Jump to content

DRAGONMOUNT

A WHEEL OF TIME COMMUNITY

Confused by Rand and the Dark One discussion


Recommended Posts

A big problem I had with Rand and the DO. I may be mistaken, but my understanding was that the Pattern as made by the Creator is by its nature neither good nor evil. The Dark One wants to break this system of balance. So I couldn't understand why Rand killing the DO would create a world without free will because nobody can do evil. People doing evil is part of the pattern. That could only happen if Rand also tried to alter the pattern then? Wouldn't killing the dark one still leave a world with free will and where people could do evil? It seemed to be suggesting that the DO is the source of all evil and necessary for the Pattern to work which explicitly contradicts the notion that the DO is NOT part of the pattern.

 

 

To me this really undermined the whole premise and resolution of their confrontation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have mixed up cause and effect.

 

They were altering the pattern in their "conversation" to show different versions. The DO is not the CAUSE of evil, he is the PRODUCT of human evil. To "kill" the D.O. Rand would have had to make it so that humans could never choose evil, because when they chose evil the product was the D.O. In doing this he took away free will, as they no longer could choose between good or evil, which is the base code of free will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the DO is part of the pattern? If the wheel is meant to balance out good and evil; and the DO is a product of said evil then that seems to contradict the notion he isn't part of the Universal Order.

 

Wouldn't killing the DO just mean all those evil actions would eventually feed the birth of a new evil god ala Slannesh from 40k? The DO isn't part of the pattern, so I don't see how killing him, or even burning him from existence could touch the pattern since he isn't part of it. So nothing Rand does to the DO should affect the Pattern. 

 

Unless this suggests that Rand was slightly insane and thinking of creating utopia since he had the chance to alter the pattern. Even though this would wipe the current reality from existence and kill all his friends. I assumed he was just showing visions to the DO of why he is wrong to be a nihilist. Not proposing that he would actually change the world to his vision. But I still don't see how killing him should equate to fundamentally changing part of the pattern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the things I love about this series is that long held beliefs that are considered common knowledge sometimes turn out to be false.  The people of the Third Age and likely the Age of Legends as well believe that The Dark One is an evil deity who is completely alien to the pattern and who has been imprisoned by The Creator.  However, after her return Moiraine, who has often been the voice of wisdom throughout the series, puts forth the radical idea that the DO is in fact part of the pattern.  When Rand enters the Dark One's "prison" he finds that he is not an imprisoned deity but is a force of nature that permeates every inch of the Universe.  The key to understanding the DOs purpose in the pattern lies in the cosmology of the WOT word.  In this word the universe is composed of "agelace" which is spun out by a spinning wheel.  The lives of human beings are the threads that it spins out.  Also important to his cosmology are equal but opposite forces such as Saidin and Saidar which influence these threads.  Similarly the Creator and the Dark one are equal but opposite forces that push or pull the threads toward certain actions, the Creator pulling them toward more benign actions while the DO pulls them toward more destructive actions.  Note than none of these actions are inherently good or evil but depend on the situation.   When Rand creates the world without the DO he notes a shadow behind Elayne's eyes that is similar to the shadow behind the eyes of people who have been turned to the Shadow by the 13 x13 trick.  Just has they have lost the ability to choose benign actions, the people of the DO free world have lost the choice to perform destructive actions and thus free will no longer exists.  The DO exists in order to pull the threads toward more destructive actions, as the Creator exists to pull them toward benign actions.  The choice of which force to resist and which to submit to is up to the individual person, thus if you eliminate one of these forces you eliminate the power to choose.  This is why, as Rand observes, the DO is not the enemy and never was.  He is a necessary part of the pattern and one that worked quite well until someone went and bored a hole into his space and allowed him into a part of the pattern when he never belonged.  Think of the DO like the gas in the gas lines of a house.  If it says where it belongs it heats your home and cooks your food, but if you bore a hole into those lines it becomes quite destructive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just has they have lost the ability to choose benign actions, the people of the DO free world have lost the choice to perform destructive actions and thus free will no longer exists.

