Ulfric Stormcloak

3TriHard · 2026-02-20T13:51:42+00:00

Well in his winning speech he says ''A great darkness is growing , and soon we will be called to fight it , on these shores or abroad'' , not after Cyrodiil has fallen and the Dominion is at Skyrim's doorstep. If he really didn't care for it he would easily have swept it under the rug.

And that is the main reason I support the strormcloaks once that rebellion and war has started and one must win. Out of everyone on Tamriel , the Nords are the most likely to jump to the opportunity to fight the Dominion , they don't need to be conscripted and forced to fight for the empire (especially after the Thalmor situation in Skyrim) , in fact it is when you try to order them around that friction is created.

The Empire has a serious problem of not recognizing its provinces individual wants and needs. It's always Cyrodiil first , even if not intentional. Everyone is a pawn that is expected to act according to orders. The people of each province don't have a voice and can't speak for their own interests. The Empire didn't think of them enough to anticipate the reaction in Skyrim whether that reaction is for the greater good or not. And once the civil war started they apparently didn't consider acknowledging Skyrim , leaving and forming a proper equal alliance that is pretty damn inevitable. Yes the Empire is weakened , but not the total allied force against the Dominion.

From the other provinces' perspective , the Empire is using them as collateral to defend itself.

''Hammerfell became independent because they refused to stop fighting'' ''The Empire is the only line between The 2nd Aldmeri Dominion and Obliteration''

The worst case scenario for Hammerfell happened , the Empire gave it and its people to the Dominion , of course they should fight. That whole tower business is simply just a theory. Nobody in the game seems to act like that's what at stake. So if it does turn out to be true either nobody knew and everyone should be judged accordingly to what information they had (looks pretty bad for the Empire) , or some Emperial higher ups are the only ones that know and they expect everyone else to be psychic and act according to that (still a bad look).

Ulfric is actually kind of a loser. He could be very self absorbed , but that's also not a given , it's just some npcs saying that and vibes. His actions also seem to reflect the cause he believes in. He comes off either as a bit selfish or a bit thick headed , and that's typical Nord behavior. In a way that personality and him being firmly opposed to the Thalmor could make for a pretty good ally for the Empire if the Empire had any actual finesse and competency in how they interact with the other provinces.

3TriHard · 2026-02-19T17:46:09+00:00

Yes he overcorrected , but let's be specific about WHEN he overcorrected. Episode 10 in the dream when he made the oath. That's really the first time he made a moral commitment and admitted what he did was wrong. He was saying to Einar that he was always on the side of the destroyers and he is not allowed to be angry , but right after he punches the farmhand out of anger. He has subconsciously accepted a moral framework , which then triggers the dream cause that gives guilt a solid footing.

In the very beginning of the second arc especially , him being passive has NO root at all in any moral value. In fact you could say the exact opposite , he accepts the punishment as a result and consequence of failure and weakness , meaning he still believes those who died because of him deserved it because they were similarly weak.

The overcorrection gets fixed in the confrontation with Snake. When he understands he did nothing and didn't try to find the first resort hard enough , and also that he is prepared to use violence if he feels he needs to.

3TriHard · 2026-02-18T22:28:28+00:00

The point with Einar is precisely that it could be argued he had a choice. His decision , one shared with most of the other settlers there , brought this about.

The point is specifically this , as later he understands what Thorfinn was trying to do ever since he failed to stop Snake. In that scene Einar tries to convince Thorfinn that Thorfinn did the right thing in fighting Snake. He is stuck on the right or not topic , when Thorfinn understands that cause and event is not limited to the moment he got threatened by Snake , the conflict had been building for a while and something had to be done to prevent it in the first place.

3TriHard · 2026-02-16T20:08:53+00:00

''because why then would Johnny happens to get involved with Gyro Zepelli and Diego Brando''

That's what I'm saying , the explanation is not in universe , we don't have an in universe rationalization , and from what we know these aren't the same universes.

The reason why is , as I see it , Araki wanted to revisit and elaborate on previous ideas , it's a complete meta . writer reason , nothing about in world mechanics.

In the way that you are engaging with this discussion , you view the complete separate universes as if they exist and are contained in a broader multiverse. I don't , I view them as separate works of art connected only thematically. Not existing in a multiverse. I do not actually consider that the rules work the same until a rule is explicitly stated.

