Go to Comment
Update: Made an edit based on Axle's comment re: more tension and conflict in scene 2. Big thanks for the underdog idea that I've adopted partly and I think it does introduce more elements of conflict into the scene 2 plus it ties in with the current Chapter that I'm writing (Chap 13).
The Lord and the Lady
The truth about the Lord and the Lady is much more complicated that all of the disparate lore ever circulated and recorded. The only aspect that those were correct on was that the Lord and the Lady did hold ‘dominion’ over the respective realms and that both were divine in nature. And yet, neither have memory on how the realms themselves come to be or how come to be residing and governing over Still and Limbo.
Go to Comment
Old School truth about the circumstances of the Lord and the Lady:
The Lady faced a critical choice that her world hinged upon and moreover, it was a choice that she boded ill either way. Thus she willingly outcast herself in Still so that her world could go on existing in the status quo. Meanwhile, her time in Still was spent in deep contemplation on what action or whether any action she could feasibly take to mend this situation. She takes no actual heed of entries into and exits from Still.
The Lord had performed a deed that he deeply regretted. In his eternal life, this was driving him more and more beyond the edge of his Godly tolerance. Eventually, out of his strong wish to forget the past and himself, he inadvertently carved out Limbo in which he was as prisoner as the others who were drawn into Limbo. Limbo had a will of its own and it wished to release no one once it had laid its hands on them.
Go to Comment
I had to look up what you meant by the Five Elders. They were apparently all Buddhist monks or Taoist so except for one (Fung Dao Dak) who still maintained his own surname, the rest of them really went by their religious names which had no accompanying surname (Bak Mei for example meant 'white eyebrows' but I don't think his birth surname was the Chinese character for White). I was thinking of actual historical people in my answer. Also, when you talk about difference, I was thinking in terms of the character used etc (I agree that some characters crop up in both ancient and modern names such as Sin which meant goodness as opposed to evil, Dak which meant virtue etc. but there are also some used in modern names that would not appear in ancient days such as Yu which meant universe or Ao which meant pride- since modesty was considered a virtue in ancient times, it might be taken as a sign of arrogance to include it in a name whereas in modern days it would be taken to mean that the parents wish the child to grow up to be their pride. And like I said, a bunch of popular names for commoners then have died out in modern days) and the three-names aspect etc. But if by difference, you really mean how do they sound different? Then, I would say in general, little to no difference. What distinguishes the names across the two eras then would be in the subtle nuances underlying the names.