Difference between revisions of "Talk:Bloodright (scenario pack)"
Sarna News
(Created page with "==Hallis Bloodright== 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 van...") |
(Rutbak) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| 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: | ||
| − | |||
| − | ''"The players are given the opportunity to track down Hallis' warrior relatives, kill them in battle, and lay claim to the Hallis 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."'' | ||
| + | |||
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."'' | ||
| − | |||
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 18: | Line 21: | ||
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) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :Fully agree with your reasoning. By all means, go ahead and improve the article. :) [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 15:59, 22 October 2016 (PDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Rutbak== | ||
| + | Are there any leads as to the planet Rutbak being a conical place in the BTU? [[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 16:58, 6 March 2018 (EST) | ||
Latest revision as of 17:58, 6 March 2018
Hallis Bloodright[edit]
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:
- 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.
I'd strongly suggest either citing where it is explicitly stated that the resulting Bloodname is indeed Hallis (or canonically any other name), OR the relevant parts of the article be re-written to reflect the fact that the scenario pack is silent on the matter.
I'll gladly do the latter, but I want a go-ahead before doing so.
--Fireangel (talk) 10:53, 22 October 2016 (PDT)
- Fully agree with your reasoning. By all means, go ahead and improve the article. :) Frabby (talk) 15:59, 22 October 2016 (PDT)
Rutbak[edit]
Are there any leads as to the planet Rutbak being a conical place in the BTU? Dmon (talk) 16:58, 6 March 2018 (EST)