+- Hydaelyn Role-Players (https://ffxiv-roleplayers.com/mybb18)
+-- Forum: Community (https://ffxiv-roleplayers.com/mybb18/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Forum: RP Discussion (https://ffxiv-roleplayers.com/mybb18/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Thread: Au Ra Naming Conventions (/showthread.php?tid=12122)
RE: Au Ra Naming Conventions - Fox - 06-18-2015
(06-18-2015, 10:25 AM)Knahli Wrote: I guess I will definitely look into getting a Sleipnir mount(though I sincerely hope they release a lot more feasible horses like the Frontline version, only with without the barding).
I'm considering that as well. I wish they did have some less heavier geared horses.
RE: Au Ra Naming Conventions - Mercer - 06-18-2015
I guess the Xaela tribesmen out there are going to need to do some Primal farming or PVP farming for those horses!
RE: Au Ra Naming Conventions - Cato - 06-18-2015
(06-18-2015, 10:24 AM)Oswin Wrote:(06-18-2015, 10:20 AM)Graeham Wrote: I'm not gonna lie, I'm not a big fan of the naming conventions. Mostly due to personal preference. I'm hoping there's clear examples of Au Ra working with the Garlean Empire so I can shamelessly give mine a Garlean name instead...
Given the nature of Doma's destruction I doubt any Garlean aligned Au Ra would be looked at fondly.
Oh, definitely - though my Au Ra is intended to be more on the grey scale of morality anyway so it should work out fairly well provided there's actual examples of it happening within the lore. If there aren't then I probably won't do it.
It'd be something along the lines of my Au Ra choosing to serve the Garlean's cause due to Doma being no more - much in the same way Gabranth chose to serve Archades once his homeland was conquered/destroyed by the Archadian Empire.
RE: Au Ra Naming Conventions - ArmachiA - 06-18-2015
I am so excited that they went with Mongol naming conventions! I was really hoping they would from the moment they said warring tribe and not something vaguely Japanese.
My group is deciding on their clan now.
RE: Au Ra Naming Conventions - Steel Wolf - 06-18-2015
These are probably some of the COOLEST naming conventions I've read about since the Roegadyn. It almost makes me wanna chug that Fantasia I'll be getting.
RE: Au Ra Naming Conventions - Haven's Fox - 06-18-2015
That was a pretty awesome and quite unexpected read! It's a shame it only came out on patch day for all of those making an Au Ra.
RE: Au Ra Naming Conventions - Gegenji - 06-18-2015
(06-18-2015, 10:50 AM)Haven Wrote: That was a pretty awesome and quite unexpected read! It's a shame it only came out on patch day for all of those making an Au Ra.
Well, the game is down all day for all the maintenance and prep-work. While it would've been nice to have the information sooner, I'm sure there's worse times than a day you can commit a decent bit of time to thinking about the new lore information without the rush of "gotta get that Au Ra made now!"
RE: Au Ra Naming Conventions - K'nahli - 06-18-2015
Yeah.... it kills me inside that I can't truly be a part of some of this amazing lore but I don't know what to do about that. I'd consider making a topic about it later but I already had a bit of a plot made with what occurred in the tribe and I'm sure everyone else has their own ideas.
Graaah...
RE: Au Ra Naming Conventions - Flickering Ember - 06-18-2015
I'm not impressed by the Raen naming conventions.
But I am incredibly impressed by the Xaela ones.Â
I would even argue that at this point that out of all the race/clan combinations in game, Xaela now have the most lore out of any of them by far, due to the tribal last name lore tidbits.
I have been one of the RPC members who has been a bit outspoken about her dislike of the female Au Ri. On one hand, the sheer awesomeness of the Xaela's lore makes it sting a bit more that they took the extreme sexual dimorphism route (to my great disdain), and on the other hand, the awesomeness of the lore alone makes me want to disregard my dislike of their visuals and make one anyway. (Or maybe I'll finally make my first male character? Hmm, hmm.)
But no, seriously, the individual tribe lore tidbits are just my cup of tea. There are so many different tribes and most of them are very cool and interesting. Nnnngh, Xaela.Â
RE: Au Ra Naming Conventions - K'nahli - 06-18-2015
It was unavoidable I guess, but some of them just feel a little bit random, like details that don't exactly make them sound unique as a tribe; for instance:
Haragin
Quote:The legends of this coastal tribe tell of a group of their ancestors who crafted a giant ship and sailed out across the endless eastern ocean. The explorers are said to have returned with tales of a terrible island covered in massive grey monoliths and inhabited by fire-breathing steel demons.
and
Urumet
Quote:This desert tribe has the queer custom of travelling with their elders carried upon their shoulders. It is believed that in the flat desert, this gives the tribe the advantage of being able to see farther.
Sure, they're still nice of course! But it doesn't say much about what identifies them from other tribes, which I would assume allows one to take more liberties with deciding how the tribe operates(as well as choosing from a number of tribal names based partially on aesthetics).
