ApocalypticaGM

What the hell happened to Spam?

I'm seeing a lot of 'that's what I've heard' about this, so how about a perspective from one of the many who was present during the event?

Recent events, or in other words, what was GuildFall. Basically, we lost funding, the site crashed for weeks, and when it returned Mahz had the challenge of reconstructing everything. We had, I think still have, some level of access to what was on the old forum, though there's a bit of a time gap there. What we have now is the Guild reborn after some quantity of our population dispersed. We are a growing community again started anew. Some of the old faces are here, many really, but we also have a healthy portion of new members helping to get things back to the old strength. The link I gave before gives a more accurate account of what led to the lack of funding and some of the challenges we faced, hearsay and all that aside.

It's also worth noting, during the GuildFall, many stayed in contact off-forum. Several roleplays continued after the break, as well as traditions such as Guild News, the WOTM, and soon the Irregulars. Our community is not dead. Our community is only dying in that some have lost faith -- fortunately, there are many who know the potential of this place and work to grow this as something better than what we knew before.

The Elder Scrolls: Vengeance of the Deep

Voltaire said
Sweetness! Thanks to Shon for helping get the assassination rolling! Now we can have the rioting start without bullshitting an explanation as to how complete strangers managed to get it started lol.I know Cairo and Nyx were interested in joining me for this one, and I was kind of thinking we could sneak into the barracks while it's mostly empty and since stealth isn't exactly any of our specialties, things may not go super smoothly. Unless a stealthy character wants to do the deed, but I think they're all otherwise occupied.

Hey, thank you for your part too. I gave y'all a reasonable explanation, you gave me a late introduction that actually made sense.

If we're doing a time-jump my next post would probably give an intimate view of the ambush itself. Shamoun will probably be freed up to join you all afterwards if that opening arises, otherwise, I think having him float around whatever the situation becomes at that point may actually work out too. Who knows what hornets nest may arise after a move like this. Either way, I'm glad to have been brought in like this.

And thanks to everyone for the kind welcomes! I'm between commissions right now, but plan on becoming more active in this lively OOC community.

Apocalyptica

Fallenreaper said
I'll try to pump out a Remmy post and figure out how to get Abbie back into the story... Right now, the main reason I faded out the Sentinels was focus more on her character and currently, with her in limbo, that's not exactly fulfilling that.

That problem may well be solved, but plan otherwise just in case.

Right now pretty much anyone could post, and I know we're waiting on two Character Sheets from interested parties. I understand Zombie is on the sidelines for this week, thanks for the heads up! My advice to everyone would be to avoid planning your characters into corners. I mean that, if someone is gone for a week, or a month, don't make yourself so dependent on them that you're SOL. Also, don't plan so much you don't leave any surprise for yourself. I think we've all suffered from that a good bit, am I right?

State-Church Separation

ActRaiserTheReturned said
You are incapable of seeing very much of God, just like I am. I am no better than you. You are no better than me. Neither of us, no matter how moral, smart, dumb or wicked are enough different from each other to be good by God's standards. That's because God is infinitely better than all of our entire species combined. He sees things as they are, and sees infinitely into not just our present, past and mortal future condition, but infinitely into the great beyond. Possibly even beyond time as we know it. We see God as a germ could possibly comprehend the body of a man immune to disease. There's nothing we can do to comprehend it, but we are a part of his body, like um. . . necessary bacteria, as it were. (Being metaphorical here). This man is a brilliant scientist intelligent enough to transform us into a man from the singular cell we are. Our only requirement for venturing into the great unknown is to board his nano-machine vessels before we are eaten away by the white blood cells! ;)Hitler tried to kill God by killing many of his poor innocent bacteria, and incited a war against valiant white blood cells in a bid for bodily conquest! Fortunately God's white blood cells rid the vile Hitler of his evil menace! Sadly though, the time for a bacteria's life span is very short. The only way for us to live forever, is to enter into the nano-machines. If we don't enter into the nano-machine ships, we get thrown up! :(Thus, we end up living in the eternal hell of the sewers forever!

