't want my character dead, i'm not going to roleplay correctly.  Then the arbitors player decides w.e i'm not dead but im making a new character anyway. 

So if your going to allow pvp which is a very real thing it should be allowed. You need to have people that will roleplay there character not themselves and they need to be mature enough to do that. Because 8 of us all 20+ and only 3 people could handle the situation through character. Its definately worth having and i like what other people have said about not being allowed fate points thats a good suggestion that if I saw earlier would have showed these posts to my gm. 

Thanks all for the replys it was a really fun time. First time my gm had space combat and first pvp all at the same time. =p 

I hope you peeps allow pvp although hopefully the imperium can stay strong and together, good hunting.

 

P.S. The scum got away with it because noone but the scum duo attempted to complete the mission. The main arbiter and the other were deemed at fault because they hindered mission twice…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, as long as you had a good time and everyone is still speaking to each other in a mature way, then congratulations! As much as I disdain PvP, I would let my players do anything they wanted, but I would'nt give them fate points to use in the act, as I believe fate points should be used to enhance the players destiny of doing thier master's bidding, not used for something ouside the mission perameters. I say "Let their cunning, skill, ferocity and a little luck decide their own fate!" But, hey, every group is different. And those differences should be unique and celebrated as your own. Thanks for sharing your experience with PvP. I'm glad your group is still striking fear into the hearts of the Emperor's enemies…and having a good time doing it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hehe. Interesting, cuz I am planning on pvp my own team next time we meet. :D I already have a go ahead from the GM.

My character has been a spy/saboteur secretly sabotaging my team in missions. But I don't like the job, so next time we meet; my job is to:

1. Secretly kill our prisoner who we are interogating (who has information on where my real boss is)

2. Secretly boobytrap the map.

3. Backstab the team during a fight. Kill as many players as possible (they have fate points so few will actually die)

4. Escape using smoke / flash grenades.

5. Come back later as a boss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats cool but talk to your gm about fate points when pvping. I liked the above suggestions about not allowing fate points in pvp. Also talk about not allowing righteous fury on fellow imperium. And also i like the fact that your playing your character. Some people start pvp for no reason and its annoying. You have a very valid reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rulebook says that burning a fate point a character is "…rendered unconscious on 0 Wounds" (core rulebook page 184).

In a PvP situation a player that burns a fate point looses the battle (since he or she is unconscious). You cannot simply burn a fate point and continue fighting as if nothing happenned. According to the book it is up to the GM to decide how the character was saved (it could be for example that the opponent left him for dead).

Therefore it is not correct to say that whoever has more fate points is at an advantage in PvP unless of course one of the players has 0 fate points to begin with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Darth Smeg said:

Killing a Servant of the Imperium is Heresy!

Technically it's Treason. But then Treason is Heresy, so there!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Darth Smeg does have a really good point.

Personally I'm split on PVP combat. During my campaign, one of my characters (the Psyker, specifically), had picked up a Daemonic Chainsword, and failed the test to resist it's tmeptation. This meant that he wanted to keep it, knew he ahd to keep it secret from everyone else, but aside from that there was no compulsion to do anything with it, or to use it (yet).

During a combat later in the adventure, the Psyker's Perils of the Warp knocked the crap out of him, followed immediately by being hit pretty hard by an enemy. He would ahve had to burn a fate point to survive, but before this, the Daemon offered him a deal, which he took, and he rose up, controlled by the daemon for the duration of combat, but was gunned down by his team mates for being possessed (being the psyker, they all viewed him with natural suspicion). Everyone enjoyed it, everyone thought that it really fit the setting, and it went over really well.

On another side though, I've been on the recieving end of a PVP encounter during a different game in a different system. To cut it short, I wasn't consulted on how I would react, and the other character pushed mine out of an airlock, with no chance for me to save myself. As a result, I immediately lost any inclination to continue with the campaign, even as another character. I also immediately distrust any character that my friend plays now, as this wasn't the first time one of my characters has died either directly or indirectly because of one of his.

So I'd be really careful, and talk it over with the GM and both players involved, and see if it's something that both players would enjoy playing. This is a game after all, and you don't want one of your players feeling like their gaming expereince is ruined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"…To cut it short, I wasn't consulted on how I would react, and the other character pushed mine out of an airlock, with no chance for me to save myself."

 

Pompz1 the GM should never have allowed this to happen. He should at least give you a chance to roll perception before the other player could act on this.

