|
Post by Destecado on Apr 17, 2004 9:55:06 GMT -5
Thank you CELS. This has given me some ideas on the clan tatoos as well as on the eldar Government in general. I will post this information soon.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Apr 17, 2004 13:42:35 GMT -5
Thank you CELS. This has given me some ideas on the clan tatoos as well as on the eldar Government in general. I will post this information soon. <grin> Be careful here... Remember that the eldar government is something that, for me, has a lot of momentum behind it. There are some glitches that I'm aware of, but a complete revision isn't going to happen. The idea is to create 'fluff' transparency as much as possible which increases the detail of the eldar while not being too radical. Believe it or not the Clans are not... Any suggestion of "crime families" (with Farseer leaders, etc.) will be looked on with a nasty glare! Seriously, though, constructive work will be more than welcomed. Kage
|
|
|
Post by TheGlyphstone on Apr 18, 2004 18:33:14 GMT -5
Corrupt, Greedy Eldar? Heh heh heh heh heh heh.....
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Apr 18, 2004 18:51:45 GMT -5
Corrupt, Greedy Eldar? Heh heh heh heh heh heh..... Pardon? Kage
|
|
|
Post by TheGlyphstone on Apr 18, 2004 19:22:48 GMT -5
sorry. You mentioned "Eldar Crime families". The Eldar Mafia.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Apr 19, 2004 7:06:15 GMT -5
Ah, it was a suggested form of government made over on Portent by Inquisitor Engel. I find the idea completely horrendous, with the Seers as a kind of 'enforcer' with the Farseer at the type of familial lines but... well... It would reinforce the paramouncy of Farseers in eldar society, which is all that GW seems to be interested in despite their original description. (Though they can change things if they want, of course; they did 'create' the universe in the first place!) But anyway... Kage
|
|
|
Post by Destecado on Apr 22, 2004 12:55:40 GMT -5
Rather than calling them the names such as Clan Pheonix, would it not make more sences to call them a brief description of their names. Also should we not be using the Eldar word for clan "Fir" as it is used when speaking of the titan clans?
ex. A clan calling themselves the "Hand of Destiny" would be "Fir Furmen". This clan may actively be working to set the eldar on the path to Ynnead or to bring about rebirth of the eldar as a race.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Apr 22, 2004 16:38:40 GMT -5
The names are working-titles only since I cannot be bothered to translate them into 'elven/eldar' at the moment. But point taken: that will be done in the future, though I'm keen in keeping the broad mythic tone/symbolism for the broad Clans. Sub-groupings might require the specific use of other imagery, though this would obviously be tied to the over-arching symbolism of the Clan in question. Kage
|
|
|
Post by LordFenric on May 3, 2004 10:52:27 GMT -5
appolgies for jumpng in late but.......
The trouble with creating a static 2D tatoo is that it would fail to capture the context applied to the clan symbolism. For me the clan would be 'defined' in terms of its goals and ambitions as well as the methods used to achieve those goals.
Each concept gives rise to a rune element, which comprise to form the clan 'symbol' Each Eldar would further modify this with their own emblem, creating a multi dimensinal shifting emblem reflective of themselves, the clan, their position within the clan, the clans position in socoity etc.
A lot of that would be lost in a 2d representation, i see them as constantly shifting reflecting changes within the clan, unless such tatoos could alter to reflect this as well, psycho reactive inks?
Of course this fits well with the idea of the 'aura' also allowing for hte interaction of 2 eldar via a symbol mingling but hteir ya ago.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on May 3, 2004 11:54:53 GMT -5
Well, we've already discussed that I have a poly-contextual approach to eldar rune 'glyphs' based upon their true (3d) representation and that 2d representation is a statement. Thus 2d runes would work, especially if they were muteable... Kage
|
|