Just going out on a limb here and going to say that speaking from the perspective of a believer may not be how you win any minds and hearts here, Act. It's not about stigma, but about how you're entering this discussions. There's difference between a debate and trying to convince people. See, one has points that can be analysed and dissected to really get where the speaker is coming from. That one means you have to open yourself to having your mind changed, to be vulnerable, basically. The latter, in this context. is more just speaking about your values and other hard-set aspects to you that you have no intention of developing your perspective on. First off, that's fine you have those. I'm glad you've found things so meaningful to you you've made them a cornerstone to your identity. However, when you speak to others about topics, especially about a faith-community of a culture far disconnected from the Western world, it makes your arguments less clear. The debate becomes 'this fact because of the fact is declared' rather than 'this fact, because of evidence, because of this line of logical thinking'. To be super clear, you're talking to someone who has steeped themselves in study about Judeo-Christian iconography and scripture. I am a Universalist with a very deep passion for learning about how other faith-communities, I believe we all have personal journeys that take on many appearances and rituals, but are ultimately, ours. Whether or not three people share the same religious label, how they perceive this 'unfathomable' body is rarely exactly the same. Yeshua* spoke in parables not because he was incapable of direct statements, but because the path to your answer is perhaps just as important as the conclusion (if not more). So that said, religion is extremely individual despite some being quite large. It is extremely difficult to make an argument based on your faith not because faith is not fact, but because it's so steeped in your identity and experiences that we cannot really wholly understand your thinking there -- it's yours.

And hey, just throwing this out there, God is actually pretty understandable if you're studying cultural context and surrounding faith-communities. I spent some time with this topic while in undergrad and found it stimulating, but I also never chalked it up to unfathomable. That probably helped my resolve. I'll hider the rest of this because, while it's definitely the short version, it's still pretty long.

ReligionIsAboutYou

First, let's just acknowledge that the Christian God and Jewish God are very different. The Jewish God was described in dozens of ways by the many nomadic Hebraic traditions kept solely through oral tradition for much of time. By the time pen hit paper, things had solidified significantly. So you have a lot of perspectives and descriptions of God, mostly based off their experiences, expectations, and needs. These all pooled together eventually. The Jewish God was a reflection of cultural principles, desires, and also analysing of other faith-communities. Judaism was never alone, and the presence of other communities had deep ramifications on the text (such as an introduction of the Haasatan, for example). Meanwhile, the Christian God was built with hindsight and extreme exposure to other cultures. Remember, Yeshua was a Jew born under Roman Occupation to a community respected, but also threatened by the empire. Others were crucified under the name 'Messiah', I mean hey, this was a title given a handful of times already in the OT for you close readers. So, Christianity came about with pressure, without the respect of their Jewish predecessors since they rejected occupation a bit more tooth-and-nail, but also after Greek philosophy had time to do its work. See, Greek thinking was exposed to the Jews way earlier, but even if something speaks against your faith, centuries of exposure works on you. Both sides change(d). Christianity's earliest texts, and this is directly visible in the Synoptic Books (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John & [I Include Thomas]). Some books are distinctly written for Jewish communities long detached from their roots with terms and language built off Greek traditions instead (I believe it's Luke, perhaps, that actually has to explain some of the Jewish stories, as if they don't know, because they probably don't). Others were geared toward long-time Jews still connected. How they approached God in these contexts was, once again, a reflection for how society had developed and the thinking they were exposed to. Early theologians like Origen and even Augustine note these connections to Greek philosophy in their own understanding of God and Christianity. Just remember that Christianity has been in flux since its existence. What it is today is vastly different than how it began. Imagery and emphasis on the Christ dying was not a focus for a little over 200 years, probably because Christians suffered shifting levels of acceptance and condemnation in that time and it was more useful to focus on the good of the narrative than the death. Revelations was not written or accepted for around a century after the Christ passed, so those reading in the earlier bunch probably had a pretty different experience than those who came later. We should also consider those who appreciated the Jewish story behind the loaves and fishes that offered pretext to the NT story. The point here is that religion changes, Christianity especially, and that God with it. You're not trying to shed light on some scientific discovery here, you're trying to understand the principles of your people and how you value the world. But that's impossible, beyond you, because we have more than 6 billion human lives on this world, and if you think it's hard to understand their principles, try that for all the people have lived until now. That's what you're trying to do. Christianity disconnected itself from the culture that defined its stories and become a religion adoptable even with poor understanding of the Jewish foundation. So your job is a lot bigger now, a lot harder, because you don't have that foundational understanding. So maybe arguing from the point of faith is actually very difficult, because we could not possibly imagine your one perspective on it.

