Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-24573226-20160623204034/@comment-25936766-20160701122802

AndyH2812 wrote: Late to the conversation. Been hard at work & stuff.

Anyways, as to the "Auraless" issue. Wouldn't it be really a matter of perseption? Wouldn't an "Auraless" person still have an aura, but be inverted instead of projected outward like everyone else? No. Auraless=No Aura, not inverted Aura. Or if you want to be derogatory, it means someone without Aura unlocked, thus a muggle, though you would esentially be calling them Grimm that way.

If it was an "Inverted" Aura pretty sure there's a different, more fitting term for it.