Doesn't follow. Unless you contend that it is impossible to choose between two benign actions, the inability to choose destructive actions should not negate free will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The series has always been about the necessity of balance. Whether the Dark One is the byproduct or root of evil in the Pattern we're familiar with, it's not clear. I've argued that he's the root. That doesn't mean I think he's actively pulling strings, but that the Wheel somehow draws on him in its weaving. Or maybe it's deeper than that, and it's not even the Pattern itself, but the make up of the souls. The Creator must, in return, be only good, unable to provide everything a soul needs to contain both light and dark from just himself.

 

We've always thought of the Dark One as evil, but perhaps it's better to think of him as just being similar to the dark part of human kind. I think Perrin's arc best represents the need for balance of creative and destructive tendencies, whether we talk about his internal moral debate, the difference between the axe and the hammer, or even just his conflict with the Tinkers and the occasional necessity of violence in order to act for a greater good. I think Galad's arc also represents the way a person with a "one-track" mind might make choices.

 

Mr. Ares. Choices may still exist. Or perhaps with the absence of any darkness inside of people, there would still be at least the illusion of choice, but people would always act in a deterministic fashion (I'm not sure we need to argue about whether people already act this way) and always choose the choice with less perceived darkness with little nuance beyond that.

Edited by Agitel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a universe without evil how could you define good? It becomes meaningless. In WoT the Good and Evil are the binary base code of the Universe. Without 1, how can you define 0.

 

The DO as a force of nature, either as a product or root, cannot be killed without altering the fabric on nature. It is like killing electricity, you can do all sorts of things to manipulate and contain it, keep it away,etc, but you cannot kill it, remove the possibility of it existing, without altering reality to make that true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a universe without evil how could you define good? It becomes meaningless.

I see no reason why it should. Granted, you could define them purely in relation to one another, but it is possible to define the concept of good without it being in relation to evil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

In a universe without evil how could you define good? It becomes meaningless.

I see no reason why it should. Granted, you could define them purely in relation to one another, but it is possible to define the concept of good without it being in relation to evil.

 

You can't define anything without a comparison.  How exactly can you define good without evil?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

In a universe without evil how could you define good? It becomes meaningless.

I see no reason why it should. Granted, you could define them purely in relation to one another, but it is possible to define the concept of good without it being in relation to evil.

 

 

I am not great at debating philosophy over a forum but I will give it a shot.  My interpretation of Jordan's message was that there is no good or evil as a physical thing. It is a perception of those with a soul, a choice. The sum of choices of these souls is the pattern (base code I mentioned before). The DO is a by-product of these choices but is outside of this universe and cannot directly affect it under normal circumstances.

 

In this way in a universe without evil, good becomes meaningless as there is nothing else. You would never need to define it as you would not know it as a concept and if you did realize it as a concept, some other philosopher would wonder about an anti-concept and evil would be reborn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

In a universe without evil how could you define good? It becomes meaningless.

I see no reason why it should. Granted, you could define them purely in relation to one another, but it is possible to define the concept of good without it being in relation to evil.

 

You can't define anything without a comparison.  How exactly can you define good without evil?

 

 

On a simplistic level, you could define good as actions that help other people and evil as actions that are detrimental to other people.  This defines them without each other, but the argument becomes how do you define actions that help somebody or harm them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

In a universe without evil how could you define good? It becomes meaningless.

I see no reason why it should. Granted, you could define them purely in relation to one another, but it is possible to define the concept of good without it being in relation to evil.

 

You can't define anything without a comparison.  How exactly can you define good without evil?

 

 

On a simplistic level, you could define good as actions that help other people and evil as actions that are detrimental to other people.  This defines them without each other, but the argument becomes how do you define actions that help somebody or harm them.

 

The issue becomes, without evil, help as opposed to what?  Harm?  If harm doesn't exist, then everything is help, and it loses its definition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

In a universe without evil how could you define good? It becomes meaningless.

I see no reason why it should. Granted, you could define them purely in relation to one another, but it is possible to define the concept of good without it being in relation to evil.

 

 

I am not great at debating philosophy over a forum but I will give it a shot.  My interpretation of Jordan's message was that there is no good or evil as a physical thing. It is a perception of those with a soul, a choice. The sum of choices of these souls is the pattern (base code I mentioned before). The DO is a by-product of these choices but is outside of this universe and cannot directly affect it under normal circumstances.