So no, God is not unfathomable because of outstanding morality or some immeasurable greatness, but because our perspective of who God is constantly changing as we as a people do. Religion is personal. Religion is a reflection of us as we think on it, on what we have experienced, and any deities or principles we pay reverence to speaks more about our personal values than the nature of the point we choose to focus on. It's like Gat said, and more, the problem with basing things on the Bible is that it's extremely outdated, but not just because of time, but because most Christians don't know the history of their religion or where the beliefs originate from. It's not really a big religion so much as a great many personal interpretations maybe based on the text, maybe based on what you've been raised or told about over the years.

Homestead

So I had half a sheet done when you opened this thread and I decided to scrap it when I wasn't sure I'd have the time to keep up. I'm wondering if that was a bad move now. The character was a doctorate student in Visual Anthropology to studied how cultures expressed themselves through symbols and artwork. He was also an artist who'd had a handful of notable shows, and deeply interested in his Afro-Taíno roots. It was a character type I haven't done before, part rockstar ego, but educated and humbled by his own work.

Does this sound like something this RP could use?

A topic about topics: Argument concerning arguments

I'm not sure if growing length in posts is directly correlative to people not being willing to change their own thinking, so much as many of us who debate here seem steeped in what we are used to from the get go. Some of the longer posts are definitely just brick walls illustrating why that person will never change, with pride, usually. Others though are often people bringing up scenarios or tearing apart arguments. Dissecting what a person is saying is important to properly discern where they're coming from and, in a way their explanations may not do intentionally, understanding how/why they think in this way. I'll definitely say a couple monster posts will slow down or even kill any OT thread, but that may not be all that bad.

I think what's more notable are the reoccurring participants in these conversations who prefer to state 'how the world is' over validating other perspectives. Yes, this is the internet, where people argue without real repercussion. But it's also a small forum where trends are very obvious. Further, it's also an extension of a vast information space where it's plain to see just how many ways of thinking are not just valid, but equally true. To be honest, I deeply enjoy the political and social conversations. I rue every instance where someone comes in, unyielding to the notion that their narrow vision of the world may not be all their is. Life is simply far too complex for any one person to grasp. I enjoy the conversations with those down to give and take, really consider what's said, and able to identify their own biases while making the tough arguments too. Not so much a dialogue when the other is just trying to preach a view that leaves no room for others. I'd say this portion of the longer posts are probably the most volatile and worst for the health of a good OT thread. When the people not interested in actually growing put that much down, it's usually just some attempt to not dissect, but belittle the other perspectives shown to that point. That's not a dialogue.

So yeah, I wouldn't agree that length is equivalent to stubbornness. Communication is tough and our population lies over a vast socio-economic range. Assuming that you, MDK, could say something built up from all your life experiences and that it would make complete sense to me, with very different experiences, just isn't going to happen in one easy go. It takes a few rewordings, some examples, and in some cases just an extended period of effort to really understand where a person is coming from. Here we just have text. We don't get that body language of the empathetic sense that someone feels very strongly about a thing. I can see why it may take more text for some then. That shouldn't be a problem if they're trying to be understood or to understand.

The Elder Scrolls: Vengeance of the Deep

Wall scones sent shadows dancing on the walls of the tavern. In full light, the walls looked aged, with tapestries and trinkets centuries old hung here and there. Before the occupation the boisterous might sing and wave about their drinks. Before every citizen of the Hammerfell had to look within themselves for their alliance, this was a place of excitement and revelry. Now men and women solemnly sat, talking to those around them in hushed tones. Fools might bust in calling for a drink, but their painted smiles and forced missteps died down eventually. As the shadows danced upon the walls, the occupants faced each other with hard looks.

The Dark Pilgrim sat under a particularly vibrant tapestry in a back corner of the tavern. From across the room the colours silhouetted and consumed him, but the fact was no bother. A surprise, but still, no bother. He brought the ceramic cup to his lips and sipped his spice wine, eyeing the several documents on the table as if all at once. A leather codex lay at the center of the assorted papers as well as a sharpened and wrapped bit of charcoal. As the flavourful drink played on his tongue, his thoughts ordered and the reality of his situation emerged. Reality often came to the Pilgrim in the form of some hard, immovable obstacle, but never before this big. Never before like the Dwemer.