I think that the other situation that you described is a perfect example on when to allow PvP to take place. When a player deviates from the playing style of the rest of the group (radical vs puritan) then a PvP should be allowed. The psyker should have known that it would be very likely that his character would be killed if found out. In our adventure most of the character are puritans (we also have a Sororitas there), but my player has recently become a nascent psyker. The other players do not know about this of course (even my character does not know it yet) so the fun is in trying to hide it for as long as possible.

Inevitably, they are going to fry me at some point… :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has (as most other things) been discussed before.

And as in that thread, I pointed out that "the rest of the group" do not have authority over the one who deviates from their group think. Only their Inquisitor does.

While I used the example of Psyker persecution, the argument is valid for anyone in the service of an Inquisitor. I quote the most relevant bits for your convenience:

"Then there is the issue of authority.

To put it shortly: they don't have it. Unless the acolytes Inquisitor has stated unmistakably that he wants his group to police the Psycher, and given them authority to terminate him upon suspicion, the acolytes do not have authority over the Psycher. All they can, and should, do, is to report their suspicions to their Inquisitor or superior in the chain-of-command.

No organization can exist where any member can exercise total authority, arbitrarily, on one of his peers. An officer in the army has no authority on other officers parallel to his own rank. He ONLY has authority over those BELOW him in the chain of command. You can't fire your co-workers, only your boss can do that. Even in a flat organization with no chain of command (like a doctors office with a few doctors in partnership) one person cannot exercise authority over another; decisions and disputes are settled by agreements, negotiations or by a board of executives.

In the 41s millennium, an Inquisitor cannot execute another for heresy. He has to bring him before a trial, a tribunal of his superiors in the Inquisition. Similarly, Acolytes cannot judge or execute each other, no organization could exist where such judgements were possible.

Psychers are a valuable resource. The rules of the Imperium dictate that Psychers not be burned as witches, but turned over to the Black ships. No Imperial authority is going to take kindly to servants who squander this resource! Killing a psycher is only really permissible when and if he poses a clear and present danger to the mission or the group, and he cannot be subdued with non-lethal force.

A summary execution of an Imperially sanctioned, Inquisition-serving psycher would be a transgression of an acolytes authority, a violation of Imperial Law, and an insult to his superiors who cleared the Psycher fit for duty, including his own Inquisitor.

Such an execution then, would be murder! Murder of the servants of the Imperium, especially that of the most Holy Inquisition, is Treason. Treason is the worst form of Heresy."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Darth Smeg said:

In the 41s millennium, an Inquisitor cannot execute another for heresy. He has to bring him before a trial, a tribunal of his superiors in the Inquisition. Similarly, Acolytes cannot judge or execute each other, no organization could exist where such judgements were possible.

I have to disagree here. An Inquisitor has no Law above him. The conklaves, Tribunals and Ranks like Lord Inquisitor (Exept the Representative of the Senate) are born out of respect, not law. An Inquisitor has the right to kill another Inquisitor and it happens more often than any kind of tribunal from what I can read in the Fluff and Novels.

If you are strong enough and your power base is well developed you can deal with the consequences of your doing that is what all is about. An Inquisitor is entiteld to kill one of his kind if he has proof of his guilt. This proof can be only instinct or real documents, it does not matter. Though other Inquisitors might check his reasons and he has to stand up for his decision.

Sector conklaves are some kind of check and balance but nothing mandatory. There is no overal structure of the inquisition beside their rank though in some sectors a conclave might have a long tradition for keeping order between the individal inquisitors. There are also other examples where an Inquisitor basicaly runs an entire sector alone though "officaly" there is still a conclave though. On the other hand there are Sectory without any conclaves at all.

This is what the Inquisition is about. It works outside the Law to save the Imperial Law. Though an Acolythe has not the status of an Inquisitor he is not what he was, with becoming an Akolythe he has become something different. And when one of the Cell becomes a threat to their objective they have to deal with that. And if their Inquisitor is a Puritan and their goal is to destroy a cult and their psyker is becomming possesd the first thing every man in his right mind would do is shoot him down and then shoot him again, burn him, collect its ash, burn it again seal it in a box with holy symbols and hand it over to the inquisitor with a salute. Or make it look like an accident…

Darth Smeg said:

A summary execution of an Imperially sanctioned, Inquisition-serving psycher would be a transgression of an acolytes authority, a violation of Imperial Law, and an insult to his superiors who cleared the Psycher fit for duty, including his own Inquisitor.

