153429 réponses à ce sujet

[TheyCallMeBunny]

So cute.

 

We have quite a while to go, so the hellspiral will come and go. Only natural.

 

Still, I can't wait until they announce something, but my best guess for that isn't until after the new Mass Effect comes out. DAI was officially announced 6 months after ME3 came out.

 

But this time around we know David Gaider's secret IP is also in the works. So they're not solely working with two series now. Who knows when things will be official. There's also Magekiller coming. And Gaider's DA novel that he confirmed writing Fenris for.

 

Do you have any idea how nervous that last part makes me? I mean, I love Solas, but Fenris is in a league of his own... if anything happens to him the Blanket Fort will have to do some serious crisis management! 

[Cee]

The Tevinter pieces are sliding into place. I'm really, really curious about this novel.

[Siha]

I'm thinking along the lines of how the Anchor was made using Fen'Harel's orb. He can control it to a certain extent - that's how he keeps it from killing us at the beginning of the game.  So it's linked to him, and it's possible Cole is detecting something about Fen'Harel through it.

 

So the line was: "Your hand hurts. A heartbeat. Not yours. Hammering the beat of a song in its final verse. I'm sorry." ?

I don't see any clear relation to Solas dying.

Hand hurts - a heartbeat. But a heartbeat is a sign of life not of the ending of it. I do see how "in its final verse" might indicate dying, but not necessarily so. It might also refer to somebody's actions/decisions. Like the heartbeat reflecting the own determination and "its final verse" indicating that this person finally decided what to do and has dedicated him/herself entirely to a particular goal no matter the cost; i.e., no searching or hesitation anymore but a strong determination, constant and adamant like a heartbeat. (Ignoring how a heartbeat could, of course, be stopped...)

And "I'm sorry"... that only works for a romanced Lavellan. If we get this banter always it would be strange and not make any sense for all those playthroughs with a rival or at least not romanced Solas.

 

How else can redemption be achieved do you think?

 

What about working hard and trying and doing the best you can to put things right instead of taking the "easy" way, sacrificing yourself for quick redemption and leaving the world behind to help itself somehow?

 

Also, my Inquisitor ended up getting most of Clan Lavellan killed and was told she now carries the clan. So, if the Jennies actually manage to *find* some survivors, my Inquisitor would probably feel obliged to have kids with one of them, but would be miserable the whole time because she *really* wants the highly intellectual partner she had in Solas.

 

I had to laugh so hard at this. That's just ridiculous. That's like apes in a zoo. "Ah look, the mating season is coming, we must organize some female for Teffo". I mean... sure... somebody who's already shown to make bad decisions that got her clan killed might actually consider this option... but for the clan it might actually be better such a person wouldn't reproduce.

Besides, I don't see much of a chance of survival for a clan consisting of offspring of only two available people. Leaves us with few options. The children would need to breed with their parents and each other for lack of other genetic material. In no time we'd be left with people who'd be intellectually challenged by a cucumber and, most likely, get theirselves exterminated anyway.

 

I get your point. I just don't agree. His solution isn't to use death and destruction to save the world. His solution is to tear down the veil. The death and destruction that will likely follow is not what he wants, but it is an unfortunate byproduct. That distinction is important.

 

I haven't yet caught up on your dispute and haven't made up my mind yet (and so far I am not even quite sure why you are arguing at all though I might want to add I don't like the tone of it much). So this is not me taking sides or a position. But here I disagree. Solas does resort to death and destruction. You are mostly (I'll come back to this later) right when you say that it's not his major goal but collateral damage. However, yes, his "solution [is] to use death and destruction". He knows that tearing down the veil will bring just that (as you point out yourself), and thus, his very solution is death and destruction. Destruction explicitly (destroying the veil and the world as it is) and death implicitly by the (seemingly) inevitable death of races or at least individuals that will follow. It's blind to disregard this as He has the best intentions and only accepts the possible negative side effects. 

In fact I don't even find it justified to claim it's "not what he wants". It is not? Only because he says "I'm sorry but you will all die"? It's actually sort of what he wants. He wants this world to end, to re-shape it and rebuild what once was. This requires death and destruction (because these people/things must die to restore the world as it was without them), so death and destruction are exactly part of what he wants.

 

So, when you point out how the "distinction is important" you should make a real, fine-grained distinction and not just one that serves your means in an argument.

