For norse names, i have some comments:

-Dustin may be an old old name - but everyone, scandinavians included, will mispronounce it grossly.
-Embla is a core figure in norse mythology (and so is Freja). They may come across as somewhat too obvious. Especially the first. Many names refer to gods and other figures, of course. Torstein for example.

-Names like Eirikr, (those ending with an r after another a consonant): Some research might need to go into this. There's a branch in norse names where icelanders have the ending -r and scandinavia not. I do not know wich one is the root, but Iceland wasn't colonized by this time. It shouldn't affect names like Hjalmar and Brynjar (meaning helm wearer and mail armour wearer).

As for the names of the common folks: We can't know for sure. The names preserved were most probably from the ruling and enforcing classes. Their meanings denote and connote warrior attributes, might, riches, heritage, and favor among the gods. Of course, such names have eventually trinkled down, but other than a few mentions here and there (sometimes in the sagas), we don't know too many träl (slave) names.

Good points, both. I've reconcidered. It might also be that it will be handled allright when they are in control of developing the scenario, as opposed to smirking at movie conventions (something i'm guilty of myself).

If i alter something, it will be locally, to some if any of the playsheets. If specials doesn't work with the group, i'll remove them. Simple as that.

However, if one or more players feel uncomfortable with how the specials work for the character they choose (or for some other reason wants something else), i could very well let them pick to be hell bent for x, where x is some scenario/act that is specific and clear, yet requires at least two people to resolve, instead. For example, "if you are unwell and at another players' grace/in another players' care", special is triggered.

This could happen passively, but the player can also take action (refuse to eat/drug her/himself up to a critical point/get poisoned/put her/himself in a risky situation/and so on) to desperately seek the special attention s/he craves, creating drama and tragedy along the way. How about an angel that secretly or openly wants to switch roles, stirring stuff up? Personally, i like that.

Maybe writing an optional for each character, then?

It would upheave the symmetry, but symmetry isn't really needed for specials to trigger anyway, i could see a mix of symmetry and asymetry working. Complete asymmetry would mean less alinged needs, of course, for better or worse. Could be interesting just as well as boring.

 It could also be of help to ask 1st sesh questions about that specific character and maybe its relations to the others.

So everybody probably know there's been some controversy in reviews regarding the special moves.
I think it's ok (not every game is meant for every player), but in need of a little tweak, so here's my proposal in doing it and why, with possible technical caveats.

Anything that counts as intimacy when at potential personal risk is a special move. It could be psychological, physical, emotional, mental, vocal. That includes sex, but also telling your worst secret to someone you think you may trust, risking to lose face in front of someone you care about in order to really reach them, see someone in their worst moment and it's ok, being trapped in a cramped place together with someone, deciding to push one's own boundaries in front of another person (first dumb example that came to mind: having to take a dump in the same room), and so on. You can probably think of more situations which would pass.

And there's the caveat. More possibilities potentially means higher frequency of marking experience. It would need more playtesting than i'd have time for to get the formula exactly right. Marking 2Hx where you would mark 3Hx might compensate, but does also even out the varied incentives to do special moves (and i think it's great that different playbooks have different incentives), but it could work. Having the upper limit of Hx before marking experience moving up a notch is a more invasive edit?

Or it might just work fine without any compensation. It may be that the players have a wider repertoir of actions that would pass as a special move, but it's very uncertain if it really means a hightened rate. It could just aswell mean a simple variation in how they achieve it, in which case it's just good.

This house rule is intended to do just that: differentiate/bring some variation to the special move. It also serves the purpose of bringing down sex seen as something super special -- it's a cultural attitude which varies on a lot, anthropologically aswell as discoursively, and i'm willing to disagree on it, not because sex is sex, but because it feels repetive and out of unintuitive to me that that alone would be a shortcut to (mechanical) relationship building between the characters.

So, what do you all think? I'm opting for this solution on my first try and i think my friends will agree on the proposal, and they may have additions or suggestions, but i just wanted to share my thoughts and maybe get a suggestion or comment or two. Is the formula good enough? Otherwise, how would you define it?

I also think it may be great for people who may have agreed to simply editing out special moves (and thus missed a game mechanic that might not be at the core, but still is important enough) to concider this alternative, because if you're not comfortable with sexual themes in ttrpgs, there's other conditions to check that feel special enough that may suit your playstyle better.

EDIT: Then there's the driver, obsessed with not being owned by anyone or something. I think it still works out ok, even though the idea comes from another cultural attitude (whether sex is linked to involvement and/or owning or not). But that could work just as well as any form of intimacy/fear of intimacy/fear of the concequence of intimacy. "We're not there yet, just so you know."