 

In this way in a universe without evil, good becomes meaningless as there is nothing else. You would never need to define it as you would not know it as a concept and if you did realize it as a concept, some other philosopher would wonder about an anti-concept and evil would be reborn.

 

If the DO is merely a byproduct of the evil in people's hearts, then wouldn't killing the DO be temporary?  Wouldn't a new one...coalesce, or something, given enough time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

In a universe without evil how could you define good? It becomes meaningless.

I see no reason why it should. Granted, you could define them purely in relation to one another, but it is possible to define the concept of good without it being in relation to evil.

You can't define anything without a comparison.  How exactly can you define good without evil?

Not every concept has to be defined in terms of binary opposites. In fact, most aren't. Seems to me that if good is that which is not evil and evil is that which is not good then you haven't defined anything, you've just gone in circles. They are related concepts, but that doesn't mean that they rely on each other for definition. (The dictionary defines good without reference to evil, by the way.) By the same token, heat doesn't rely on the concept of cold for definition (as cold is not a force in its own right, merely a lack or absence of heat). Are good and evil forces in their own right (in which case each can be given definition separately from the other), or is one merely an absence or lack of the other (in which case, one is defined, and it is only the other that cannot be defined without the comparison).

 

 

 

In a universe without evil how could you define good? It becomes meaningless.

I see no reason why it should. Granted, you could define them purely in relation to one another, but it is possible to define the concept of good without it being in relation to evil.

I am not great at debating philosophy over a forum but I will give it a shot.  My interpretation of Jordan's message was that there is no good or evil as a physical thing. It is a perception of those with a soul, a choice. The sum of choices of these souls is the pattern (base code I mentioned before). The DO is a by-product of these choices but is outside of this universe and cannot directly affect it under normal circumstances.

 

In this way in a universe without evil, good becomes meaningless as there is nothing else. You would never need to define it as you would not know it as a concept and if you did realize it as a concept, some other philosopher would wonder about an anti-concept and evil would be reborn.

Again, not every concept exists on a spectrum of binary opposites, and even if you do have a theoretical concept of an anti-good, that doesn't magically and miraculously make it exist, any more than a scientist who wonders if there is such a thing as anti-gravity suddenly floats away. Let us say that you can measure goodness on a scale of 0-100, with 0 being an absence of good and 100 being complete good. Where is evil on this scale? Is evil 0, the absence of good, or is it its own scale, going from 0--100? In either case, you can mange without defining evil - in the first, by simply referring to "less good" as a concept, and in the latter merely by there being nothing negative requiring the evil scale. It existing as a theoretical possibility won't make people go out and do evil. Good is defined on its own, without regard to evil and evil on its won without regard to good.

 

Also, while good and evil are not physical things, they are more than just a matter of perception, that's one thing that I took away from RJ's works. He believed that some things were good, and some things were evil, and one thing he liked about fantasy was the ability to have a conflict between good and evil.

 

 

 

 

 

In a universe without evil how could you define good? It becomes meaningless.

I see no reason why it should. Granted, you could define them purely in relation to one another, but it is possible to define the concept of good without it being in relation to evil.

You can't define anything without a comparison.  How exactly can you define good without evil?

On a simplistic level, you could define good as actions that help other people and evil as actions that are detrimental to other people.  This defines them without each other, but the argument becomes how do you define actions that help somebody or harm them.

The issue becomes, without evil, help as opposed to what?  Harm?  If harm doesn't exist, then everything is help, and it loses its definition.

As opposed to not helping. Harm is not the same as an absence of help (hence why the Second Law of Robotics is "a robot shall not harm a human being or through inaction allow a human being to come to harm"). Let us say that a guy gets shot in America today, and I don't help him. The reason that I don't help him is because I am thousands of miles away, in a different country, and didn't know and had no way of knowing that harm was going to come to him. I have not harmed him. I could not have prevented harm coming to him. But I have also not helped him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

In a universe without evil how could you define good? It becomes meaningless.

I see no reason why it should. Granted, you could define them purely in relation to one another, but it is possible to define the concept of good without it being in relation to evil.