Shamoun assembled the documents and shut them within the codex. He slid the leather-bound heap aside, then scanned the tavern curiously. Working with the resistance felt closer to his days lurking about in the shadows, plotting and preparing among his the children of Sithis. Oddly, he even found himself smiling. He must look the fool, sitting alone, the smell of wine on him, and a grin far too content for the setting moronically stretched across his face. But Shamoun felt closer to the old days than ever before. How many nights had the Redguard waited for a contractor in a tavern? How many jobs came first as surreal musings of those too cowardly or too weak to commit it to action personally? The smile grew. He spotted the Argonian.

Blade looked about the dim surroundings as he entered the tavern, getting a feel for the mood, which happened to be as dark as the room. There were no songs, no laughter, not even any fights. The atmosphere was sour, but not in a take-the-fight-to-the-Dwemer kind of way.

How was he supposed to motivate these people. He wasn't a leader. He couldn't move people to action on a whim with brave words. He spoke with his sword, and if people chose to follow in his stride then so be it. But that wouldn't cut it this time. He had taken on the mission to lure the guards away from the barracks because distractions were right up his alley, but he alone wouldn't be able to draw enough of the guards away, so he'd decided he would start a riot... somehow.

He'd spoken with Darak Mashad and told him his thoughts. Darak in turn told Blade to speak with one Shamoun, and the tavern he frequented. Blade spotted the Redguard now, with a table to himself beneath an impressive tapestry. The scar on the argonian's brow and cheek was pale in contrast to his black scales in the glow of the torches as he made his way over to Shamoun. He pulled a chair aside and took a seat across the table.

"Shamoun, you can call me Blade. I'm here to help the resistance along, and Darak Mashad tells me that you can help cause a bit of a disturbance."

Straight to the point, Blade watched the Redguard while the question hung in the air. The Argonian came armed with all the right words, but the Dwemer did not seize Hammerfell by force alone. Several braids spilled over Shamoun's shoulders as he leaned forward and slid a second cup toward the Argonian. They sat quietly a moment longer before the Redguard let out a sigh.

"So bold, for a moment I thought you a spy. But what do They need with cloak and dagger?" Shamoun asked and took a drink. Nothing struck him as curious about the Argonian yet. "Your words are welcomed, Blade. Please, continue."

Blade welcomed the drink and took several deep gulps while Shamoun spoke.

"Well it seems that your own Captain of the Guard has sided with the dwemer. The people haven't taken too kindly to that and wants him gone. They plan to remove him, but need the barracks to be cleared before anyone can make an attempt."

Remembering the clandestine nature of the conversation, the argonian spoke with vague terms where he could, lest there indeed be a spy within the tavern.

"The problem is, a reptilian stranger like myself would have a difficult time moving the people to action under the best of circumstances. I can help when it starts, but we need one of their own to convince them."

Blade poured the last of his drink down his gullet and placed the flagon on the table before leaning back in his chair, arms crossed and brows furrowed in thought.

"I figure multiple small pockets of vandalism spread through the city would spread the guards out well. Torching checkpoints or any other government buildings. If you can do that, then my people can take care of your other problem."

The Redguard nodded and sat quiet a moment. His old talents in gathering information had grown useful as of late, something was surfacing. When his eyes lit up, Shamoun leaned forward and explained in a quiet voice, "Vandalism is all well good to rouse barbarians, but this is Hammerfell. We fight and die with honour, anything less is an affront to our people." He smiled, and met eyes with Blade. "The traitors capture some resistance fighters and conspirators. To break our will, they lead their prisoners through the streets on the way to the jails. Good bit of tension there. Allow me to work with that and you'll have all the distraction you need. Deal?"

Blade grinned wolfishly at the good news, his fangs glinting in the candle light. He growled eagerly, "Now that sounds more like the Redguards I've heard so much about. Glad I'm not the only one who plans to do a little more than deface a building or two. Deal. Have your people draw out the city guard, and I'll go with mine to remove our mutual acquaintance from office."

The argonian rose from his seat and prepared to take his leave, speaking as he did, "We'll be ready to make our move in a moments notice, so don't wait up for us. Shall I expect to be seeing you more during this little campaign of ours?"

"I should hope not," Shamoun replied with a smirk.. "I will have Brother Mashad send one of his boys before we strike. Until then, Argonian."

State-Church Separation

Darog the Badger God said
I'm now imagining So Bored being the kind of debater that does not listen to anyone, and loves the sound of his own voice, and keeps leaking idiocy like a douchebag faucet.