[Siha]

I caught up on the debate and I think you are discussing the wrong thing. In fact, I think you don't even have different opinions, you just use different words. The two of you both think that Solas has given up on trying to find other solutions for the problem at hand and feels restricted to one course of action. The only bit where you differ is that midnight thinks he's done so because he doesn't know what else to do (though he might not even like his own plan) while DarkSun thinks he's done so because he believes that the plan he came up with is also the best thing he can do, thus he doesn't try finding an alternate solution any longer. But, really, that difference is minor and we just cannot know anyway.

 

Moreover I think that midnight's use of the term "learned helplessness" just lead to misunderstanding simply because she doesn't use it the way it was intended to be used. Because:
 

Giving up and thinking that he has to do what is necessary to be done/is right are not two mutually exclusive things. It's erroneous to assume that a person has to be motivated just by one thing (be it learned helplessness, conviction that one is right or else), when we know these situations are more complex than that. This is why I said that his situation has "a lot" to do with learned helplessness, but not absolutely everything.

 

"Learned helplessness" is not a motivation and it is nothing a person thinks about (or even can think about). It is a learned inactivity pattern, it applies to a specific stimulus, most likely even to a particular situation, and it was acquired subconsciously. It is not like a decision I make based on thought and consideration, after weighing all pros and cons. I just react and it is a strong reaction, as the scientists found out, which can only be broken by demonstration and not by persuasion. This makes it a rather "absolute" concept; there's just so little you can do about it once it's manifested itself.

So I could say your statement above is sort of correct but in fact it also shows that you apply the very phrase "learned helplessness" in a different context than how it should be used (because what you suggest does not work for this concept).

 

It doesn't make sense only because you think about it in a simplistic fashion, it seems. There is no contradiction if you understand that learned hopelessness, or even just the concept of giving up doesn't always mean giving up entirely and just, say, lie on the floor, completely defeated -

Well, in fact, yes. That is just what it means. This specific term specifically came from a specific experiment with dogs. It was coined by these men who noticed that the dogs (generalized to "animals") would do just that -- lay down and whine when shocked, just enduring the pain without even trying to move (= act) at all. It is the very basic notion of "learned helplessness" and whenever psychology uses this term for people, basically re-assigns it, it still refers to these people being inactive due to the perceived helplessness and loss of control.
 

it also means resigning oneself to certain outcomes, or never expecting that they'd be able to overcome certain obstacles even if they try.

Exactly. And because people resign, according to the theory of learned helplessness, they don't do anything at all (basically saving energy: because nothing I could possibly do will bring relief I just don't do anything at all because it's not worth the energy I'd invest). It's not part of the concept that the dogs take up arms and assault their tormentors because they don't expect that anything they do will change their situation.

Actually, you sort of contradict your own citation of the learned helplessness theory because you acknowledge that Solas wants to improve the world and thinks that only destruction of the status quo will achieve this -- he hopes, he wants, he plans to improve, he acts. This is not at all the concept of "giving up trying because of learned hopelessness". He does try. Simply he has set his mind on a particular goal and stubbornly follows the respective path.

 

--

What I am pointing out is just that I think you use the wrong term and got into a debate over it. In psychology, most terms and concepts are coined for very specific phenomena and observations. "Learned helpnessness" is not a broad as you interpret it (or let's say: not intended to be used as broadly). But your opinion itself about giving up etc I do not comment on at all. Of course he has given up somehow. And of course nothing in life is quite as absolute. I agree with you there. So, again, I don't say one of you is right and the other is wrong (in fact I even think you don't differ so much).

[TheyCallMeBunny]

I caught up on the debate and I think you are discussing the wrong thing. In fact, I think you don't even have different opinions, you just use different words. The two of you both think that Solas has given up on trying to find other solutions for the problem at hand and feels restricted to one course of action. The only bit where you differ is that midnight thinks he's done so because he doesn't know what else to do (though he might not even like his own plan) while DarkSun thinks he's done so because he believes that the plan he came up with is also the best thing he can do, thus he doesn't try finding an alternate solution any longer. But, really, that difference is minor and we just cannot know anyway.

