Topic: [REJECTED] Tag implication: chained -> bound

Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions

kalider said:
The tag implication #42821 chained -> bound has been rejected.

Reason: As I understand it chained is basically defined as the subset of bound were chains are used.
Yet there's no implication (and I couldn't find forum thread on these two tags)

Seems reasonable to me. I'll check more after work but some spot checks showed that this is basically how the tag is always used.

korbok said:
Is a character chained but not bound if they're wearing shackles that aren't attached to anything?

Depends on if there's a chain :P

More seriously, I'd rather not touch shackles at the moment as I'm still trying to clean up that cursed tag. Shackles doesn't *always* mean chains though. Most people use it to talk about any very bulky/semi-permanent metal restraints so the tag applies there too (currently, anyway).

But chained -> bound makes sense to me. Basically, is their movement restricted by chains? Unattached shackles don't really restrict movement...

korbok said:
Is a character chained but not bound if they're wearing shackles that aren't attached to anything?

Bound does not mean that you need a character to be attached to something, it can be something as simple as a character in handcuffs.
Additionally, fully_bound means that a character is completely immobilized (i.e., immobilization) by the object they are wearing.

On the other hand, restrained means that a character is being held down by physical force/muscle of another character/living being.
It's counterpart tag fully_restrained means that a character is completely immobilized (i.e., immobilization) by another character/living being.

This can be confusing as restraints are objects that are used to bind characters (i.e., bound).

  • 1