Keep the personal attacks out of here, kay Daroq? We're talking about heavy stuff that is likely to get some people hot under the collar. We don't need blatant personal attacks threatening to close this thread as we tear our ideas apart.

State-Church Separation

I started writing this just after SoBoerd posted... I see a lot of good points afterwards, but frankly, this took long enough!

---

The Nexerus said
It's a documentary that's relatively infamous for its left-wing bias and general anti-American brand of negativity. It gives a lot of just plain old misleading and/or false information, too.

Wait... We're talking about the same 'Story of Stuff' right? That mostly animated, less than 20min short that draws a line from where products begin, where they're consumed, and where they're disposed of? Now yeah, the thing criticized our excessive consumption, and it also underscored our using other countries to obtain resources in ways illegal here, but I don't see how either are anti-American or, frankly, left wing. Unless you're in the Green Party or some other political group that actually values the Earth, it's pretty much Anti-Earth-Fucking. In terms of misleading information, we have companies like Nestle and Coca Cola that are notorious for securing land or prime water spots from third world communities for their products, often in a shady place in terms of legality. But again, how is this Anti-American? I see how it is could be seen as Anti-Capitalist, though I'd propose the video is less about stomping out consumerism and more about making such sustainable and creating products that don't give us cancer.

Usually I'd just walk by a statement like this, but seriously, this video gives a lot of broad information clearly present in America. Many of our products do cause illness with sustained use, many of our production processes do create poisons in our communities (the inner city knows this well), we do import tons of natural resources we lack, and we do export those production processes deemed illegal here so they can be done elsewhere.

Why does it matter if the minority is offended? The entire basis of democracy is majority rule. The rights of a citizen do not end where the feelings of another citizen begin.

I think there's a difference between 'offended' on a flighty emotional level and 'offended' as an emotional trauma. For example, if a minority is constantly sidelined when it comes to the decisions of their nation, despite their votes, and are subsequently devalued since their population is so small, this issue would probably a bit more significant than someone seeing a nativity scene and being taken aback. There are issues that effect some people more than others based on minority status. Historically, America has created laws with the intent to increase restrictions on certain minorities, be they women, Asian, African, Arab, and so on. During the Red Scare those that did not fit the American status-quo were placed under heavy suspicion and perhaps escalated to national threats. Such paranoia driven judgements returned post-911 and have fluctuated throughout the states. My point is that, although Democracy is a majority rule, America is neither wholly a Democracy nor has it welcomed other populations equally. Human beings have been categorized, over-and-undervalued simply based on race and creed for so long that to just say 'you all can vote, screw minority-based anything' is a considerably short-sighted. All people in America are not treated equally when it comes to criminalization, incarceration, or even how we cast our votes. It's a constant struggle to maintain accessibility to voting for communities not as privileged as those of us with time to type away on forums like this.

Never forget that. You and I are the privileged. While we can pretend equality exists and our votes should be enough, we know how much money talks and how little ethics or equality are even thought of when it comes real governmental decisions.

So Boerd said
You are conflating religious influence on the state with the state's influence on religion. Once Caesaropapism ended, religions could go back to their proper role. Religion was still influencing government in the 1700s and the 1800s for the better (Colonialism was a matter of material concerns, and would have happened, atheist or not [for proof, see USSR],) as government had taken a passive role in religion. Compare the experience of the French Revolution vs the American Revolution. The atheist one was much bloodier. Freedom of religion does not protect the government from religion.

See there's the hard part. Religion is a big thing you're using, and others are using too, like it equally explains everything. The examples you used were largely in countries that were some Christian denomination at the time, afterwards, or shortly beforehand. That's worth noting since Christianity pulls in ways that make many claim 'rightful ownership' or the moral high ground, this lofty rightness that ascends them above all others. When religion fuels this part of us, it's absolutely dangerous at the level of the state. When religion blinds us and causes us to boast and to devalue others in the name of our faith, then religion is neither serving its original purpose nor an insignificant player in the problem. Religion is this mix of cultural narrative, ritual, and belief that even when abandoned can leave traces of itself behind. The American Atheist probably knows Noah's Ark, David and Goliath, and that the Ichthys. We don't just remove that information. Subconsciously, it plays us too. So just throwing that out there.