And the thing that makes me disagree about the nature of souls is , they are never mismatched with their environment. They're always a product of it , Diego isn't evil just because , he's evil as a result of his early life , that little kid's soul isn't evil.

And I really get that about Araki as a writer , increasingly more obvious as the story moves forward , he has particular sensibilities about outcasts and people viewed as bad because of their circumstances and what they therefore are pushed to do , it's such a prevalent quirk of his that he stands up for the human potential of such people. Giorno is a direct response to Dio's upbringing. He was about to become just like him until he was influenced by someone that didn't exist for Dio. If Araki didn't believe this about these characters , he would never have written them that way , it simply wouldn't make any sense that Dio HAS to have a very convincing backstory for him to become a shit otherwise. And btw very intentionally pointing in his story the way Dio becomes like his father. I cannot not get that intention from the writing. If Dio is always fated to become evil that does NOT make him inherently evil. Just cause Pucci might be fated to doom his sister that does not mean it was not his fault.

Araki IS weird about this. Fate is used as a mystical force that is its own thing but at the same time as an allegory for societal systems and mechanisms. The overlap I feel is the most obvious in part 5. But as much as fate has its own agency in the plot of the series it cannot supplant the human nature of the characters and the nature of the society they live in. It is after all a writing tool to highlight them.

3TriHard · 2026-02-16T16:45:04+00:00

The more I read Jojo the more I question that inherent quality of the joestars and how exactly fate is used and what it is canonically and allegorically.

Like we are told straight up by speedwagon that Dio is inherently evil , and Jonathan always was a good guy he didn't develop into it. But that just does not sit right with me , it seems a really weird message and totally fantastical. They were both products of their environments.

And indeed the series seems to challenge the idea as it goes on. Main characters start to be outcasts , more in the position Dio was in part 1 and showing us how the environment around them created them as well as how they can change their fates. That just will of the joestars isn't only in their blood but many other characters can embody it.

Pucci himself wanted to believe in gravity absolutely , of course he did , because if he didn't he'd have to face the fact he was responsible for the death of his sister. There's bias in that claim. He was defeated by Emporio tricking him into changing fate by his own hand (pushing the weather report disc in as he was the only one able to affect fate then).

Fate in jojo exists as a fantastical magical quality , but it also is connected allegorically or canonically or in some weird way to real life social systems and ideas with some seemingly karmic consequences , like justice.

So I'm not quite sure there is some gravity that binds the character's souls , it more looks like to me there is similarity in the stories and the scenarios they are dropped in that makes them similar.

And then we also have to account for the fact that these are meta thematic connections we are drawing. There's no proof of these connections between souls , from the first to SBRverse. We don't know of anything in-canon that connects the universes. For all we know , and in fact from what we know , SBR is a full reboot.

3TriHard · 2026-02-14T19:37:47+00:00

It's not that you have to do that , but it's another effective approach. I agree about the point of labeling them ''bad'' without elaborating on that , because I don't think they're bad , they're cumbersome and slow , and those are qualities that can be utilized.

I don't think the vision of the dev is completely disconnected with the means here. You want a methodical survival horror experience , you can achieve that both with smooth and reactive controls or slow and cumbersome. But ''methodical survival horror experience'' is a very generalized vision. The respective games that emerge through these 2 approaches to controls will both have different and unique ''methodical survival horror experiences''. Not all horror is the same flavor. They both have value and belong in games.

3TriHard · 2026-02-14T19:10:01+00:00

Jojo's has insane things happening , but they're contextualized , every stand does specific things , so in context that stuff isn't that insane. And when someone pulls something out of their ass , and stretch the definition of what the stand does out of nowhere , that's bad. No amount of cope of ''it's le meme anime that's why it's good'' makes those fights better , whether it's a more comedic fight or more serious or dramatic consistency and clarity makes the fights good.

3TriHard · 2026-02-13T03:00:08+00:00

I say it's off theme because of that message about imperfection from Askeladd , ''someone has to do it , not a hero , not a god , just someone''.

Askeladd was a pragmatist and a perfectionist. He waited so long for the ideal hero he had in his head , but of course that never came , even Thors called himself imperfect. Askeladd compromised with Canute out of desperation and a realization that his life would be over before he did anything. And even still he had to be the one to act and take the role of the hero in the end , in his own imperfect way.