 

You can't define anything without a comparison.  How exactly can you define good without evil?

 

 

On a simplistic level, you could define good as actions that help other people and evil as actions that are detrimental to other people.  This defines them without each other, but the argument becomes how do you define actions that help somebody or harm them.

 

The issue becomes, without evil, help as opposed to what?  Harm?  If harm doesn't exist, then everything is help, and it loses its definition.

 

 

As a generic example

 

People are starving worldwide.  I could give money to a charity to help get them food.  Not giving a charity money wouldn't make me evil, but nor would I be doing something to help the starving people.  Stealing food from a starving person may make me evil, but not stealing that food doesn't make me good.  It's possible to define actions as helpful or harmful without needing to define them in relation to each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

In a universe without evil how could you define good? It becomes meaningless.

I see no reason why it should. Granted, you could define them purely in relation to one another, but it is possible to define the concept of good without it being in relation to evil.

 

You can't define anything without a comparison.  How exactly can you define good without evil?

 

 

On a simplistic level, you could define good as actions that help other people and evil as actions that are detrimental to other people.  This defines them without each other, but the argument becomes how do you define actions that help somebody or harm them.

 

The issue becomes, without evil, help as opposed to what?  Harm?  If harm doesn't exist, then everything is help, and it loses its definition.

 

 

As a generic example

 

People are starving worldwide.  I could give money to a charity to help get them food.  Not giving a charity money wouldn't make me evil, but nor would I be doing something to help the starving people.  Stealing food from a starving person may make me evil, but not stealing that food doesn't make me good.  It's possible to define actions as helpful or harmful without needing to define them in relation to each other.

 

The issue is getting really cloudy, haha.  What you're describing are options, not a definition.  My point was just that you cannot "define" good without evil.  In your example, one could say that choosing not to help someone in need when it is within your power to do so may be considered "evil." 

 

Just like you cannot describe colors to a blind person.  Without a reference, there can be no definition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The definition of goodness is not the issue here.  Certainly it is possible to define goodness without contrasting it with evil.  The issue is whether it is justifiable to deprive a population of its freedom for the sake of security.  In this particular case the freedom in question is free will and security is obtained by taking away their freedom to choose evil.  I don't understand why you are arguing about the definition of good or evil.  Its not like the people of the DO free wouldn't know what evil is.  Elayne remembers Rand and therefore must remember the world before TG when evil existed.  The people of this world would know what evil is they would just have no inclination to commit it.  Sounds good a first until you realize that the reason they have no inclination to do evil is the same reason that people who have gotten the 13x13 treatment have no inclination to do good.  We were introduced to the concept of the 13x13 early in the series and after much buildup we finally see it in action.  Essentially the person is deprived of their free will and is thereby made the slave of evil.  We immediately recognize this as wrong but in the end we are forced to ask the question "Is it not just as wrong to deprive a person of their free will even if it makes them the slave of good?"  Sure its a peaceful world, but a peaceful world occupied entirely by slaves.

 

As an aside the ability to define good or evil isnot the true issue of your argument either.  I think the real issue is whether good actions can truly have any meaning if the choice to do evil was not also a possibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without Mashadar, it would make sense. Going by what happens at the end, you would think that all evil belongs to the DO, but that isn't the case. People can make their own form of shadow, so evil can exist outside of the Dark One's influence. The reason is not consistent with the rules of the world, in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without Mashadar, it would make sense. Going by what happens at the end, you would think that all evil belongs to the DO, but that isn't the case. People can make their own form of shadow, so evil can exist outside of the Dark One's influence. The reason is not consistent with the rules of the world, in my opinion.

