[@terminal] a clarification...... on a clarification, actually. From the labor text, the impression I'm getting is there's Character, who's a source of inspiration/authority/idolatry/whathaveyou, and that character's supposed followers destroy the world. Then in the clarifications, there's this:

[quote]Q. They have to inadvertently cause the destruction of their entire world?
A. Their history, actions, or ideals - as elaborated upon above - should serve directly as causal factors that lead to everything they value being destroyed, against their own wishes.[/quote]

Which is just different enough to be a cause for concern to me, the guy who perpetually misinterprets every labor challenge. Is it true to say that the Character [b]must be the original source[/b] of the destruction, like directly complicit in the destruction? Or would a situation in which, like, the followers simply twist the Character's will or wishes into tragic results..... does that fit the bill?

Like hypothetically if I was writing a story about Jesus looking at the Crusades, would I have to add a part where Jesus orders the Crusade himself only to regret it later, or would the Pope calling for genocide in Jesus' name be sufficient to clear the challenge?