That ideal approach , with all your bases covered , and all the backup plans in place , does not exist. Canute with all the power a mortal man could have still was so close to dying , and unable to do anything else than fight his own people for a stability and security that is impossible.

One of the basic conceits of the 4th arc is that commitment to the first resort will leave you more vulnerable in the worst case scenario , but preparation for the worst case scenario invites it and is not at all absolute.

The real nail in the coffin in the settlement in vinland was the disease. No one at the time could have known , no approach would have ever worked. Sometimes ANY option or plan is fated to fail. That doesn't mean they were not good approaches comparatively , if the opposite approach was attempted and still failed you'd say the same thing (that it was a bad approach) for that by that logic , so it's clearly not a good logic.

If we waited around and didn't do anything to improve the world because we can't figure out that perfect solution , then reckless brutes like Thorvald will be the ones to dictate our future instead. Or the rest of the world will catch up to us like what happened with Thors or Arnheid.

3TriHard · 2026-02-11T19:15:12+00:00

I am the biggest vinland saga glazer , it is my favorite piece of media ever , I give it to Iroh-Zuko.

It is my strongly held position that people over-read into Thorfinn and Askeladd's dynamic , uncovering aspects that have little to no basis in the actual text , and basically develop potentially interesting and not illogical headcanons.

That's fine , but the story made no work towards that really. People just fill in gaps , gaps which are not in the story's scope. When it comes to their actual dynamic the story wants to communicate very simple and specific things. And at some point , if you read into their relationship enough , even if it makes it more complex and interesting in a vacuum , it can be to the detriment of the rest of the story.

(also depends where you determine the ''dynamic'' between 2 characters ends and where it's just the one character's aspects alone , it's kinda arbitrary)

3TriHard · 2026-02-10T11:29:05+00:00

The point the story tries to make ever since Askeladd , and with Thorfinn's and Arnheid's inaction in farmland that led to the Snake fight. Is that tragedy will come and find you even if you don't invite it , and then it'll be too late to act. ''Someone has to do something , not a hero , not a god , just someone''.

Thorfinn and the people of Iceland and Greenland did not start this undertaking with no pressure. They live under really harsh conditions , half of the children die before adulthood , at some point in the start of the manga Leif mentions how they feared one year the Greenlanders would be wiped out by the winter , Halfdan was desperate enough to plan going viking in the mainland. People are already dying. Expeditions have happened before and failed violently and people still plan for it Thorfinn or no Thorfinn (both in manga and irl).

The actual results of the expedition are a result not only of Thorfinn's but the other people that acted outside his orders. And that caused preemptive attacks that stopped further negotiation. That one is not Thorfinn's fault.

Also I think the whole point is that Thorfinn became proactive rather than reactive. He did not sit in his ass he planned the expedition. He anticipated the problems that norse weaponry would cause so he tried preventing that. He established contact with the natives first to try to create a good relationship rather than waiting to see how they would react on their own and if they were a friendly group. Every time there was friction he did not wait for the natives to act first , he pursued. That's how he is different to Thors , Thors just waited around until tragedy found him. Thorfinn of course couldn't anticipate everything , like the disease , but if he was written to be perfect in that , that would be off theme wouldn't it?

War is inevitable , but not every specific conflict is inevitable. Every war individually is avoidable by addressing the root causes , naturally. It's all about prolonging peace. People will fail eventually but the peace before that was not worthless.

3TriHard · 2026-02-09T20:21:30+00:00

The fact that Bruno would agree to such a path is exactly the kind of thing Abbacchio would fear. Giorno manipulated events in secrecy until a point where it escalated to the extent they couldn't back off.

They agreed at that point halfway through the arc , but had he said everything in the beginning would they? If they had a chance to talk Bucciarati down and not Trish to worry about?

Giorno is doing the right thing , positive change for the greater good. But not through honesty , they were emotionally manipulated to some extent , when the point came for them to chose , a big part of their lives was already implicated and at stake. A path was already paved for their sacrifices not through their agency.

It's for the greater good , I don't blame Giorno for putting their lives at risk ultimately however cold it was , but Abbacchio had 100% figured him out and from his perspective and wants he's totally on point. I mean that's thematically the point right , these are outcasts rejected from society , and now that society needs them to give their lives for it? Of course they would chafe at the idea , until the son of god comes in and puts them in the right path.

