Difference between revisions of "Talk:Fallow Slave"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Fyzixfighter (talk | contribs) (reply) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Should the Spathi be mentioned here? They were slave-shielded, but by themselves... [[User:Gaeamil|Gaeamil]] 12:39, 13 March 2007 (MST) | Should the Spathi be mentioned here? They were slave-shielded, but by themselves... [[User:Gaeamil|Gaeamil]] 12:39, 13 March 2007 (MST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :I would say no, since being a fallow slave isn't just about the slave shield, but about their status within the Hierarchy. I doubt that the Ur-Quan would alter their policy of not allowing a change in status from battle thrall to fallow slave simply because the Spathi found an even more effective way to avoid combat. --[[User:Fyzixfighter|Fyzixfighter]] 02:43, 21 March 2007 (CET) | ||
Latest revision as of 01:43, 21 March 2007
Should the Spathi be mentioned here? They were slave-shielded, but by themselves... Gaeamil 12:39, 13 March 2007 (MST)
- I would say no, since being a fallow slave isn't just about the slave shield, but about their status within the Hierarchy. I doubt that the Ur-Quan would alter their policy of not allowing a change in status from battle thrall to fallow slave simply because the Spathi found an even more effective way to avoid combat. --Fyzixfighter 02:43, 21 March 2007 (CET)