 

That does seem to be a major plot hole but  I'mnot convinced that it is really a problem.  I know I used the terms "good" and "evil" a lot in my previous post but honestly I think the terms "light" and "dark" may have been better choices.  I think one of the big reveals at the end of WOT is that the DO is not evil at all but is, if fact, as necessary part of the pattern which allows the treads ie human lives to be pulled toward more destructive actions such as war, deception, violence etc.  The kicker is that such things are not necessarily evil but at times are the most prudent course of action.  In essence the DO does not represent evil but instead represents the darker side of human nature.  Mashadar is a force that truly is evil and is shown to contrast with the DO.  I think this contrast of something truly evil with the DO was included as a hint that the DO is not actually evil.  Mashadar is evil, the DO is not therefore they are not the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The definition of goodness is not the issue here.  Certainly it is possible to define goodness without contrasting it with evil.  The issue is whether it is justifiable to deprive a population of its freedom for the sake of security.  In this particular case the freedom in question is free will and security is obtained by taking away their freedom to choose evil.  I don't understand why you are arguing about the definition of good or evil.  Its not like the people of the DO free wouldn't know what evil is.  Elayne remembers Rand and therefore must remember the world before TG when evil existed.  The people of this world would know what evil is they would just have no inclination to commit it.  Sounds good a first until you realize that the reason they have no inclination to do evil is the same reason that people who have gotten the 13x13 treatment have no inclination to do good.  We were introduced to the concept of the 13x13 early in the series and after much buildup we finally see it in action.  Essentially the person is deprived of their free will and is thereby made the slave of evil.  We immediately recognize this as wrong but in the end we are forced to ask the question "Is it not just as wrong to deprive a person of their free will even if it makes them the slave of good?"  Sure its a peaceful world, but a peaceful world occupied entirely by slaves.

Except the absence of free will is not proven, in either case. Consider how RJ described the turning: 

 

 

Week 15 Question: When a channeler is forcibly turned to the Dark, is his/her former personality lost to eternity? Are they in a permanent state of mindless Compulsion? Furthermore, can a channeler forcibly turned to the Dark return to the Light unaided?

 

Robert Jordan Answers: They are not in a mindless state of Compulsion. Their former personality is twisted, the darker elements that everyone has to some degree elevated while what might be called the good elements are largely suppressed. I don't mean things like courage, which is useful even to villains, but they are unlikely to be very charitable, for example, and forget any altruistic impulses. Call it being turned into a mirror image of yourself in many ways. It is very unlikely that a channeler forcibly turned to the Shadow could find a way back to the Light unaided. For one reason, by virtue of the twisting he or she had undergone, it is very unlikely that he or she would have any desire to do so.

Given that it is not proven you're making them slaves, that does rather undermine your central point. But it's not just a question of trading freedom for security, it's about trading a world of good and evil for one of just good - and a world with no evil is better than a world with evil (at least in a moral sense - it might be decidedly less fun to read or write about). Morally, is it really good to allow evil to exist when you could stop it? No.

 

As an aside the ability to define good or evil is not the true issue of your argument either.  I think the real issue is whether good actions can truly have any meaning if the choice to do evil was not also a possibility.

I don't see why an inability to choose evil would mean that all actions became meaningless. Unless you contend that the only meaningful choice one can make is whether to do evil or good?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I agree it's very odd. The thing that I would pint to that really confirms it makes no sense is Shadar Logoth. Shadar Logoth is a known product of human evil that opposes the Dark One and his minions.

 

If humans can't choose evil without the Dark One why does it exist?

 

If the Dark One is the product of human evil then what separates that kind of evil from the evil of Shadar Logoth?

 

Also, if the Dark One is the product of evil wouldn't destroying him just lead to a new Dark One rather than removing free will?

 

Don't get me wrong I love the series but it was rather fuzzy on that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A big problem I had with Rand and the DO. I may be mistaken, but my understanding was that the Pattern as made by the Creator is by its nature neither good nor evil. The Dark One wants to break this system of balance. So I couldn't understand why Rand killing the DO would create a world without free will because nobody can do evil. People doing evil is part of the pattern. That could only happen if Rand also tried to alter the pattern then? Wouldn't killing the dark one still leave a world with free will and where people could do evil? It seemed to be suggesting that the DO is the source of all evil and necessary for the Pattern to work which explicitly contradicts the notion that the DO is NOT part of the pattern.

 

 

To me this really undermined the whole premise and resolution of their confrontation.

 

 

Think of Rand and the Dark One as Republicans and Democrats.