 

Moreover I think that midnight's use of the term "learned helplessness" just lead to misunderstanding simply because she doesn't use it the way it was intended to be used. Because:
 

 

"Learned helplessness" is not a motivation and it is nothing a person thinks about (or even can think about). It is a learned inactivity pattern, it applies to a specific stimulus, most likely even to a particular situation, and it was acquired subconsciously. It is not like a decision I make based on thought and consideration, after weighing all pros and cons. I just react and it is a strong reaction, as the scientists found out, which can only be broken by demonstration and not by persuasion. This makes it a rather "absolute" concept; there's just so little you can do about it once it's manifested itself.

So I could say your statement above is sort of correct but in fact it also shows that you apply the very phrase "learned helplessness" in a different context than how it should be used (because what you suggest does not work for this concept).

 

Well, in fact, yes. That is just what it means. This specific term specifically came from a specific experiment with dogs. It was coined by these men who noticed that the dogs (generalized to "animals") would do just that -- lay down and whine when shocked, just enduring the pain without even trying to move (= act) at all. It is the very basic notion of "learned helplessness" and whenever psychology uses this term for people, basically re-assigns it, it still refers to these people being inactive due to the perceived helplessness and loss of control.
 

Exactly. And because people resign, according to the theory of learned helplessness, they don't do anything at all (basically saving energy: because nothing I could possibly do will bring relief I just don't do anything at all because it's not worth the energy I'd invest). It's not part of the concept that the dogs take up arms and assault their tormentors because they don't expect that anything they do will change their situation.

Actually, you sort of contradict your own citation of the learned helplessness theory because you acknowledge that Solas wants to improve the world and thinks that only destruction of the status quo will achieve this -- he hopes, he wants, he plans to improve, he acts. This is not at all the concept of "giving up trying because of learned hopelessness". He does try. Simply he has set his mind on a particular goal and stubbornly follows the respective path.

 

--

What I am pointing out is just that I think you use the wrong term and got into a debate over it. In psychology, most terms and concepts are coined for very specific phenomena and observations. "Learned helpnessness" is not a broad as you interpret it (or let's say: not intended to be used as broadly). But your opinion itself about giving up etc I do not comment on at all. Of course he has given up somehow. And of course nothing in life is quite as absolute. I agree with you there. So, again, I don't say one of you is right and the other is wrong (in fact I even think you don't differ so much).

 

I agree with you - learned helplessness is something not consciously learned and is usually observed through the inactivity of a subject experiencing stimuli rather than action. It can be both specific to a situation/person or more generally applicable. A common example is someone who remains unemployed despite having applied for several jobs; they will often run a high risk of becoming depressed and disheartened because "it doesn't matter how much I try, I will never get a job". They will stop applying for jobs, and if not helped such a person might in the end not even be able to get out of bed.

 

It is interesting to discuss how Solas may or may not perceive his situation, and I don't think there is ever a "wrong" interpretation, but it might be better to leave out very specific psychological terms - if nothing else because not everyone is familiar with them. 

[Karmel]

Well (IMO), it seems that Solas is the type of person who tries to make decisions after careful consideration of everything ... but because he is only human, "everything" means as much as he knows. He is also a fan of free will ... The information he has given us during the last meeting, can serve several purposes: purely informative, as a warning, but also as a basis to propose another solution. We were not given this option immediately, because many things have to be learned before our proposal will be able to be appropriate to the needs of all concerned. If we want a happier ending, we should be willing to give something of ourself, fight (not necessarily by force) about our future, prove that we really are worthy of it. As Abelas said that certain things must be earned, not received.

[Siha]

It can be both specific to a situation/person or more generally applicable. A common example is someone who remains unemployed despite having applied for several jobs;

I consider "looking for a job" to be a specific situation. The person will, according to l.h., give up on applying for jobs but usually not give up on other, unrelated things in other contexts (unless it's not l.h. but he's just that type of lethargic person).

[DarkSun09]

I haven't yet caught up on your dispute and haven't made up my mind yet (and so far I am not even quite sure why you are arguing at all though I might want to add I don't like the tone of it much). So this is not me taking sides or a position. But here I disagree. Solas does resort to death and destruction. You are mostly (I'll come back to this later) right when you say that it's not his major goal but collateral damage. However, yes, his "solution [is] to use death and destruction". He knows that tearing down the veil will bring just that (as you point out yourself), and thus, his very solution is death and destruction. Destruction explicitly (destroying the veil and the world as it is) and death implicitly by the (seemingly) inevitable death of races or at least individuals that will follow. It's blind to disregard this as He has the best intentions and only accepts the possible negative side effects. 
In fact I don't even find it justified to claim it's "not what he wants". It is not? Only because he says "I'm sorry but you will all die"? It's actually sort of what he wants. He wants this world to end, to re-shape it and rebuild what once was. This requires death and destruction (because these people/things must die to restore the world as it was without them), so death and destruction are exactly part of what he wants.
 
