Editing Talk:Bloodright (scenario pack)
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision
Your text
Line 3:
Line 3: This article seems to imply that the new Bloodname created is Hallis: This article seems to imply that the new Bloodname created is Hallis: + ''"By Clan law, if all descendants of a Bloodname are killed in battle, their vanquishers can lay claim to that Bloodname."'' − :''"By Clan law, if all descendants of a Bloodname are killed in battle, their vanquishers can lay claim to that Bloodname."''+ ''"The players are given the opportunity to track down Hallis' warrior relatives, kill them in battle, and lay claim to the Hallis Bloodname."'' − − :''"The players are given the opportunity to track down Hallis' warrior relatives, kill them in battle, and lay claim to the Hallis Bloodname."'' − However, there is no evidence that this is so; the scenario pack strongly implies that the Bloodname will be new: However, there is no evidence that this is so; the scenario pack strongly implies that the Bloodname will be new: − :Bloodright pp. 7: ''"When the tainted line linked to the Not-Named Clan has been eliminated, you will test among yourselves for the honor of forging a new Bloodname."''+ Bloodright pp. 7: ''"When the tainted line linked to the Not-Named Clan has been eliminated, you will test among yourselves for the honor of forging a new Bloodname."'' − − :Ibid pp. 42: ''"...but only one individual can be awarded the Bloodright to form a new Bloodname and house."'' + Ibid pp. 42: ''"...but only one individual can be awarded the Bloodright to form a new Bloodname and house."'' Further, I find it highly unlikely that any clan would essentially revive the name (even without the genetics) of one of the Not-Named-Clan's warriors. Further, I find it highly unlikely that any clan would essentially revive the name (even without the genetics) of one of the Not-Named-Clan's warriors. Line 21:
Line 18: I'll gladly do the latter, but I want a go-ahead before doing so. I'll gladly do the latter, but I want a go-ahead before doing so. − --[[User:Fireangel|Fireangel]] ([[User talk:Fireangel|talk]]) 10:53, 22 October 2016 (PDT) --[[User:Fireangel|Fireangel]] ([[User talk:Fireangel|talk]]) 10:53, 22 October 2016 (PDT)
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
This article seems to imply that the new Bloodname created is Hallis: | This article seems to imply that the new Bloodname created is Hallis: | ||
| + | ''"By Clan law, if all descendants of a Bloodname are killed in battle, their vanquishers can lay claim to that Bloodname."'' | ||
| − | + | ''"The players are given the opportunity to track down Hallis' warrior relatives, kill them in battle, and lay claim to the Hallis Bloodname."'' | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
However, there is no evidence that this is so; the scenario pack strongly implies that the Bloodname will be new: | However, there is no evidence that this is so; the scenario pack strongly implies that the Bloodname will be new: | ||
| − | + | Bloodright pp. 7: ''"When the tainted line linked to the Not-Named Clan has been eliminated, you will test among yourselves for the honor of forging a new Bloodname."'' | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| + | Ibid pp. 42: ''"...but only one individual can be awarded the Bloodright to form a new Bloodname and house."'' | ||
Further, I find it highly unlikely that any clan would essentially revive the name (even without the genetics) of one of the Not-Named-Clan's warriors. | Further, I find it highly unlikely that any clan would essentially revive the name (even without the genetics) of one of the Not-Named-Clan's warriors. | ||
| Line 21: | Line 18: | ||
I'll gladly do the latter, but I want a go-ahead before doing so. | I'll gladly do the latter, but I want a go-ahead before doing so. | ||
| − | |||
--[[User:Fireangel|Fireangel]] ([[User talk:Fireangel|talk]]) 10:53, 22 October 2016 (PDT) | --[[User:Fireangel|Fireangel]] ([[User talk:Fireangel|talk]]) 10:53, 22 October 2016 (PDT) | ||