 

Rand is the party of the Pattern, the Wheel of Time, rebirth and second chances, while the Dark One believes that the Pattern is outdated and unnecessary, his party believes that by breaking the Wheel of Time down and rebuilding it in their image they will create a product that is much better than what there is now, so no more rebirths, no more second chances. If Rand were to kill the Dark One then he eliminates a person to choose something other than the Pattern, rebirth and second chances. That means that the next time Rand is reborn he has no adversary to fight, so he will shape the world to his will, and no one will have any other options. Rand would be free to pull the strings of everyone therefore reducing everyone to puppets. 

 

With the Dark One alive people have a choice. They can choose to fight for a world that is free of being constantly reborn, of making the same mistakes over and over again, and fighting the same battles. In the end I don't think the Dark One is evil as much as he is the force that balances out Rands power and influence.

 

That's the way I view it at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Just has they have lost the ability to choose benign actions, the people of the DO free world have lost the choice to perform destructive actions and thus free will no longer exists.

Doesn't follow. Unless you contend that it is impossible to choose between two benign actions, the inability to choose destructive actions should not negate free will.

 

 

Absent the ability to choose evil, you would always choose the action that you saw as the MOST good.  Yes, you're still making a choice but the options are limited by your resources, intelligence, and circumstances of the situation.  But, given those constrains, each individual would always choose the option that does the most good, for the world at large, every single time.  If the choice is binary and it between something that is mostly good for everyone but is more good for themselves or something that is more good for everyone but doesn't benefit themselves as much, we'd be able to correctly predict that they'd choose the latter option 100% of the time.  It would be true for everyone, always and forever.  Since every act would become a mostly selfless act and everyone would help everyone else in pretty short order, the world would be peaceful and resources would be evenly distributed pretty fast so the choices would get to be kind of arbitrary pretty fast so the most good that Aviendha can do is to play with the children (or whatever it is Elayne tells him she is doing that day).

 

My take on it is that as long as the DO's prison is intact, he exists outside of the pattern and only expressed within the pattern as the nebulous concept of evil.  People can do evil because evil exists.  With the bore, the dark one can now directly touch the pattern and, in a sense, exists within it (though not in any physical form).  Now evil exists both as a concept and as a real entity.  The DO is the embodiment of evil within the pattern and is able to influence those who choose evil and in general, can encourage evil thoughts and deeds.

 

So, if Rand had killed the DO, evil would cease to exist as a concept.  No one can choose evil so they always choose good and we can always predict what people will do, free will is gone.  Instead, he seals him back up.  Now he only outside of the pattern and we're back to evil existing only as a concept.  People can choose to do evil or selfish things but it's their own choice and is free from the DO's influence.

 

Had it gone the other way and the DO had broken free of his prison, the opposite would have been true.  Free will would have been gone and people would only have done evil.  I suspect that this would only be because it would take the DO time to unravel the pattern and break the wheel doing away with time completely.  What motivates the DO towards this end, I have no idea but it's clear to me that that is the end game for Moridin and the DO and they know that if anyone else knew their true goal, they'd lose all of their minions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Just has they have lost the ability to choose benign actions, the people of the DO free world have lost the choice to perform destructive actions and thus free will no longer exists.

Doesn't follow. Unless you contend that it is impossible to choose between two benign actions, the inability to choose destructive actions should not negate free will.
 Absent the ability to choose evil, you would always choose the action that you saw as the MOST good.

That doesn't follow either - just because all the possible actions you can choose between are good, doesn't mean you are forced to choose the actions that provide the greatest good. Just because someone is compelled to do good, doesn't mean they are compelled to do the greatest good.

 

Frankly, I think Rand's "perfect" world tells us more more about Rand's inability to truly picture a world without evil than it does show us what a world without evil would truly be like. Shai'tan came close to victory at Dragonmount, and those scars have yet to fade. Even in his defiance, he cannot achieve true victory, and settles for a delay, a continuation of the cycle. I guess Elan Morin had a point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're missing the point. It was never about good vs evil, it was always about choice or freedom to choose.

The elimination of either is the loss of choice.

 

The Wheel turns on choice, one pull against the other. 

If Rand kills the DO, the Wheel is broken.

If the Rand surrenders to the DO, the Wheel is broken.

Edited by Finnssss
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...