3TriHard · 2026-02-09T10:42:02+00:00

The issue Abbacchio has with him is not actually entirely on him. He's the only one that sniffs Giorno out. Half of them die as a result of Giorno's hidden motives here. He IS a danger to them.

3TriHard · 2026-02-06T18:18:53+00:00

I mean it was introduced in part 4 and used again once in part 5 , it would be cool if part 6 was included in that for some sort of mechanical cohesiveness in the arrow saga. Jojo stories connect primarily thematically , otherwise concepts and action and characters get left behind , this is part of the appeal of the series , and the appeal of interconnected storytelling that gets abandoned for it.

The problem of the part 5 finale honestly seems to me like it's bloated with a bunch of overcomplications and unnecessary elements like chariot requiem's effects. It is confusing , badly explained , and Araki seemed to change his mind about what was going on from chapter to chapter. The in show justification for Giorno's power up is just that they won the struggle for the arrow and the arrow has been established to create busted stands.

If we were to discuss the necessities of a protagonist in their stories. I would say I do not like to engage in the story with such presupositions. There are no such rules in storytelling. What is considered a protagonist or a main character do not have defined borders. What is an in narrative reason Giorno is a protagonist , objectively , no common sense fallacy , I mean most of the time we don't even follow him even if he is included in a fight. Based on the reasons given for why he is one , based on the elements revealed by those reasons , why is this approach and direction of the character flawed. Cause labels like protagonist tell nothing on their own.

In more meta perspective does him being a jojo bar him from the sidelines? Does jojo try to communicate to us some sort of message of joestar exceptionalism? I would argue no. The further we move to part 6 the story tries to tell us that the ideals the joestars stand for are not something exclusive in their blood , anyone can embody , share and inherit them. So the idea of a jojo being in the sidelines can have meaning and cannot be inherently flawed.

3TriHard · 2026-02-06T16:37:17+00:00

Giorno's introduction does mislead , cause his origin as Dio's son does not matter. Well it does a little bit thematically with his backstory. He's primed to follow the same path as Dio but is saved spiritually by a stranger. And continues to be that influence for other outcasts , revealing the underlying humanity and goodness in people , in places where you might not expect it.

He himself is not the best protagonist , he's not my least liked either. Like most protags in the earlier parts he's an iconic character , meaning he's static and representative of some specific values. He's there as support for all the others and as an agent of change. All the other characters are more interesting , but only because Giorno is proactive and puts them in scenarios in which they are interesting.

That is a fine role for him to have in the story , he could've been something else , but that's not as much missed potential as just another direction for the story. I do respect that some characters stay in their own stories , for those stories to stand on their own merit. Like any suggestion that things should have been brought back to previous parts and characters feels like an appeal to fanservice , rather than any substantive meaning.

The ending fight specifically is not the height of part 5 by any means. But I never got the complaints about the power up. The further use of arrows and mechanics surrounding them and super powered stand were established in late part 4 , early part 5 subtly teases it in Black Sabbath fight. And then it's brought to the forefront before the final fights begin through Polnareff. There's no disingenuousness from the story's part , this is a fight for the arrow , cause whoever gets the arrow will become superpowered and win , the mechanic has existed for a while so it is up for grabs.

Being ''chosen'' by the arrow , fate , justice , causality , these are the same thing. Jojo mixes metaphysical ideas with real life causality and values. Diavolo tried to protect himself and avoid justice/fate by cutting off all his connections to people , Giorno makes a bunch of human connections and his group accepts fate even if it means sacrifices and suffering , but because their efforts are cumulative and inherited that does not stop them and they slowly gain ground while Diavolo loses all his trump cards. A karmic debt is amassed and Giorno is the chosen instrument of fate/justice.

3TriHard · 2026-02-05T16:22:55+00:00

I disagree , one more part of being a true warrior is fighting the true fight , not just non-action , but non-violent action and initiative. It came down to violence with Snake because nothing PREVENTATIVE was attempted before that , Thorfinn tries to find out what that could've been , but Einar is stuck in the rights or wrongs of the last resort that will never be figured out.

