Quote Originally Posted by Kish View Post
How does "Your son is getting in because he died in the process of attempting to fulfill the oath" not directly contradict the assertion that he got in for a reason completely unrelated to his efforts to fulfill the oath?

If you want to say you believe the deva lied rather than that the words Eugene said didn't detail the entirety of the oath's effects, that's one thing, but simply ignoring the deva's words makes no sense.
Yeah, which is one of the bits of text that makes less sense in the 'Blood Oaths only bind the swearers' interpretation. All I'm saying is that it's hard to argue that following a Blood Oath regardless of mystic consequences isn't very Lawful in itself. So if it turns out as a plot point later that yeah, the Blood Oath only binds Eugene, I'd look at it as sloppy writing rather than a retcon. I still think the Blood Oath is better supported as binding heirs too. If I had to give numbers, I'd say 95/5 in favor of heirs being bound. After all, any dramatic word could be used if all that was wanted was a fancy name, but there's a whole book named with the English idiom of referring to 'Family' as 'Blood.' The argument added 5% to the not-Roy-binding odds.