So, when you point out how the "distinction is important" you should make a real, fine-grained distinction and not just one that serves your means in an argument.

You need to understand the context of the argument first. How can you dismiss a character's intensions when discussing the emotions that influenced his actions (which is what we were discussing). Do the consequences of an action always reflect the desires behind it? Is it that black and white?

To your point... No, I'm not blindly saying his intentions were good and so the destruction part doesn't matter. I've never said that. It obviously matters. Especially to him. He doesn't view the cost lightly, and he knows it will make him a monster in everyone's eyes. But if your argument is that death and destruction is what he actually desires because he's knowingly chosen a path that will likely lead to it, then no, I disagree. It's not the same thing.

Solas doesn't want innocent people to die, or for the current world to be destroyed. What makes you say that he does? When you said "he wants this world to end," where are you getting that from? When has he ever expressed hating the current world and wanting to destroy it? Unless I've missed something, he's only ever expressed sadness over the lost of the old one. He wants the past restored. If that could happen without endangering the current world, do you think he wouldn't want that? If you were his friend and spoke to him in trespasser, everything from his body language to his words tell you how remorseful he is for what he must do. He would even save an inquisitor he hates to spare the world from needless deaths and chaos. So no, this is not a man who "wants" death and destruction, as you say, but he is willingly to go down that path for the sake of his people.

I thought the distinction was plenty real and fine-grained. I pull from what I observed of the character and what he tells me to form my opinion. You just missed the context of the argument so you didn't understand why that distinction between motivation and consequence matters.

[DarkSun09]

I caught up on the debate and I think you are discussing the wrong thing. In fact, I think you don't even have different opinions, you just use different words. The two of you both think that Solas has given up on trying to find other solutions for the problem at hand and feels restricted to one course of action. The only bit where you differ is that midnight thinks he's done so because he doesn't know what else to do (though he might not even like his own plan) while DarkSun thinks he's done so because he believes that the plan he came up with is also the best thing he can do, thus he doesn't try finding an alternate solution any longer. But, really, that difference is minor and we just cannot know anyway.
 
Moreover I think that midnight's use of the term "learned helplessness" just lead to misunderstanding simply because she doesn't use it the way it was intended to be used. Because:
 
 
"Learned helplessness" is not a motivation and it is nothing a person thinks about (or even can think about). It is a learned inactivity pattern, it applies to a specific stimulus, most likely even to a particular situation, and it was acquired subconsciously. It is not like a decision I make based on thought and consideration, after weighing all pros and cons. I just react and it is a strong reaction, as the scientists found out, which can only be broken by demonstration and not by persuasion. This makes it a rather "absolute" concept; there's just so little you can do about it once it's manifested itself.
So I could say your statement above is sort of correct but in fact it also shows that you apply the very phrase "learned helplessness" in a different context than how it should be used (because what you suggest does not work for this concept).
 

Well, in fact, yes. That is just what it means. This specific term specifically came from a specific experiment with dogs. It was coined by these men who noticed that the dogs (generalized to "animals") would do just that -- lay down and whine when shocked, just enduring the pain without even trying to move (= act) at all. It is the very basic notion of "learned helplessness" and whenever psychology uses this term for people, basically re-assigns it, it still refers to these people being inactive due to the perceived helplessness and loss of control.
 

Exactly. And because people resign, according to the theory of learned helplessness, they don't do anything at all (basically saving energy: because nothing I could possibly do will bring relief I just don't do anything at all because it's not worth the energy I'd invest). It's not part of the concept that the dogs take up arms and assault their tormentors because they don't expect that anything they do will change their situation.

Actually, you sort of contradict your own citation of the learned helplessness theory because you acknowledge that Solas wants to improve the world and thinks that only destruction of the status quo will achieve this -- he hopes, he wants, he plans to improve, he acts. This is not at all the concept of "giving up trying because of learned hopelessness". He does try. Simply he has set his mind on a particular goal and stubbornly follows the respective path.
 
