Oh, and while we're talking about the aspects - one of them is the White Foal. I know it is possible to call a baby stag a foal, but would not be more correct to call it the White Fawn? Sides, I like the word fawn.

Careful now - Hartstone already prance and parade... let's not give them any ideas for new humiliations.

Fawning...

Hmph. I try again and again to foster some direction and RP in the Hartstone, even going so far as to tell the Administrator and GM when Sylphas came up to encourage trips to the Aspects and make sure everyone in the guild knows where the White Hart Grove is...

And then it happens because someone happens to post one possession I've done of them... out of about a dozen.

Ah well, all's well that ends well I suppose.

Keep up the good work! Hartstone needs a push and a shove and maybe a wheelchair to help it on its way. It is getting there slowly, and if it hasn't been said I at least appreciate the fact you are trying.

Me too.

Young Hartstone druids now have to 'adopt and practice the ways of the Hart'. So hopefully lots of them will be asking what they are, so we have to know. And the best pace to find out is the aspects. Though we could learn things from skills in Stag too, like the facepaints.

Yeah, I was happy when I basically went to the White Hart to ask something silly, He responded, I talked a bit (had no idea what to say/ask), and was basically told "Why the heck are you asking ME all these things? Figure them out your own darn self!" Which is essentially what I see as a primary teaching of the White Hart Thanks, Lisaera

I think it's great that Hartston is getting -some- RP mashed into it. What I'm wary about personally is that if the aspects are too vague, Hartstone will be fussing even more about what should be set in stone, etc. To fully unify the guild, the Aspects need to have at least a couple of solid definitions, even if the most important things are still clouded in the "you must seek them within your own soul" thing.

I agree.. that's exactly what I was sort of worried about happening.

Being too vague hurts when you're trying to unify peope - as everyone has their own interpretation. Its what Mhaldor in Achaea is pretty damn tight (or, at least it was), because there are the 7 Truths of Evil, and that's that.

I mean, when the aspects talk about White Hart being all and nothing of the Stags, I think that is definitely a message of unity and brotherhood in the guild, about being one, yet being distinctly individuals. (which would be a nice lesson for Nessa to learn and drop the enforced titles)

But also I think the message is of picking out the best traits to exemplify, those that take more effort than they give power. Honor, courage, faith, nobility, loyalty - those sort of things.

I guess you could consider them Gryffindor-esque (to give a sort of encompassing example of philosophy)

But, then, I could be totally wrong - and that's the problem.

We don't need to set in stone what they are. That stagnates progress. As we learn new things, new skills, our view of the aspects will change and grow. Its a cliche but the tre that does not bend, will break.

That said, we do need to discuss what we think they represent. None of them represents a single idea though. And if someone goes of on an arb tangent, we're not stupid - we can see if people are manipulating the aspects to look like they want them too.

I think one of the points is that we must always remember the past (our memories) but not be afraid to dream of the future. And we must do things in the present, because that is where we can have an impact.

Side Note on Guild titles: The titles represent that we are one, with individuality. Our prefixes are supposed to be guildranks or positions, but I haven't seen people complaining if they aren't, but our suffixes can be anything...within reason.

Just want to point out: Only because you can't have a own title from the start, doesn't mean that you can't have one later on. You just have to earn that right.

Right, only from what I've been told people who hold positions are meant to have those in their titles, so it's almost like they LOSE that right.

Aye:


And for the own title rights:

ALL druids are meant to have a guild prefix. If they hold no position it will be 'Aspirant' or 'Ward'. I have 'Keeper of the Scrolls' as its my position, but I could use 'Professor of the Grove' or 'Attendant of the Sacred Grove' if i wanted to. But my suffix can be anything.

Moondancers are the most united guild i've ever seen, and they have -no- enforced titles. That theory that it creates unity just went poof in big colorful flames.

It doesn't create unity, it represents unity.

Shouldn't unity be represented by choice?

I hated that new rule. Its .. just wrong. A title is very very personal. Beyond a certain point (novicehood) it just should not be enforced.


Ranks and positions show up in honors, and in GWHO there is no reason you have to wear it around everywhere you go. It also makes your name appear very long and unsightly.


For Example.




Servent of the Grove, Ialie Starfall says, "Damn... my name looks kinda long and unsightly."


No matter what you say your title will colour your words. People will see this before anything you say and it will affect what people think.


It just bugs me..

Isn't that what titles are all about? Showing your stance and so on?


To the topic:

I think Ash is pretty much the only druid who never interacted with White Hart or one of his aspects. But he simply has no RP reason, and just because I see that they like to talk now doesn't mean I can just go there out of the blue.

Titles are for showing -your- stance yes, not someone elses choice of a position that shows up in many other places. Making your title a bit redundant.