The Imperial Law forces you to kill the witch. It is of no matter wheter this witch was educated (sanctioned) or not when you have the slightes suspicion that he might be corrupted. The danger of one psycer gone rogue justifies the execution of thousands of other for one psyker can literaly doom an entire world.

Darth Smeg said:

Such an execution then, would be murder! Murder of the servants of the Imperium, especially that of the most Holy Inquisition, is Treason. Treason is the worst form of Heresy."

Murder is okay as long as it was justified. An Inquisitor can always get a new Psyker with ease, hunting down a Psyker that has recieved knowledge more powerfull than he should have while he served the inquisition is an annoyance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FieserMoep said:

I have to disagree here. An Inquisitor has no Law above him. The conklaves, Tribunals and Ranks like Lord Inquisitor (Exept the Representative of the Senate) are born out of respect, not law. An Inquisitor has the right to kill another Inquisitor and it happens more often than any kind of tribunal from what I can read in the Fluff and Novels.

If he has no Law that binds him, then he has no Rights. Neither does he have any restrictions placed upon him, and what you have is Anarchy.

In practice, I agree that an Inquisitors authority is defined by his power, and thus his ability to enforce his will. But as most Inquisitors derive their power through influence, they're not going to risk upsetting their peers and superiors by ignoring traditions and agreements that bind them.

And these Tribunals have the power to excomunicate Inquisitors, and label them Traitoris Extremis (or whatever the title is), which is basically a "Wanted: Dead or Alive" notice. If that's not Law, then nothing is.

FieserMoep said:

 

The Imperial Law forces you to kill the witch. 

You just made the point that the Inquisition is above the law.

And If by "witch" you mean (unsanctioned) psyker, you are wrong. Imperial Law decrees that Psykers are collected and renedered as Tithe to the Black Ships. Killing them is in fact against the law.

If by witch you mean sorceror, then by all means: Kill away. Foul chaos worshipers, the lot of 'em.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Darth Smeg said:


If he has no Law that binds him, then he has no Rights. Neither does he have any restrictions placed upon him, and what you have is Anarchy.

What most people do not get is that Anarchy is per definition no state of chaos. It is a system of self-regulaton that favors communitys that work in the exakt same way as the inquisitorial conclaves and ordos do. To be strong people unite not because a nation demands it but because they share the same ideas and believes - so they are all equall. This also accounts for the inquisitorial factions for example. There is no other law than helping your own community and on the other hand benefit from it. This is the system the Inquisition uses. The balance is keept by gather people like you to stand up against single oprressors that my try to destroy you with their might and this is how the conclaves work. They can unite and strike single inquisitors that do not follow THEIR rules. But these rules are not made of the imperium, they are made by them. And if a single Inquisitor becomes so powerfull he can destroy an entire conclave he might do it. Why? Because he can. And the status of Traitoris Extremis is just a formal status in that community. No inquisitor is forced to follow it. It is basically nothing more than saying "This guy is bad". What you do is complelty up to the individual though they might punish others that do not follow their made up rules.

Darth Smeg said:

If by witch you mean sorceror, then by all means: Kill away. Foul chaos worshipers, the lot of 'em.

I used witch not as a specification on a particual group, I used it as an insult for this is what the vast population thinks off psykers. A mark of sanctioning is only preventing imperial psykers form getting executed on sight but it does not raise their social status. The complete imperial creed demands to kill the witch and I bet that if it would be fully released there is no line like this "Kill the witch, but before that check their ID for the case he is a sanctioned abomination." Psykers are toleratey for they are usefull. They are basicaly nothing else than tools that need to be abused or terminated. The danger of tolerating the slightest sign of corruption might lead to consequences beyond imagination. They are everything the faithfull hate and the right minded fear compressed into one person, a brilliant target to aim their hate. And the thing is their hate is not without reason. They do not understand what they are but that does not make them more simpathetically, it is the complete different, people hate the unknown and dangerous especialy if it could kill their entire family with one blink. And those that know more, like Akolythes of the Inquisition, know where this might lead to. As a puritan I would not sleep without an open eye on a psyker, if he is doing something wrong he has to stand up for it more than anyone else. And if it is warp-related he can consider himself quite happy to get a second chance. Radicals might be more tollerate but heck, they are radicals and mostly their status as Inquisitors keeps them save though their akolythes do not have this bonus. if they get "accidantly" shot by a puritan cell: bad luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0