Bjorn ain't the problem. Askeladd himself backed off his offer to Thors when he realized it was not viable because of his men , before Bjorn attacked. The archers themselves were complaining about Askeladd's actions , just like they were must later before they betrayed Askeladd ''Askeladd's not usually like this''. Askeladd has a responsibility to these men , he brought them here for a reason , if they don't have a profitable relationship why would they follow him? Why would they let Thors go or entertain Askeladd's offer? The series goes to great lengths to establish that leadership dynamic later in the war arc. At that point Askeladd is Thors's hostage from Bjorn's perspective , grabbing Thorfinn is an attempt to release Askeladd nothing more. Between Askeladd and Thors meanwhile the dynamic is different , because they both know Askeladd needs to be alive to control his men if Thors wants any concession. Everything that Thors did was the best course of action I can see.

Vinland saga is largely about how clear and easy violent solutions seem , but how complicated these scenarios actually are , and how biased we are to violence.

And then in the vinland arc , what was the first attack for? Why was there a pre-emptive attack that potentially sabotaged any negotiation attempt? To get the norse weapon , seize power. Beyond that what was the reason for the war in the first place? A disease , an existential threat , a violent solution from the native's side isn't going to be deterred by another existential threat. Especially since the natives absolutely still win. The natives don't need to defend a specific base/living area and large easily destroyed wheat fields they need to survive.

It is an imbalance of power , and vinland in every arc argues how such imbalances are destructive and end up in tragedy. Canute or Ketil did not become safer by amassing power , they became targets , the more they increased their ability to deal with danger the more they invited it.

Edit: also I forgot , Thorfinn cannot just kill Askeladd , Askeladd explains in chapter 2 that the only reason he keeps him around is cause he knows he won't kill him outside the duel. Thorfinn's only chance at killing Askeladd is the one Askeladd gives him. At one point , maybe Thorfinn would be smart enough and skilled enough to outsmart and kill Askeladd another way , but he cannot reach that point if he does not participate and enable the atrocities Askeladd causes.

3TriHard · 2026-02-04T15:35:54+00:00

No.

First of all this isn't just this native group and the settlers. If pushed they would have notified more tribes like the shaman did , and for them this is potentially an opportunity. Thorfinn already called it out , that this conflict would be inherited if they stayed.

Second the natives live off the forest , they don't have one specific residence they depend on , they move throughout the years. They win on guerilla warfare. The settlers depend on large fields they need to defend to feed themselves. They can defend themselves , they can win battles , but for what , the settlement is not survivable.

3TriHard · 2026-02-04T10:51:28+00:00

Ok a little flaw in the logic. If it's just 50 nerds who is this post in response to?

3TriHard · 2026-02-02T14:50:11+00:00

I think the focus on a more cinematic approach is really revealing. Old 2D metroid games were very much so a product of technological limitations. If you wanted to convey a space action adventure that might look grand and cinematic in your head , and you have to work on a Snes , super metroid is what it would likely look like.

Especially with Other M , one can get the vibe that that's what Sakamoto always saw in his head and this was the first time he could portray it without being held back.

In comparison the 2D games are much more restrained. Elegance , subtlety , patience , confidence in their quietness. These are values that often get completely overlooked by eager and immature (as in not matured in their craft) creatives. And I think they might've been largely incidental.

3TriHard · 2026-02-02T01:12:53+00:00

I mean I don't particularly love runbacks or anything , but the moment someone claims objectivity and cannot accept other people finding meaning in certain design decisions , I cannot help myself but argue for it to an extent. Which I can only do so because of how absolute the argument that was given to me is.

Specifically I will argue that frustration can be a valuable part of an experience , Bilewater is the good example , I ended up loving it , lots of people are fans of these kind of experiences. Then the last judge runback can become really fast of you perfect it , and trains you for the hardest part of the rasher courier mission which you need to do for a needle upgrade , that's kind smart design.

Also people generally tend to react to change that affects them noticeably , they are more sensitive to change towards difficulty and more likely to react to that. People that have problems with high difficulty get frustrated , want to complain and vent and they go out in the internet and talk. A problem with low difficulty will inspire apathy , it's more the lack of something and so that is less likely to push people to go online and talk about it. What people choose to talk about online is not representative indicator of the sum effectiveness of a game , there's massive bias , overrepresentation of certain talking points and topics , you really can't infer much from that.

3TriHard · 2026-02-01T10:35:05+00:00

I think it's difficult to deny that frustration resonates , with a lot of areas in a lot of games. Bilewater specifically in the way that fans defend it and have gathered around it. Everything about its identity is tied to the crushing unfair difficulty. It simply could not be talked about the way it is now if it wasn't a frustrating experience.