--
What I am pointing out is just that I think you use the wrong term and got into a debate over it. In psychology, most terms and concepts are coined for very specific phenomena and observations. "Learned helpnessness" is not a broad as you interpret it (or let's say: not intended to be used as broadly). But your opinion itself about giving up etc I do not comment on at all. Of course he has given up somehow. And of course nothing in life is quite as absolute. I agree with you there. So, again, I don't say one of you is right and the other is wrong (in fact I even think you don't differ so much).

And I just caught up to your responses as well. You actually read through all our convoluted bullsh*t? And understood it? That's... impressive. And kinda crazy.

But... you summed it up pretty well. Though, I wouldn't say we're saying the same thing. Our viewpoints on what motivates Solas are pretty different. But that's something we really can't know for sure anyway, so the argument is kinda pointless. You're right about that.

Don't know how I got caught up in this debate for so long. Initially, I was just trying to understand what she was talking about. But her examples didn't make sense to me (for the reasons that you mentioned) so I kept responding to try and understand. Turns out we were just going around in circles, huh? 

Thanks for reading. Why would you do that to yourself, though? The others just ignore us, as they should.

[almasy87]

I have never heard this banter... that sounds rather ominous. 

 

Me neither....

Gosh..
*stomach turns inside out*   

[CapricornSun]

Art break.

 

Solas and Lavellan relazing on the grass.

Spoiler

Source: http://stirped.tumbl...this-one-is-for

 

 

Another Solavellan artwork based on this post.

Spoiler

Source: http://destinyaposta...-pls-act-like-a

 

 

Lavellan and Spirit!Pride based on feynite's Looking Glass AU.

Spoiler

Source: http://heathergreyfe...such-a-fool-all

 

 

Inquisitor Adaar with his best buddy, Solas.   (Check out that height difference!)

Spoiler

Source: http://daschul-darli...-his-best-buddy

 

 

Solas with dreadlocks.

Spoiler

Source: http://solas-the-dre...-wanted-to-draw

 

[DarkSun09]

Art break.
 
Solas and Lavellan relazing on the grass.

Spoiler

Source: http://stirped.tumbl...this-one-is-for
 

 
Another Solavellan artwork based on this post.

Spoiler

Source: http://destinyaposta...-pls-act-like-a
 

 
Lavellan and Spirit!Pride based on feynite's Looking Glass AU.

Spoiler

Source: http://heathergreyfe...such-a-fool-all
 

 
Inquisitor Adaar with his best buddy, Solas.   (Check out that height difference!)

Spoiler

Source: http://daschul-darli...-his-best-buddy
 

 
Solas with dreadlocks.

Spoiler

Source: http://solas-the-dre...-wanted-to-draw
 

That last one reminds me... someone told me once that Solas is actually a redhead. Do you know if that's true? Where did they get that I wonder...

[ladyiolanthe]

How else can redemption be achieved do you think?

 

Blackwall manages it without dying. He finds renewed reasons to live - by seeking out the men he failed, and then by offering hope of a better future to criminals and convicts. 

 

If there's to be a non-death-of-Solas end, dude's gonna have to elf up and find something in the new world he created that can help him overcome his feelings of guilt and utter loss over the old world he knew. But in his current mindset, I'm not sure that's possible.

 

I imagine my Lavellan leaving little notes on Fen'Harel statues all over Thedas, since he's never close enough in her dreams for her to talk to him. Each one will be about a person she met, a sight she saw, or a reflection on life in the current world that shows that it really is a beautiful place. Since I disbanded the Inquisition, the notes will serve another purpose hopefully of keeping Solas' agents off-balance, by laying false trails of where my Inquisitor and her people might be. Of course Solas is smart enough to figure that out, I'm sure, but it might slow him and his agents down for a bit.

[lynroy]

That last one reminds me... someone told me once that Solas is actually a redhead. Do you know if that's true? Where did they get that I wonder...

People make that assumption based on the color of his eyebrows. There have been debates.

[DarkSun09]

People make that assumption based on the color of his eyebrows. There have been debates.

His eyebrows are red? Hang on I gotta go check.

Edit: Ok, I can see the redness.

Aww, that's adorable though! The Dread Wolf's a ginger.

[DarkSun09]

Blackwall manages it without dying. He finds renewed reasons to live - by seeking out the men he failed, and then by offering hope of a better future to criminals and convicts. 
 
