Difference between revisions of "User talk:Vellos/Standard Oaths"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
:I don't think these are too long or too vague. In fact, I welcome vagueness for these. The more opportinities there are for misunderstanding, the better it is. [[User:VonGenf|vonGenf]] 20:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC) | :I don't think these are too long or too vague. In fact, I welcome vagueness for these. The more opportinities there are for misunderstanding, the better it is. [[User:VonGenf|vonGenf]] 20:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::I think some degree of wiggle room is good, but I don't know that we necessarily want to be vague. These oaths do not match game function very clearly; so that their relation to ANY function is, I think, limited. They need to be BM-ized. I figured the length would be an issue because we want the system to be simple. [[User:Vellos|Vellos]] 23:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 01:48, 10 June 2010
These are some oaths I came up with after reviewing some available primary source material. They are, in my opinion, both too long and too vague. They need to be shorter and more precise, but they need to still leave wiggle-room, and still sound medieval, and still be a real OATH. Criticism welcome. Vellos 18:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think these are too long or too vague. In fact, I welcome vagueness for these. The more opportinities there are for misunderstanding, the better it is. vonGenf 20:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think some degree of wiggle room is good, but I don't know that we necessarily want to be vague. These oaths do not match game function very clearly; so that their relation to ANY function is, I think, limited. They need to be BM-ized. I figured the length would be an issue because we want the system to be simple. Vellos 23:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
