Oh, and thanks for replying in full, I don’t get that very often. I’ll start my own reply to yours.
“If I hadn't explained clear enough, most of those fights for the gods aren't gods themselves.”
I understand this part, but, at least in my opinion, knights and assassins, regardless of being mortal, should still be what they should be.
I also repeat mistakes myself.
Elena, regardless of being godly, would have to rely on the quality of her bows and arrows, too, as well as take note of wind, elevation of ground, and if her arrows have spiralled fletchings or not. I suppose she would have a power to bypass all obstacles in some way.
“Erm.... o_o Medieval? Short capes and silly garments such as doublets . . . “
Yes, but my comparison was for today’s world. And the example of your characters is mostly for the late Middle Ages, into the Renaissance. Medieval is somewhat pre-gunpowder, well, it’s not, but the early Middle Ages is what comes to my mind too often, so next time I should refer to centuries rather than eras, so you were right to suggest correction in this case. Fashion of capes, especially for knights, arose during the fifteenth century, at the same time full plate armour was developed. Well, in this case, I think it’s odd that you exempt the realism aspects for armour and weapons (weaponry is mentioned later in your reply), but do keep it in mind for clothing. In terms of description, you do put more info about appearance than other things, but then again, taking the full scale of the story, the amount of it is indeed very little compared to the rest of the story.
“When did I say throughout the entirety of his bio that he's chivalrous? . . . ”
He is described as being chivalrous, but when I reread his bio, I quickly realised there is no description of him being chivalrous. It looks like I recalled the word in a previous bio and mistakenly put it for him, so I owe an apology for that incorrect statement.
14-Jun-2013 21:08:23
- Last edited on
14-Jun-2013 21:12:47
by
Azigarath