If there's to be a non-death-of-Solas end, dude's gonna have to elf up and find something in the new world he created that can help him overcome his feelings of guilt and utter loss over the old world he knew. But in his current mindset, I'm not sure that's possible.
 
I imagine my Lavellan leaving little notes on Fen'Harel statues all over Thedas, since he's never close enough in her dreams for her to talk to him. Each one will be about a person she met, a sight she saw, or a reflection on life in the current world that shows that it really is a beautiful place. Since I disbanded the Inquisition, the notes will serve another purpose hopefully of keeping Solas' agents off-balance, by laying false trails of where my Inquisitor and her people might be. Of course Solas is smart enough to figure that out, I'm sure, but it might slow him and his agents down for a bit.

Yeah but Blackwall didn't like... create a thing that destroyed his entire people. That's a pretty huge mistake to make up for. I'm worried it'll take death to redeem him. And I don't want him to die!
...
That's a nice image you painted. *sigh*

[Vlk3]

@dawnstone

Oh my, I've forgotten about the Titans. That would explain a lot. Now I have something new to think about, thank you.

[Uirebhiril]

Death as redemption really only works in limited situations, and it should never be used as an easy way out, don't-speak-ill-of-the-dead, at least he died saving someone vomit trope. If Solas has to give up his life to, say, destroy the Evanuris or the blight or something like that, you can't call that redemption either. It's just doing what is necessary. So how then would death equal redemption in his case any more than living and moving forward in a new world and helping that grow and overcome whatever is holding it back? What is he even being "redeemed" from? He screwed up with the conclave, but we killed as many people through the game. Whatever he did with the Veil turned out to have grave consequences he didn't foresee, so demanding he make up for that by dying is ridiculous. If what he said is true, something had to be done and he was trying to help everyone by doing it. There's bound to be more to the story that we'll still learn, but as it stands? Yeah, no. 

 

Thom's redemption arc worked so well because he chose to finally set aside the mantle of a dead man and live his life as himself and for the benefit of others. He learned what it meant to do good, rather than just going through the motions. And while I expect the story will be well done if Solas must die for whatever reason, I refuse to believe it's going to be the automatic and expected outcome. Because, like... for what? It would just cheapen the whole deal if that is all we are left with.

[TheyCallMeBunny]

I consider "looking for a job" to be a specific situation. The person will, according to l.h., give up on applying for jobs but usually not give up on other, unrelated things in other contexts (unless it's not l.h. but he's just that type of lethargic person).

 

Yeah, sorry, I see now that the way I wrote would seem like I meant it as a general example. I slept poorly tonight and I had to endure a three hour boring lecture earlier today, so I guess my brain was a bit off. 

[Flemmy]

I'd actually love a happy ending for Solas/Solavellan. Nobody expects it. He seems to believe he's off on an irreversible, inevitable path of death and destruction, including likely, his own. And everyone keeps thinking there's just no way there can be any happy ending.

 

But, again, to bring up Cole - "He wants to give wisdom, not orders." Also, bits and pieces we can get from the act of freeing, sheltering, and providing for former slaves.

 

I'd love if they could travel together and spread wisdom and care for others somehow.

 

Yes that would be really something although maybe we get optional ending, who knows?.. A good/happy or a bad/dramatic/tragic ending. But I rather have an optional because I like too them both how they play out and then decide for myself wich ending is the best for me... And because I am curious too.

[Cee]

I just think that so many people are convinced the only way forward regarding Solas is inevitably tragic or even apart from the woman he loves, and I'm not giving up on the hope that Trespasser left me with. On several levels. That was what I came away with...a sense of solid hope.

 

I guess I am the on-duty Team Optimism representative this morning.

[Flemmy]

Here a small edition of Elastic hear cover by Julia Westlin. Please tell me if you want a full version ^^ 

 

 

Yes full version would be nice

[Tess]

His eyebrows are red? Hang on I gotta go check.

Edit: Ok, I can see the redness.

Aww, that's adorable though! The Dread Wolf's a ginger.

Spoiler

Spoiler

 

My favs of ginger Solas

[NightSymphony]

Solas dress up game

http://refinition.de...-Game-576676400

 

EDIT:

[lynroy]

Solas dress up game

http://refinition.de...-Game-576676400

There's a plaideweave option! I greatly approve.