Talk:Fourth Interregnum: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
: I don't think so? You mean just because it took forever? --[[User:Detarame|absalom]] 09:49, 30 April 2010 (EDT) | : I don't think so? You mean just because it took forever? --[[User:Detarame|absalom]] 09:49, 30 April 2010 (EDT) | ||
:: On account of Peteran wizards disjoined it (first paragraph). --[[User:Msallen|Msallen]] | :: On account of Peteran wizards disjoined it (first paragraph). --[[User:Msallen|Msallen]] | ||
::: Ah, good call. It was reconstituted, after a fashion, though no longer nearly as powerful. If it was ever permanently destroyed, the church would probably collapse under the weight of writing new rules of succession. Better to cobble together some pale imitation of the original Stone-Warden. --[[User:Detarame|absalom]] 10:21, 30 April 2010 (EDT) | |||
Revision as of 14:21, 30 April 2010
Which faction won? -Slitherrr
- Since Edrell Dakt ended up becoming Arch-Warden, smart time-traveler money is on him. I'll add it. -gm
- This is also why the Mainland doesn't go crusading very often. Each time more disastrous than the last. -gm
Did this permanently destroy the Stone-Warden? --Msallen
- I don't think so? You mean just because it took forever? --absalom 09:49, 30 April 2010 (EDT)
- On account of Peteran wizards disjoined it (first paragraph). --Msallen
- Ah, good call. It was reconstituted, after a fashion, though no longer nearly as powerful. If it was ever permanently destroyed, the church would probably collapse under the weight of writing new rules of succession. Better to cobble together some pale imitation of the original Stone-Warden. --absalom 10:21, 30 April 2010 (EDT)
- On account of Peteran wizards disjoined it (first paragraph). --Msallen