That all said, I agree this sort of conflict probably would happen whether Christian or not. You don't need your deity to tell you that oppression sucks. How you respond, however, could be effected by your religious views. Again though, religion is so fluid and interpretative, that the loudest voice often becomes the leader. If someone like Ghandi or MLK Jr stepped up during the American or French Revolution, perhaps the reactions of the general public would have differed. Perhaps the increase bloodshed in the French Revolution had more to do with the richest commanding enough power to crack any sustained protest of the poor (as desperation grows, the weaker among the poor would have to submit to survive, quick bloodshed doesn't let this happen AND makes a quick point). Speaking of bloodshed though, just to be clear, the American Revolution was also about ownership and rights of the land, a pretty significant contributor to how things went with the Native American tribes... so... speaking of levels of bloodshed here.

Religion is a part of the human spirit. It's biological. If you quash religion in its benign forms, which let's face it, most religions are very benign, it will spring up somewhere else. It will spring up in the Church of Science (different from real science, these are the "Toxins-Juice Cleanse-Gluten Free-MSG causes cancer-Vaccines cause autism" idiots), where the Bible is replaced by "studies" they read in tabloids. Or it will spring up as mentioned earlier in the form of Communism or a similar system, itself every bit a religion. Mother-Earth environmentalism is a possibility to. You simply cannot crush the human belief in something he cannot prove. Take Mr. Atheist himself, Richard Dawkins.Another controversial point coming, don't ignore the rest.He believes there is no God, and has no evidence of that. Obviously, that does not prove there is God, but it does show he is being irrational. The only strictly rational position is, "I don't know.", and anything beyond that is faith. Could there be an invisible incorporeal unicorn sitting in front of your screen right know? There could be. I don't know, and neither do you.

How is this controversial? I know a lot of you know about Freud. Between him and Jung, we have Archetypal/Analytical Psychology, both beautiful observations honed over the decades since to investigate just how people think. I found myself particularly attached to Jung and his dealings with Archetypes. In the work of Jungian psychologists, our thinking dances between two general categories: the Analytical & the Symbolic. This is pretty similar to your idea, Boerd, is one I studied back in undergrad. The Literal is exactly what it sounds like. You look outside and see a house, a tree, and a lasso tied to a branch of the tree swaying in the wind. Simple enough. The Symbolic creates associations beyond the analytical, I view this, and based on your experiences, could bring those feelings of home and comfort to the house, while tying a fear and deep concern about what looks like a slipknot hung from a tree.

Jung and his successors studied a number of faith-communities and those who did not subscribe with this in mind. They found that religious texts were not necessarily alternate origins and strange occurrences. A religion's text could be the product of symbolic thinking focusing on the principles and emotions over the analytical detail. In other words, value could be found in material solely based off the symbolic. People found satisfaction there. Further, though, they found that non-theists also used Symbolic thinking, but in different ways. That experience of wholeness some Christians use when 'feeling God enter them' () was also documented in non-theists and those of other faiths. It came up when people found a sense of place, identity, and in general an understanding of self. If memory serves me, the Jungians suggested that our sense of God reflected our unconscious, which thinks and is active, but we are not aware of and can never be -- that the only way we could connect with that part of yourselves was to better our understanding of how our symbolic thinking worked. A bit like translating the associations you've built for yourself. In other words, there is a longing every human shares that rewards them should they explore it. There is great value in balancing symbolic and analytical thinking (and great detriment to relying on only one). And finally, we should all respect however others choose to understand their associations in their path to finding wholeness.

TLDR: Check out Jung. Archetypal Psych has a lot of good info that suggests what we long for in religion is a part of the human condition as we seek solace in the relationship between conscious and unconscious selves. That religion is just one way to find satisfaction, but there are others too.

Jung aside though, the problem isn't really with religion. The problem lies more in when people take religion beyond the scope of growing themselves or finding satisfaction in life and use it as a means to for power and order. That sense of dominance and the greatest right is what's dangerous when corrupted, not religion as the healing journey.

Apocalyptica

Blue Dog said
I was actually looking at this earlier, and I might be interested in joining if that's ok?

You're absolutely welcome to submit a Character Sheet. Check out our OPs and get a feel for the world, we've tried to keep things usefully detailed, but not overly laden with superfluous information. One thing I will emphasize is that we use Narrative Character Sheets. These are briefly described in the OP #2 and there are examples of already accepted characters to help guide you. If you need any help, shoot me a PM, or just post up in the OOC. We're a very helpful bunch!