On that note, do you think it's safe to say that some tribes are not part of a single, travelling group? Not too unlike sunseekers, could there be a couple of different branches perhaps?
RE: Au Ra Naming Conventions - Gegenji - 06-18-2015
(06-18-2015, 11:26 AM)K'nahli Wrote: But it doesn't say much about what identifies them from other tribes, which I would assume allows one to take more liberties with deciding how the tribe operates(as well as choosing from a number of tribal names based partially on aesthetics.
That'd be my guess - a few more specific tribes to those that like cleaving super-close to lore... and a few less specific ones for those that want to have the freedom to do some lore-creation of their own for their tribe.
RE: Au Ra Naming Conventions - Nero - 06-18-2015
One thing I think is important to note is the flexibility to player-made tribes.
Because really, think about it. In the terms of the game universe and FFXIV's setting....who, exactly, is documenting all 51 of these tribes? The "51 tribes" idea is a completely arbitrary number. That is to say, Square Enix is giving us examples with these 51 tribes, not a hard line of "There can only be 51 tribes with super rare exceptions". It's not as rigid as the guidelines to Seeker Miqo'te who are dependent on the availability of the alphabet to enforce the presence of "canon" tribes.
Maybe I'm way off base and delusional because I was excited to make my own tribe concept or something, but still. I know Square Enix said that new tribes are usually undiscovered or secretive or split off from the already existing 51, but something about it just rubs me the wrong way with this number of "51". What if I want a tribe who's not secretive or undiscovered but also isn't on the list of 51? Who is maintaining this list of 51 and the documentation of these tribes in the context of Eorzea? What determines if a tribe is "undiscovered" as opposed to merely being isolationist?
RE: Au Ra Naming Conventions - ZacharyVolfire - 06-18-2015
So Zach's mother would probably be the Kha tribe
RE: Au Ra Naming Conventions - Flickering Ember - 06-18-2015
(06-18-2015, 11:30 AM)Nero Wrote: One thing I think is important to note is the flexibility to player-made tribes.
Because really, think about it. In the terms of the game universe and FFXIV's setting....who, exactly, is documenting all 51 of these tribes? The "51 tribes" idea is a completely arbitrary number. That is to say, Square Enix is giving us examples with these 51 tribes, not a hard line of "There can only be 51 tribes with super rare exceptions". It's not as rigid as the guidelines to Seeker Miqo'te who are dependent on the availability of the alphabet to enforce the presence of "canon" tribes.
Maybe I'm way off base and delusional because I was excited to make my own tribe concept or something, but still. I know Square Enix said that new tribes are usually undiscovered or secretive or split off from the already existing 51, but something about it just rubs me the wrong way with this number of "51". What if I want a tribe who's not secretive or undiscovered but also isn't on the list of 51? Who is maintaining this list of 51 and the documentation of these tribes in the context of Eorzea? What determines if a tribe is "undiscovered" as opposed to merely being isolationist?
Quote:The Othardian steppe is a vast region, therefore, every so often, one may come across a Xaela with a surname that is not found on the list of 51. This may mean that they are from a clan that was recently destroyed or absorbed. It may mean that they are of a new tribe that was formed by members leaving another. It may mean they are of a tribe that remained hidden in the northern mountains.
You can make your own clan!
RE: Au Ra Naming Conventions - Nero - 06-18-2015
(06-18-2015, 11:33 AM)Flickering Ember Wrote:(06-18-2015, 11:30 AM)Nero Wrote: One thing I think is important to note is the flexibility to player-made tribes.
Because really, think about it. In the terms of the game universe and FFXIV's setting....who, exactly, is documenting all 51 of these tribes? The "51 tribes" idea is a completely arbitrary number. That is to say, Square Enix is giving us examples with these 51 tribes, not a hard line of "There can only be 51 tribes with super rare exceptions". It's not as rigid as the guidelines to Seeker Miqo'te who are dependent on the availability of the alphabet to enforce the presence of "canon" tribes.
Maybe I'm way off base and delusional because I was excited to make my own tribe concept or something, but still. I know Square Enix said that new tribes are usually undiscovered or secretive or split off from the already existing 51, but something about it just rubs me the wrong way with this number of "51". What if I want a tribe who's not secretive or undiscovered but also isn't on the list of 51? Who is maintaining this list of 51 and the documentation of these tribes in the context of Eorzea? What determines if a tribe is "undiscovered" as opposed to merely being isolationist?
Quote:The Othardian steppe is a vast region, therefore, every so often, one may come across a Xaela with a surname that is not found on the list of 51. This may mean that they are from a clan that was recently destroyed or absorbed. It may mean that they are of a new tribe that was formed by members leaving another. It may mean they are of a tribe that remained hidden in the northern mountains.
You can make your own clan!
I wasn't clear enough. My issue wasn't that I couldn't make my own clan, just that I felt that Square Enix's justification for player-made clans was weak EDIT: in the sense that it suggests that there new clans are uncommon and that documenting a specific number of "51" was supefluous.