Talk:Gem - Revision history

Balder at 04:18, 13 May 2009

2009-05-13T04:18:02Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:18, 13 May 2009
Line 16:		Line 16:

	Let me put it this way. Ruler=general term. Overlord and 'King' are merely differentiating between noble or common born. So! I would use Ruler in a general sense. But remember, a King IS an overlord, just with 'royal' blood.-Xewleer		Let me put it this way. Ruler=general term. Overlord and 'King' are merely differentiating between noble or common born. So! I would use Ruler in a general sense. But remember, a King IS an overlord, just with 'royal' blood.-Xewleer
		+	: This is correct. All Overlords are Rulers. All Kings are Rulers. Ruler is the generic term for the principle leader of a side. [[User:Balder\|Balder]] 04:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

2009-05-13T02:27:11Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:27, 13 May 2009
Line 14:		Line 14:

	The impression I got (from the cases of Stanley and Charlie) is that "Overlord" is the title of a Ruler who isn't entitled to a royal or noble title. [[User:SteveMB\|SteveMB]] 02:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)		The impression I got (from the cases of Stanley and Charlie) is that "Overlord" is the title of a Ruler who isn't entitled to a royal or noble title. [[User:SteveMB\|SteveMB]] 02:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
		+
		+	Let me put it this way. Ruler=general term. Overlord and 'King' are merely differentiating between noble or common born. So! I would use Ruler in a general sense. But remember, a King IS an overlord, just with 'royal' blood.-Xewleer

2009-05-13T02:23:54Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:23, 13 May 2009
Line 12:		Line 12:

	Uhm, Xewleer, the first line was written by the Balder himself. It matters. --[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 02:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)		Uhm, Xewleer, the first line was written by the Balder himself. It matters. --[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 02:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
		+
		+	The impression I got (from the cases of Stanley and Charlie) is that "Overlord" is the title of a Ruler who isn't entitled to a royal or noble title. [[User:SteveMB\|SteveMB]] 02:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

2009-05-13T02:16:10Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:16, 13 May 2009
Line 10:		Line 10:

	I don't really think it matters dudes, idea's the same. [[User:Xewleer\|Xewleer]]		I don't really think it matters dudes, idea's the same. [[User:Xewleer\|Xewleer]]
		+
		+	Uhm, Xewleer, the first line was written by the Balder himself. It matters. --[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 02:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

2009-05-13T02:12:15Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:12, 13 May 2009
Line 8:		Line 8:

	Okay, I did. Klog 5 and 10. In 5, Parson refers to a "Overlord" as leader, but in 10, it becomes Ruler. There's no explanation for his change in terminology. Me, I always thought Ruler was correct. Parson's first contact with Side leadership is Stanley, an Overlord. He later learns about Royal leadership, learning they are Kings, so he uses the word Ruler to refer to a Side leader, regardless of Royal standing. So the confusion is temporal -- Parson changes his terminology because he doesn't know everything about the subject until tie passes. --[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 02:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)		Okay, I did. Klog 5 and 10. In 5, Parson refers to a "Overlord" as leader, but in 10, it becomes Ruler. There's no explanation for his change in terminology. Me, I always thought Ruler was correct. Parson's first contact with Side leadership is Stanley, an Overlord. He later learns about Royal leadership, learning they are Kings, so he uses the word Ruler to refer to a Side leader, regardless of Royal standing. So the confusion is temporal -- Parson changes his terminology because he doesn't know everything about the subject until tie passes. --[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 02:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
		+
		+	I don't really think it matters dudes, idea's the same. [[User:Xewleer\|Xewleer]]

2009-05-13T02:10:59Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:10, 13 May 2009
Line 6:		Line 6:
	I can hunt down the references if you want me to.		I can hunt down the references if you want me to.
	--[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 01:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)		--[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 01:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
		+
		+	Okay, I did. Klog 5 and 10. In 5, Parson refers to a "Overlord" as leader, but in 10, it becomes Ruler. There's no explanation for his change in terminology. Me, I always thought Ruler was correct. Parson's first contact with Side leadership is Stanley, an Overlord. He later learns about Royal leadership, learning they are Kings, so he uses the word Ruler to refer to a Side leader, regardless of Royal standing. So the confusion is temporal -- Parson changes his terminology because he doesn't know everything about the subject until tie passes. --[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 02:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

2009-05-13T01:17:39Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:17, 13 May 2009
Line 2:		Line 2:

	Yes. We found Overlord and Ruler being used interchangably. Someone wrote Overlord first, so it stuck.		Yes. We found Overlord and Ruler being used interchangably. Someone wrote Overlord first, so it stuck.
		+	--[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 01:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
		+
		+	I can hunt down the references if you want me to.
	--[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 01:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)		--[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 01:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

2009-05-13T01:17:10Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:17, 13 May 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Might a [[Ruler]] be an [[Overlord]]?		Might a [[Ruler]] be an [[Overlord]]?
		+
		+	Yes. We found Overlord and Ruler being used interchangably. Someone wrote Overlord first, so it stuck.
		+	--[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 01:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

2009-05-13T01:06:48Z

Created page with 'Might a Ruler be an Overlord?'

New page

Might a [[Ruler]] be an [[Overlord]]?