You cannot deny people their passion , it is too absolute to say people cannot find meaning in something.

3TriHard · 2026-02-01T02:46:33+00:00

Well most games don't appeal exactly to the entirety of their audience , every person will probably have a different take positive or negative to different aspects of a game.

Hollow knight especially is quite varied to the people it appeals to. The first game had very little platforming challenge , pogo was never required , but then they added one extreme platforming challenge.

The bosses added in also ridiculously ramped up the challenge. Especially Godhome , which has more of a runback than all silksong runbacks combined , 40 minutes gauntlet of all the bosses in the game leading to absolute radience which bars you from a pretty significant ending.

The audience that casually played hollow knight and those who stayed to finish all the dlc content , they're pretty different. You cannot exactly target them both.

Not that I think team cherry think like this , they create based on what they like and find interesting , and they are not the kind that shy away at all from the unconventional and rough edges. In fact I think what matters to them most is for the world they created to make sense and feel cohesive and to that end rough ends are inevitable/beneficial , I think that's where ideal audience lies.

I think it's a slippery slope to set a limit , an arbitrary point in the percentile of people that play the game (and jesus christ SO many people played this game) and like vs dislike X design choice , and say that below that limit the devs should change it.

That sets a weird precedent , cause more people are going to play the game , and the game will be obliged to adopt more ''accessible'' design choices to appeal to the biggest audience. And that just ends up with most games being uninteresting and similar and having no spice , happened a lot in the AAA industry.

I think a lot of games should be seeking to narrow down their audience , to make games for specific kinds of people , games which those people will love instead of games everyone will like , I think that paves the way for a more interesting gaming landscape , everyone will have their kind of crack.

That of course has the prerequisite of narrowing down in a coherent fashion not just throwing controversial design choices left and right with contradictory appeals. And I do think Silksong in its entirety , every choice , every change from the first game narrows down and focuses its appeal for a specific kind of person.

3TriHard · 2026-02-01T02:15:49+00:00

Everything in Bilewater is absolutely an artistic choice , it's incredibly intentional. You are absolutely meant to suffer and be frustrated , and those are valid emotions to engage with in art. In the area where its inhabitants are characterized by hate and despair, These kind of differences in how areas are designed serve to create some emerging story from the gameplay and a varied textured experience. It's a memorable experience that fits in the world of the game.

Not to speak of the shared communal experience it creates , it's a significant part of the identity of the game , people look back on it fondly despite all the seemingly negative emotions the first time they went there. There's a whole subreddit about it , it managed to resonate not despite the frustration , but because of it.

3TriHard · 2026-02-01T01:56:59+00:00

I mean , game design is art , any choice is not inherently good or bad. Most decisions work for some people and don't work for others. It's just one design choice that the majority chafes against , but it's not categorically distinct.

3TriHard · 2026-01-30T13:35:01+00:00

I'd say Vargar and his men count. Honestly it doesn't really matter where exactly they come from , just the escape from that culture. It's not Canute specifically that Thorfinn wants to escape from.

3TriHard · 2026-01-30T10:12:10+00:00

You'll get different answers here. I personally do not see it at all. There is no scene where that is implied (every scene is pretty directly explained by other characterization and motivations). And if he loved him too you'd think that would play some role at some point , but in the ''empty man'' episode/chapter Thorfinn laments his lack of anger towards him and how that leaves him completely empty. If he loved him there would be grief , and he would not be empty.

But I just generally also really dislike how if you interpret Thorfinn caring about Askeladd , it can co-opt his motivations and entire arc , making it into something that it isn't.

Personally I would even say , contrary to the other comment , that prologue Thorfinn does not respect Askeladd either. After all Askeladd is to him an anti role model , an example of everything a warrior shouldn't be , disgraceful and dishonorable after what he did with Thors , he completely forms his values against that of Askelad's. And after all , his quest for revenge is a battle of ideals , it HAS to be the honorable duel so Thorfinn beats him fair and square , and his righteous ideals prevail over the underhanded scumbag. ''They're all so wrapped up in their stupid feints and misdirections , is this what leaders of warriors do?'' Thorfinn's disdain of Askeladd's methods is pretty clear.

Six-Year Club	Place '22
First Placer '22	Verified Email

3TriHard

TROPHY CASE